Talk:Vito Roberto Palazzolo

Comments

The US DoJ is actually on record as saying they were chasing the wrong guy, that he had nothing to do with narcotics itself and that they were satisfied he was not a member of the Cosa Nostra. This was as long ago as in 1988.

There are also several errors of fact. To cite a few: The first Swiss judgment was that of Ticino in 1985, not 1984, and he was sentenced to 3 years, increased on appeal to 3 years nine months in 1992. No mention is made of the two Swiss bankers Franco Dellatorre and Enrique Rossini, or the role of Paul Eduard Waridel - which was critical.

His first arrest on 20 April 1984 on warrant from Italy, acting on request of the US, but Swiss wanted to try themselves as the money transactions took place in Switzerland. No effort is made to explain how this came about.

The raid on the Franschoek farm was in 1998, not 1988; he returned voluntarily to Lugano to fight his extradition, and was then arrested by Carla di Ponte (who previously was married to Rossini's lawyer in the Ticino trial).

He was never ordered out of SA, but applied for and was granted SA citizenship in 1994.

De Pontes was convicted of fraud for forging Palazzolo's signature while Palazzolo was held in Swiss jail between 1988 and 1992.

None of this helps get a clear, true picture. It just adds to the confusion.

````

Ongoing Vandalism of Vito Roberto Palazzolo

For the past two years this article has been repeatedly vandalized by at least one user (fircks) and two IPs. Every time the vandal does the same thing - just adds comments to the wiki article voicing his opinion that the wiki article is biased/untrue/should be removed. You can see two examples at - here and here. Quaber (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure it is vandalism. This is a highly problematic BLP. It seems referenced, but the two items I checked were dead links and not so reliable websites. This article certainly needs some work.--Scott Mac 16:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How could that possibly not be vandalism? He is posting his personal opinions on wikipedia. Thats vandalism. No matter how badly an article is written, discussion goes on the talk page, and not the main article. Quaber (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If we have an article that is misrepresenting someone, or indeed libelling them, we can hardly complain when someone who is annoyed by that (or indeed is the subject of those libels) doesn't "play be the rules" when pointing it out. The correct response is to consider whether their complaint is justified, before treating it as bad-faith. It is more important to remove bias, libel or BLP violations than to bannahmmer someone who's not "doing things our way". See WP:DOLT.--Scott Mac 16:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He has been told multiple times, both on this talkpage and on his user talk, to stop- and he hasn't. I agree with you that this article can be improved, but fricks needs to stop vandalizing it. Quaber (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No. If there's blp violations in it, it is actually better in his "vandalised state" than how it is. Have you tried asking him to be more specific about his concerns with it?--Scott Mac 16:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, if I understand Scott comments correctly a supposed BLP violation is now an excuse to vandalize an article. Curious reasoning. Like I said before I prefer to keep out of the current discussion, because I initiated and largeley edited the article. Not that I do not stand with what I wrote, but I think it is better that other editors review and assess the article at this stage to prevent an edit war. However, I like to point out that Fricks has a serious conflict of interest problem as a self-confessed friend of the subject of this article. It would not surprise me if this has something to do with this article. Have a nice day. - DonCalo (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC) By the way, I restored dead links where possible. - DonCalo (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes. If an article is unfairly prejudicial to a living subject then a "friend" of the subject blanking it, or adding caveats would be perfectly reasonable behaviour. Maybe we'd prefer they went about raising concerns other ways, but why should they? Getting the article right is what matters. Now, I'm not saying the article is unfairly prejudicial, although a quick glance gives me concerns. The lead says "He is alleged to be a member of the Sicilian Mafia, an allegation he denies" - and I'm left asking "accused by whom?" The sources says the case was dismissed. I can't read Italian so I'm at a loss here, but it does need reviewing.--Scott Mac 22:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article needs attention, but I don't agree that the way to go about it is to edit the article as if it's a Talk page and add comments. If there's an assertion or assertions that violate BLP, then an editor can remove the assertions. An editor could even blank an entire section if the section violates BLP. But making the article itself an opinion piece is inappropriate and unnecessary. There are better ways to go about fixing the problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Don Cal and bias regarding Palazzolo

The wiki page you have written, as I say again and again, comes from unsubstantiated Press articles and is defamatory and slanted. You have, by your intonation, made Palazzolo guilty until proven innocent. The facts are otherwise, according to documented court evidence. If you wish to speak to me about this so that we can resolve this dispute, I would be grateful to hear from you at [email protected]. If you wish, even, you can meet Palazzolo himself. We have no fear of the truth, as long as it is verifiably true. Do whatever it takes to be certain of your evidence, BEFORE YOU PRINT IT. Because what you are doing in exceedingly injurious to a living man. (signed) Fircks (talk)

As an uninvolved reviewer, I don't know who Vito Roberto Palazzolo is. I have no opinion whether the article is right or wrong. My job is to prevent vandalism and Mr. Fricks set off our warning lights. I've not thus far labelled the changes as vandalism, but I reverted 3 edits that bordered it.

I can feel sympathy for someone wrongly maligned, but I suggest the right way is to apprise Wiki's office staff of wrongful statements. If it can be demonstrated the article is truly in error, I'll be happy to step in and do my best to support a wronged party.

best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I've asked Mr. Fircks for more information and to refrain from editing the main article for a short time. I don't know details of the case but one of Mr. Fircks links is a court document that Mr. Palazzolo has been granted an appeal, which will be heard beginning 5 May.

Judges often (but not always) stay sentences while appeals are heard. Perhaps we should mitigate our 'sentences' and words to reflect that uncertainty. I note editors here are sensitive to being fair.

I'm not an editor for this article. As a reviewer, I reverted edits that didn't follow Wiki guidelines. May I suggest that editors work with Mr. Fircks (and Mr. Fircks work with editors) to reach a leavening solution, extending a sense of fairness. My take is that many of you are already open to this.

I glanced at the Wiki article in Italian which is amazingly sparse. It does not mention the appeal (or much else), but reads:

Vito Roberto Palazzolo (born Terrasini, 31 July 1947) is an entrepreneurial Italian who resides in South Africa. He is believed to be a member of the Sicilian Mafia, which he denies.
When he moved to South Africa in the mid-eighties, he went by the name of Robert von Palace Kolbatschenko. He was a well-known Swiss banker also believed linked to Mafioso Bernardo Provenzano. In March 2009, the High Court in Italy confirmed his 2006 conviction of nine years imprisonment for collusion with the Mafia. (No mention of the 2011 appeal.)

I look forward to reading what you come up with. Best regards,

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Three times judges looked at his case in two countries, in Switzerland and Italy, while going to the highest courts. In other words in six trials he was convicted or the conviction was largely upheld. In Switzerland for money laundering and in Italy for collusion with the Mafia. These are the hard facts, whether you like it or not. - DonCalo (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

3 times the judges looked at his case! From the other side of the coin, consider the following

• The Swiss Federal court denied his extradition to Italy on the 20.03.1985, because there was no evidence on which to extradite him;

• The Swiss Courts gave Palazzolo a Nulle Prosequi (no prosecution) in March of 1985;

• For the same reasons (no evidence) on the 26th June 1985 the US extradition application was denied; on the 26th September 1985 Palazzolo was sentenced to 3 years prison in Switzerland as described "The same examining Magistrate did not consider that Palazzolo was associated with a Mafia organisation" - this was made final on 3rd May 1994;

• On the 10th April 1989 the Supreme Court of Rome annulled the warrant of arrest (issued in Palermo) without postponement, motivating it's decision as follows: “…the motivation for the warrant of arrest is invalidated by being illogical, incongruous and misrepresenting the facts”.;

• On the 25th Narch 1998 there was a letter from Interpol to SCO (Police) in Italy concerning the underhand nature of the relations between the S.C.O. and two South African Police Officials, requesting the return of documentation that had been acquired illegally by SMITH and LINCOLN, against whom criminal proceedings were pending for crimes committed in SOUTH AFRICA;

• On the 7th September 2001 - The Supreme Court of South Africa (Mr Justice Thring) rejected all charges brought by Smith and Viljoen ordering that they - “would never again in the future proceed against him with regard to the same faces referred to in the Order”.

