THE "DOCKET" IN NAME ONLY
Introduction A "Docket" In Name Only
If anyone still wishes to maintain that the arrest was the product of a police investigation, or had anything to do with victims or justice then they need to at was passes for the “docket”. We finally received the docket seven months after my arrest, more than a year and a half after the matters to which the docket purportedly related. What we received was a “docket” in name only. It contained not a single piece of investigatory evidence from either investigating officer—nor from Belville Commercial, nor from Camps Bay SAPS, nor from Hout Bay SAPS.
One attorney noted he had seen more extensive dockets for a single shoplifting charge and had never seen anything remotely as insubstantial as this in a fraud case. Even the simplest fraud case for a single count would result in a massive docket, filled with evidence. Fraud cases are universally recognized as among the most complex, often producing volumes of physical and digital documentation. Fraud trials are lengthy for this very reason, often requiring specialist judges to navigate the dense, detailed evidence.
Fraud is also a transnational crime, creating an extensive “paper” trail across multiple jurisdictions and parties. In a case involving a villa rental scam, for instance, each transaction would generate records with the host, the guests, the host's bank, the guests’ various banks, booking platforms, and other relevant parties. The evidentiary trail should have been immense. Yet, what we received was not a docket—it was not even a pretence of a docket.
.png)
DOCKET ACTIVITY OVER THE LIFE OF THE LEASES
This chart maps the complete timeline of the case, showing when SAPS engaged with the docket relative to the civil disputes.
It highlights the clear absence of police activity before both arrests and reveals that every spike in so-called "investigation" aligned precisely with key civil court battles.
The data makes it impossible to argue that SAPS was running an independent fraud investigation.
The Reason Why the Investigation Officer Avoided Providing it for Months Became Clear
It contained nothing of substance, nothing legally or legitimately obtained; the only contributions were from the consortium, and the only activity happened precisely in line with the key civil court dates.
It revealed that there were no arrest warrants for either the August or December arrests, that there had been no request for an arrest warrant in August, and that the request for an arrest warrant in December was declined twice. The only warrant that could be found was a search and seizure warrant, which had also been declined by two magistrates and was signed off by a superior officer at Belville Commercial Crime.
The inclusions were as revealing as the lack of inclusions. All three affidavits pertaining to the immigration status were false.
Further, the only reason we ever gained access to this “docket” was due to submitting a representation to the Senior Public Prosecutor, which made having sight of it essential. Even then, Sergeant Stevens and Belville Commercial resisted, providing the docket only when the magistrate compelled them by court order.
The exceptional nature of this docket speaks volumes. All the more so when you consider:
Standard expectations for a fraud docket: For a docket that purportedly documented five counts of fraud, one would expect it to be extensive, loaded with evidence. Fraud investigations of this scale routinely produce massive dockets, often spanning thousands of pages.
The scope of the alleged fraud: This alleged case involved a villa rental scheme encompassing numerous properties, hundreds of guests, booking platforms, communication records, and multiple financial transactions. Each of these elements should have generated substantial documentation if this had been a genuine investigation. Instead, the absence of such evidence in this docket stands in blatant contradiction to the gravity and complexity of the charges.
The unprecedented resources devoted to investigating: The investigative resources directed against me were unprecedented. Wouter de Swardt was engaged for a year on the project, much of it full-time and his single focus. Mario Boffa lived in my home for two months with full access to all personal and professional belongings, laptops, and data. Denis Dalton and Johan Schalkwyk had access to my laptops, data, and home, with Andre du Rand accessing my laptop whenever I was not in the office (his bedroom was adjacent and interconnected) and searching different parts of my home when I was not in those areas.
Further, Benette, instructed and paid by Paula Disberry, joined others under her influence—including Tania Burnham and Mercy—who all had unrivalled access and proximity to the situation.
Multiple SAPS divisions, including Hout Bay and Camps Bay, operated under the directives of WdS, aligning their efforts with his aims. Belville Commercial Crime played a complicit role, mobilizing significant resources and devoting considerable effort solely to find any form of evidence.
Media24’s involvement went beyond reporting; its outlets, including News24, Netwerk24, and Rapport, not only published over 70 false and fabricated statements, painting the picture of a widescale and complex scam but also actively solicited "victims" to come forward and even published contact information for them to do so, demonstrating coordinated attempts to shape a narrative and then harvest evidence from it.
Adding to this, SAPS confiscated everything that could conceivably contain information or evidence, including every one of my devices, hard drives, and backup files, covering every item of data spanning the previous five to eight years. With the passwords that I had provided, there was not a piece of information, form, document, email, message, WhatsApp, or letter that they did not have access to.
