Talk:Vito Roberto Palazzolo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Text removed from article on May 28, 2009

The text below was added originally to the main article by Fircks (talk | contribs). I moved it to the talk page. - Mafia Expert (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The following article on Vito Roberto Palazzolo is taken entirely from Press reports, making wholly unsubstantiated allegations against him. Without being precise, the article infers that he is guilty of multiple crimes both in Switzerland and in South Africa.

For the sake of the integrity of Wikipedia, which presumes to publish articles from verifiable, authentic sources, it is important to note that Palazzolo has never been charged with anything except, in 1985, having acted “in Dolus Eventualis”, which is a vague allegation “pitched somewhere between intent and negligence.” In an age when Swiss bankers resolutely never enquired as to the origin of monies received, they implied that he should have done so. That was all. He was also cleared then of any Mafia membership, as he was again in 1994 and 2004.

And – in the same vein - in regard to a recent court case in Rome (where Palazzolo was sentenced in absentia, for which see the last 2 sentences of this article), his defence team will be "denouncing the Italian Government at the European Court of Human Rights for the violations that have been committed with regards to Mr. Palazzolo; this application will be presented within six months from the date of the judgement."

What is evident therefore is that this article (written 24th April 2009) is merely a summary of the violations that have been committed against him for 27 years and in order to establish the truth, lawyers will take it to the highest court in the land.

Wikipedia is not the venue for a long, bruising argument about Mr Palazzolo and so another website is being written which will give every side of the story, including Mr Palazzolo's, and the link will be posted to Wikipedia as soon as it is complete. [END]

Good luck. Of course a link to Mr. Palazzolo's new website would be welcome. However, I think the article is balanced and is well referenced. It does not say that Palazzolo is a Mafioso but that he "is considered to be a member of the Sicilian Mafia", which is explained further in the article. It also includes Palazzolo's denial that he is involved in organised crime, has any links to the Mafia, or enjoys close relations with politicians in the government. It also says that: In 1992, a court in Rome had found him not guilty of being a member of the Mafia. "I was acquitted of Mafia charges, but I am always the 'alleged Mafia don' and it is disturbing to be portrayed that way to family and friends." If you have a better description, feel free to add it or change the current language. However, to avoid an edit war, it might be better if we find an agreement on the talk page before changing the article. - Mafia Expert (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I see that the person who wrote the Palazzolo article is a "Mafia Expert". Without wishing to denigrate his or her learning, there is much that is missing.

Primarily because, even though the article is now marginally more balanced, it is almost entirely gleaned from press reports, most of which - even if passing caveats regarding Palazzolo's claims to innocence have been added - were defamatory and presumed his guilt. Which is the central problem for Palazzolo or anyone like him, similarly impugned. Despite the fact that he was sentenced for nothing other than than possible "eventual intent" (Dolus Eventualis), and shoehorned into a different law because there were no Money Laundering laws in Switzerland at the time, the assumption and the tenor of everything written about him is that he is guilty.

It's easy to understand why this happens: he is successful, wealthy, charismatic and above all, he was born in Sicily. Which is the heady stuff that feeds peoples insatiable appetite for conspiracy theories, and sells newspapers.

He will go down in modern judicial history as a lodestar to misappropriated justice, not because he was unfairly sentenced (although that is true) but because he was tried, without recourse, by the press. That is where most of the damage is done and the wikipedia article, I'm sorry to say, is more of the same.

My own motive is that I am a friend of Palazzolo's and have studied his case at length and, more importantly, have witnessed the pain and anxiety that "kangaroo-court" injustice can bring. Fircks (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, press reports of mainstream media with a record of fact checking are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. He was convicted twice, in Switzerland and Italy, while going to the highest courts. Calling the Supreme Courts in both countries "kangaroo courts" tells me more about your lack of neutrality than mine. - Mafia Expert (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is really about finding a suitable medium through which to debate the issues concerning Palazzolo's case. However, within these narrow confines, I couldn't disagree with you more about the integrity of mainstream newspapers, even if Wikipedia accepts their authenticity. They are famously "skewed". Palazzolo is a case in point, which I look forward to laying out for you in my website, when it is up and running. Fircks (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, just for your information: He was convicted twice, in Switzerland and Italy, while going to the highest courts. You can keep ignoring that, but when newspapers report those facts, they are "skewed"? - Mafia Expert (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Convicted in Switzerland in "dolus eventualis", where they shoehorned his "crime" to fit another law, because they had nothing on him. They had to convict him of something, anything! Italian convictions only ever came from Palermo, which is corrupt to the core. Which would be like saying Morgan Tsvangirai of the MDC in Zimbabwe is a traitor, because Mugabe said so! All of which we will come to, in time. Like I said - this needs a serious and exhaustive medium for the debate. Fircks (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Three times judges looked at his case in two countries. In other words in six trials he was convicted. The Supreme Court in Italy is in Rome, not in Palermo. The comparison with Zimbabwe is ludicrous. Switzerland and Italy are not dictatorships. - Mafia Expert (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he was convicted, but every conviction - except for his conviction in Switzerland where they had to do legal gymnastics to find a law to fit his "crime" - has been overturned. His recent Roman conviction will be taken up in the European Courts.

