Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)/Archive 4

FORTHCOMING HOT PRESS ARTICLE ON DI STEFANO CRIMINAL ACTION AGAINST WIKIPEDIA ET AL
On Thursday Hot Press will publish the interview with Giovanni Di Stefano regarding his criminal action against Wikipedia nd others and it includes comments from Jimbo and from the official sources. It makes great reading and exposes the weaknesses of Wikipedia and the ultimate consequences. Hot Press is a subscription magazine but Di Stefano will surely post it on his website especially in light of its content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.17.2 (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If he is so upset with the article that he wants to sue Wikipedia for 50 million dollars, better renominate this article for deletion. It is worth to lose one article to save Wikipedia, especially when deletionist anyway delete thousands of articles dayly.Megaribi (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont think its about deleting the article. Its about getting the right information. The two newspapers that have cited wrong information about him are being sued and he has placed the copy of the lawsuits on his diary. He obviously has no convictions otherwise he wouldnt practise and wouldn't be in Iraq defending. If you read the HOT PRESS interview and the follow up media in Ireland and the UK then most media orgainisations (even those that dont like him) have taken his side. He is serious and athough it takes time in Italy he WILL get the decision in his favour and the penalties in Italy are without limit especially that he is an internationally known person. So far the Prosecutor is investigating the contributors that are without proper identifaction. The investigation is moving forward and two judges with 4 police from the postal and telecom section allocated to this investigation which is heavy. Jimbo Wales has done himself or Wikipedia no favours by sending e mails to certain journalists including HOT PRESS about the matter and repeating the defamatory statements... MS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.146.167 (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Due to the recent problems with anon editing, I have semi-protected the page for two months. I encourage new and anonymous editors, to bring up their concerns at the talkpage rather than edit-warring, and also to be very careful about Wikipedia policies involving Biographies of living people. --Elonka 19:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

european lawyer wikilink
From The Independient's article: "in 2004, Geoffrey Negus, press and public relations officer of the Law Society, said, "Giovanni di Stefano is not a solicitor, or a registered foreign lawyer, or a registered European lawyer.""

It appears that The Independient got the quote from a 2004 article of the New Zealand Herald. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

He is a member of the European Criminal Bar Association and a member of the International Criminal Bar Association...... his own diary on his website he states he is NOT a solicitor or an English Barrister and has sued The Independant for stating that he is "a QC" on the article you cite. He is entitled to practise in ANY EU State including the UK as confirfmed by the decision in Van Hoogstarten by Mr Justice Jackson. How those of you like Naval and Avruch can even pretend other is beyond anyone and frankly insults our intelligence. Felix Lopez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.7.222 (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Van Hoogstraten by Mr Justice Jackson" . Apparently, the prison didn't check Giovanni's status with the Law Society, and the Judge forbade the prison authorities to do so just to deny him entry on the prison, if I read it right.


 * I made a separate section to list quotes. At what level of reliable sources can we start quoting what the spokeman from the Law Society said? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * neither of those are certifying bodies.Geni 11:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * rubbish and I sujppose that the International Bar Association, The American Bar Association and the New York Bar are not either??? As our friends in Malta have said in this talk page you and others have been caught out and instead of simply apologising for your errors and potential defamation (at least Naval did) you continue with your stupidity and again I say insulting our intelligence. Felix Lopez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.37.197.117 (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * International Bar Association no. American Bar Association certifies schools not people. "New York Bar" lacks clarity.Geni 14:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just go back to school and stop insulting our intelligence...you have been caught out and it seems now that the judicial authorities are on your tail and you are acting big shots... unfortunately most haved now found out for what people like you are:- and you are making yourself looks more silly by the minute..carry on being silly noone pays anymore attention.. FL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.37.197.117 (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there an actual Bar called exactly "New York Bar"? I can several similar names: two bars ("New York City Bar" and "New York State Bar"), an exam called "New York Bar examination", and a foundation called "The New York Bar Foundation". Which is the correct one? Can you point us to the correct one if it's none of these? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

New York State Bar....we see that you are trying desperately to hide from your serious misdemenours. Shame on you. FL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.40.185 (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You should all be ashamed of yourselves still trying desperately to find something. Ashamed you should be. FL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.40.185 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, ask Giovanni to update the name at the ECBA page so it's clearer what bar it is exactly. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Membership of associations does not necessarily mean qualification, and does not add any strength to the argument that he might have Italian legal qualifications:


 * 1) The European Criminal Bar Association does not require members to be qualified. Just go to their website and see how easy it is to join (and only £45 per year!).
 * 2) The American Bar Association is also open to non-lawyers willing to pay $175.
 * 3) The "International Criminal Bar Association" does not appear to exist.
 * 4) There isn't a New York State Bar but there is a New York State Bar 'Association', which is again just a voluntary association. The licensing body for New York State is the NYS Office of Court Administration, sso membership of this organisation is not relevant.

Why would he sue the Independent for wrongly calling him a QC? It isn't an insult, just an inaccuracy. if anything it's an inaccuracy that would enhance someone's reputation rather than damage it, so what did he supposedly sue them for?.DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

list of quotes

 * There are several mainstream newspapers citing the statement by the Law Society that Giovanni is not registered as an italian lawyer or that he has other qualifications, (two of them are already mentioned above), I tried to include also Giovanni's response if the source included it, found searching google for "law society giovanni di stefano":

"Giovanni di Stefano is not a solicitor, or a registered foreign lawyer, or a registered European lawyer," says Law Society press and public relations officer Geoffrey Negus.

The Bar Council also confirms he is not a barrister. And though the International Bar Association acknowledges he is a member, it points out the process of becoming a member is by self-certification.

Meanwhile, Di Stefano continues to thumb his nose at the establishment. "So long as I do not practise 'full-time' in the UK I have no requirement to answer to the Law Society or the Bar Council. I am NOT [his emphasis] a solicitor and NOT a barrister and do not profess to be. And having seen some of the standards of work from the profession, thank heaven I am not."

What he is - or claims to be - is an Italian avoccato and, thanks to European Union law, that entitles him to represent clients in Britain. What he's refusing to say is where he got his Italian qualifications.

And much to the embarrassment of the British legal system, no one seems able - or wants - to find out.NZ Herald, July 2004

Ian Brady, Harold Shipman, Jeremy Bamber, Nicholas van Hoogstraten and Saddam Hussein?(...). And all have been legally represented, or so we are told, by Giovanni di Stefano.

in 2004, Geoffrey Negus, press and public relations officer of the Law Society, said, "Giovanni di Stefano is not a solicitor, or a registered foreign lawyer, or a registered European lawyer." It's the same story in Rome. The waiters at his club politely call him "Avvocato" (lawyer), but Italy's national lawyers' register has no knowledge of him. On their list of avvocati, "DI STEFANO, Gianni" is followed immediately by "DI STEFANO, Giuseppe". Of "DI STEFANO, Giovanni" there is no trace. The Independient, July 2008 (this quote could be extracted from above NZ Herald article)

The Law Society is unequivocal in its assessment. "He's not a solicitor and he's not a barrister," says a spokesman. "As far as we're concerned he has no legal qualifications whatsoever." However, Mr Di Stefano maintains he has Italian qualifications.BBC, March 2005

He has also consistently failed to provide proof he is a qualified lawyer and his legal status is now the subject of separate investigations by the Law Society and police, a senior detective told the Guardian. (...)

But although Mr di Stefano claims to be a qualified avvocato - an Italian lawyer - he has not provided the UK authorities with evidence, despite repeated requests.

If he is not qualified in another EU state then he would not be eligible to practise as a solicitor or barrister in the UK, even on a part-time or occasional basis. (...)

A Law Society spokesman said: "We have been investigating Giovanni di Stefano for a number of months and we have no evidence he is an Italian avvocato, despite having gone to considerable lengths to check this with Italian sources.

"We have also asked him to verify his status, but so far he has not done so to our satisfaction, and is therefore not entitled to practise as a lawyer in the UK."The Guardian, January 2004

Even so, despite the big names on his client list, 55-year-old di Stefano is accused by legal regulators the Law Society of lacking any formal legal qualifications.

A Society spokesman says: "As far as we are aware, Mr di Stefano has no legal qualifications or status whatever."