Despite the exhaustive reach of this so-called investigation, not a single item of legitimate evidence emerged, further confirming that the entire operation was predicated on a predetermined agenda rather than factual inquiry.
"DOCKET" ACTIVITY
The Total Lack of Activity on the Docket, Damning Evidence of its Real Purpose.
A detailed breakdown of SAPS' contributions—or lack thereof—to the docket, spanning the full timeline of the case.
It visually exposes how there was no meaningful investigative work, no SAPS-led evidence gathering, and no law enforcement action beyond procedural formalities.
The sudden bursts of activity correlate directly to the landlords' legal manoeuvres, confirming that the criminal justice system was manipulated to serve private interests.
.jpg)
The Contributions & Lack Of Content
-
Other than the false affidavit allegedly from the Home Affairs Department, there was not a single piece of evidence or contribution from the first investigating officer, Sergeant Duna.
-
The second investigating officer, Sergeant Stevens, also failed to contribute a single item of legitimate evidence. His only additions were the false affidavit purportedly from the Home Affairs Department and his own false affidavit, which attempted to insert an immigration charge four months after the arrest. This will be addressed further below.
-
There was no evidence or contribution from Hout Bay SAPS.
-
Camps Bay SAPS also provided no evidence or contributions whatsoever.
-
Similarly, Belville Commercial Crime, the division leading this case, contributed nothing of evidentiary value.
-
THE DOCKET WAS SO INADEQUATE THAT IT WAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY ISSUING AN ARREST WARRANT FOR THE FRAUD CHARGES IT CONTAINED: The evidence presented was so deficient that it failed to meet the legal standard necessary to secure an arrest warrant, even under South Africa's relatively lenient requirements.
-
The lack of substance in the docket led two magistrates to reject the warrant application outright.
-
In cases where an arrest takes place with an inadequate docket, the law requires the investigating officer to add substantial evidence afterward to support the prosecution’s case. South Africa’s system, which permits arrest with a promise of forthcoming evidence, relies on the officer’s duty and integrity to produce such evidence post-arrest. In this instance, no such action was taken.
-
The bar for executing an arrest in South Africa is already unusually low. Having been rejected by two magistrates, self-evidently this docket failed to meet even this standard, which underscores the seriousness of its inadequacy and the investigators' failure to adhere to procedural obligations. The fact that no further evidence was added, even after senior officers signed off on the operation, speaks volumes about the intentions behind it.
-
By the time we filed the Representations, SAPS had had access to every device, hard drive, and document of mine, containing data spanning the previous five to eight years, for a total of seven months. Yet not a single piece of legitimate evidence was presented, either prior to filing or during the two-month investigation by the Senior Public Prosecutor.
-
Following my arrest, two additional charges were introduced between December 14 and 19, just before my first appearance in the Wynberg Magistrates' Court. These charges, however, were never substantiated with supporting documentation or evidence of any kind. They don’t even get a mention.
-
Furthermore, I was never formally charged with either of these additional counts.
-
The only “evidence” ever added by SAPS consisted of two false affidavits supposedly from the Home Affairs Department. These affidavits claimed I was unlawfully in the country as of March 23, 2021, and alleged that I had never extended my visa since arrival. These statements are factually impossible, as:
-
The Home Affairs Department itself had issued automatic visa extensions throughout 2021 and 2022, with further moratoriums extending into 2024.
-
I personally extended my visa at the end of 2021, carrying it into 2022, which was verifiable through the Home Affairs database printouts that were included in the very affidavit documents.
-
It is inconceivable that Home Affairs staff were unaware of these automatic extensions.
-
It is equally implausible that Home Affairs employees could not read the information displayed on their screens
-
Therefore, either the affidavits were not genuine, or if they were, they were obtained through illegal means.
-
I have formally requested an investigation from the Home Affairs Department, yet no response has been provided to date.
-
Upon seeing the charges and the so-called “evidence,” the prosecution dismissed them. However, in a last-ditch attempt to keep me detained, Sergeant Stevens insisted on adding a fabricated immigration offense.
-
This offense had not been part of my original charges, nor was I ever formally charged with it. Since immigration had played no part in the arrest, this new “charge” was inserted retroactively. The affidavit, written four months after my arrest and one month after the offense was added, falsely claimed that immigration issues were central to my arrest and its motivations.
Upon seeing the charges and the so-called “evidence,” the prosecution dismissed them. However, in a last-ditch attempt to keep me detained, Sergeant Stevens insisted on adding a fabricated immigration offense.