All of which begs the question of why, once he'd been cleared of Mafia crimes (i.e. membership) in Switzerland in the 80's, he has been continually hounded from Palermo with convictions that, until May 2009, have been overturned in Rome? Notwithstanding the abomination of Double Jeopardy.

Switzerland obviously follows the rule of law, which is why his conviction was finalized and put to bed. One can argue it's legal merits, but never contest that it was above board. The same cannot be said of Palermo. Antonino Giuffrè is a case in point. Palazzolo has never met him or been to South America (where he claimed that Palazzolo ran the Mafia's drug interests) and the Palazzolo that Giuffrè refers to is Paolo Palazzolo, brother in law of Bernardo Provenzano. - Fircks (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Palazzolo bias and neglect of Italian corruption

Palazzolo is clearly being persecuted by resentful bureaucrats and corrupted judicial agents of true criminals here, eager to snatch his assets. Where is the background information here, on the corruption of the Italian magistracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.168.116 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, why should the opinions of anal-neurotic Swiss judges matter either? Why should successful businessmen always be harassed by resentful desk-job losers who envy their success? Shouldn't the world stop vilifying and persecuting the successful in life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.168.116 (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have problems with the article you can report them to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. - Mafia Expert (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a problem with the article, and I have a problem with pseudo-altruistic do-gooders and know-it-all prepubescent nonentities like the demography of wikipedia suggests.

Why is it always Italians (and Italy's cream of the crop, Sicilians) the trendy do-gooders vilify and microscope--what about all the little fraudulent WASP jerks with their trust funds? What about the corrupt Jew doctors and stockbrokers, huh? What about the violent bloodthirsty 8 foot Africans who are handed millions of dollars for dribbling a freaking basketball or smashing each other like animals on the football field? So why are Italians, and Sicilians in particular, always the object of altruistic wrath? If persecuting and violating the desired privacy of successful Italian-Sicilian businessmen like Roberto Palazzolo gives some perverts a righteous hard-on, the "altruists" should know their neurotic pleasures are not shared by others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.168.116 (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL Please watch the way you address your fellow editors. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Civility is a word bandied about quite mendaciously on this platform, Sir. Who really has "civil" intentions in the present case?

INFORMAL NOTICE TO WIKIPEDIA:

The sustainers of the basic human rights of this putatively, allegedly "MAFIA" party member, the minority so overwhelmed, are not the ones to have reasons to fear - slander and calumny of living persons by malefic editors, regardless of Wikipedia "honorific managerial status", on the other hand, these editors of distortion stand in the position of offenders to be managed by jurisprudence as initiators of violence to property, for, as all legal experts know, reputation is also a form of property.

Vito Roberto Palazzolo is alive and thus judicial rights stand "operative" fully, and his right to exist in tranquility has been systematically violated by a fanatical squad of obsessive Wikipedia editorial would-be officers of the sword, would-be executioners. The accusations against Palazzolo so unjustly thrown at his personage, are not light, venial matters and these libelous utterances constitute sufficient grounds for legal recourse.

Juridical redress of adequate nature owing to this wrongful damage of the property of a living person shall soon be sought, if Wikipedia does not review its editorial malpractice and rectify.

The calumniators, slanderers and detractors, etc., the whole band of denigrators here, are now judicially bound to answer for themselves and the unjust aggressors, if and when assigned punition, shall be coercively bound to produce compensation to the victim for the loss sustained as a consequence of the Wikipedia-enabled, Wikipedia-tolerated malicious falsification etc.

The blackening of good name of a living person holding the right to exist and live in peace, and whose innocence has been fraudulently rapaciously taken, shall not be left without re-vindication.

I have been more than civil, Sir.

The above message is NOT to be deleted (except to the aggressor's own self-harm), as, constitutionally (in American legal terminology) and per international humanitarian law and the protocols and codices of INTERPOL, etc., this subject is forensically now part of an ongoing case of jurisprudential investigation.

Information Wikipedia has purposefully ignored in favour of Vito Roberto Palazzolo

Dear Wikipedia Editors:

I wish to draw to your attention that Don Calo continues to distort and manipulate the article on Vito Roberto Palazzolo.

As reflected at http://en.wikipedia.org /w/index.php?title=Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo&action=history, at 4h36 on 10 January, the article was elaborated (revision 407013776), to reflect two December decisions of courts, one in South Africa, and one in Italy, At 13h47 that same day Don Calo undid the change.

