Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)/Archive 7

Bag money and Richard Keith Page
"Rev" Page is an interesting character, I believe a friend of mine interviewed him for Mercia Radio many years ago.
 * http://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+BAG+MAN%3B+Di+Stefano%27s+pal+took+pounds+18,000+in+a+plastic+sack...-a0112303127
 * Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

Rev Page died last year. Have respect for those not with us. You should be ashamed of yourself Mr Farmbrough talking of the dead in a way they cannot defend themselves. Answer your own charges against you first before you touch the dead. GIOVANNI DI STEFANO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.100.89 (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I said he was "interesting". I guess you interpret that your own way. Rich Farmbrough, 02:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Arrest and forthcoming extradition
I don't think Mr. Di Stefano will be contributing here in the foreseeable future. Given that, I have removed the conflict of interest template at the top of this article. Prioryman (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC) I have rarely contributed to what is frankly rather dull and pathetic attempt at defaming me but as you see priory man whilst I show myself why do you hide behind pseudonyms if what you say is right put up your name and contact as I do mine...a free man.....Giovanni di stefano. Gdistefano1955@gmail.com 217.125.182.94 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move (2011)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 15 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Giovanni Di Stefano (businessman) → Giovanni Di Stefano – WP:Primary topic. 2647 views versus 80 (sculptor), and 29 (architect). Marcus  Qwertyus   02:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. For reasons that should'nt even have to be mentioned. Stop this. Ceoil  16:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wish for your arguments to carry any weight, those reasons will have to be mentioned. Rennell435 (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In your openion. You know, I know. There it is. Game away. Ceoil  08:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Nominator demonstrates clear primary topic. No evidence nor arguments to the contrary have been given, and a quick Google search will show that he appears to be the most prominent, with all of the first-page results about him. Rennell435 (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. None of the three are household names. The businessman obviously has a following in the news which has inflated the traffic stats, but not nearly enough to be considered the primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oddness
This page has once again slipped back into representing Stefano as a lawyer, and believing the stories he tells the press. Please note, the primary modus operandi of Stefano is to claim (or imply) he is the lawyer for a notorious person and give interviews. Time and again the most reputable media outlets, as well as tabloids and local papers report him as "Charles Manson's Lawyer" "Saddam Hussein's Lawyer" "Gary Glitter's Lawyer" - we know this is wrong, because we know that as a result of his fraud conviction in 1984 he is not even permitted to work in a UK Lawyers office (we have seen the Law Society dictat). We also know that he is not a registered lawyer in Italy despite various claims that he is. His secondary type of action is to write letters, these are then reported as if they were a legal action (and in some senses, they may be). For example he might write to the CRCC requesting a review of a notorious murderer's case, and then tell the press that he has "appealed" the case.

Everything about Stefano should be treated with the utmost scepticism, he has made either a hobby or a profession of hoodwinking the media for many years, so even normally reliable sources are suspect. Anything that describes him as a lawyer immediately shows that the source has been fooled.

Nonetheless, Stefano, who seems to be an intelligent man, has, amazingly been involved in real litigation other than his own prosecutions for fraud, and, apparently, money laundering. Firstly, he successfully persuaded a judge to overrule the governor of a prison which had not allowed him to represent a prisoner. This was on a technicality, Stefano was in fact not entitled to do so, but the governor had not allowed him to present, or had not asked to see, his (non-existent) credentials. Secondly a case was brought relating to Saddam Hussein in the US, involving reclaiming money owed to a US entity, as Stefano had put it about that he was Hussein's lawyer, he was involved in that case.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Cursed
I'm not sure if we (Wikipedia, or just the editors of this article) are included, but it seems likely. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4212643/What-the-devils-Giovanni-di-Stefano-playing-at.html Rich Farmbrough, 17:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC).

Lost Archives
Someone has made an edit which has resulted in the loss of the talk page archived discussions. I also note that the subject of this article is now down as (fraudster) whereby he was once (businessman). These edits have taken place in the last few hours i believe. This being the first thing i have ever added on wikipedia i have no idea how to correct it. DietJustice (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Re your first point, yes, those archives need to be moved. I don't particularly feel like moving 7 pages in a row myself, so let me go see if I can find an admin to do it (since they can move subpages along with a page). As to the change in title... well, that is what tends to happen when you get convicted of fraud. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  21:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough...i clearly give away my ignorance of wikipedia with my silly questions lol DietJustice (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's OK, I've been able to move the pages manually. 7 isn't that hard to do. :-) Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate...i thought we had lost that comedy gold! Its the archive that keeps on giving!DietJustice (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had a glance through them - he certainly kept himself busy spinning lines here, didn't he? I don't suppose we'll hear from him again for a long time; he's facing a maximum 10 years behind bars, and I would expect him to get somewhere near that length of sentence given his record and the egregious nature of his offences this time round. We'll know within the next 18 hours. Prioryman (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

He's gone down for 14 years. Evidently the judge threw the book at him for the money laundering, as that's the absolute maximum sentence for that offence. He won't be up for a parole review until July 2022 at the earliest. Prioryman (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link mate. I blog a lot about peoples interactions with their own wikipedia pages, this is the best and funniest example ive found yet. I guess we can call him 'fraudster' now...if thats how wikipedia works! DietJustice (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The ironic thing is that I saw he had boasted he was only going to face a maximum of 10 years for fraud. I guess he forgot about the 14 year penalty for money laundering... Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The more i read about him, the more i form the opinion that he is an example of all that is wrong in the world. Clearly lives in a dream world. I'll be keeping an eye on developments! DietJustice (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Fraudster?
I've brought up the new article title and the associated category at wp:blp/n for anybody who might be interested in discussing the recent move. user: j (talk)  09:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He has been convicted five separate times on dozens of individual counts of fraud, and has admitted others besides. Do we move dog fighting to puppy wrestling next? Guy (Help!) 01:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)