This offense had not been part of my original charges, nor was I ever formally charged with it. Since immigration had played no part in the arrest, this new “charge” was inserted retroactively. The affidavit, written four months after my arrest and one month after the offense was added, falsely claimed that immigration issues were central to my arrest and its motivations.
One need only review the significant procedural documentation surrounding my arrest—including search and seizure warrants, other officers’ affidavits, and forms I was required to sign—to see that immigration was never mentioned. The only reference to my immigration status was a verbal statement from Sergeant Stevens to the court during his attempt to reverse the court’s decision to grant bail, claiming I was a flight risk wanted for deportation by Home Affairs.
-
On December 19, 2022, when bail was granted, Sergeant Stevens sought to have it rescinded by making several blatant falsehoods. The bail granted covered the five charges in question, including the original three and two added afterward. His lies included:
-
Asserting that “at least five additional charges” were forthcoming beyond the five already under bail—this was FALSE.
-
Claiming there were “significant issues” from Paarl—also FALSE.
-
Stating I had been illegally in the country since March 23, 2021, had never extended my visa, and was wanted for deportation by Home Affairs—again, FALSE.
-
The docket contains no reference to or evidence supporting any of these fabricated claims.
-
Throughout my appearances at Wynberg, Stevens repeatedly delayed the bail application, claiming he needed “more time for further investigation.” On January 6, he stated “money laundering” charges were being added, and on February 2, he claimed more time was needed to gather bank and phone records. However, the docket contains no reference or evidence for any of these statements.
-
Other than the two false affidavits provided by Stevens—one from Home Affairs and one authored by Stevens himself—not a single item of evidence was added post-arrest.
-
Nothing was contributed to the lead-up to the bail application, when such evidence would have been crucial to support the prosecution’s case of objecting to bail, something Sergeant Stevens had insisted they do.
-
No evidence was added after the court permitted the submission of Representations or in the two-month period during which the SPP reviewed them.
-
This glaring lack of evidence raises a serious question: on what basis did Stevens expect the prosecution to argue the bail application? Given that the docket was so empty before my arrest that it failed to secure a warrant—twice rejected by magistrates—it is indisputable it would have been inadequate to mount any attempt to oppose bail, and would clearly have been wholly inadequate to prosecute at a trial.
The simple answer is that prosecution and trial were never the goal, only incarceration.
A "DOCKET" IN NAME ONLY
A Breakdown of Manipulated Arrests, False Charges, and Missing Evidence
This chart documents how the entire docket timeline was orchestrated to serve the consortium’s civil objectives, rather than a legitimate criminal investigation.
With zero investigatory contributions from SAPS and the investigating officers, the case relied entirely on fabricated submissions, misrepresented affidavits, and strategic delays to manipulate court rulings.
The arrests directly align with major litigation battles—revealing how the criminal justice system was weaponized for private interests rather than justice.
Table: Activity, Contributions, Timing
The below table shows the activity, or rather lack of activity, on the docket, before and after the arrests.
When you put the docket activity and contributions alongside the consortium attempts to take back the properties including the most significant court dates the alignment is undeniable.
The table clearing demonstrates and substantiate the assessment of the docket and investigation: Absolutely no evidence contributed from Belville Commercial, Hout Bay pr camps Bay SAPS; no evidentiary or investigatory contributions from either investigating officer; the only contributions coming from Paula Disberry; the timing of those contributions coinciding at precisely the same time as the peak of the civil litigation; the two arrest coinciding precisely with the two most important dates in the battle in the civil courts and when needed for strategic advantage; the total absence of an arrest warrant in both cases and the rejection of one as well as the rejection of a seizure warrant I the second; with this then being signed off internally; the absolutely absence of evidence before the December arrest; and the failure to provide it afterwards; the self-evident inadequacy of such a docket to mount any attempt either to deny bail or prosecute a trial; the cessation of any activity precisely in line with the successful recovery of the property; the absolute absence of any reference to the fabricated reasons to deny and rescind bail; the perjury and fabrication related to the three false affidavits in regards to the immigration issue and the equally absent references to the illegal theft and withholding of the passport.
And all this despite having dedicated the most exceptional amount of time, resources, money and effort to finding evidence.
THE FRAUDULENT FRAUD DOCKET
Total Lack of Activity on the Docket, Damning Evidence of its Real Purpose. How SAPS Manufactured a Case Without Investigating It
This docket is not an investigatory record—it is a construct designed for incarceration, not prosecution. The comparative analysis of standard fraud investigations versus this case exposes a complete lack of investigatory effort, revealing that no witness interviews, financial audits, forensic analysis, or evidence reviews took place.