• On the 14th March 2003 in the High Court in South Africa Judge Vermeulen acquitted Palazzolo of fraud (no evidence to support this) and of contravening the SA citizenship act, in the course of which he stated - "To institute a prosecution under these circumstances, several years after the event, boggles the mind. It astounds even more to discover that the decision to prosecute, was taken at the highest possible level, to wit, that of the National Director of Public Prosecutions. I am satisfied as far as both the main and alternative counts are concerned, that there is no evidence on which this Court can convict.";

• On the 12th August 2003 the Palermo Court set aside their warrant of arrest of teh 11th June 1985; On the 24th August 2009 the Director of Prosecutions in the Western Cape, Mr De Kock, wrote a letter to the Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions, admitting that he would help the Italian Authorities to extradite Palazzolo, saying: “At the abovementioned meeting it was inter alia also decided that I would do a draft application on behalf of the Italian Authorities for the extradition of Mr Palazzolo to Italy. That document is attached.”

• On the 14th June 2010 the Cape High Court of SA struck down the 6th attempt by the Italians for Palazzolo's extradition.

There is so much evidence counter to the allegations made against Palazzolo by the Press, and by Don Calo, we have a LONG way to go.

With thanks. 86.132.46.238 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't take issue with me; I neither like or dislike. I'm a neutral reviewer and know nothing about the case. As you may note, I've firmly reverted edits that would change the present article. That said, I can appreciate if someone feels unfairly dealt with or the article is out of balance. The appeals order appears genuine enough, so it's fair to mention it. It may be fair to say one thing or another is in dispute if it's properly documented. Simply be accurate, be fair.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have an issue with you. My comments were a response to Fricks constant denial of these facts. The appeals order seems genuine, I agree. However, when that was included in the article there was no reference. I also could not find anything on the internet at that time. That is why it was deleted. If there is a reliable secondary source to show that there is appeal order, I have no problem to include it. However, an appeal order is not an annulment of a sentence. - DonCalo (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Continued slander of Palazzolo by Don Calo et al

Our lawyers are working on the evidence we will produce for wikipedia to get rid of the unverified lies that Don Calo propounds, but until then:

Quaber and Don Calo talk of my "vandalism" to a wiki page. They talk about "removed crap". I get threatened by someone called Choyool. "This is a warning." he opines, "Don't do it again; if you don't understand why that kinda stuff is unacceptable, you probably shouldn't participate here." The Mafia Expert says, "In my opinion there is a big possibility that both firks and the ip are sockpuppets of palazozolo." (sic) (because the ip is in Namibia, where I was visiting Palazzolo at the time).

If you don't mind me saying so, and bearing in mind wiki rules about politeness - the intellectual integrity of the author and supporters of Palazzolo's original wiki page is highly questionable.

I don't mind about illiteracy but I mind very much the unverified slander. What they consistently ignore is the proof (documented court cases) which are the threads of Palazzolo's life story. I will show it, documented and proven. I have even given my email address ([email protected]) so that Don Calo can contact me, but given that the truth is not his aim, he has ignored it. As the saying goes - it is impossible to wake up a man who is pretending to be asleep.

There is only one thing now we can do, which is deal with and answer each allegation in turn. This I did when I "vandalised" their article. We will do this through the mediators, like I said.

So I reprint here what I wanted to publish as the Wiki page on Palazzolo, so that you can see for yourself. Fircks (talk)

Below, I intersperse responses to your comments, although I got tired after doing a bunch and stopped.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, and given the complexity of the case (allegations and counter allegations for nearly 30 years) I understand how you got tired. I will answer your questions in bold italics, indented.

Fircks (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia and documentary evidence on the life and times of Vito Roberto Palazzolo

This Wiki page on Vito Roberto Palazzolo (constructed by a man named Don Calo who never met Palazzolo and who's information sources are entirely newspaper articles), is a string of unsubstantiated allegations, inuendo and aspersions. Palazzolo's case is one of considerable injustice and Don Calo, using Wikipedia as his vehicle, merely echoes that. It is hard to understand his motives in defaming Palazzolo.

Editors on Wikipedia don't know the subjects of the articles they edit. That is not only normal, but it would be a conflict of interest if they did have a relationship with the subject - you have such a conflict.

• I approached Palazzolo 3 years ago to get information with a view to writing his biography and became a friend of his. In the same way that John Grobler, an investigative journalist, did (http://www.afdevinfo.com/htmlreports/peo/peo_44499.html). Grobler retracted everything that he had "unearthed" about Palazzolo, when he realized, quite clearly, that he was the victim of a witch-hunt, which he published as a comment in Palazzolo's website (http://www.123people.com/ext/frm?ti=person finder&search_term=john grobler&search_country=US&st=person finder&target_url=http://www.vrpalazzolo.com/?p=2346&section=blog&wrt_id=262). So, this comes from a journalist who investigated him, just as I did.

Unfortunately, not good enough. Is Grobler even cited in the article? The blog post isn't good enough. None of what you're saying is citable.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your points, to which I would say:

1. It is ironic that because I know Palazzolo's case intimately (and therefore the man behind the story), I have a "conflict of interest", whereas Don Calo, whose sources are newspaper articles and their allegations, is OK as a wiki editor.
2. John Grobler would now, like me, having learned of the injustice that is being perpetrated by the press and wikipedia (by default), have a "conflict of interest" and would be barred from editing Palazzolo.
3. He is not cited in the article but I mention him to describe the incongruity of Wikipedia barring professional biographers but authorising editors citing nothing but newspapers. If Don Calo looked into this subject properly he would see the other side of the story, but would then "know" Palazzolo and would be prohibited, therefore, from editing Palazzolo.

Assertions in Wikipedia are OFTEN backed up by citations to newspaper articles. This is also normal. As long as the sources are considered reliable and is not contradicted by another reliable sourcwe, then the assertion remains.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

1. I fully understand that newspapers are cited by Wikipedia and am awaiting the outcome of the court case in Joburg, South Africa against The Sunday Independent newspaper who wrote a scurrilous article about Palazzolo. The case was on the 5th April. I merely wish to point out that newspaper articles must be screened and verified and not quoted, in themselves, as proof. Which is why I have to bring you the facts of the defence in each case. As described by Norman Snitcher, one of Palazzolo's lawyers in South Africa, in a letter to the Ombudsman on 24th Jan 2011, regarding the SI article: "The fact that another journalist or forum (such as Wikipedia), published certain harmful allegations, does not absolve the Sunday Independent of critically evaluating those allegations before republishing them as fact or reaching a conclusion as to their veracity. In fact, the more harmful the allegations, the greater the imperative of seeking comment, so as to give the target the opportunity to refute the allegations."
2. I need to append documents here for you to read. How do I do that? They are transcripts of, for example, the Sunday Independent article.

Not sure what you mean by transcripts of a newspaper article. If they are on the web, you can give us a link to them. If they are in a paper source (not just paper but a real source), then you could scan them, but I'm not how you upload the scan file. Maybe Collect knows, or you can ask at the Help forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

1. By transcripts I mean that I couldn't find the article in the SI on-line but have a version of it in Word and PDF, from the lawyers. Still looking, however.

Fircks (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I get it. Newspaper articles can be used as sources. Which is the problem. As everyone knows, some newspapers feed off disinformation, especially Mafiosi stuff, which sells newspapers, and Palazzolo is the perfect fall guy, a multi millionaire Swiss banker born in Sicily. So the papers have a field day and what they expound becomes the TRUTH. And when Wikipedia regurgitate the more slanted versions, it becomes defamatory. This is where it get's complicated and this is where we stand and so I suggest a forum of sorts where I can explain to you and Wikipedia and the world what ACTUALLY HAPPENED, WHEN AND WHERE. This I can do backed up with proof, both of his sentences and his acquittals.