Di Stefano claims he is a member of the American Bar Association and has a degree in law - but refuses to say where from.The Sun, August 2005 (local copy on JUSTWATCH-L)

The Law Society has previously refused to recognise him as a solicitor.The Telegraph, January 2007

A spokesman for The Law Society told The Argus: "He is not a solicitor. He is not a registered foreign lawyer. He is not registered with the Law Society and neither is he regulated by the Law Society. We have no evidence that Giovanni Di Stefano is entitled to practise in England or Wales."The Argus (UK local sports newspaper), February 2008

But the 51-year-old appears to have no formal legal qualifications and the Law Society refuses to recognise him as a solicitor, not least because of a previous conviction for fraud.Daily Mail, October 2007

His legal credentials are controversial, however, with the Law Society - which regulates solicitors in England and Wales - saying he is not registered as a solicitor or barrister in the UK.

A spokesman for the society said Mr Di Stefano had been invited to present his credentials on a number of occasions but he had not come forward.

Mr Di Stefano argued though that he was a member of the International and American bar associations.BBC, May 2006

His reticence has not enamoured him to the Law Society. "As far we are aware," a spokesman sniffed, "Mr di Stefano has no legal qualifications or status whatsoever."

Giovanni says he has qualified as an avvocato in Italy and is entitled to practise under EC Directive 77/249. "That law clearly states that those who practise from time to time within a European law firm have to prove nothing whatsoever and have the same rights of audience as anyone else." He jumps up, bustles back to his computer and prints out three pages from a transcript of proceedings in the High Court, during which Mr Justice Jackson states: "At the moment, no concrete evidence against Mr di Stefano has been placed before me.

He is entitled, as an Italian avvocato, to the same courteous treatment before the courts and the authorities of this country that I would expect any English solicitor or counsel to receive before the courts or the authorities in Italy."

"Does that not prove my status? That's not me talking, that's a f***ing High Court judge! You had perhaps best be guided by considering that before you write anythink." This is the first of a number of veiled threats, warning me to stay clear of what he calls "stupidityness" — the murky undertow of his adventures.Times online, August 2005

A spokesman for the Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, said: “We have no evidence that he has any legal status whatsoever.”Gulf Times, May 2005

Mr Di Stefano denies that his activities are being investigated and claims to be the victim of a campaign to blacken his name.

He told The Independent: "Despite people writing about police inquiries into my activities, which isn't true, I am still practising and am a member of the American Bar and the International Bar Association and qualified in Italy. I refuse to register with the Law Society so they don't like me. I deal with some very serious criminal cases and people seem to want to stop me doing my work. But I won't go away because if I don't help these people, who will?"The Independient, October 2005

LEGAL HISTORY Claims to be an Italian ‘avvocato’, qualifying from an unnamed University in Italy. Runs a Rome-based ‘law firm’ called Studio Legale Internazionale with offices across the world, including one in Lombard Street, London. Last year the Law Society released a statement reading: “He is not a solicitor and he’s not a barrister. As far as we’re concerned, he has no legal qualifications whatsoever.”

''OTHER LEGAL HISTORY Convicted of fraud in 1975 and 1976; he received a six-month custodial sentence for the latter offence. In 1985, the Old Bailey convicted him of involvement in a £25m fraud and sentenced him to five years in jail.''TSGLife (apparently a magazine edited by a defunct association that was dependant from the Law Society), Autunm 2006

--Enric Naval (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

ADDED AFTER ARCHIVAL: I have expanded the quote of the Independent July 2008. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Tone
I am just here as an uninvolved administrator, and have no opinion one way or the other on the content of this article. My participation here is to try and reduce disruption, and help the article to improve in a controlled and stable manner. One of the first ways towards achieving that, is having a civil discussion on the talkpage. I understand that there are some emotional topics being discussed, but I do have to insist that everyone here participate in a civil manner, according to Wikipedia policy. Any editors who cannot maintain a civil tone, will be removed from the discussion. However, as long as comments are made in a civil and constructive fashion, all are welcome. Thanks, --Elonka 22:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconded, and in the light of some comments made from editors who are not logged in, I would advise everyone that a talk page can be semi-protected if IP editors continue to make personal attacks on it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

QC difamation on Guardian's caption
Per se you can't run with an allegation that you have been defamed by being described as a Q.C. That is absurd. The Independent photo caption seemed to be ironic- he isn't actually a lawyer so why don't we describe him as De Stefano Q.C. Such an innuendo may be defamatory if you were a lawyer- but he isn't. Memberhsip of the IBA doesn't actually show you to be a lawyer- they don't require you to prove you are a lawyer they take what you say at face value if you say you were admitted in 1987 in such and such a state they won't look behind that statement. He was asked by Chief Justice John L Murray in 2005 or thereabouts to file an Affidavit setting out his legal qualifications and experience and I welcome being shown a copy of that Affidavit or seeing a verifiable reference to that Affidavit being filed. I have seen him in Court in the Republic of Ireland and he sat with the criminal whilst a solicitor, junior counsel and senior counsel presneted the case. He took no obvious part in the proceedings. --89.19.88.161 (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is your version because you are one of the ones that the Rome Prosecutor is investigating Naval and doing all you can to justify a position. But many have seen through this now and are just asking how much longer do you wish to insult their intelligence? What is he doingf in iraq? Why are the US Military giving him access to high value detainees if he is not a lawyer? Do you think that all as as apparantly stupid as you are trying to make us out??? Did you write the article in the Independant? It was Di Stefano who was sarcastic on his lawfirms diary about being a QC! Stop trying to make us idiots because we are not... Alex Barone


 * Eric Naval didn't write the remarks you are attacking. A complaint to a prosecutor in Rome means nothing until the prosecutor acts on it if indeed they ever do. Anyone can complain to Scotland Yard, the Dsitrict Attorney office in such and such a place- and these institutions can't reject complaints out of hand they have to look into them to some degree. The Rome prosecutor is no different. Much of the rest of what you say is just a rant. There is a caption in the Independent newspaper which describes Mr De Stefano who is not a lawyer anywhere in the world as De Stefano QC- one assumes it was ironic. Please post some verifiable souce that proves De Stefano has access to high value detainees; and any similar information that suggests such access would only be afforded to a lawyer. What you just say is otherwise conjecture and speculation. Again also please respond to the followin: He was asked by Chief Justice John L Murray in 2005 or thereabouts to file an Affidavit setting out his legal qualifications and experience and I welcome being shown a copy of that Affidavit or seeing a verifiable reference to that Affidavit being filed. --89.19.88.161 (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just goes to show that you know nothing about anything unknown talk user 89.19.88.161 because if you did know anything about this you would know that under Italian Law the filing of a charge is OBLIGATORY to proceed not discretional as in UK. There is more than enough evidence, if any is needed, regarding his access to High Value Detainees such as Tariq Aziz, Awwad Al Bandar, Barzan Al Tikriti, Taha Yassin Ramadan, Al majid etc etc and if he is not a lawyer then he is what? Working for the Security Services?? A Journalist in disguise? Why don't you people who are causing enormous harm to Wikipedia just go find some other toy to destroy which is what you people are doing. Those of us in Italy and other countries who use Wikipedia properly will not appreciate the minority as those anon talk users and editors who are afraid even to give your names yet are destroying this project. Alex Barone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.222.95.98 (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean when you say that ' under Italian Law the filing of a charge is obligatory to proceed not discretional.' This makes no sense to me in terms of use of the English language; I should also say I have never claimed to be an expert on Italian law. The point I made is that anyone person can complain to a police foce or similar body and the claim has to be investigated to some degree. I am however more than satisfied on the basis of multiple authoritative sources that Mr De Stefano is not a qualified lawyer. I really don't have time to respond to the rest of your rant: play the ball not the man. People can and do post on here without using their name it dosen't mean that what they say is untrue. Likewise you are turning logic on its head Mr De Stefano seemingly inter alia can't file an Affidavit in response to the request of Mr Justice John L Murray to set out his qualifications but because of what he may or may not do in Iraq for Mr Aziz amongst others he is a lawyer. Please correct my error in relation to the Affidavit requested by Justice Murray, if I have made one I don't think I have; moreover please post an authorative case report or other official record showing that Mr De Stefano is placed on the record somewhere as a lawyer in Iraq. You will be aware that he has claimed to represent people and that this assertion has been challenged see reports on his asserted professional links with the Harold Shipman case. The late doctor's family denied that De Stefano had anything to do with his case.--78.152.193.62 (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The usual crap response when cornered. You are the one that plays the man not the ball. We are no great supporters of GDS but what you are doing is destructive of Wikipedia. That GDS is a lawyer there is no doubt. Your sources, whatever they are, seem as equally flawed as you. He never filed any affidavit in the case of Patrick Holland because Holland acted in pro per...for your ease on his own account. Holland wanted NO lawyers on record. Di Stefano sued Murray in the UK and the matter was settled on a confidential basis..(that means probably Murray rather than face loosing settled) and as it was a confidential settlement it must have suited Murray more than GDS since he has no problems with the media. Re Iraq I have seen GDS power of attorney and seen his YouTube diary and a number of journalists reports (Daily Telegraph for eg) showing he is lawyer for number of people and JURIST website (if you bother to search) as him filling with the courts in Iraq number of applications and appearing before Judge Ali but to name one...but you are not interested in such things and you remain anon. hiding your identity which is defaming a living person and destroying Wikipedia. Leave please ALEX BARONE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.23.159.106 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How am I cornered? You are playing the man i.e me and not the ball which is the veracity of claims made on or on behalf of Mr De Stefano as to his work, qualifications and the like. There is complete doubt over Mr De Stefano being a lawyer for you to state otherwise is perverse, illogical and wrong. The fact that you seem to believe that you can sue the Chief Justice of Ireland for comments made by the Chief Justice in court in Ireland in another jurisidiction just shows how deluded you are and how little you know about the law. Such remarks by Justice John L Murray were absolutely privileged. Murray would have not asked for the affidavit if De Stefano had played no part in Holland's case from the start. He cares not who purports to advise someone behind the scenes but he is entitled to ask for an affidavit from someone who held himself out to play an active part in what went on in his court and to be on the record for Holland. The power of attorney, you tube diary and jurist website prove nothing. This man is not a qualified lawyer. --78.152.204.88 (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [snip] Just go away. ALEX BARONE not afraid of giving his name and details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.23.159.106 (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed part of the above comment per No personal attacks and TALK. Please keep calm and comment on the edits done and not on the editors themselves. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