Instead, the only documented actions were false affidavits, fabricated charges, and procedural submissions deliberately timed to align with critical civil court battles. This was never about justice—it was about maintaining an active docket for strategic advantage.
The Docket Broken Down
After thoroughly examining the docket, the content—or lack thereof—was stark. With blank pages and duplicate documents removed, only 70 pages of substance remained, exposing the complete inadequacy of the docket for any legitimate fraud investigation.
False Affidavits: Nearly a third of the docket—27 pages—contained false information. Two affidavits from the Home Affairs Department falsely claimed I had not extended my visa and was required to leave South Africa by March 23, 2021. Contradictorily, these affidavits included Home Affairs database printouts showing a visa extension at the end of 2021, which carried into 2022. Home Affairs had issued moratoriums extending all visas into 2024, making these affidavits demonstrably false. Serious questions arise about their origins and legality, particularly as the third affidavit, by Sergeant Stevens, attempts to retroactively insert immigration issues into the December arrest.
Procedural Documents: Over half of the docket—35 pages—consists of procedural forms, mainly related to the seizure of my personal equipment, underscoring a focus on procedural formalities rather than substantive evidence for the fraud charges.
Submissions by Paula Disberry: Twelve pages were comprised of submissions by Paula Disberry, a property owner involved in the case, whose affidavit contains multiple demonstrable lies. She claimed ignorance and lack of consent regarding property rentals—claims directly contradicted by thousands of WhatsApp messages showing her awareness and agreement. A significant number of these pages related to the lease agreement, which had no criminal relevance.
Alleged “Evidence” from Affidavits: Only four pages contained purported "evidence," comprising three affidavits from individuals—Mark McGuinness, Lijenge Mokoatle, and Jason Chaffaitz—located on three continents, all dated on June 7 and 8, 2022. This coordination suggests a calculated submission, not genuine, independent testimony.
The total absence of legitimate content in the docket is staggering. None of the documents meet basic evidentiary standards. A single shoplifting case would have yielded a more complete docket than what was presented here for five counts of alleged fraud.
THE FRAUDULENT FRAUD DOCKET
Total Lack of Activity on the Docket, Damning Evidence of its Real Purpose. How SAPS Manufactured a Case Without Investigating It
This breakdown exposes the true composition of the fraud docket—revealing that not a single investigative contribution came from SAPS, Hout Bay SAPS, Camps Bay SAPS, or Belville Commercial Crime.
Instead, the entire case was constructed from procedural paperwork and strategically timed submissions from consortium members, aligning perfectly with their civil litigation campaign.
The absence of legitimate evidence confirms that this was never a criminal investigation, but a coordinated legal weapon designed to serve private interests.
The Impossibility Of Coincidence
The timing of affidavits and procedural documents around pivotal events reveals a pattern of manipulation. The docket's sporadic activity aligns with key moments in civil court proceedings, clearly serving private interests over the rule of law. Each burst of activity—whether affidavits, new charges, or procedural forms—coincided with critical points in civil litigation. This pattern is too precise to be accidental, indicating that the docket was constructed to influence civil outcomes, not to investigate criminal activity.
For instance, affidavits were submitted in bulk when civil case outcomes, especially eviction or financial claims, were at stake. Paula Disberry, with vested interests, coordinated affidavits from witnesses across continents to appear within a narrow time frame, creating the illusion of evidence precisely when civil proceedings required leverage. This timing reflects an intent to weaponize the docket as a tactical asset in parallel legal disputes.
Procedural documents were similarly introduced only when advantageous, such as to justify arrest or influence bail conditions, rather than through a systematic investigation. This clustering of documents around civil and procedural milestones suggests a curated content to create an appearance of legitimacy only when immediate strategic goals were served. The timing portrays a case driven by private agendas, where legal mechanisms were selectively used to maintain detention and undermine my legal position in civil matters.
The docket’s alignment with these external motives underscores an investigation tailored to support private interests. The contributions and additions were reactive, aiming to bolster individuals like Disberry during sensitive civil litigation points, rather than a pursuit of truth or justice. This calculated misuse of law enforcement resources supports a preordained agenda, raising serious questions about SAPS’s collaboration with private parties.
FACT FILES: EXPOSING THE LIES, REVEALING THE TRUTH
Affidavits were strategically submitted in bulk to create an illusion of evidence when civil disputes required leverage, often orchestrated by Paula Disberry. Procedural documents surfaced only when beneficial, justifying arrests or impacting bail conditions, rather than being part of a genuine investigative process.
