Audio of Di Stefano on the case.

[Cambridgecutie]

I believe he made a fortune in the 1980s from the video tape industry. Whether or not this was legitimate or illegitimate income I have no idea. I know he lived In the US for a while as well.

He was a chairman of a Scottish football club as well for a period.

I would take everything he says with a pinch of salt. 

[David1819]

I believe he made a fortune in the 1980s from the video tape industry. Whether or not this was legitimate or illegitimate income I have no idea. I know he lived In the US for a while as well.

He was a chairman of a Scottish football club as well for a period.

Distefano helped win the appeal of John 'Goldfinger' Palmer. As a result £33 million of confiscated gains were returned to Palmer. He also help in the appeal with Nicholas van Hoogstraten and Distefano charged him £2million pounds.

Despite not being qualified. He legally represented them via loopholes in the Italian power of attorney laws that extended throughout the EU at the time.

He seems to have done well for his guilty clients while exploiting and stealing from his innocent clients.
He really was trolling the system. 

[Cambridgecutie]

Distefano helped win the appeal of John 'Goldfinger' Palmer. As a result £33 million of confiscated gains were returned to Palmer. He also help in the appeal with Nicholas van Hoogstraten and Distefano charged him £2million pounds.

Despite not being qualified. He legally represented them via loopholes in the Italian power of attorney laws that extended throughout the EU at the time.

He seems to have done well for his guilty clients while exploiting and stealing from his innocent clients.
He really was trolling the system.

Where's the evidence for any of the above?

[Curiosity]

Where's the evidence for any of the above?

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/past-times/4845323/john-palmer-brinks-mat-gold-gleneagles/

[ILB]

From a 2003 documentary on him it appears that it was Jeremy who sought his services.

I know he represented Charles Bronson also.

[ILB]

Interesting guy either way and one of life's charchters.

I don't think he's all that bad. Maybe that's naivety on my behalf, my background or whatever.

[BarefootDanC]

From a 2003 documentary on him it appears that it was Jeremy who sought his services.

I know he represented Charles Bronson also.

Does anyone know when Jeremy stopped using Di Stefano ?

I wonder which of the 2004-2011 submissions he was responsible for. I know he was responsible for the 2004 "Sheila still bleeding" submission (2004) but I wonder whether he was responsible for the "the blood in the sound moderator could be rabbits blood" theory (around 2007 or 2008)?

[David1819]

From a 2003 documentary on him it appears that it was Jeremy who sought his services.

I know he represented Charles Bronson also.

I think that call was staged for the show.

[David1819]

Does anyone know when Jeremy stopped using Di Stefano ?

I wonder which of the 2004-2011 submissions he was responsible for. I know he was responsible for the 2004 "Sheila still bleeding" submission (2004) but I wonder whether he was responsible for the "the blood in the sound moderator could be rabbits blood" theory (around 2007 or 2008)?

GDH got involved after JB sacked Ewen Smith in 2002. He seems to have stopped working for JB around 2006 IIUC.

The rabbits blood idea was first mentioned in 1986 by Ann Eaton.

RIVLIN: How could you imagine that the blood at the end of the silencer might be a rabbits blood?
ANN EATON: I don't know.
RIVLIN: That is what you told the court. How could you imagine that it might be a rabbits blood?
ANN EATON: Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before.

[ILB]

Didn't GDS represent/advise Saddam for a period as well?

[Roch]

Didn't GDS represent/advise Saddam for a period as well?

He did. Isn't that why he was called the Devil's Advocate? I read a biography of Saddam a few years back. Iraq was progressing under him in the late 70's.

[David1819]

I have been reading the appeal that DiStefano worked on for John Palmer. Overturned due to a defective legal notice.

"In the circumstances, the judge proceeded to hear the final stage of the confiscation proceedings. On 23 April 2002, at the end of the hearing, he made a confiscation order in the total sum of £33,243,812.46, made up of £32,738,893.76 on count one and £504,918.70 on count two."