early 90s
Guess it's time to move onto that because well it's the gap that can be sourced with the least effort.

The Sandhurst Assets thing can be traced though the Financial Times and the Daily Record (Glasgow)

MGM thing can be traced through variety LA times and more recention mentions in the gardian.

New Zealand thing can be traced through International Herald Tribune and New Zealand Herald.

Does anyone have a problem with any of this?Geni 22:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I did a quick search of Proquest's archive for those topics and found a couple of dozen articles about each. If more news sources are needed I can post excerpts. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no mention of Sandhurst or MGM in the article. Can you be more specific about what you would like to include re these incidents, and what they are about, or some urls. I think we should make no mention of New Zealand as it is an entirely unnotable incident in di Stefano's life. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently the subject was involved in an effort to buy the MGM studio. The effort resulted in two associates being imprisoned. In one article I glanced at the subject said that a side deal for some theaters made him very wealthy. The Sandhurst matter resulted in his arrest in Italy and extradition to the UK. He was ordered released by a judge 18 months later due to delays in the prosecution. I'm not sure what the New Zealand matter is, but there are many artilces that reference the subject and that country. But overall, I agree with SqueakBox - it'd be best if Geni first outlined the intended additions here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:·
 * Oh, the New Zealand thing... I forgot about it and it got archived here, it even had consensus per WP:SILENCE to add it :D . Let's see if I can do it tomorrow. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well to start with the sandhurst thing to repeat what I said before
 * In 1991/4 Suffolk police decided to issue a warrent for his arrest (and his wife and another man) due to alleged events around 5 hotels in the midlands and Sandhurst Assets in 1991. Di Stefano then moved to belgrade (The Independent Dec 1, 1999). Accourding to Sandhurst Assets Corporation the warrent was withdrawn in 1997 (Financial Times Nov 29, 1999; p. 02). Which fits with other sources. However in Nov  1999 he was arrested in rome.(Financial Times  Nov 29, 1999; p. 02) On Oct 10, 2000 he appeared before magistrates in Ipswich accused of conspiracy to defraud and fraudulent trading (Daily Record (Glasgow); Oct 11, 2000; ANNA SMITH; p. 9). In june 2001 the case was halted by the judge at Basildon Crown Court due to the time taken.(Daily Record (Glasgow); Jun 2, 2001; AIDAN McGURRAN; p. 25).
 * About the only think in question is when the Suffolk police decided to issue a warrent (91 or 94) and if it was ever withdrawn. (oh and what exactly Di Stefano's involvement was with Sandhurst Assets but that is less significant)

The company involved in the MGM thing has sandhurst in it's name but I'm not sure if it is the same company or not. So thats the starting point. Once we decide what exactly to include I can did out the exact sources.Geni 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

List of MGM sources
"In 1990 di Stefano was deported from the US as an undesirable alien after becoming embroiled in a failed deal to buy Hollywood studio MGM. The controversial plan led to two of di Stefano's partners being charged with fraud, tax evasion and money laundering." The Sun (London) 23 August 2005

"(...) Beverly Hills-based Interpart was being sued for $44 million by Pathe Communications, owned by Italian businessman Giancarlo Parretti - himself arrested for bank fraud and extortion.

Di Stefano denied everything. The Di Stefano being sued was not him. "He is one of my cousins," (...) But there was a relationship - a murky one. In 1990 Parretti bought the MGM film studio for US$1.3 billion - using mysterious loan money from Credit Lyonnais bank.

Di Stefano claims he was instrumental in the deal - having struck up a friendship with Parretti after getting him into Hollywood's Polo Lounge by bribing Alberto the head waiter." NZ Herald, 31 July 2004

"Di Stefano was involved a £500million takeover bid for MGM studios in 1992. The approach was made through his English-based company Sandhurst Leasing. Daily Record (Glasgow); I'VE BOUGHT DUNDEE SAYS SERB GENERAL; Shady links of man claiming to have struck a deal with Dens chiefMarr Mar 12, 1999;Keith Jackson p. 76

"Di Stefano had been in the USA on a highly-publicised attempt to buy the film studio MGM, a bid described in Variety newspaper by one executive of the film company as the stuff of "Alice in Wonderland." MGM later won damages from Di Stefano." Giovanni Di Stefano: the truth Scotland on Sunday (Edinburgh); Oct 12, 2003; Martin Hannan; p. 5

variety Not sure which bit to quote but a useful general source for the final acts in the MGM events. He was also covered previously here

New Zealand thing
See the draft narrating the events. I tried to make it as short as posible. Please review that I didn't make any factual mistake and comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The "It was also discovered by print journalists that the company..." appears somewhat confused otherwise yes it appears to be correct.Geni 23:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should remove "by print journalists" as unnecessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I's be tempted to remove the whole thing since I the trail is complex and not that important.Geni 00:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, looking at it again, this should described on the context of the MGM thing. (the owner of the suing company is the one who bought MGM). Removed. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keeping the narrative compact is a good thing. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"He exited the country, and one week later" perhaps "He left new zealand returning one week latter when he was stopped..."
 * Done. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the draft to the article.

Some minor tweaks: added the "author" parameter on all references, placed "on 1999" and "on 2003" at the start of two paragraphs to make the chronological order clearer, the last paragraph was added to the end of the section as it relates to events that happening on 2003 after all other events on the section. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This strikes me as violating NPOV and BLP and is not notable either, it looks like it comes from a gossip column or a tabloid and is not, IMO, at all appropriate for a wikipedia biography. Thanks, SqueakBox 12:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on Squeakbox's talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Going over the text again, I'm going to shorten "After arousing the suspicions of a famous broadcaster, who had been warned that Giovanni's expensive clothes didn't seem to be his own, [1][2][5] and of the Serious Fraud Office, [2][1][5]" to "After arousing the suspicions of the Serious Fraud Office among others [1][2][5]". I guess that the part about how it aroused suspicions is not really encyclopedic.

Also changed "deals" to the way more accurate "Auckland property deals".