This selective use of law enforcement resources reveals an agenda driven by private interests, where legal procedures were weaponized to secure financial and strategic gains.
Statistical Impossibility Of Coincidence
If, as WDS, Keith Broad, Serg Duna, Stevens, and SAPS would have us all believe, the arrests were related to real cases, bona fide investigations, and a genuine belief in significant criminality, then their actions—including charges, attempts to incarcerate, and efforts to bring prosecutions and motivate trials—should have continued, even after they regained their properties. However, this is exactly what did not happen. Whether you assess the period when SAPS should have remained active from the start of my subletting model as a host, from when the dockets were first opened, or even from the time of my first arrest, the coincidence of the key events within the criminal justice sphere and the key events in the civil justice sphere—two systems that should, in theory, have no direct connection or alignment—becomes glaringly obvious. These events, occurring with such precise timing, speak louder than any number of words can, especially when you consider the extreme improbability of such a sequence of events unfolding by pure chance.
Timing from the December Arrest to Now:
The period since my December arrest spans 606 days. The probability of a significant event, such as an arrest or an important court ruling, occurring on any specific day within this 606-day period is 1 in 606. However, if two major events (for example, an arrest and a significant court ruling) were to occur on the same day, the odds of this happening are 1 in 367,236, or approximately 1 in 367 thousand—emphasizing the rarity of such an occurrence.
FACT FILES: EXPOSING THE LIES, REVEALING THE TRUTH
If these arrests were based on real investigations and genuine criminal concerns, SAPS would have continued pursuing charges even after the properties were reclaimed. Instead, all activity ceased once the civil objectives were achieved, exposing the arrests as tools for strategic advantage rather than justice.
The precise alignment of key arrests and court rulings—two separate legal processes—defies statistical probability. The likelihood of such pivotal events coinciding by pure chance is 1 in 367,000, making it clear that these were not random occurrences but carefully timed legal maneuvers.
Timing Over the Opening of the Docket:
The timeline since the docket was opened is 828 days. The probability of a key event occurring on any given day within this 828-day window is 1 in 828. For two significant events, such as a legal action or an arrest, to align within this period, the odds would be reduced to 1 in 685,584, a figure that is still extraordinarily unlikely, or roughly 1 in 685 thousand. This reinforces the point that the alignment of these events, in relation to the docket’s timeline, is not a mere coincidence.
Timing Over the Point of First Renting the Properties to Now:
Since I first occupied the properties, 1,137 days have passed. The chance of a significant legal event, such as an arrest or court hearing, occurring exactly on a specific day within this 1,137-day timeline is 1 in 1,137. When calculating the probability of two critical events, like an arrest and a hearing, aligning within this period, the odds become even more improbable, with a likelihood of 1 in 1,289,969, or approximately 1 in 1.3 million. This highlights just how unlikely it is that these events would align purely by chance.
The Cumulative Impact of Additional Coincidences:
When factoring in the additional ‘coincidences’—such as ongoing activity on the docket, developments in the civil courts, the timing of articles being published, and the synchronization between the criminal justice process and SAPS involvement with the civil legal battles—the odds become even more astonishing. Each additional coincidence compounds the improbability of these events occurring naturally, exponentially raising the odds. With each new variable added, the odds of all events aligning approach figures so astronomically rare that they become virtually 1 in a billion or even 1 in a trillion. This compounded improbability makes it clear that these events were not random but carefully orchestrated, reinforcing the conclusion that this sequence of events was far from accidental.
FLIMSIEST FRAUD DOCKET IN HISTORY
The Docket Breakdown: Zero SAPS Contributions, 100% Consortium-Controlled
This breakdown exposes the true composition of the fraud docket—revealing that not a single investigative contribution came from SAPS, Hout Bay SAPS, Camps Bay SAPS, or Belville Commercial Crime.
Instead, the entire case was constructed from procedural paperwork and strategically timed submissions from consortium members, aligning perfectly with their civil litigation campaign.
The absence of legitimate evidence confirms that this was never a criminal investigation, but a coordinated legal weapon designed to serve private interests.
Comparison to the Odds of Winning the Lottery:
To put this in perspective, let’s compare these odds to the odds of winning a major lottery, such as Powerball or Mega Millions. The odds of winning the Powerball jackpot are 1 in 292,201,338, and the odds of winning Mega Millions are 1 in 302,575,350. While these odds are incredibly rare, the odds of the events in my case occurring—especially considering the alignment of not only the two arrests and two key court dates, but also the timing of related events such as legal proceedings, media coverage, and other significant moments—are far more improbable. Once we factor in these variables, the odds of such a sequence of events aligning are reduced to figures so low that they approach 1 in a billion or even 1 in a trillion, far rarer than winning the lottery. This compounded improbability reinforces the undeniable fact that the timing of these events was no accident but was instead a result of deliberate orchestration.