As stated in my earlier complaint, Don Calo has effectively taken control of the article and in the course of last year was in the practice of immediately undoing each and every change made to the article. Essentially, Don Calo does not allow any other Wikipedia user to make inputs, which he maintains in a manner that is unbalanced, one-sided and defamatory, contrary to Wikipedia policy.

I repeat my request that the articles be, in terms of the Biography of Living Persons policy, deleted until a full investigation is conducted.

Sincerely,

Mallard11

Mr Palazzolo has recently won two important legal victories, one in South Africa and one in Italy.

On 3 Decehttp://www.vrpalazzolo.com/wp-admin/page.php?action=edit&post=2023&message=1mber 2010, the Cape High Court interdicted the South African police from arresting him, pending futher proceedings in that Court.

And on 16 December 2010 an Italian Appeal Court in Caltanissetta admitted a review application filed by Mr Palazzolo’s lawyers with regard to the Palermo conviction that formed the basis for the extradition request directed by Italy to South Africa. A full review before the Court will be heard on 5 May 2011.Italic text

Despite this, and other improvements, the overall tone and content remains slanted against Mr Palazzolo, and many of the correction we demanded last year remain to be effected. I am sending a reminder of these corrections, and unless they are very swifly attended to, we must invoke Wikipedia’s internal appeal process.

Fircks (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

removed crap

It seems that the following crap-

Information pertaining to Palazzolo's innocence, purposefully ignored by Don Calo and Wikipedia

Don Calo is the self proclaimed Mafia expert who has taken it upon himself to be the single editor of this page on Palazzolo, from which he has been excluding information regarding Palazzolo's recent legal victories both in SA and in Italy. Which, quite apart from the fact that it is unfair and harmful to a living person, goes against the rules of Wikipedia.

See the information below, denied by Don Calo.

Mr Palazzolo has recently won two important legal victories, one in South Africa and one in Italy.Italic text'

On 3 December 2010, the Cape High Court interdicted the South African police from arresting him, pending futher proceedings in that Court.

And on 16 December 2010 an Italian Appeal Court in Caltanissetta admitted a review application filed by Mr Palazzolo’s lawyers with regard to the Palermo conviction that formed the basis for the extradition request directed by Italy to South Africa. A full review before the Court will be heard on 5 May 2011.

Despite this, and other improvements, the overall tone and content remains slanted against Mr Palazzolo, and many of the correction we demanded last year remain to be effected. I am sending a reminder of these corrections, and unless they are very swifly attended to, we must invoke Wikipedia’s internal appeal process.

Dear Wikipedia Editors:

I wish to draw to your attention that Don Calo continues to distort and manipulate the article on Vito Roberto Palazzolo.

As reflected at 4h36 on 10 January, the article was elaborated (revision 407013776), to reflect two December decisions of courts, one in South Africa, and one in Italy, At 13h47 that same day Don Calo undid the change.

As stated in my earlier complaint, Don Calo has effectively taken control of the article and in the course of last year was in the practice of immediately undoing each and every change made to the article. Essentially, Don Calo does not allow any other Wikipedia user to make inputs, which he maintains in a manner that is unbalanced, one-sided and defamatory, contrary to Wikipedia policy.

I repeat my request that the articles be, in terms of the Biography of Living Persons policy, deleted until a full investigation is conducted.

Sincerely,

Mallard11

which was inserted also by user Fircks and 41.182.20.179 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo&action=historysubmit&diff=408791155&oldid=408195648 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.184.79 (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that this mafia guy doensn't make the fact that he isnt happy with this article a secret ( see http://www.vrpalazzolo.com/?page_id=1983 ). Id like to point out that the IP (41.182.20.179) that helped vandalize this article is from namibia, and fircks claims that he is a 'friend' of palazzolo. In my opinion there is a big possibility that both firks and the ip are sockpuppets of palazozolo. ill look into the history of the article and see what else i can find. 109.160.184.79 (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have cleaned the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo&action=historysubmit&diff=410153656&oldid=408791155 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.184.79 (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

user fircks has again vandalized the page as can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo&oldid=412545801 . I have reverted back. Quaber (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Continued vandalism by Fircks.

Recently, after seeing the vandalism that user fircks has done on this article for almost 2 years, I reported him and his vandalism to almost every noticeboard and any other possible location on wikipedia. Because of that, this article became protected and user fircks was warned mutliple times and asked to stop editing this article. Then this happened [1].

Just stop it fircks. I think he should be banned from editing this article already. Quaber (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How can Palazzolo get a fair hearing at Wikipedia?

What I would like to know is how and where can I get an editor, or editors, to consider Palazzolo's issue. He IS being maligned by Don Calo at Wikipedia but whenever I start a thread, in his defence, it disappears. What can I do about this?

There was a court case in South Africa concerning The Sunday Independent with (inter allia) wikipedia. I think it's important that Palazzolo gets a fair hearing. Can you help?

Fircks (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fircks (talk • contribs)