I made a pair more of fixes and corrections. I don't know how to shorten the start of the third paragraph without losing accuracy :-/ --Enric Naval (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and spelling
"arrived to New Zealand" ... arrived in New Zealand

"jailed for fraud charges worth $75 million in Britain" ...jailed for fraud charges involving $75 million in Britain

"He allegued that the conviction" ...He alleged that the conviction

"The events were heavily publitized on the country" ...The events were heavily publicised in the country

"On 2003, his position as director on the Dundee gave him a high profile on the UK," ...In 2003, his position as director of Dundee football club gave him a high profile on the UK,

Teapotgeorge (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thank you very much :) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct identification of target of his defamation allegation
The article currently states that his complaint lodged in Rome alleges "defamation committed against him by representatives of the Wikipedia Foundation". There is, of course, no such entity, and the wikilink to it redirects to Wikimedia Foundation.

The source cited for this statement apparently requires payment. Therefore, I can't access it. If he correctly named "Wikimedia Foundation", we should fix it. If he named "Wikipedia Foundation", we could report it with a "sic", or report it as "Wikimedia Foundation (incorrectly named as 'Wikipedia Foundation' in the complaint)", or just silently correct the error. I lean toward silent correction, but the first issue is to determine what he actually said. JamesMLane t c 04:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a free-access copy at GDS's website . The article says the incorrect name in what appears like a quote from Giovanni (altought it's not surrounded by quotes), but it also uses the incorrect name on the summary at the top of the article, and then it uses later the correct name when interviewing a member of the foundation. Not sure how to fix it. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

one duplicated sentence
Under "Personal legal history", the sentence "a sense of injustice" is quoted twice. I'm not sure if it was done on purpose or it was a mistake. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock-puppetry?
GDS Says in the Hot Press interview, as displayed on his site "The article on me is clearly written aggressively and with factual errors - which when you try and correct, and politely, the correction gets deleted. Well this has gone on for a year now". This suggests that during the last year the subject has been "trying and correct" his own entry - surely not? Unless I am mistaken, he was banned before then. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have edited this article only for 3-4 months, so I don't know the whole story and I have no idea about the ban, but, if there are factual errors, why hasn't he complained to OTRS and sent them the documentation proving the error? That would ensure that the error gets corrected or removed, and that it remains so.


 * Looking at the history, he's maybe referring to edits like and, and , and many more. The first ones were even signed as MSDS. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He made lots of edits in line with his objections over the course of a year, or even longer, prior to the ban he received per NLT. His son, as well, and who knows - perhaps other friends and family, perhaps not. Avruch  T 20:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the dilemmas that I have with GDS is in deciding if he is a scoundrel, or a very clever prankster. Anyone who has read GDS's harangue of Paul Williams in "Global Name and Shame", or noticed that "Rockin' Boogie Woogie Dave" is GDS's Radical Party, Campaign Officer must wonder if GDS's mislabeling of Wikipedia and Wikimedia is intentional for a hearty laugh.  After all, GDS is loaded supposedly with millions in cash.  Why would a multi-millionaire waste his time pissing around with a distasteful biography in Wikipedia, when he seems to delight in all the attention.  I ran across a Myspace website for a "Don Giovanni"; it contains so many elements reflective of Giovanni Di Stefano's life (and style) that I must chuckle to myself when I imagine seeing an operatic GDS at his computer terminal nightly conducting an alteration of Di to di or vice verse, all the while listening  to a background of Boogie Woogie Dave. (Click here for a sampling) Hag2 (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a red herring with no factual accuracy. GDS is not saying he uses sockpuppets or meatpuppets and to interpret this in this way is an emnormous assumption of bad faith which, as counter to policy, needs no serious response. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have fallen overboard. Sockpuppets or meatpuppets is a meaningless phrase...  Bad faith though, I understand that.  I do not say anything derogatory about GDS; I point out merely that GDS has an interesting sense of humor, and that his various threats of retaliation may not be as serious as everyone believes.  As Peter Popham points out in his 3 July 2008 article, no one yet has experienced GDS's wrath.  Hag2 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that the aggressive editing is happening and far from making sock accusations we as a team of editors here need to end the aggressive and childish editing. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename as Giovanni Di Stefano?
Almost all renderings of his name on the Radical Party and Studio Legale Internazionale sites show the "D" in Di Stefano as capitalised. So I think the article should be renamed from Giovanni di Stefano.--Anthony Nolan O&#39;Nymous (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this change. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I agree and I invoke the holy power of WP:MOS. From Manual of Style (capital letters) "Some individuals, such as k.d. lang, do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources. If multiple styles have regular and established use in reliable sources, use the orthography preferred by the individual." (notice this is a recent addition, and I just saw it on the Signpost). In this case, reliable third-party sources use both "di" and "Di", so we should use "Di" as being the one preferred by the individual.


 * Also, looking at other parts of the MOS: Manual of Style (biographies) only states that "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known", so it's stating no preference for capitalization, and from the naming policy Naming conventions "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.". I think we can agree that Mr. Giovanni is equally know and easily recognizable under both capitalizations of his name, so this change would be compliant with these two things.


 * So, if nobody objects, I'll move it on a few days. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Question concerning details of "Legal Career"
What makes these three paragraphs (containing over 1080 characters) worthy of inclusion in the main article?

"...On 17 March 2007 he wrote to Lord Goldsmith, at that time the...[20] blah blah blah...On 14 January 2008 he ...blah blah blah...

On 15 January 2008 Di Stefano said that he knew of a sixth victim of Moors murderers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley...blah blah blah...On 21 January 2008 the Greater Manchester...blah blah blah... The spokesman added "Mr. Di Stefano has previously made claims regarding the Moors murders in the media but has not provided any detail to Greater Manchester Police."

...In a statement released on his website dated 21 January 2008, ....[26]....."

I see little reason to include them to the exclusion of similar details...for example from the case of Jeremy Bamber. For over twenty-three years Bamber has slugged his way through two lost appeals and currently is waiting for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to weigh new evidence that was discovered during the past three years by Di Stefano's keen insight. The cases of Patrick 'Dutchy' Holland and John 'Goldfinger' Palmer are equally as interesting. I am certainly not advocating including anything from any of these. My point is: if a reader wishes to dive into the details surrounding Giovanni Di Stefano's "Legal Career", he need only click a Wikilink (of which this article contains an abundance). By removing some of the chaff it is possible that the main article may achieve a more encyclopedic and neutral point of view. Hag2 (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Four things:


 * wikipedia articles are supposed to be written on pyramid style, with the last level of the pyramid going at length on the details, see Summary_style.
 * feel free to add the similar details about equally important cases like Bamber, Holland, Palmer, etc., as I agree that the section lacks explanations on many of the cases.
 * this is a list of cases where he was representing someone, and it includes only notable statements done on notable cases that have been reported on mainstream newspapers, which I would call going into details of each case, and I wouldn't call them chaff. For example, "he wrote to Lord Goldsmith"... but he did it to criminally prosecute under Geneva Conventions the iraqi judge that sentenced Saddam Hussein to death (and he actually got an answer back from UK's general attorney, and he got it reported on the JURIST website, and it was about a month after it got reported on major newspapers that the judge had just seeked asylum on the UK). Another one: "On 14 January 2008 he"... makes a complaint about UK justice but he does it in the context of a BBC article on one of his cases that involves a UK lotto winner, the case itself being reported on several UK newspapers. (I only looked at these two)
 * this section details Giovanni's achievements, so it should be expanded to balance the negative parts of the article. I hope that no one has a problem with that :D --Enric Naval (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation on this article
--Enric Naval (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nullified template transclusion, because the case was closed. -- AGK  [&bull; ] 17:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

di Stefano, entering the United States
So there appears to be a disagreement over detailing di Stefano's immigration status in the United States. There has been in the article for some time a statement needing citation that after Stefano was denied entry he was then subsequently allowed to enter. SB seems to be insisting based on that this uncited claim be included if any mention of that is in the article. Rather than push Squeakbox even further over 3RR, and rather than cause him to misuse the term "trolling" more, I figured we should discuss this on this page. So far three editors seem to have a consensus that this is NPOV without the line. Does anyone agree with SB? Also, I hope that SB will use this as an opportunity to explain his view in more detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox seems to think he owns this article, and that no other interpretation of NPOV but his could possibly be correct - even though no one appears to agree with his particular interpretation. He is in crystal clear violation of 3RR, and he's very lucky he hasn't already been blocked. SqueakBox, you are not the unilateral arbiter of content on this article. You do not have the authority to revert, over and over again, what a group of other people believe should be in the article. If you think something shouldn't be there, then discuss it on the talkpage like a normal editor. Avruch  T 07:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Around 1992, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service deported him from the United States due to a fraud conviction on the UK on 1986. Months later he was denied re-entry. In 1995, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that Di Stefano did not have standing to challenge it under the Immigration and Nationality Act though di Stefano has been able to re-enter the US since then."