Summary:
The statistical improbability of these events aligning over these various timelines is staggering. For instance, the odds of significant events coinciding within the 1,137-day timeline since my occupation are 1 in 1,289,969 (approximately 1 in 1.3 million); for the 828-day docket timeline, the odds drop to 1 in 685,584 (about 1 in 685 thousand), and for the 606-day period since my December arrest, the odds are 1 in 367,236 (about 1 in 367 thousand
AUGUST CHARGES PRECISE TIMING
AUGUST CHARGES PRECISE TIMING
AUGUST CHARGES PRECISE TIMING
1) The spoliatio application was submitted on 26 July, KB notified 28 July
2) The date of the hearing was 4 August,
3) KB / IB lay the false theft charges and obtain P.O 29 July-1 Aug
4) Concerted moves to arrest begin immediately (by fluke i was in Pringle Bay) and continue through to morning of 4 August
5) Arrest executed 8am 4 August, too late to stop the proceedings
DECEMBER CHARGES PRECISE TIMING
1) An appeal to the November ruling was required between 6 and 16 December. The seizure warrant was applied for on 13 December. The same day Keith Broad filed his court application.
2) Two magistrates declined to authorise either an arrest warrant or a search and seizure warrant.
3) The seizure warrant obtained internally on the false premise of urgency at 8am on 14 Dec
3) Arrest made 10am.
4) application pushed through by K Broad while I was detained
MARCH CHARGES PRECISE TIMING
1) KB attempts to have the hearing while I am detained.
2) Heating date put back twice, so Serg Stevens continues to demand more time for "further investigation"
3) Final date is set at 15 March with my bail application due to stat 14 March
4) Prosecution drop all charges on first sight, to ensure i remained on remand Serg Stevens introduces a new charge, this time the bogus immigration charge to ensure my absense for the hearing .
IMPOSSIBILITY OF COINCIDENCE
The table demonstrates the impossibility of coincidence with all three sets of charges coming literally to the day when needed to provide a strategic advantage in the three most significant court dates of the entire relationship.
Court dates where my absence would be essential.
A relationship that spanned a year and a half and if the charges were genuine a period of four years
The Explanation
The complete absence of legitimate evidence in this docket leads to one inescapable conclusion: there was never an intent to take this case to trial. From the beginning, the investigating officers knew there was no basis for a conviction. They understood that even reaching the trial stage would require extreme manipulation, and the case would likely collapse under bail application scrutiny. This, however, was irrelevant to the parties involved, whose goal was not justice but to keep me incarcerated for as long as possible. The potential embarrassment to the prosecution or waste of state resources was an acceptable collateral to SAPS, WdS, and other involved parties in achieving their primary objective.
The true purpose behind this docket was to facilitate my detention, allowing the landlords strategic leverage as needed, whether to destabilize my finances, tarnish my reputation in civil court, or inflict harm via media coverage. These tactics enabled manipulation of legal proceedings, circumventing scrutiny, and weaponizing South Africa’s lenient arrest standards.
Unlike jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, where substantial evidence must be presented before charges are laid, South Africa allows arrest on minimal grounds, with evidence gathering to follow. Although this is legally permissible, it requires investigators to act in good faith to collect genuine evidence post-arrest. Here, however, this system’s vulnerability to abuse was exploited to prolong my detention under false pretences, making each day of “further investigation” an additional form of punishment. Procedural loopholes were weaponized to fabricate charges and maintain my detention, irrespective of any trial outcome, enabling adversaries to seize control of my assets and weaken my civil standing.
The corruption extended to withholding critical information about my passport status and visa extensions. Under oath, investigating officers later admitted:
-
My passport was unlawfully taken by a consortium member and passed down from Disberry to WdS, Duna, and finally to Stevens.
-
My passport continued to be unlawfully withheld even after I submitted evidence of visa extensions, including the physical visa stamp in my stolen passport.
-
Home Affairs had automatically extended visas through 2021 and into 2022, with moratoriums continuing into 2024, and I had complied with all extension requirements until my passport was stolen.
-
Instead, SAPS constructed a false narrative, alleging intentional neglect to extend my visa and presented this as “nefarious” intent to courts, the NPA, and media. They omitted the fact that failing to extend my visa offered no advantage. This deliberate misrepresentation allowed SAPS to manipulate courts and media by exploiting supposed immigration “violations” without accountability.