"As it is, for the reasons which we have sought to explain under issues one, two and three, we have allowed this appeal and quashed the confiscation order. It also follows that the judge’s second order for prosecution costs must also be quashed, but it is common ground that we reinstate his earlier costs order in the sum of £266,367.

In a case where the fraud has been as extensive as was proved and the appellant’s benefit as great as the judge found it to be, the result is an unfortunate one which, as we have said, we have reached with reluctance. Nevertheless, it remains our duty to recognise the fact that the judge in this case acted without jurisdiction. As has been remarked in a number of cases, this is a penal statute and its provisions have therefore to be strictly construed against the Crown.

At the time of making known our decision on 31 July 2002, we adjourned the Crown’s application for leave to appeal so that such an application, together with any point of law which the Crown may ask us to certify, could be considered at the time of handing down this judgment."

[David1819]

Di Stefano's work for Van Hoogstraten.

"Nicholas van Hoogstraten was wrongly convicted on July 19, 2002 of manslaughter in the July 2, 1999 shooting death of business associate Mohammed Raja who alleged fraud against Hoogstraten. The jury acquitted Hoogstraten of murder, but convicted him of manslaughter, and he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. On July 23, 2003 the U.K.'s Court of Appeal quashed Hoogstraten's conviction on the basis the trial judge had misdirected the jury as to what the prosecution had to prove before they could convict of the offence of manslaughter. The appeals court remanded the case for a retrial, and Hoogstraten was conditinoally released. In November 2003 the trial judge heard arguments related to a motion by Hoogstraten to dismiss his indictment. On December 2, 2003 the judge issued his ruling that the case could not proceed to trial because even accepting as true all the facts alleged by the Crown, the jury would not in law be entitled to conclude that Hoogstraten was guilty of manslaughter. The Crown's prosecutors appealed, and on December 8, 2003 the U.K.'s Criminal Court of Appeal ruled it didn't have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. On December 9, 2003 the indictment was dismissed."

https://forejustice.org/db/Hoogstraten--Nicholas-van--.html


Reading on both these cases (Palmer and Hoogstraten). Both these appeals took place before the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office was established. It wouldn't surprise me if the Judges involved bathed in a large chunk of the appellants ill gotten gains.

[Cambridgecutie]

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/past-times/4845323/john-palmer-brinks-mat-gold-gleneagles/

I might take seriously GDS's claims if I could find some official court doc supporting his involvement.

To my mind the guy comes over as a complete idiot  I really cant see UK authentic legal people not seeing through him.  He sounds totally idiotic in the vid. 

Would not touch him with a barge pole.  Reminds me of Paul Harrison; another charlatan.

[Cambridgecutie]

I have been reading the appeal that DiStefano worked on for John Palmer. Overturned due to a defective legal notice.

"In the circumstances, the judge proceeded to hear the final stage of the confiscation proceedings. On 23 April 2002, at the end of the hearing, he made a confiscation order in the total sum of £33,243,812.46, made up of £32,738,893.76 on count one and £504,918.70 on count two."

"As it is, for the reasons which we have sought to explain under issues one, two and three, we have allowed this appeal and quashed the confiscation order. It also follows that the judge’s second order for prosecution costs must also be quashed, but it is common ground that we reinstate his earlier costs order in the sum of £266,367.

In a case where the fraud has been as extensive as was proved and the appellant’s benefit as great as the judge found it to be, the result is an unfortunate one which, as we have said, we have reached with reluctance. Nevertheless, it remains our duty to recognise the fact that the judge in this case acted without jurisdiction. As has been remarked in a number of cases, this is a penal statute and its provisions have therefore to be strictly construed against the Crown.

At the time of making known our decision on 31 July 2002, we adjourned the Crown’s application for leave to appeal so that such an application, together with any point of law which the Crown may ask us to certify, could be considered at the time of handing down this judgment."

Where's the evidence GDS was involved?