- Personal Legal History, paragraph 3

As I interpret the situation: the first part of the sentence ("In 1995, the United States...") is factual information. Whereas, the latter part ("...though di Stefano has been able...") is, so far, unsuspported by any reliable (and credible) fact. (To the best of my knowledge, the ONLY supporting evidence for this latter part comes from Mr. Di Stefano himself who claims that he has entered the US on four different occasions although he does not cite when, where, or why.) Unfortunately, the first part of the sentence without the second part does seem to be tilted towards a negative opinion heavily. After all, if a man has been deported, has tried to confront that ruling, and has lost a right to a hearing, then a reader could construe that there is good cause to infer that everything derogatory about Mr. Di Stefano can be equated with the word "undesirable". (Incidentally, I have a problem with the grammar of: "on the UK on 1986". I believe it would read better as: "in the UK in 1986".) Hag2 (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the sentence is tilted heavily. Facts sometimes are negative, and we are constrained by WP:V. The first part is verifiable, the second part is not. Presumably if the second part is true di Stefano can get someone in INS (or whatever it is calling itself now. Is that part of Homeland Security?) to say that he entered the country and get a statement to that effect. di Stefano certainly has the influence to do that. Until he does that, or something like that we are constrained by verifiability. NPOV and V do not mean we cannot have articles with negative facts. For a similar situation, one might wish to look at Kent Hovind where much of the verifiable information is negative. I've looked for a long time for something positive that's verifiable but I haven't succeeded nor have other editors. Neutral point of view is not sympathetic point of view. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I say not "just the sentence" is tilted heavily, but the entire biography. If the full wave of both the British and the Americans has crashed upon Di Stefano (as per the 1986-1995 rulings), then an average reader will begin to side with the flow of the tide.  Personally, I do not care; Di Stefano has greater problems than whether or not he can enter the United States.  However maintaining a neutral point of view throughout his biography seems to be the agenda.  Perhaps it would be sufficient to relegate his current difference of opinion to the district court ruling to a footnote citation at the end of the sentence.  I believe it is possible to find somewhere where Di Stefano has stated that he has "entered the US on four occasions".  Since his remark would be a quote, it would not matter whether or not it was truthful.  Hag2 (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, but if neither the US or the Brits are happy with him, then that's a verifiable fact. The impression an article gives doesn't make it non-neutral if it is well-sourced. Incidentally, I've looked for claims by Di Stefano that he has in fact entered the US and other than difs on this talk page and on the article page (which for obvious reasons are not reliable for a quote from him. That has serious OR and V issues) I have been unable to find them. If you find something better, more power to you. Another issue is that claiming that he can now enter the US could imply that the case was somehow overturned and thus poses a possible BLP issue about the judges themselves since having cases overturned does not reflect well on judges. Thus, without a better citation there's a BLP reason to remove the sentence.
 * Ah yes, Er, *smile* I have found that my reference to "four occasions" really refers to his entry into Auchland. So the burden at the moment is for someone -- anyone -- to provide any sort of reference (good, bad, or indifferent) that can authenticate the claim "though di Stefano has been able to re-enter the US since then."  Without something, the claim is merely fiction. Hag2 (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no source that di Stefano is currently barred from entering the United States. By including a court decision from 1995 which concerns a conviction which is known to have been overturned the impression is created that he is currently barred, but no source to that effect is cited. Fred Talk 02:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which conviction? And when was it overturned? It's a US ruling saying that the INS has the right to deny him a visa to enter the US. It's not a conviction, and he doesn't need to overturn it in order to re-enter the US, he just needs to convince the INS to give him a new visa in spite of the conviction at the UK. The point here is that the UK's conviction has not been overturned, so the original INS decision stands, until we can prove that he was given a new visa to enter the US.


 * To prove this, GDS can simply send a photocopy of his US visa to OTRS, where the date of entry on the country is after 1995. We could also find a newspaper article where he is interviewed by a journalist on US territory.


 * (Also, if you are saying that the UK conviction was overturned, notice that the UK conviction was in 1986, and the US ruling was on 1995, and the US ruling says nothing about the UK conviction being overturned). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm failing to see the relevancy of the whether or not he is currently allowed in the US to the UK conviction. Connecting whether or not the conviction was overturned is serious OR and moreover isn't that relevant. I'm puzzled by an attempt to remove well-sourced content based on a tenuous concern that it might be taken to imply something. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Things appear and disappear around here so frequently that I get a little foggy in my mind. Peter Popham's 3 July 2008 Independent "Devil's advocate: The world's most notorious lawyer defends himself" laid out the facts surrounding GDS's 1986 conviction, then incarceration, and subsequent appeal (see paragraphs 44-47). So it is hard to understand how someone believes that "the UK conviction was overturned" unless it is due to the fact that Popham's referenced-article was deleted for some reason.  It should be noted also that within that article Di Stefano does not mention a second appeal, rather he claims that the records against him are forgeries.


 * The relevance of the 1986 conviction is in the expression "moral turpitude" to which GDS pleaded guilty. In viewing the facts surrounding the 1986 conviction, the 1995 US 53 F.3d 338 showed that "District Director Ferro [in Rome] denied Di Stefano's application for a waiver after weighing (a) Di Stefano's conviction in England and (b) the absence of any demonstration of rehabilitation against the purpose of Di Stefano's visit to the United States."  The 53 F.3d 338 ruling upped the ante by "concluding that Di Stefano lacked standing to bring the matter before the district court and that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the waiver application."  Which, more or less, has left Di Stefano exactly where Eric Naval has described him: he needs to obtain a visa, or show that he has one at present.  And, in order to do that, he needs to demonstrate that he is worthy of having one.  Until he does, it is doubtful that there is any truth in the phrase "though di Stefano has been able to re-enter the US since then".  Thus, unless someone else can produce a verifiable and credible reference to support the phrase it is unsupported and fanciful.  Since Squeakbox insists on placing the phrase in the sentence the burden now is upon him to produce support.  Hag2 (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * NPOV trumps whatever argument as does the genuine BLP concerns here. We are an educational charity and that does nopt give us the right to stalk an individual like we are here. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that you've decided to discuss things on this page as requested. However, I'm less than happy with your response which seems to be less than productive. It should be clear at this point that 1) many editors disagree with you about what constitutes a neutral description here and 2) what constitutes a BLP concern. This is especially relevant given that as I explained there is arguably a BLP issue in the other direction by including this claim. Your last point is simply irrelevant and frankly uncivil. There isn't any "stalking" going on, merely writing of an article using reliable sources about a well-known figure. I don't know what universe that constitutes stalking in, but not in mine, and not, I suspect, in most other peoples. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the BLP subject who feels stalked, and who has so often expressed concerns about this, you may think editors here are not stalking him but I am afraid that does not make it so, nor do a tiny cabal of editors in any way trump either BLP or NPOV concerns. Surely we are here as an eduactional encyclopedia and focussing obsessionally on his alleged personal legal difficulties using very poor sources is not the way to educate anybody. I am left with the impression that we do not care about GDS or his reputation, and this is not acceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox has an intractable desire to have this article be "balanced" in terms of criticism and positive information, which might be neutral in terms of pH but is certainly not compatible with NPOV. He's been edit warring for many months, ignoring consensus and refusing to consider other points of view in discussion on this page. So what can we do about this problem, other than bowing to the will of a persistent edit warrior with a clear point of view?