FACT FILES: EXPOSING THE LIES, REVEALING THE TRUTH
The absence of legitimate evidence proves the case was never meant for trial. Investigators knew there was no basis for conviction, but that wasn’t the goal—the objective was prolonged detention to destabilize finances, tarnish reputation, and allow landlords to seize control of assets.
SAPS exploited procedural loopholes, fabricating charges to extend incarceration. Unlike jurisdictions requiring solid evidence before arrest, South Africa’s system was manipulated to justify detention while “investigating” after the fact. Even my stolen passport—key to proving visa compliance—was deliberately withheld to sustain false immigration claims. The case wasn’t about justice but using the law as a weapon.
Timing Of Activity, Contributions, And Arrests
A review of the docket reveals that the only activity by SAPS officers before my arrest consisted of two dubious actions:
A request for my bank statements in August, initiated under direct instructions from Wouter de Swardt and Paula Disberry, to reinforce a malicious prosecution attempt dated July 29.
The addition of a false affidavit from the Home Affairs Department, produced only after Keith Broad filed a baseless theft charge, another attempt to sabotage my bail application and interfere with High Court proceedings against Broad himself.
At the conclusion of the August bail application—during which the prosecution's case was collapsing—a last-minute affidavit was submitted to falsely suggest a pattern of behaviour by mimicking Broad’s fabricated charges. This tactic, involving fabricated charges, protection orders based on perjury, unlawful arrest, false statements by Paula Disberry, falsified property values, and the seizure of my passport, was meticulously coordinated by WdS, aiming not to prosecute genuine wrongdoing, but to eliminate me as an opponent by abusing legal procedures.
Beyond this, the only other docket contribution was Disberry’s affidavit and affidavits she coerced from former guests, all submitted on the same day despite these individuals being spread across different continents. This coordination on June 7 aligns with Disberry’s attorneys realizing her civil court attempts to regain the property were likely to fail. After this rush of submissions, the docket remained dormant for six months until it was abruptly prioritized for the arrest operation, underscoring that the docket was constructed for strategic arrests, not actual investigation.
The orchestrated timing within the docket underscores its role as a legal tool for civil advantage rather than a genuine investigatory document. Key individuals, particularly Disberry, synchronized actions with crucial civil court events, amplifying their interference impact. Disberry’s calculated misuse of legal processes is further evidenced by her “victim” list—a collection of individuals with mixed grievances, corralled into a general complaint list with minimal claim verification. Many were guests who cancelled outside refund policies, disregarding my attempts to offer rescheduling. Instead of direct resolution, Disberry withheld this list until August to strategically use it at my bail hearing, reinforcing her bail denial efforts.
The pattern of “activity” clustered around civil recovery and property claims exposes the docket for what it is: a facade for strategic advantage, recognizable by any legal professional or layperson as a document designed for appearance rather than substance. Every instance of activity aligns with points beneficial to Disberry, Broad, and others manipulating civil case outcomes, rather than any genuine criminal investigation.
FACT FILES: EXPOSING THE LIES, REVEALING THE TRUTH
The timing of affidavits, property disputes, and arrests aligned with Disberry’s civil court battles, not an actual criminal investigation. Disberry’s so-called “victim” list, submitted strategically before my bail hearing, included unverified claims from guests who had simply cancelled outside refund policies.
The case was never about justice—SAPS and Disberry weaponized the legal system to secure property control and eliminate opposition.
Sergeant Stevens's Fabricated Bail Form
A selection of the answers on the bail form completed by the investigating officer. Very intentionally misrepresenting both the accused and their circumstances, putting answers he knew to be false. It is very clear from the form and the false answers this is another attempt to interfere with justice. I apricate much of the bail form is subjective., but Serg Stevens answered these questions incorrectly on purpose.
Both the bail application for the august arrest and the December arrest were filled out by two completely different investigating officers in precisely the same false way.
Not only were these homes hut also my income, as such, in terms of satisfying the requirements of a bail address they could not have been more suitable.
Fixed Address: “NO” – False. Stevens falsely answered “No” to whether I had a fixed address. At that point I had the two faced addresses of 16 Leirmans Road where I had resided for the previous 15 months and 32 Fisherman’s Bend, my home for the previous year. Homes I had spent just two days away from in the preceding 15 months. Not only were these homes hut also my income, as such, in terms of satisfying the requirements of a bail address they could not have been more suitable.