That's not going to happen. If you have Wikipedia-acceptable sources, cite them here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Are court rulings and affidavits from top lawyers (in Italy, Switzerland and SA) acceptable to Wikipedia? The affidavits are legal documents commenting professionally on the legal aspects of Palazzolo's case.

Generally not - they are considered primary sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

So - if I can labour the point: I can't quote what a judge said or the sentence he gave or the commentary of top lawyers, but I can quote the tabloid Press? This is the central point of this case: the fact that newspapers (and Wikipedia), feeding off each other, perpetrate the myth that Palazzolo was a drug dealer, or that he was in the Mafia, or that he fudged his nationalisation docs to get into South Africa, etc, all of which has been discredited in courts of law. But I can't quote the law?

Looking into Wikipedia rulings I see that it is actually about checking and verifying news articles before using them. See the following quotes from Wikipedia:

• Case by case - Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting.

• Check and analyse - Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

• Exceptional claims - need Verification - Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. (This comes under "Exceptional claims" that require exceptional, high-quality sources).

• Significant coverage - Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage. In some cases, notability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was notable, or because the controversy was notable as an event - both need considering.

• Specialised subjects - Where wikipedia breaks down is in very specialised subjects, where you have only a handful of experts and much of the common wisdom on the subject is wrong.

Notwithstanding - thanks for the opportunity to deal with this very important issue.

Fircks (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Website

Unable to defend himself in the face of this kind of Media driven speculation, Palazzolo has developed a website where every aspect of his case, including all court documentation and other evidence, can be found (www.vrpalazzolo.com).

Vito Roberto Palazzolo (Terrasini, July 31, 1947) is an Italian living in South Africa. Since he moved to South Africa in the mid 1980s he also goes by the name Robert von Palace Kolbatschenko. It has been alleged, among other things, that he is or was a member of the Sicilian Mafia. All of which he denies.[1]

He assumed these names, which are ancestral, in a bid to travel and go unhindered. See the section below entitled Burgersdorp and von Palace Kolbatschenko

I don't understand what you're saying.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• As Palazzolo he was being hassled a lot, wherever he went. So he changed his name to a combination of his grandmother (Princess Kolbatschenko) and the German version of his name (von Palace). Apropos Burgersdorp - when he got Ciskei residency (a state within SA) in 1986, the closest their computer could give him, then, as a place of birth was Burgersdorp, in SA. Which the papers ran with, saying that he had tried to effect a Burgersdorp birth, whereas he was born in Sicily. There is no reason for him to have tried to do this. It was a clerical error. So Don Calo ran with it too.

Okay, but what's your source for this?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

1. The Press rectified it, apparently, when they discovered that the Ciskei computer wasn't formatted for foreign place names. I will get hold of the proof.

Fircks (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Court cases:

In March 2009, the highest court in Italy confirmed a 2006 nine-year sentence for collusion with the Mafia.[2]

Since 1985 there have been a multitude of court cases and sentences for and against him. Notably here Don Calo omits the fact that on 3 December 2010, in regard to the resulting extradition request from Italy, the Cape High Court interdicted the South African police from arresting him, pending further proceedings in that Court. And on 16 December 2010 an Italian Appeal Court in Caltanissetta admitted a review application with regard to the Palermo conviction. This is a very rare judicial intervention and a full review before the Court will be heard on 5 May 2011.

Where is the source for December 3 action? What does the December 16 2010 document (which is a [[WP:PRIMARY}primary source]] and generally not acceptable at Wikipedia) really mean? If something is going to be heard on 5 May 2011, then there will be news on a finding. As far as I can tell, it's just a preliminary action by that particular court.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Corleone Mafia:

He is alleged to be a Mafia treasurer linked to Bernardo Provenzano, the Mafia boss arrested in April 2006 in Corleone, Sicily, and his predecessor Salvatore Riina, both serving life sentences in Italian jails.[3][4]

The Corleone are considered to be extremists amongst the Mafia and this rumour, like all others, has never been substantiated. One source was the testimony of a man named Antonino Giuffre, a State witness, who also claimed that Palazzolo managed the Sicilian Mafia's interests in the drug trade in Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, Canada and the Far East. Guiffre admitted in court that he never met Palazzolo and his "evidence", as evinced by a letter from the Attorney General in Palermo in March of 2005 [1] . produced nothing. Neither had he mentioned Palazzolo in his first informative memo (issued within 108 days from when he becomes a State witness) which, by Law, he cannot change or add to. All of which is covered in a memorandum by the advocate Baldassare Lauria on 13th May 2009.

On your last reference (pdfonline), I get a not found.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Money laundering accusations

Italian and US intelligence officers estimate that Palazzolo helped to launder more than US$1.5 billion in drug money through Switzerland.

An interesting extrapolation of the figure for which he was sentenced, in Dolus Eventualis (a vague legal definition pitched somewhere between intent and negligence), which was $6m.

Your source is poor. What exactly in the article assertion is incorrect, and what source supports your view?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Swiss sentences

A Swiss court sentenced Palazzolo in September 1985 to a three year prison term for money laundering, after establishing he was in control of some of the accounts where money raised from the heroin sales were deposited. The appeal court increased the sentence to five-and-a-half years in April 1986.

It was the same court (Cassation and Criminal Review) on the 5th November 1993, that amended their previous judgement, convicting him instead to 3 years and 9 months imprisonment.

Your source for the amendment?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The United States

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) considered him to be one of the top seven in the Sicilian Cosa Nostra..

What Don Calo omits is that this rumour originated from a speaker at the US Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa, and was immediately refuted by Louis Freeh, no less, the Director General of the FBI.

Your source?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Escape to South Africa

While on 36-hour parole from a prison in Switzerland he absconded to South Africa on a false passport – obtained from a fellow inmate at a prison in Lugano, Switzerland – and a holiday visa in December 1986.

In point of fact Palazzolo was at semi-liberty in Switzerland at the time and was awaiting the result of his review application, which in any case he won when he returned to Switzerland, voluntarily, in February 1988. Had he "absconded", as Don Calo states, he would have been charged accordingly, but never was.

You're making an assumption.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Burgersdorp and von Palace Kolbatschenko

Palazzolo travelled to the Eastern Cape, where National Party parliamentarian Peet de Pontes for East London had organised Ciskei residence for him. Palazzolo acquired Ciskei citizenship, and a new name: Robert von Palace Kolbatschenko, claiming aristocratic German lineage, born in Burgersdorp.

Palazzolo has aristocratic Norman Sicilian lineage and his great Grandmother, Princess Kolbatschenko, was in fact German. Hence the name. As to the Burgersdorp claim, when they put in his place of birth the computer in Ciskei wasn't formatted for foreign place names and put in Burgersdorp by mistake. Which was later rectified but by the then the Press had got hold of it and so by default, Don Calo.

Your source?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Peet De Pontes

On the strength of a new passport in this name, he obtained resident status in South Africa – but all files relating to the application are missing.

The answer to this is that Peets de Pontes was convicted and fined R35,000 because, amongst many other things (including attempted theft from Palazzolo), he got rid of the files.

Your source?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

De Pontes maintained he was wrongly convicted – saying former minister of foreign affairs Pik Botha threatened in 1988 to "destroy him" after a photograph of Palazzolo and Botha together at an NP function was published in a newspaper. De Pontes said among the deals he and Palazzolo worked on was a 1987 sanctions-busting attempt to import submarines and jet fighters for the apartheid regime.

One wonders why, given the credibility of Don Calo's sources, De Pontes and he didn't include atom bombs in their arsenal for the apartheid regime?

Guns and diamonds

After inviting a Home Affairs official to his farm at Franschhoek, Palazzolo was granted a South African residence permit in December 1987. By January 1988, Swiss police had traced him and informed their South African counterparts. The South African Narcotics Bureau (Sanab) raided Palazzolo's Franschhoek farm, Terra de Luc, and arrested him - seizing 10 guns and diamonds worth 500,000 Rand together with documents indicating that Palazzolo had invested more than 25 million Rand in businesses in South Africa and Namibia. He was declared an undesirable person in South Africa and returned to Switzerland to complete his jail sentence.

