Talk:Everett Stern

Misleading article

The article creates a false impression that Stern is the whistleblower responsible for reporting information that led to the 1.9 Billion dollar settlement. This is not supported by the supporting article on the topic, a Rolling Stone article. This article shows that he was responsible only for making a report that led to a $32K settlement. The timing indicates that the 1.9 billion dollar settlement was already in the works when Stern stepped forward with his own separate complaint. See the court document which shows the HSBC had been sent a cease and desist order by federal investigators on October 6 2010: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4322267/3/3/united-states-v-hsbc-bank-usa-na/. But from the Rolling Stone article we see that Stern had only begun working at HSBC that month. He could not have initiated the investigation. Here's the article about the $32K fine apparently linked to Stern, which I don't see referenced here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-252B-3169. By saying that Stern is "the" whistleblower in the article, it creates the false impression that Stern's actions led to the larger settlement. No evidence is presented anywhere that he had any connection to that settlement. Further, the Rolling Stone article's source for much of this information seems to be Everett Stone himself. A thorough community review of the sources should be taken to see what claims in the article they actually support. 100.10.14.31 (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The article itself currently says (in the Aftermath) section that the settlement (apparently?) related to Stern's whistleblower complaints is "unrelated to the bank's December 2012 agreement". The government report on the larger HSBC case, which the article currently mentions but does not directly reference does in fact mention a whistleblower - from 2005. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/PSI%20REPORT-HSBC%20CASE%20HISTORY%20(9.6).pdf Thus, "the" whistleblower in "the" HSBC case can not possibly be Stern.

I will remove all references to the 1.9 billion dollar settlement as utterly irrelevant. Note that additional work is needed on the rest of the text to see if there are further implications wrongly connecting Stern to the earlier, larger HSBC investigation.

This article seems to be intended from its inception to create this false impression that links Stern to the 1.9 billion dollar settlement. That raises concerns about actual authorship and purpose. Battling McGook (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm also very concerned that someone purporting to be Mr. Stern has been active in the maintenance of this web page for years, and this misleading information has persisted here throughout it's entire history. Battling McGook (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Primefac I was NOT convicted of any crime in my entire life and that should not be in this Wikipedia. Everettstern (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Battling McGookYou are wrong. The 1.92 Billion dollar fine was a result of my efforts as I was passing information to the CIA and then to the FBI when I was at HSBC. You have no idea what contributions I made and the impact I had on the fine. Multiple credible news articles say I am responsible for the 1.92 Billion dollar fine. I am not sure how you are an authority on the matter. I was there at the bank and I did uncover billions of dollars of terrorists and drug cartel money laundering transactions. Everettstern (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an authority on the matter. And by Wikipedia rules, neither are you. The references are the authority, and if they don't say it, then Wikipedia doesn't say it. There is no reference that says you(?) provided any information that led to the larger payout. That investigation began at least five years before you worked there. The only sources I've seen that reference any whistleblower mention one from 2005. It certainly seems likely that your contributions were relevant to the settlement. But that's not enough to make that claim here. Likewise, no reference verifies your claim of personally uncovering billions in transactions. All of what you say may well be true. But again, if it isn't in the references it can't be here. Battling McGook (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

HiPrimefac (talk) My article is extremely defamatory and false. I am sincerely asking for your help and the other volunteers so it is accurate. A news story came out in the Daily Local for Chester County that was Defamatory. My lawyers are suing the paper. From this paper a couple of other news sources picked up the story. Many of since dropped the story after vetting. I plead guilty to 4 counts not of disorderly conduct which is a mistameanor, but I got summary disorderly conduct which is like a traffic ticket. It does not even show up in the FBI database. It is local to PA. The judge is backed by the GOP and slammed me as retaliation for testifying to J6 against Flynn. The judge is up for election. My lawyers are appealing the sentence as it is extremely over the top for a first time offender getting the equivalent of a traffic ticket. What is important is that the DA withdrew the impersonation charges because they were not true and there was no way they could get a conviction. It is not right that the article says witnesses said I did x because I was falsy accused and not convicted. I was convicted of summary disorderly conduct for making too much noise. Not impersonating an officer. Again the first article is grossly false and there will be a major lawsuit. Politics PA already took down the article as well as a couple of others. What is being done to me is horrible because false reporting is destroying my reputation. The judge never ordered me to have mental health treatment as reported in the article and now on my wikipedia page. I do not believe something the equivalent of a traffic ticket should be on the page. Or anything regarding my mental health which is fine. I was told to plead guilty and get what most people do and that is a fine. I will be appealing everything and the attorney general will have to get involved. This was politics and not justice. You will see this one author and the Daily Local has been successfully sued for Defamation before by other parties. What this reporter did was wreckless. I sincerely ask it is not reflected on the Wikipedia page. I worked so hard to make a significant positive difference and my name is being destroyed. Everettstern (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Defamation