 * A user conduct RfC
 * A proposal on an admin noticeboard for a topic ban
 * An request for arbitration

Which of these do folks suppose is most likely to move this problem towards resolution? Avruch  T 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you elaborate on the three points, please? I believe a RfC has been exhausted on the issue of "NPOV trumps whatever...", and I do not know exactly what the "topic" is in the topic ban, unless your reference to the topic is : "di Stefano entering the U.S."? In the case of the latter, I believe SqueakBox has made himself very clear on that issue as well. Hag2 (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The topic would be "Giovanni di Stefano, and related articles." I'm not interested in an RfC about NPOV - that has been exhausted, and the community view on this issue is clear to most. A user conduct RfC, however, specifically about SqueakBox's conduct around this article - that is something we haven't tried (that I know). Avruch  T 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are saying that you may consider banning (or removing) altogether an article on "the topic of Giovanni Di Stefano", I think I could follow that reasoning. Perhaps the time is not right to consider a biography on living individuals who do not want one.  Di Stefano has made himself quite clear on this issue.  A move such as that would be very gutsy...or a sign of weasel weakness.  In my opinion there will always be room to maneuver in the future.


 * Personally I would cut the three paragraphs (mentioned below) from "Legal Career", drop the entire subsection "Personal Legal History", and move all citations involved (in that big edit) into a section labeled "Notes and References".


 * Anyone wishing to discover the "Life and times of Giovanni di Stefano" would need then only to click a newspaper article in the Reference section, and then determine whatever he wishes.


 * I believe these editorial moves would make the main article neutral, readable, and acceptable to Di Stefano. I believe also that Di Stefano would drop as a gesture of good faith his Wiki... lawsuit .  Finally, I believe these moves would make the article appear (and sound) more encyclopedic.  Hag2 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand Avruch. He is speaking of bannign Squeakbox from this and related articles. Your suggestion of pairing the article down or deleting it, both violate previous consensus on the matter. We do not remove articles about notable people simply because they threaten to sue the foundation. If the foundation feels a need to take the article down they will do so. Apart from that such behavior is unacceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have evidence that a lawsuit has been filed?Geni 04:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe using Wikipedia as search criteria at Studio Legale Internazionale Diary will answer your question. I believe GDS uses the expression "lawsuit" and "criminal action" in several titles.  In addtion, the level of his intimidation is further revealed by his 19 April 2008 entry "You must stand up to bullies". Hag2 (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It would seem that he didn't fill a lawsuit, instead he made a complaint to Rome's General Prosecutor, see relevant section on article, and a past discussion on the matter --Enric Naval (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you interpret these two sentences from "You must stand up to bullies": The reason of our formal notification is that whilst there is a pending lawsuit with a specific and designated amount requested in damages we are of the view any failure on the part of your most esteemed firm at not accounting such in the off balance sheet contingent liabilities may well lead those who are considering donating amounts to the Foundation into doing so under a serious misrepresentation. There is a contingent liability to the said companies as above as well as to all those named on a joint and several bases and this should be reflected on the balance sheet. Is GDS's use of the word lawsuit incorrect, or perhaps the wickedness of an Italian/English Bablefish translator? :) Hag2 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That page is from April 2008, while his comments on the talk page that the lawsuit consists of raising a complaint to the General Prosecutor are from July 2008. Heh, I suppose that there is no mistranslation there, just different interpretations of what "pending lawsuit" and "I have sued for defamation" mean :P . Personally, I think that his use of sentences like "a legal action has been commenced in Italy" (in the linked page) leaves a lot of room for interpretation of what exactly he plans to do. As far as I know, he hasn't still filled any actual lawsuit as such. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nor should any editors here in any way make a deliberately negative articles because of alleged intimidation of wikipedians by di Stefano, that, were it to occur, would be a real abuse of editing privileges. And if we are talking about banning people from the article we should start with Josh and Avruch for their persistent ignoring of NPOV and BLP_ policies and attacking those trying to defend these policies. Violation of BLP of course also includes making accusations of intimidation by di Stefano. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * SqueakBox, I don't think anyone is trying to make a negative article in response to di Stefano, and again, most editors here seem to disagree with your idea about what constitutes NPOV and BLP relevant in this context. I strongly suggest that you get into your head that reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes NPOV. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well for the record I do not wish to see anyone banned from this article, and I certainly hold no grudges against you or Avruch, both of whom I know here from way back. Nor am I exactly editing the article in a repeated antagonizing way (in the sense that I have not edited it for days.). Thanks, SqueakBox 00:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So where do we stand on the phrase "though di Stefano has been able to re-enter the US since then"? It has been almost two weeks since the discussion began. It seems to me quite evident that there is no supporting documentation for the phrase. This, of course, is in direct violation of the principle of no original research. I believe that under these circumstances we are permitting a falsehood to be spread throughout the world. I do not believe Wikipedia would find this acceptable. Hag2 (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been looking for supporting evidence of any form and have been unable to find any. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * squeekbox has his passport visa entries but cannot be published as violate Data Protection Act and Italian Law. zieglar J  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.41.243.108 (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a fair way to deal with this issue is to propose a consensus vote on removing the phrase, allowing ample time for any detractors to produce supporting evidence to OTRS. Since we have given already two weeks+, I propose an additional two weeks; thus taking us up to 10 September (or thereabouts).  I believe also that such a proposal should be based upon a significant number of respondents e.g. greater-than-or-equal-to twenty, not just a few e.g. less-than-or-equal-to six. At present, I vote remove.   Hag2 (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also support removal. I'm also a bit disturbed by the claim that Squeakbox has been given the relevant material and didn't mention it. I hope he will explain to us if he does have access and if so why he didn't mention this. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am quite happy to see the phrase removed as long as we remove any mention of the incident whatsoever, otherwise are we not breaking NPOV, for neutrality, and BLP for having an article that the subject feels adversely the subject of the article. Sorry, Josh, what relevant material have I been given, if I had a reliable ref for the American entry I would of course add it. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nyet this is not a POV issues and BLP does not say what you appear to think it says.Geni 19:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "...as long as we remove any mention of the incident whatsoever" (Squeakbox). I believe that you are padding your argument, Squeakbox, with too much fluff. The phrase "tough...has been able..." clearly is an unsubstantiated fantasy.  On the other hand the facts surrounding "any mention of the incident" are what they are facts.  If the tone of the article becomes negative due to the facts presented, then that is the way "the cookie crumbles".  If a living individual leads a less than stellar life, are you implying that his editors should ignore those facts and treat him as Cinderella? Hag2 (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not seem as though we are getting anywhere on the issue of the phrase though Di Stefano.... I changed the B-class rating on the entire article to ??? and left my comments on the separate subsection talkpage. Hag2 (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

di Stefano, entering the United States Break 1
GDS said on an interview that he showed his visa to Jimbo, maybe we should ask him. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The other early 90s stuff
So asside from the new zealand stuff we have

The Sandhurst Assets thing can be traced though the Financial Times and the Daily Record (Glasgow)

MGM thing can be traced through variety LA times and more recention mentions in the gardian.

The run in with the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

At the present time the third appears to be the best documented. Geni 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The SOLS DISC TRIB is JOHN di stefano and evidently NOT GIOVANNI and unless you can prove otherwise again as SqueeqBox says one is making simply unfounded allegations....Pasquale Del Cavi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.125.242.27 (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At this point the claim that mr di Stefano has not gone by the name of john during the 80s/parts of the early 90s is not credible. So far the US courts the New Zealand police and quite a selection of quality newspapers have reported that they are the same person.Geni 00:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr Shawe was struck of TWICE it would appear and hardly a reliable source and again the newspaper is The Guardian of years ago that we know was subject to a lawsuit and which the journalist Cowan was sacked shortly afterwards.... Pasquale Del Cavi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.125.242.27 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No records of any such lawsuit or sacking exist.Geni 00:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But hey it isn't as if it hasn't been reported by others.Geni 00:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Leah Sumray
"Jeremy Leeming, defending, said Sumray apologised to the court, but her reasons for non-attendance was not to take a foreign holiday"

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article670762.ece

"In mitigation, Jeremy Leeming, said Sumray went on holiday to Fuerteventura because she was fearful of repercussions if she gave evidence."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-507364/Lottery-millionaire-jailed-ignoring-court-summons--going-sunshine-holiday-instead.html

"Jeremy Leeming, defending Sumray, said his client had apologised to the court, but she was young and naive and did not realise what a serious position she was putting herself in."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/11/lottery.uknews4

And we know Stefano is not allowed to practice in the UK or registered in Italy. How can we possibly report that he is representing Ian Strachan?

"Strachan is being represented by lawyer Giovanni di Stefano, of London and Rome.

Dubbed the "devil's advocate", he has a client list which includes Saddam Hussein, Harold Shipman, Moors murderer Ian Brady and M25 killer Kenneth Noye.