The diamonds and guns were returned because they were fully documented and legal. There is nothing than can be inferred from this. He was never declared an undesirable person. He returned to Switzerland of his own volition.

Source for "of his own volition"?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Political contacts

In 1992, Palazzolo was reportedly living in a residence in Ciskei belonging to then-military ruler Oupa Gqozo, but soon he was back in South Africa. The Cabinet, headed by president Frederik Willem de Klerk, approved a new South African residence application in March 1993 although at the time Palazzolo was the subject of an Italian extradition warrant, according to the magazine Africa Confidential. In September 1993, De Klerk's government issued a passport to Palazzolo.

The extradition request had been refused because it dealt with the same facts (Double Jeopardy) that had been laid to rest, already, in Switzerland. And it was Mr. Mandela who gave him citizenship in 1994, not De Klerk in 1993.

Source?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Blackmail

According to some sources Palazzolo allegedly blackmailed former foreign minister Pik Botha with photographs showing Botha in a compromising position in bed with a black woman. The photographs are said to be in the possession of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA). Botha has said the claim was "absolute rubbish" and threatened a R10 million lawsuit against the Mail & Guardian.

When considering the depths of speculation that Don Calo plumbs when he writes this paragraph, Pik Botha's words, "absolute rubbish" and his "R10m lawsuit", look entirely appropriate.

Business interests

Palazzolo quickly ingratiated himself with the National Party when he arrived in South Africa in 1986 and also successfully wooed many in the African National Congress (ANC) long before Mandela’s party won the 1994 election, which definitively ended the Apartheid regime. Palazzolo established businesses in Southern Africa, ranging from bottled water to diamond prospecting. His interests are represented either through his sons Christian and Pietro, or through the Von Palace Kolbatschenko Trust. The trust, with offices in Cape Town, is affiliated to Palazzolo's Cape International Holdings, registered in the British Virgin Islands.

Palazzolo administers his businesses directly himself, and the VPK Trust is a family Trust.

Source?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Among the approximately 20 companies allegedly linked to him are Anglo-Cape Diamonds, Von Palace Cutting Works and La Vie Mineral Waters. One big foreign deal involved taking a 15% stake in a valuable Angolan diamond concession. Since a tax audit on him started in September 1997, he has argued that his only business enterprise in South Africa is the Franschhoek farm, and that he has no other tax liabilities in the country.

Palazzolo has acted and still acts for more than 20 companies worldwide; he is a financial consultant to various mining enterprises and sometimes if the client is short of funds, he accepts some participation in form of shares or equity in projects.

So?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Heading a Mafia "family" in South Africa

Investigations into Palazzolo restarted in 1995 when police in the Cape received inquiries from Italian police, who were after Mariano Tullio Troia, a Sicilian mafioso wanted for the murder of Salvatore Lima, an associate of former Italian prime minister Giulio Andreotti. A March 1998 briefing compiled by Western Cape police intelligence said Italian police claimed Troia was being harboured by Sicilian Salvatore Morettino, a naturalised South African citizen living in Houghton. The Italian police also gave information of contact between Palazzolo and a prominent Sicilian mafia boss, Giovanni Brusca, convicted in Italy for the murder of Antimafia prosecutor Giovanni Falcone. The document alleged that Palazzolo was believed to head a Mafia "family" in South Africa. Apart from Troia, Mafia suspects Giovanni Bonomo and Giuseppe Gelardi were given refuge by Palazzolo in South Africa and Namibia after they escaped arrest in Italy. Italian police travelled to South Africa, where they confirmed the presence of a number of mafia suspects and "the existence of a well-knit network of corrupted South African officials that protect the Italian fugitives".

The above lies came from the PITU (presidential Investigation Task). Bonomo & Gelardi were not fugitives from Italian Justice when they travelled to SA. Troia is the cousin of Dr. Morettino and, since he the day he got married in Johannesburg, has never set foot in South Africa. When he was arrested in Palermo they found a baby born of the woman who had hosted him since becoming a fugitive. It was unlikely that he had the time or the opportunity to have slipped away into hiding, meanwhile, in South Africa. All of these were fabrications by police officials in South Africa who cashed in on the story, paid out by the Italian State Police. The absurdity of which was illustrated when the police raided a house where Troia was supposed to be hiding, where they found instead a law abiding, ordinary South African citizen, who reported them to the Police! The Italian Police were thoroughly embarrassed by this and were ordered by the Attorney General in Palermo to fly back to Italy immediately.

This all sounds like original research.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

More judicial inquiries

In November 1999, Palazzolo was arrested in connection with fraud and forgery charges relating to his South African citizenship. Home affairs officials discovered that it was issued fraudulently. He was released on a 500,000 rand bail, but re-arrested at his Bantry Bay home in Cape Town in March 2000. In March 2003, he was acquitted of contravening South African law when applying for citizenship in 1994. The judge criticised the Directorate of Public Prosecutions for wasting the court's time with cases they could never win.

The High Court rebuked the Directorate of Public Prosecutions for bringing this case in the first place, told them to withdraw it and to apologise to Palazzolo.

Source?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Investigators also probed Palazzolo's alleged role in money laundering through Liechtenstein companies and trusts and requested legal assistance from authorities. An international cooperation granted by the regional court in Vaduz in March 2000 has been ruled invalid. Following an agreement between lawyers for the state and Palazzolo, the Cape High Court ordered that the state "shall forthwith withdraw the requests for mutual legal assistance to Liechtenstein and Switzerland respectively and also any similar requests made to any other countries since 1999". This means investigators cannot access documents, computer data and other information obtained from four companies and trusts based in. The material was seized and sealed after the Vaduz court approved the cooperation request, stating that "for the period from 1986 to present, the South African investigation authorities have managed to trace approximately 90 transactions to a total of approximately R101,5-million". The Vaduz court decision filed in the Cape High Court said there was a "shrewd scheme" to conceal money flows of millions of dollars into the control of Palazzolo. Reference was made to various offshore accounts, including suspected "Cosa Nostra accounts" and several other companies based outside South Africa.

It is hard to know what Don Calo is alluding to, suffice it to say that Palazzolo's money was released by the Attorney General of Switzerland and declared in writing that the money was clean and did not originate from any crime.

Source?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Convicted in Italy

This section has been covered in Court Cases above, which list the latest, relevant cases. There is no space to list all his cases which are very complex and long winded so to mention just a few aspects (like Pentiti or State Witnesses, as Don Calo does) is a misrepresentation of Palazzolo's case.

Palazzolo's denials

Palazzolo has always denied that he is involved in organised crime, has any links to the Mafia, nor enjoys close relations with politicians in the government. 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," Palazzolo maintains.

Public relations adviser?

He hired a public relations adviser, Aldo Sarullo, a former actor, playwright and director, who advised Palermo's Antimafia mayor, Leoluca Orlando, and later Silvio Berlusconi's party Forza Italia, to change his image as Mafia boss.

Palazzolo did not hire Aldo Sarullo, nor ever considered hiring him.

Denials

In an interview with the Italian news agency ANSA in July 2009 he denied to be the so-called treasurer for former Cosa Nostra bosses Riina and Provenzano. He said that "for me it is a great dishonour to be considered the treasurer of Riina and Provenzano, two of the biggest criminals Italy has known. It is shameful to be accused of managing the wealth of these two men, whom I have never met. Perhaps others are proud of being associated with them, like state's witnesses, but not me." He challenged "the Italian police or any police, even the secret service, to produce one single transaction I am alleged to have carried out on behalf of Provenzano or Riina." Palazzolo claims he had been "persecuted" by Italian magistrates based on testimony given by crime figures who had turned state's witnesses.

Extradition denied

In January 2007 the Italian government requested the extradition of Palazzolo after the nine-year sentence was handed down by the Italian court for collusion with the Mafia. This was the sixth request from the Italians since 1992. In June 2010, the High Court of South Africa blocked the extradition of Palazzolo due to lack of double criminality requirement as South Africa does not recognize the crime of Mafia association as conceived in Italy. Moreover, the Court also found double jeopardy as Palazzolo had already been acquitted of Mafia association in 1992 by a court in Rome. For the Italian authorities Palazzolo remains a fugitive from justice.