Hi Primefac Nil Einne Drmies Marchjuly Robert McClenon My article is extremely defamatory and false. I am sincerely asking for your help and the other volunteers so it is accurate. A news story came out in the Daily Local for Chester County that was Defamatory. My lawyers are suing the paper. From this paper a couple of other news sources picked up the story. Many of since dropped the story after vetting. I plead guilty to 4 counts not of disorderly conduct which is a mistameanor, but I got summary disorderly conduct which is like a traffic ticket. It does not even show up in the FBI database. It is local to PA. The judge is backed by the GOP and slammed me as retaliation for testifying to J6 against Flynn. The judge is up for election. My lawyers are appealing the sentence as it is extremely over the top for a first time offender getting the equivalent of a traffic ticket. What is important is that the DA withdrew the impersonation charges because they were not true and there was no way they could get a conviction. It is not right that the article says witnesses said I did x because I was falsy accused and not convicted. I was convicted of summary disorderly conduct for making too much noise. Not impersonating an officer. Again the first article is grossly false and there will be a major lawsuit. Politics PA already took down the article as well as a couple of others. What is being done to me is horrible because false reporting is destroying my reputation. The judge never ordered me to have mental health treatment as reported in the article and now on my wikipedia page. I do not believe something the equivalent of a traffic ticket should be on the page. Or anything regarding my mental health which is fine. I was told to plead guilty and get what most people do and that is a fine. I will be appealing everything and the attorney general will have to get involved. This was politics and not justice. You will see this one author and the Daily Local has been successfully sued for Defamation before by other parties. What this reporter did was wreckless. I sincerely ask it is not reflected on the Wikipedia page. I worked so hard to make a significant positive difference and my name is being destroyed. Everettstern (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This is the worst COI request I have ever seen. Nothing in this article is defamatory. Denied. Quetstar (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a few of the requests have been implemented (see this user talk thread), though on the whole I would think that a bit more brevity in these requests is desired. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Primefac Nil Einne Drmies Marchjuly Robert McClenon Please remove the negative personal life section. I posted the mental health exam results on twitter and my legal team filed a Federal Lawsuit against the Daily Local Paper for Defamation as the story is False. Please remove the section as the paper or source is now being sued. Thank you for your time and help.Everettstern (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Everettstern, no. I'll tell you why. First of all, "the mental health exam results" means nothing at all here, since apparently the news story describes some legal proceeding. Second, what anyone posts on Twitter is really irrelevant in almost all cases, and it is particularly questionable if the subject of an article does that. Third, good luck with the law suit. I can't easily ascertain what the status of the Daily Local is, but from the looks of it it doesn't seem like a rag. You could, if you like, start a thread on WP:BLPN to discuss the reliability of the paper, but that would have to be done independently of this particular story, and so you would have to discuss things that are not you. Primefac, you know I appreciate your opinion--perhaps you take a bleaker view of this little local newspaper. Perhaps we should go over every detail and reference in this article and scrub whatever is not directly related to the subject--and then we might perhaps be left with something that does not meet our standard for notability. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I know you disagree with me politically on some matters, but the personal life section is libelous and according to the rules I am reading if there is a living person which has potentially libelous material in their Wikipedia then it must be removed. There is now a Federal Lawsuit against the paper hence the source and that should respectfully be taken into consideration. The mental health exam results are important because the Wikipedia says I am going for possible treatment. The mental health exam shows there is no treatment necessary. The emails are important because they are primary sources for what is out in the media or soon to be released by the press. Thank you for taking the time to review my request. Everettstern (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You don't know that at all, and my politics and yours have nothing to do with this. To plow through primary material and watch your videos and your press conferences, that is not how content is to be justified or removed. As a matter of fact, editors could also include this, and the same story is found here. To not include this one would have to argue (as I said before) that the news source is not a reliable news source--that someone filed suit against the paper isn't necessarily a disqualification. If that suit is decided in the way you want it, that's another story. But you are suggesting, if I read you correctly, that an evaluation was done (as announced in that article), so at least that part is correct. Plus, our article says "possible" treatment was to follow, pending the outcome of the evaluation I suppose--so that was also correct, was it not? Drmies (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You have always been a great help to me. You are a volunteer and have gone out of your way to help me time and time again. You are an expert in trying to make articles neutral and encyclopedic. This article is about me, but it is not mine. It is the communities. You are a guardian of that community as a top editor. I trust you 100 percent. If you say the article says it should be the way it is then so be it. I have no issue as I trust your judgement. Please forgive the links to the original sources on twitter and youtube. I am not a seasoned Wikipedia person and I am trying to navigate the best I can. I greatly appreciate your help and I fully respect your decision. There is no argument coming from me. Thank you and enjoy the rest of your weekend. Everettstern (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article has fallen into the "initial story is more interesting than the follow-up" trap that a lot of living subjects end up in. "Candidate impersonates someone, has to take mental health screening!" is an exciting headline; "Candidate is perfectly normal" is not, which is why the latter story never gets written. I see this a lot with married individuals: unless it is messy or otherwise dramatic, a divorce is almost never written about, meaning that we have some biographies that state someone is married when they are not. There's just really not much we can do about these things.