But the 51-year-old appears to have no formal legal qualifications and the Law Society refuses to recognise him as a solicitor, not least because of a previous conviction for fraud."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490216/Sex-drugs-blackmail-plot-royal-Im-innocent.html

Since Strachan's legal team appeared to be headed by Simon Jowett, this seems like just another of Stefano's publicity stunts. Rich Farmbrough, 00:57 31 August 2008 (GMT).

If anyone here actually has any common sense they would stop and cease this nonsense..re Strachan see this site, ie Strachan's own website: ...how many more supposed 'editors' are being paid by Wikipedia to try and find something on Di Stefano???? Pasquale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.70 (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The sun in particular is not a very good source and the daily mail is also probably not a good choice for this article.Geni 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Regular readers will be amused
"His new legal team includes controversial Frenchman Jacques Verges - known as "the Devil's advocate" - as well as four Italian lawyers and a French-Lebanese."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7409933.stm

Rich Farmbrough, 01:04 31 August 2008 (GMT).
 * This is a salient point. Consequently I believe the labeling of both Di Stefano and Verges as an advocate for "The Devil" require us to make a notation of this fact in  both articles such as: "The Devil's advocate [nb 1] ".  I will be happy to perform this task if no one objects. It requires creating a subsection within "References" called "Notes", and then adding coding for a  , with a relevant remark contained therein.  I believe both articles will benefit greatly from the addition of "Notes".  Hag2 (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * notice: I will perform this task within 24 hours if no one objects. Hag2 (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Giovanni di Stefano → Giovanni Di Stefano — Capitalization preferred by the subject of the article, sources use both capitalizations interchangeably. See archived discussion where nobody raised any issues. — Enric Naval (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary Glitter?
Well I suppose his absence from the list of purported clients was like Mrs Bun being missing from the Baker's family. He is not a 'convicted pedophile', or even a convicted paedophile. He was convicted in relation to child pornography and for "committing obscene acts with two girls". Paedophilia in itself is not a crime, even in Vietnam. So I have deleted that from the description. But did the Irish Independednt just take Di Stefano's (or a press release put out by him) word that he acted for him? Because when he came back to England I saw GG's lawyer on television and it wasn't GDS. David Corker was the solicitor DavidFarmbrough (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * google news search suggests there is a press release flaoting around.Geni 00:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To assume that GG has one lawyer is original research, and rather crass original research at that. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe but past experence suggests that claims that Di Stefano is someone's lawyer do not always turn out to be

true.Geni 01:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So am I to assume that anyone famous (or infamous) these days needs a solicitor, a barrister and an 'Italian Avocato'? It seems a bit unlikely frankly as I can't see what expertise Di Stefano would bring to Gary Glitter's circumstances. I am just not sure that newspapers are that reliable these days, as they tend to rely too much on press releases or on unverifiable sources themselves.DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * we have seen your example of STRACHAN with you saying that GDS is not Strachan lawyer YET when you are confronted with Strachan's own website who CONFIRMS that GDS is the MAIN lawyer then you fail even to apologise...what is required is the real motivation behind the likes of Naval, Geni etc who are actually stalking and harrasing GDS in this manner and using what is supposed to be an encyclopedia as a tool.... Pasquale de Santiis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.224.235 (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, 'Pasquale', but I can't recall my saying that he wasn't Strachan's lawyer. I might have said that it remains to be supported by evidence that he is his lawyer. You mention that 'Strachan's own website' confirms that GDS is the main lawyer, but if you mean his MySpace page, then this reads more like a GDS website than a Strachan website - it's full of links to GDS and the only subject of the blog is the 'Royal Blackmail Case', the blog is updated by a third party, and I would suggest that despite the page bearing Ian Strachan's name it was more than likely set up by someone on his behalf.

The big problem with much of this article is that much of it can be traced back directly or indirectly to its subject, and when someone tries to include something from a third party source, that is speedily deleted. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC for New Zealand inclusion
Is the expulsion from New Zealand enough notable, relevant, NPOV, BLP-compliant, and appropiate for a biography? See proposed draft for inclusion and diff of inclusion.

There are multiple sources from national and regional mainstream newspapers describing the events directly or referring to them, so verifiability and reliability should not be a problem. See the draft for a list of sources.

Please remember that this is not a straw poll, so state reasons for why you support one option or other. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a way shorter version (updated to remove unwarranted assumptions):

"On 2003, Giovanni di Stefano travelled to New Zealand to make multi-million property deals. In 2003, Giovanni di Stefano travelled to New Zealand, where he made several multi-million bids on property. [1][2][3][4][5] The authorities discovered that he had not disclosed a conviction in England in 1986, and declared him a prohibited inmigrant. [1][4][6]"


 * "shorter version" looks good to me. Hag2 (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That draft appears to give the incident its proper weight. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Date should be 1990, not 2003, according to cited material. The material should not give the impression that he is at present excluded from traveling to New Zealand. He may or may not be. Fred Talk 20:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or that there is an outstanding fraud conviction. Fred Talk 21:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Good for inclusion, draft is OK

 * Support. Several points.
 * Notability: I think that it's a notable event on the biography of any person:
 * having gone to a country "apparently with up to $100 million to invest, and he sought to buy $59 million of Auckland property"
 * having then been prohibited from entering the country as a "prohibited immigrant" for involucration on a fraud case after claiming to National Business Review that it was your cousin that was convicted,
 * getting the events reported several times on a national newspaper, with mentions like having been "chased out of Auckland by an aggressive TV crew",
 * getting called "international fraudster" and other things on the same paper,
 * losing multi-million deals because of these events
 * getting this event used against you on regional scottish media when you are trying to buy a local futbol club 4 years later.
 * having the expulsion mentioned when talking about you on an australian newspaper and several british newspapers
 * two years later the International Herald Tribune considering that it's a notable enough event to mention it as a statement of fact on an article about Pakatoa Island's status on the "Properties" section.


 * Reliability issues:
 * I think that there is no doubt left that the events actually happened. We have enough published third-party secondary reliable sources.
 * the sources are mainstream newspapers that are in use on other BLP articles with no controversy: New Zealand Press Association, Australian Associated Press, NZ Herald, International Herald Tribune, Sidney Morning Herald, The Scotsman. In particular, the draft relies on many places on NZ Herald sources, see list of articles that link to the newspaper, where many BLPs are listed.
 * as an apart, the events are also echoed on the magazine of an association dependant on UK's Law Society, altough this source is not used on the draft.


 * Weight issues:
 * I think that it has enough weight on Giovanni's life and reputation to merit a short paragraph with 4-5 sentences (this is only for the New Zealand thing, btw):
 * 1 sentence: mentioning the quantities he intented to spend and the attempt to develop on Pakatoa Island,
 * 1-2 sentences: discovery of the conviction
 * 1 sentence: the expulsion by authorities at airport when returning, and the reasons given.
 * 1 short sentence: the mention of this event on scottish media when trying to buy the futbol club


 * It shouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight when compared with "Music producer" (1 short paragraph, 2 sentences), "Football" (1 long paragraph, 10 sentences), "Founder of political party" (2 short paragraphs, 2 sentences), "Claim of lawsuit against Wikipedia" (1 paragraph, 2 sentences).


 * The events are added to the bottom of the article, on the "Personal legal history" section, as agreed with other editors, and are not mentioned on the lead to avoid weight issues.


 * Privacy:
 * Mr. Di Stefano is a public figure, the New Zealand events are public and have been publicited widely. On New Zealand on a national newspaper (NZ Herald) and TV (by Paul Holmes (broadcaster), whose article says "hosting New Zealand's number one rating breakfast show (...) widely reputed to be New Zealand's highest-paid broadcasting personality"), and then on a scottish newspaper on UK (The Scotsman), an australian newspaper (Sidney Morning Herald), an international newspaper (Int. Herald Tribune), two news agencies (New Zealand Press Association and Australian AP) which in turn made the news appear on Yahoo News.


 * Defamation:
 * The events are public, the sourcing is excellent with reports by multiple reliable sources (so it's most probably true), relevant to the subject (as justified on "notability" section of my comment),


 * BLP and Neutrality:
 * the wording has been tweaked to be as non-partisan, neutral, and factual as posible, criticism present on the sources has been left out as not relevant to the subject's notability in spite of been heavily sourced (out of the 10 sources, 9 call him "fraudster" or "convicted fraudster", some citing a british judge that called him "a nature's fraudster")


 * Gossip:
 * This is not some rumor about someone having a new secret lover, being reported by yellow press. What we are talking here is of multi-million property deals going sour and a prohibition of entering a country, all reported at multiple mainstream newspapers. And all affecting the reputation of a public figure at the crucial moment of adquiring a football club for several millions of dollars.