This paragraph is largely illiterate. What Don Calo means is that the High Court of South Africa denied Palazzolo's extradition because of the principle of Double Jeopardy, which is the principle that no man or woman can be tried twice for the same crime. Ergo, Palazzolo had already been tried in Switzerland in 1985, for the same facts. Likewise, his acquittal in Rome in 1992.

Palazzolo Website

In September 2010, Palazzolo opened a website to counter the allegations against him. He maintains that he is wrongly persecuted by the Italian judicial authorities. According to Palazzolo he is the victim of "a politically-charged vendetta that has been waged against me by lawyers, crusading politicians, journalists and opportunists who have climbed onto the bandwagon. It is based on a scourge of hearsay, aspersions, half truths, legal twists, inventions and total fabrications. The rule of law has been subverted for the principle of 'success' in the war against crime. Justice has become about newspaper headlines. The political careers of the leading lights in this war have taken on a life of their own, overriding any legal obstacles in securing a conviction against me. I was scooped up in their nets and dished up to the media as proof of their success in the fight against organised crime."

Fircks (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is a mess

I reduced the lede to a rational lede, but a lot of this article needs to be toned down even if the subject is thoroughly despicable. Collect (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The article needs three things. First, we need to eliminate preliminary facts related to crimes. For example, we shouldn't have allegations of wrongdoing or reports of investigations into wrongdoing. At a minimum, we shouldn't report on anything until there is some official action akin to an indictment in the U.S. Many people allege many things, but for BLPs, it's premature to report on that when it's at that stage. Even investigations by governmental authorities are generally only investigating allegations of wrongdoing. Once someone is actually hauled into a court or a court-like proceeding, we can report on it. Second, once we've weeded out all that stuff, we can make sure that all of what's left is reliably sourced. With a BLP, when reporting on a criminal-like activity, the source has to be strong, or there has to be multiple sources that are moderate. Third, when that's all done and we see what we have left, we need to organize it so someone can follow it - at the moment, it's incredibly hard to follow.

I don't mean to make light of the undertaking - it requires some work, and more work than usual because many of the sources are in Italian, which, at least for me, means I have to translate them, always an approximation of what they actually say.

As for the lead, I'm going to change the wording of his defense because I think it's both too broadly and too narrowly worded at the moment. Very hard to digest his assertions, though, into one sentence.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am answering the questions you posed above. But regarding Preliminary facts, yes, we need a clear cut resume of all charges, court cases and judgements, many of which span many years. For example - Palazzolo's court case in Switzerland began on 14th Nov 1984 but was finally put to rest on the 3rd May 1994, after many added allegations and judgements. The same applies to the SA saga. Which gives Don Calo every opportunity to write that Palazzolo allegedly committed many heinous crimes, whereas he was accused of many things but never charged with anything except "dolus eventualis" (in Switzerland), which lies somewhere between intent and negligence. My sources are the court judgements and affidavits from about 5 international lawyers who comment on his saga from Switzerland, through Italy and to South Africa. There is no conjecture and I am at your disposal to present whatever information you need to know, for or against Palazzolo, at any time.

Fircks (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all -- read WP:BLP and WP:RS. Add WP:LEDE as well. Then adhere scrupulously to them. Note particularly that court documents and affidavits are "primary sources" and generally disallowed in BLPs on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Collect. Fircks, you're not going to get anywhere here until you understand how Wikipedia works.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Answering wikipedia's requirements in BLP, Verifiable Sources, Association Fallacy and Lead

Firstly thanks for your help in this case.

Having read the pages you mentioned I recognise that Palazzolo's case needs careful consideration and study by you. I will present it to you, according to your given rules. To make it easier can I email you (Bbb23) directly with my arguments? Would that not be simpler?

Nope, keep it on the Talk page so others can read it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Briefly, for now:

Writing style - I will concur.

Reliable sources - You say that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source." This is the central part of my argument with Don Calo. I have to say again that the tabloid press, particularly in South Africa, is absolutely not a reliable source.

I suggest you take your contention to WP:RSN.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OK will do. Thanks. Fircks (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Significant Coverage - In Notability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability), Wikipedia speaks of Significant Coverage: Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. This speaks for itself. Palazzolo needs significant coverage, which Don Calo does not provide.
• Exceptional Coverage - In Verifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability), Wikipedia speaks of Exceptional Coverage: "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. (This comes under "Exceptional claims" that require exceptional, high-quality sources)." This too is transparently clear. Palazzolo is the victim of a conspiracy (very hard to prove, for obvious reasons), and certainly claims the fact, in court.
• Specialised subjects From How accurate is Wikipedia? (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/10/wikipedia.php): "My very tentative conclusion, based on a just few sample queries, is that I hope no one relies on Wikipedia for anything very important. Its entries seem to be a strange mix of accurate statements and egregious errors.... Where wikipedia breaks down is in very specialised subjects, where you have only a handful of experts and much of the common wisdom on the subject is wrong." Palazzolo is a very specialised subject.
• Casual innuendo From Reliability in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia) the effect that Casual Innuendo in Wikipedia can have on the life of a living person: "Here's an article about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel, defamation, or smear. It won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person, and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia."

Systematic Bias - Also mentioned in Reliability: "Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, which is to say its general nature leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices." This also applies.

Multiple, non-trivial published works - Also mentioned in Reliability and "Notability of article topics", comes a comment from Timothy Noah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Noah) - To be notable, a Wikipedia topic must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." This is not the case with Wikipedia's Palazzolo.

Avoid gossip and feed-back loops - This is also mentioned in Reliability, this is the Information Loop where poorly sourced or biased information is fed to newspapers as fact, taken up by Wikipedia and fed back to newspapers, in turn. This applies.

Weasel words abound in Don Calo's article ("words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated")

Palazzolo “is regarded as a notorious Mafia ‘banker.’”

Palazzolo “is considered to be a member of the Sicilian Mafia.”

“The (FBI) considered [Palazzolo] to be one of the top seven in the Sicilian Cosa Nostra.”

Miss-use of Primary sources

Trial transcripts - We are advised not to use "trial transcripts and other court documents", because they are primary sources. Hard to understand how a court judgement, which is an in depth study of the rights and wrongs of any subject, and is not directly involved in the subject, is inadmissible.

Secondary sources - are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. Surely then a court case, which analyses the subject (Palazzolo), is a secondary source.

Affidavits - Surely affidavits written by lawyers (who have to be professionals with integrity, by definition) about the subject, are admissible as secondary sources? There could be no more judicious and balanced document then an affidavit of this order.

Primary sources, including "court cases", generally require interpretation. That's why they can't be used. Affidavits are part of court cases. Same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A judgement is an interpretation of events, after very serious consideration in a disciplined, transparent environment. It is that published (public) documentation, weighing the pros and cons, or both sides, that living people deserve in their biographies. Newspaper articles are interpretations of court cases, for example, but are removed from the source and can and do nit-pick their facts. Take my points answering Don Calo's allegations, 1 to 4, below, for example. They came from newspapers, but failed to mention the obverse facts.

What we have is a highly sensitive, very complicated, nuanced case here, requiring Exceptional, Specialized and Significant Coverage (see above). One man using the Mail & Guardian as his source for information is not up the high standards that Wikipedia set. It is impossible. Fircks (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Avoid victimization

This paragraph speaks for itself, though I have highlighted the sections that apply to Palazzolo:

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

Fircks (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will study the pages you mentioned and edit accordingly. I admit I am not expert in this field. It is vitally important, however, for the sake of verity, and wikipedia's integrity, that you check out the other side. Just as a small example, see what I have to say about Don Calo's allegations below:

Fircks (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is not a mess

Frankly, I do not agree that the article is a mess. However, it is complicated because of all the trials and business affairs he has been involved in, in several countries (the US, Switzerland, Italy and South Africa) with different court systems. Basically, it boils down to the following facts:
1. Palazzolo's involvement in money laundering for the Sicilian Mafia (the so-called Pizza Connection). He has been convicted three times for those charges while going to the highest court in Switzerland.