Regarding the inclusion of that material itself (per WP:WEIGHT and various other pages), it is an accurate summary of the provided information as it was at the time of writing (i.e. before the subsequent evaluation). Does it need to be in the article? The news was the alleged impersonation, but the outcome of the case rounds out the story (i.e. you weren't thrown in prison/etc.) and we need the second part in order to justify the first (as an allegation of wrongdoing without conclusion does get excluded more often than not). That being said, it's a relatively flashy headline with no real substance, and I can see your argument that it doesn't strictly need to be included in your article. Clearly we have not reached the point where anyone feels strongly enough to remove it, though, which is usually an indication that it doesn't quite cross the border of unnecessary or trivial information. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to provide such detailed insight. I would prefer for the personal life section to be removed as I do not believe it is relevant or has weight, but I will leave it in your and the Wikipedia communities hand. I understand the presented dilemma and I trust you and the rest of the editors. Thank you for your time and help. I hope you are doing well. Everettstern (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac In an unrelated matter to the charges may Wikipedia please consider adding the contents of this article coming from a credible news source the Sun Sentinel. It was a big news story but missed because it is under a paywall. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2021/01/20/a-few-miles-from-mar-a-lago-white-supremacists-set-up-headquarters/ Thank you. I hope you are doing well. Everettstern (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Charles McGonigal

Should we add that Everett Stern had a point of contact in the FBI's Charles McGonigal? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there a source that verifies this information? Is it at all relevant to his biography? Primefac (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I have an email posted on twitter from former head of FBI Counter Intelligence Charles McGonigal naming himself as my POC to deliver National Security Intelligence. He thanks me in the email for my service to FBI. I can show the direct email from McGonigal to Wikipedia but I am not sure how. Journalists are working on a story regarding myself, Charles McGonigal, Mark Rossini, Walter Soriano, and Oleg Deripaska. Everettstern (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This is very relevant to my Biography as I gave a recent press conference in New York City (removed the starter of the link) youtu.be/ezcbi_8O2rE revealing that I was asked to help Oleg Deripaska with a number of tasks, but I provided the real intelligence to the Central Intelligence Agency. Everettstern (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Email from Charles McGonigal (Head of FBI Counterintelligence) naming himself as Everett Stern's POC (Point of Contact) for National Security Intelligence to be passed to. This later on was determined to be the same time Charles McGonigal was working illegally for Oleg Deripaska. This is a link to the email on Twitter. https://twitter.com/EverettStern1/status/1655578153346121729?s=20 Everettstern (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Everettstern, you need to stop with the YouTube links and the emails and the tweets. None of these things matter. The only stuff that matters is the stuff that gets published in reliable sources. Primefac, what is all this craziness? Did we fall into some rabbit hole? Drmies (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Associations with Walter Soriano and Oleg Deripaska

Has Everett Stern had associations with Walter Soriano and Oleg Deripaska? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Who are these people, why do you think Stern would have an association with them, and why is it at all relevant to his biography? Primefac (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Please see my press conference where I name these individuals as part of an intelligence operation. youtu.be/ezcbi_8O2rE Everettstern (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)