 * See previous thread and above section for comments, support, and what appears to be consensus per WP:SILENCE (it wasn't).


 * --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * support. Fairly significant event in New Zealand and some impact internationaly. Rhe fingerprint thing has some significance towards the Giovanni/john thing.Geni
 * support but no strong preference about which form we use. Certainly being not permitted to enter a major country is not a trivial event and it was reported in multiple reliable sources. We must not forget that our obligation is to present content neutrally, not to to present content sympathetically. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good enough, but merits less space or a different writing

 * Support the shorter version (which can be integrated into the paragraph on 1986 affair - as a consequence of that case). As long as the NZ authority did not indict him for a particular wrongdoing - other than the 1986 memories - there's no need to incite what looks like another suspicion of fraud. NVO (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Zee problem is the very short version states something we can't really be sure of.Geni 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hum, I don't get it. What is that something that we can't be really be sure of? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Di Stefanos motivations for going to NZ.Geni 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, I see what you mean. Does this correct the problem? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll just reiterate my sentiments from a previous RfC. This topic is significant, factual, and relevant. It can be sourced reliably and presented neutrally. However it should be kept as short as possible, perhaps a medium-length sentence or less such as, In XXXX, he was refused entry to NZ on account of his record., or even preface it with, Newspapers have reported that... to make it more neutral. We don't need the details of the investigation, which is not as important as the outcome. In general we should take our guidance on what to cover from our most reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough, should not be mentioned at all

 * Suppoort Its tabloid news, these papers latch onto gossip to make money. We, on the other hand, are an educational encyclopedia which cares deeply about BLP, and this inclusion serves no purpose other than to do di Stefano down. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At heart in the issue is the fingerprint analysis. Finding multiple mainstream articles that merely recite a fact ad naseum (i.e. Di Stefano was fingerprinted and found to be a John di Stefano), is hardly as good as discovering who first fingerprinted Di Stefano, and why, when, and where, and what is the accuracy of those records; for example, are they Interpol records?  Jim Cusack writing in the Irish Independent wrote that someone named "John di Stefano" was convicted of bank robbery in Clifden, Ireland in 1975 and then subsequently was referred to a mental hospital where he was diagnosed as insane; yet the validity of that accusation depends upon finding the relevant supporting documents at the 1975 Galway Circuit Court, not within the pages of mainstream newspapers (which merely repeat Cusack's inferences).  Criminal accusations have been leveled against Giovanni Di Stefano in several European countries.  Those accusations make Di Stefano's New Zealand explusion seem minor; yet getting to the truth  before repeating those accusations in a Wikipedia BLP should be a primary concern. Hag2 (talk)  20:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * who first did it is of no importatance it that matters is someone did and the New Zealand authoritories were able to get hold of the. We know the UK authorities will have fingerprinted anyone they have convicted. We know that New Zealand has friendly diplomatic relationships with the UK. If a request went through interpol or some other channel is of no real significance and in any case the information on that is unlikely to in the public domain. The records of the expulsion and the reasons for it will be possession of the New Zealand government/police and the British government/police. When would probably be some time in 86. Why would be because he was arrested or convicted. Accuracy well fingerprint technology is fairly well established. Where would be England or Wales. At the moment we are talking about the events in New Zealand rather than the 1970s. If you wish to discuss what happened in the 1970s that is a separate debate.Geni 18:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One thing. This draft is about what the New Zealand authorities thought that they had discovered, not about whether the NZ authorities were wrong or not on their assesment at the time of the expulsion. The fact is, fingerprint or not, the NZ authorities were convinced that he had a conviction, and so they kicked him out banned him accordingly. Later on, it was made clear that the NZ authorities were right, when GDS said that he was the one accused on the conviction and that he had appealed it twice, but that's a different matter for a different draft. Ídem for other accusations of other stuff, they have nothing to do with why the NZ authorities banned him and they belong to a different draft. Let's keep the different issues separated or it will become a messs. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP and New Zealand
Just so we know if it is or is not Squeakbox vs. the world on this one, can anyone who agrees that the New Zealand information is a violation of the BLP policy please speak up and explain why? (Fred?). If no arguments are forthcoming, I suggest we take it for opinions to BLP/N. Avruch  T 14:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Very great care demanded
Unless you can source, to numerous impeccable sources, an ironclad link between the expulsion and this particular Giovanni di Stefano, then walk away now. Single-sourced is not good enough (cf. The Scotsman). If you can, then attribute it and cite anywhere that di Stefano has asserted to the contrary. Bear in mind that he is still apparently appearing in court in the UK, which rather suggests that some at least of the Scotsman's material is (as he asserts) another di Stefano. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * From the looks of it, there are three separate publications among the 5 or 6 citations added for the New Zealand information. It seems clear that the reporters and publishers involved saw the di Stefano in their work as the same di Stefano this article is about. Avruch  T 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Guy, you wrote: "Bear in mind that he is still apparently appearing in court in the UK" As I understand: the UK allows just about anyone to represent another as a McKenzie Friend.  This does not mean that Di Stefano is recognized by the UK as a qualified, or accredited legal counsel. Di Stefano has been asked repeatedly for credentials, but has provided little other than dubious papers such as a Power of Attorney, and a driver's license (I have both of those.  Would you want me for your attorney?)  Also, the argument that the U.S. recognizes him in Iraqi to argue cases before the Iraqi courts does not mean that the U.S. recognizes him as a qualified and accredited attorney at law.  In the U.S., Di Stefano would need to pass the bar as well as show cause why his morals are not disreputable.  He has failed in the U.S. on those two scores so far. What Iraq does with him is Iraqi business.  Lastly, Italy's governing authority on legal issues has expressed doubt about Di Stefano's qualifications too.  About the only thing going in favor of Di Stefano on this particular issue is that Di Stefano is a very clever fellow, and one does not proselytize, argue, debate, or mince words with Di Stefano without being prepared to appear as a fool.  Hag2 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that I took great care. First of all, I found eleven sources mentioning linking the "real" GDS to the NZ expulsion, see the draft here: 2 from The Scotsman, 6 from NZ Herald, 1 from Sydney Morning Herald, 1 from International Herald Tribune and 1 from Australian Associated Press, via Yahoo! News.


 * Second, to remove any doubts that it could a different person that the subject of the article, I took into account that some of the sources give certain details that can be used verify his identity. (I'll have to mention his wife, which I have avoided doing until now for the sake of GDS' privacy, notice that the woman mentioned here is not the current wife) See, the first five sources on the draft cite the first name and place of birth of his wife as well as the 11th one, and, two years after the NZ thing, the fifth source cites that GDS said that he could fight the US deportation because he was married to a US citizen, and the source then cites that same person, . That fifth source also says that the New Zealand's GDS was expulsed because it was discovered a relationship with a company called Pathe Communications belonging to a guy called Giancarlo Parretti, who GDS had helped to buy MGM throught Credit Lyonasse. Three years after the NZ banning Variety reported that GDS had a relationship with this Parreti person through the buying of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) and reports that he is married with a woman by the same first name as the other sources and that they had used Credit Lyonasse for financing . Years later, the program HARDtalk of the BBC interviews GDS and states that he tried to buy MGM film studios, and this time they are talking about the subject of this article for sure, including references to Devil's advocate nickname, Sadam, Arkan, and a photography . The relationship of the "real" GDS with MGM is also confirmed by the "Corriere de la Sera" (automatic translation from italian) Now, let's see, how many different John Di Stefanos have been convicted for fraud on the UK before 1993 and had a wife with the exact same first name with a difference of at most three years and participated on the buying of the Metro Goldwin Mayer company and bought it in association with a person with the same first name and last name? What are the chances that these two Di Stefanos are two different persons? Notice how "giovanni" is simply "john" in italian, so it's perfectly feasible that he got called John when he was living on the UK before becoming famous, and changed it later to the italian translation of his name. btw, avoid mentioning anywhere the name of any family member, as they are not public figures themselves --Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)