- DonCalo (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Palazzolo was never convicted of money laundering. He was only ever convicted, conclusively, in Switzerland on 26th Sept 1985 of "dolus eventualis", a sentence which lies somewhere between intent and negligence, which the Swiss imposed because the Americans (Rudi Giuliani and Louis Freeh) were leaning on them. There is a long and complicated story behind this which dilettante's who read only tabloid newspapers can never hope to know. - Fircks (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Dolus eventualis" is not the crime, it is about how a crime has been committed. The conviction is about money laundering. Your allegations about the Americans are unfounded and unreferenced. Your comments about dilettantes and tabloid papers are childish and incorrect. There is a range of sources, including academic studies. - DonCalo (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming in here to discuss these issues. What I am saying is that the Swiss gave Palazzolo a "Nulle Prosequi" (no prosecution) when they looked at his case, at first. The Americans however wanted convictions. The Swiss, for historical hereditary banking reasons, did not. They wanted to protect the Swiss involved (Rossini and Della Torre, they were even embarrassed by Tognoli, the Italian/Swiss industrialist), but Palazzolo managed to get the Swiss to take up his case, whereupon the other guys had to be tried too. There was no escaping it. At which point the Swiss were angry because the spotlight was on Swiss banking and bankers; the Italian judiciary were angry because they didn't get their man (neither in Rome nor Falcone in Palermo); the Mafia were angry because their scapegoat had escaped; the Americans were angry but followed the rule of law and the principles of Double Jeopardy (ne bis in idem) and relaxed now that the Swiss had taken responsibility. At which point - the Swiss had to find something, somewhere on Palazzolo. Realizing there was no evidence that he ever knew he was investing money for the Mafia in late 1981 (for Tognoli, a client he inherited from the Swiss Bank who owned Consultfin with him) they shoehorned him into another law and said he shouldn't have given Tognoli his money back, AFTER October 1982 when he had been threatened by the Mafia, because he knew by then they they WERE the Mafia. For which they gave him 3 years.

THEN the conspiracy got into gear and they began going for him and they have never stopped, to this day, making one allegation after another, all of them proven, demonstrably, to be wrong. Which has been Palazzolo's odyssey and all I can ever do is appeal to you to see what happened, fact for fact, in time. This thing needs exceptional attention to detail and transparency. I am not, under any circumstances, going to whitewash Palazzolo. I have no reason to. Certainly I know him, just as I know his case, but if he is or was guilty then I wouldn't hesitate to throw him to the dogs.

The problem is that the dogs are attacking him and he has not been given a fair, transparent trial. Someone else, for reasons of their own, has sent in the dogs. I cannot stand by while that happens and so I ask of you and wikipedia that we find the correct forum to report his case (while he fights it in court, including the ECHR) fairly. In other words, don't just report that he was allegedly in the Mafia when Swiss, Italian and South African High Courts have said he was not.

I hope this makes sense. Tell me of any allegation ever made and I will either get you the answer with proof, or I have it now and will give it to you. It comes down to documentary evidence.

Fircks (talk)

2. His moving to South Africa and the fight over his residence permit and citizenship as well his sometimes somewhat unclear business dealings. - DonCalo (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Palazzolo was granted citizenship on the 10th August 1994 by automatic naturalization and there was never a single shred of truth in the allegations made against him, claiming that he had acted fraudulently when he got it, as evinced by the judgement of Justice Thring on 7th Sept 2001 (5 charges) and Judge Vermuelen on 14th March 2003 (1 charge) with the words - "To institute a prosecution under these circumstances, several years after the event, boggles the mind. It astounds even more to discover that the decision to prosecute, was taken at the highest possible level, to wit, that of the National Director of Public Prosecutions. I am satisfied as far as both the main and alternative counts are concerned, that there is no evidence on which this Court can convict. - Fircks (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody denies that Palazzolo was granted citizenship, but it is clear from your own comment that this has been disputed. Otherwise it would not have been before the courts. I don't see what the problem is. - DonCalo (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It was disputed, but as I can demonstrate to you, under very suspicious circumstances. As an invetigative writer you will find it interesting. I will get the details for you but must use what judges had to say as proof. Weird that a judge, having looked at everything, says something is fishy, but Wikipedia says you can't use that as evidence. Surely it's about context?

Fircks (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

3. The trial in Italy about collusion with the Mafia. He was acquitted in 1992 for membership of the Mafia, so he could not be tried for a second time for the same crime. That is why the indictment and convictions are about collusion – aiding and abetting – with the Mafia. He has been convicted three times for those charges while going to the highest court in Italy. During the trial several Mafia turncoats – who have been found reliable by Italian courts – stated that he was a member of the Mafia. - DonCalo (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• You say he was convicted 3 times but you have to mention the other side of the coin - on 28/03/92 the Supreme Court of Appeal (Rome) acquitted Palazzolo on the charge of Mafia association because the facts to prove such association “do not exist”. On 12/10/00 a Palermo court sentenced Palazzolo to 12 years imprisonment. However, that conviction was overturned on 22 July 2003, by an Appeal Court in Palermo and he was acquitted. On 09/01/04 the Supreme Court of Appeal in Rome ruled again in favour of Palazzolo’s appeal against a Palermo conviction of 2002 of Mafia membership.
• It's been a merry go round of judgements for and against. You can't just mention one side.
• Yes, he was acquitted in 1992 and so everything thereafter hangs on what the turncoats (or "Pentiti"/State witnesses) had to say. From The Court of Palermo Judgement of 06/04/04 - "It was underlined that the affidavits given by the informants Salvatore Palazzolo and Vincenzo Sinacori regarding the murder of Agostino Badalamenti, and those submitted by Francesco Di Carlo and Salvatore Ciulla regarding Vito Roberto Palazzolo’s alleged involvement in the “cosa nostra” were extremely generalised, so much so that the Public Prosecutor requested that the case relating to the Badalamenti murder be withdrawn, which was duly done on 7 August 2001; Di Carlo on the other hand, testified regarding events in 1977 relating to a Swiss bank account held by Salvatore Riina, which could not be further confirmed, while Ciulla testified regarding events that had already been examined by the Court in Rome, where the informant’s affidavit did not serve as proof regarding these events." Notice how many Pentiti there were and none of them had evidence that stood up in court.
• From the Attorney General's Office in the Court in Palermo 23/03/05 regarding Antonin Guiffre, the main witness against Palazzolo - "With regard to the request made under Note dated 16 March 2005, which is attached herewith, we hereby advise that the search conducted in the informative memo drawn up by the state witness Antonino GIUFFRE’ in relation to the accused Vito Roberto PALAZZOLO, has produced negative results." Nothing came of Guiffre's evidence against Palazzolo.

Fircks (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In the Swiss judgement in 1985 Palazzolo was acquitted of Mafia association “because the fact does not exist”. On the 10th April 1989 the Supreme Court of Rome annulled the warrant of arrest for Palazzolo from Palermo (Sicily) with the words, “…the motivation for the warrant of arrest is invalidated by being illogical, incongruous and misrepresenting the facts”. The High Court of Rome judgement echoed the Swiss in 1992, again, saying that "the fact did not exist". Since then nothing has happened except a string of allegations from "pentiti" (state witnesses) who made outrageous, bizarre claims, all of which have been discredited. And there has been proven collusion between the South Africans and the judiciary in Palermo. - Fircks (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

At the time the crime of Mafia association did not exist in Switzerland and consequently he could not been convicted. Your dismissal of the sentence of the Italian courts about collusion with the Mafia and silly conspiracy theories only shows that you, as a self-confessed friend of Palazzolo, are not able to separate the facts from your opinions. You have serious problem with WP:COI. - DonCalo (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

416bis - What you're referring to here is the 416 bis Criminal Code (Mafia association) and article 75 Law 685/1975 (association with the purpose of financing for narcotics trafficking) in Italy which, as of 09/09/90, the courts in Rome had jurisdiction over, while Palermo had jurisdiction over articles 71 and 74 of Law 685/75 (charges related to drug dealing).

Money laundering law - As you rightly say, the Swiss only made provision for the crime of “money laundering” in 1990. In the Swiss sentence, however, they mentioned the alleged Mafia connection: "The same examining Magistrate did not consider that Palazzolo was associated with a Mafia organisation..."

Italian charges against Palazzolo - So, lets go back to Italian charges and sentences to see what THEY made of Palazzolo and Mafia association.

• On the 28/03/92 the Supreme Court of Appeal in Italy acquitted Palazzolo on the charge of Mafia association (416bis) “because the facts do not exist”.
• They did, however, convict him for the crime of the criminal association in drug trading (article 75 Law 685/1975) and sentenced to him two years imprisonment, but the sentence was declared non-executable in recognition of the fact that he had already been imprisoned in Switzerland on the basis of the same facts.

Double Jeopardy between Italy and Switzerland - On 05/10/01 the Republic of Italy ratified the Cooperation Treaty between Italy and Switzerland. As a result of subscribing in this manner to International law, ergo, they recognised the judicial importance of other countries - on 22/07/03 the Palermo Court of Appeal judged that the criminal action against Palazzolo could not proceed because he had already been tried.

Criticism of 416bis - As to 416bis, which is a very broad net used by the Italians, often indiscriminately, from an article published in the Loyola International and Comparative Law Review, it was noted that: Italian Justice Department had admitted that Article 416 bis caused the boundary between members of the Mafia and innocent people to be obscured, and that numerous innocent persons have been indicted under the Article. The author points out that Article 416 bis is so broad that:“If a list of names contained the name of at least one convicted Mafia member, the State would identify it as a Mafia list. Unfortunately, since many Italians share identical surnames, it was not uncommon for prosecutors to inadvertently seize the wrong person … Eventually the Justice Department acknowledged that innocent people were being erroneously accused.”

My motive & Palazzolo - I stated from the outset that in the course of my homework on Palazzolo (to write a book) I grew to know him and, of course, to like him. That is inevitable if you want to find out the truth in a case; when you're looking for more than just second or third hand news articles (no offence to you). Previously, in order to describe the situation I am in, knowing Palazzolo as I do, I described the case of John Grobler, the investigative journalist in Namibia (http://www.afdevinfo.com/htmlreports/peo/peo_44499.html). He hounded Palazzolo (just as you are doing) but once he had "unearthed" the real story, which is that Palazzolo is the victim of a witch-hunt, he retracted everything and made an apology on his website. So, Grobler is not made up or paid off by Palazzolo; he is a moral crusading journalist who, when he saw what was happening, told the truth. I am in the same boat and, like I said, any whiff of untruth from Palazzolo and I will expose it. But I have yet to see anything you can stick on him. See Grobler's retraction and apology below.

"After having looked at all the cases brought to court – and all the information that has become available over the past 28 years – my impression is that there are very powerful people who wish to keep a sword hanging over your head. The problem of course is that there has been tendentious reporting on your case: from the first court to the most recent, the media has reported the accusations, but never the outcomes. And what is most shocking about this is that the newspapers, when alerted to this, simply refuse to hear your side of the story. The question is, why? Is it that they (the newspaper editors in question) have a hidden agenda, or simply a case of miss-placed false pride, that they cannot say “sorry, we were wrong, we’re sorry?” I am sorry for my own tendentious reporting – and will keep kicking this door until something gives…" - John Grobler, January 28th 2011

Fircks (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

4. The attempts of Italy to get Palazzolo extradited from South Africa, which are still ongoing. The problem here is that South Africa does not have something like Mafia association in their penal law, and Italy is asking extradition on these grounds. - DonCalo (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Herewith a few salient points about the long and complicated SA/Palermo saga, where I just want to point out a few of the suspicious elements that emerged. I dislike "conspiracy theories" as much as the next man, because they are invariably founded on imagination and not fact, but this stuff you can check and double check for yourself. Fircks (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Investigation" - After the 2nd warrant of arrest (19.02.97), an investigation was ordered into his affairs in South Africa by ex-President Nelson Mandela. No-one knows who originated this "investigation", or advised it, designed as it was to establish the truth behind allegations like the association to commit a crime, and international money laundering. For which he had already been acquitted. Onto which they tacked the allegation that he had been abetting the “fugitives from justice” Bonomo and Gelardi. The sum total of this investigation is that 07.09.01 Judge Thring and then on 14.03.03 Judge Vermeulen, both angrily threw out the case (see below) because there was no evidence. Their plan had backfired.

The police and criminal activity - Occasionally it happens that the law enforcers need enforcing, but Palazzolo had more than his fair share of it. The investigation was entrusted to the Attorney General of the Republic of South Africa Advocate Bulelani Nguka, who handed it to the Attorney General of Cape Town, who took on oath the statements made by the Police officers Smith, Viljoen and Lincoln, all of whom were corresponding illegally with the Sicilian authorities at the time. Later all these police officers were charged with different crimes, committed in SA.

6 Charges - In the meantime, however, using their sworn statements, Palazzolo was charged with 6 different crimes. Palazzolo charged the DOJ, in turn.

No evidence and Italian sources - The investigations established that the reports prepared by said Police Officers (Smith, Viljoen and Lincoln) were baseless. It was further established that the sources for the charges came exclusively from the Italian investigators and the media. This was embarrassing for the Department of Justice (DOJ), naturally, and so they hastily made a plea bargain proposal to Palazzolo whereby he withdraw the case against them in return for which the Supreme Court would withdraw it’s charges, under points 1 to 5, against him.

Never again - Furthermore, they gave an undertaking to never again subject him to anything like those charges again. This order was issued on 07.09.01 by Judge Thring of The Supreme Court of South Africa, Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division.

Boggles the mind - This left one charge outstanding, no.6, regarding his acquisition of citizenship, which was still subject to a hearing which, when it was heard, on 14.03.03, a year and a half later, Judge C J Vermeulen acquitted Palazzolo in full and said as follows: "To institute a prosecution under these circumstances, several years after the event, boggles the mind. It astounds even more to discover that the decision to prosecute, was taken at the highest possible level, to wit, that of the National Director of Public Prosecutions. I am satisfied as far as both the main and alternative counts are concerned, that there is no evidence on which this Court can convict." Nothing could be clearer than that ruling, and yet the media can't find it or refuse to find it or ignore it.

Prison and the mental institution - As for the police officers: Lincoln was subsequently sentenced to nine years imprisonment (for which he was later acquitted), while Smith, after he had resigned from the Police Force, was admitted to a criminal mental institution.

Interpol warnings - It is worth mentioning that the Sicilian authorities had been warned by Dr. Bruce, Director of Interpol in Pretoria, and by the Head of the Legal Office of Interpol in Pretoria, Advocate G. Joubert, that not only were Smith and Lincoln facing criminal charges in South Africa, but they were not authorised to provide documents and cooperation outside of diplomatic channels.

Despite this, the Sicilians continued in their crusade to get Palazzolo, no matter the rule of law.

Smith and his "mental illness" - Smith refused to give his testimony in Cape Town, citing his alleged mental illness, as certified by a psychiatrist. But he did not make a similar decision when they asked him to give testimony during court proceedings in Palermo. As stated in the Palermo Court judgement of 05.07.06 - "This decision was fully motivated by Smith, who stated that his condition of psychological stress was directly connected to the investigations conducted into Palazzolo, and that the different location and conditions under which he would testify in Italy, would allow him to testify freely and calmly."

Smith gave evidence in Palermo but not in South Africa - In this manner Smith was then able to restate his statements (which had been deprived of legitimacy in South Africa under the order of 07.09.01) in Palermo which, had they been made to the South African Authorities, would have led to criminal consequences.

Too fragile to testify in SA but made it to Palermo - From the self same Court document in Palermo on 05.07.06, there is an excerpt referring to Smith's sad mental condition which, if it wasn't so obviously fabricated, would be highly amusing: "...we note that this pathology was not an effort on Smith’s part to escape his duty as witness (so much so, that he volunteered to come to Italy and testify), nor is the fruit of a fragile psychological state, but rather the logical and human consequences of a concentrated attack that made him succumb as an investigator, but did not prevent him from giving evidence."

The comic irony - Very sadly, Smith "succumbed as an investigator" in South Africa (where his testimony was flagrantly illegal), but managed to give evidence in Palermo.

I will continue with this later. Thank you. Fircks (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again all I can do is echo the words of Judge Vermeulen "To institute a prosecution under these circumstances, several years after the event, boggles the mind. It astounds even more to discover that the decision to prosecute, was taken at the highest possible level, to wit, that of the National Director of Public Prosecutions. I am satisfied as far as both the main and alternative counts are concerned, that there is no evidence on which this Court can convict." Don Calo's allegations are unfounded and defamatory and he is defaming a living man, through wikipedia. He demonstrably doesn't know what he is talking about. You must restrain him and, subject to me learning the wiki ropes, I can tell you exactly why and where and how, fact for fact. - Fircks (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody denies that SA has denied extradition. The article just describes the facts and does not judge the decision. Again, I don't see the problem. - DonCalo (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been away and so am late getting back to you. Apologies.

• Your description of Palazzolo's South African odyssey, as well as many other aspects of your BLP, alludes to dark deeds committed by Palazzolo and the dark company he keeps, or has kept. This is a journalistic trick whereby you mention only half the story, the charge but not the acquittal, or the judgement following, perhaps years later, in a different court. In other words, readers never get the full story, but only your allegations. You may not be aware of it but the impression given by you of Palazzolo is a rather satanic figure, some kind of Machiavelli, which for an innocent man is a heavy burden. I have dealt with all of this before, exhaustively, at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo&curid=22646884&diff=423329354&oldid=423328427.
• Regarding SA, briefly, let me explain what I mean. For example you say: "On the strength of a new passport in this name, he obtained resident status in South Africa – but all files relating to the application are missing". What you are inferring is that he got residential status in SA by circuitous, devious means. And now he has effected the loss of the the files!

First of all he is far too intelligent to believe he could get SA residency by pretending to be someone else, and get away with it! He became von Palace Kolbatschenko because as Palazzolo he was being hassled a lot, wherever he went.

Secondly, as I explained to you before, and I quote, "Peets de Pontes was convicted and fined R35,000 because, amongst many other things (including attempted theft from Palazzolo), he got rid of the files." If you casually mention that the files are missing you are implying that Palazzolo arranged it, whereas de Pontes was a convicted criminal who, for his own sake, removed them. He tried to steal a lot of money from Palazzolo, believing, or hoping, that they would extradite him to Italy.

• Likewise your implication when you say, "De Pontes was fined R35,000 after being convicted of charges including fraud, forgery, and bribery, all linked to Palazzolo's stay in South Africa." Or that After inviting a Home Affairs official to his farm at Franschhoek, Palazzolo was granted a South African residence permit in December 1987. And "After testifying about his own cooked residence application, Palazzolo stayed in South Africa until late 1991, when he was ordered out of the country by the Department of Home Affairs."

Your implications are self evident and, given that Palazzolo is 100% innocent of those charges, demonstrably proven in court, they are defamatory.

• Someday somebody at Wikipedia will finally look at what I am saying, case by case, regarding your defamation of a living person, and will do something about it. This is NOT the arena in which to trumpet Palazzolo's innocence, but nor is it the arena from which to slander him and imply that he is a crook. In other words, he must be given a fair hearing, which means both the charge/allegation/accusation (such as "the files are missing") and the verdict ("de Pontes stole them").

All I can ask is, why you continue to do this?

Fircks (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Palazzolo's defense

User:DonCalo added the following material to was in the Extradition denied section:

The same month, September 2010, Palazzolo opened a website to counter the allegations against him. He maintains that he is wrongly persecuted by the Italian judicial authorities. According to Palazzolo he is the victim of "a politically-charged vendetta that has been waged against me by lawyers, crusading politicians, journalists and opportunists who have climbed onto the bandwagon. It is based on a scourge of hearsay, aspersions, half truths, legal twists, inventions and total fabrications. The rule of law has been subverted for the principle of 'success' in the war against crime. Justice has become about newspaper headlines. The political careers of the leading lights in this war have taken on a life of their own, overriding any legal obstacles in securing a conviction against me. I was scooped up in their nets and dished up to the media as proof of their success in the fight against organised crime."

The material is cited to Palazzolo's website.

I pared the material to one sentence: "The same month, September 2010, Palazzolo stated that he was being wrongly persecuted by the Italian judicial authorities."

DonCalo left the following message on my Talk page:

Hi, I do not want to start an edit war, but I strongly disagree with your deletion of Palazzolo’s declarations on his website in his own defense. You are perfectly aware that the neutrality of the article is disputed, and your deletion of Palazzolo’s version of the events does not help to maintain the balance. It would have been better to discuss your deletion on the talk page first and I would appreciate that you revert your edit and have a proper discussion before you unilaterally delete sensitive sections of the article. Thank you.

I'm not going to restore DonCalo's material for two reasons. First, we shouldn't even be including such material cited to the subject's website as it violates WP:BLPSPS (it is clearly self-serving). Second, it is WP:UNDUE: we should not include such a long quotation. The best solution to this dispute would be to cite his denial using a secondary source.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

First, it is not "DonCalo's material" but accepted text for a substantial time already. I don't understand the sudden urge to delete it. Second, I don't agree with Bbb23 reasoning. In this case Palazzolo's website is clearly very much related to the charges against him and on his site he gives his version of the facts, which is relevant. You call it self-serving; I call it balance. As for the WP:UNDUE; since when is the length of a quote a ground to censor content? Cherry picking among the rules does not help to solve the dispute, maybe we should use some common sense. If you can find a secondary source that might be helpful to find a solution; however, if you don't, I will restore the deleted text. - DonCalo (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand what you mean about the DonCalo's material comment. When I looked at your slew of recent edits, you modified and moved the material, and I thought it was an addition when it wasn't. Sorry about that. Regardless, the paragraph violates policy and is not subject to discussion unless you disagree with my interpretation of WP:BLPSPS. You shouldn't reinsert the text. Indeed, I should remove even the short sentence I have in there now, but I'll leave it for the moment while this discussion is ongoing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but whether something is subject to discussion or not is not up to you to decide. I don't see any attempt here to find common ground or a solution. My point is that I think your deletion has created an unbalance in the article. To resolve that you either (1) provide a relevant secondary source the restore the balance; or (2) the deleted text is restored. I am a little bit disappointed that you keep referring to bureaucratic rules to try to resolve this. Every rule has it exception. - DonCalo (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call BLP policy a "bureaucratic rule".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but could you answer to the more substantial issue at stake as well: How are you going to restore balance in the article? - DonCalo (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The only "balance" that existed was due to a policy violation (and, indeed, still exists, although not as big). So, there is no "restoration" involved. Nor is there a complete lack of balance because, at least for the moment, I am reluctantly leaving in the one sentence. If you want to find a secondary source that reports his denial in greater detail, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I still do not agree with your narrow-minded interpretation of the rules. However, in the spirit of building consensus and finding a reasonable solution I have looked for and found a secondary source that hopefully will resolve the issue and restore the balance of the article. I trust, given that you admitted that the balance was somewhat lost due to your intervention, that this will satisfy your somewhat unnecessary rigorous implementation of "the rules". Try to look into the content of the article next time, will you? - DonCalo (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

After looking at your change to the article, I was going to come here to thank you, but the incivility of your comments changed my mind. Don't worry, though, my distaste for your remarks won't alter my judgment that the paragraph is now policy-compliant and can remain.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel offended, but I don't quite understand why and what is "uncivil" about my remarks. I find your interpretations of the rules overly rigorous and narrow minded (which is something else than you personally - if that is why you feel crossed) and would have preferred a discussion on content and balance of the article. Anyway, I am glad we could resolve this ... (I wanted to add in a civil manner, but you obviously don't feel that way). - DonCalo (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)