The irony in the fact that Serg Stevens knew the real reason for the 14 December arrest was to execute and disguise two illegal evictions, which was demonstrated and consolidated when both landlords walked back into their properties minutes after I was taken away, and further demonstrated and consolidate when Johan Victor the attorney from Mr Moonsamy and Mr Broad stood up in court to interject into the bail hearing and deny me both addresses despite having absolutely no right to do so.
Fixed Employment: “NO” – False. Stevens answered “No” to whether I was employed, despite knowing that I was gainfully employed and generating a substantial income within South Africa. To imply to the courts, I had np gainful employment and therefore represent I had no reason to remain committed to staying in Cape Town was intentionally false. Both my residency and income source would have favoured the granting of bail, making his misrepresentation a clear attempt to sway the court.
Previous Arrests or Convictions: “YES” – False. Stevens answered “Yes” to previous arrests or convictions, an outright lie. The malicious prosecution of the August and the charges they included were thrown out by the magistrate shortly after I got bail. No charges had been brought since. As such, there were no existing charges or convictions. The arrest itself had already been demonstrated as baseless by virtue of the charges being thrown out and the matter had been concluded with the visit to the storage unit, where all of the junk contents were present, as per the many previous communications as well as the inventories carried out, all prior to the arrest
Outstanding Warrants or Bail in Other Cases: “YES” – False. Stevens falsely claimed that there were outstanding warrants or other cases in which I was on bail. This statement was fabricated without any legal basis.
Evasion of Arrest: “YES” – False. Stevens marked “Yes” to the assertion that I could easily evade arrest if released, although he answered “No” to related questions such as whether I was “difficult to trace” or had previously evaded arrest. This contradictory answer makes no sense was crafted solely to paint me as a flight risk, despite knowing that I had a fixed address and consistent residency.
Danger to the Community: “NO” – contradicts other answers. Although Stevens marked “No” for whether I posed a danger to the community, he checked yes as to the question of committing further offences and marked that the community did not want me back in another sections.
Potential for Further Offenses: “YES” – False. While marking this as “Yes” may have been his opinion, this assumption could only hold weight if there were credible grounds to believe I had committed any offense in the first place.
Custody for Own Safety: “YES” – False. Stevens claimed that I should be held in custody for my own safety—a patently absurd assertion. The only potential threat came from the illegal arrest itself and the false narratives being disseminated. This claim exemplifies Stevens’ intent to mislead the court into an unnecessarily severe response.
Community Sentiment: Stevens added that the “community did not want me back,” a groundless assertion meant purely for impact, with no basis in reality.
This bail form is a striking example of how Stevens distorted and fabricated responses to prevent the court from fairly assessing my case. The form contains not just subjective opinion but deliberate misrepresentations designed to mislead the judiciary, obstruct justice, and justify my continued detention. The answers provided are not merely inaccurate but show a systematic approach to falsifying information, underscoring the lack of integrity in his actions.
FALSIFIED BAIL FORM
Serg Stevens’ Fabricated Bail Form: A Document Designed to Mislead the Court
This bail form, completed by Serg Stevens, contains deliberate misrepresentations designed to prevent a fair assessment of the case. Key falsehoods include:
- Fixed Address: Marked “No” despite two long-term residences.
- Fixed Employment: Marked “No” despite documented income.
- Previous Arrests or Convictions: Marked “Yes” despite no convictions.
- Outstanding Warrants: Falsely claimed without legal basis.
- Evasion of Arrest: Contradictory answers designed to paint a false flight risk.
- Custody for Own Safety: Fabricated justification for continued detention.
These false entries were not mistakes—they were strategically inserted to deny bail, justify incarceration, and serve the consortium’s agenda.
Conclusion: Systemic Failures, Corruption & Deliberate Manipulation
The examination of this docket reveals it to be a pretence, designed not as a foundation for legitimate legal proceedings but as an instrument of coercion and manipulation, devoid of actual investigatory substance. Lacking basic elements that would define any genuine fraud investigation, the docket fails to include any material evidence from the primary investigating officers—Sergeant Duna and Sergeant Stevens—or contributions from Hout Bay or Camps Bay SAPS. Instead, it is a collection of falsified affidavits, procedural documents devoid of evidentiary value, and strategically timed submissions by interested third parties, namely Paula Disberry, whose claims were filled with demonstrable falsehoods. This so-called investigation stands as a blatant attempt to misuse the legal system, where the procedural gaps within South Africa’s arrest standards were exploited to fabricate a case designed to achieve a predetermined outcome: my prolonged detention and the resulting strategic advantage for private interests in related civil disputes.
The resources deployed in this "investigation" were disproportionate, extending beyond the usual scope for a case of this nature. Full access to my personal and professional data, relentless delays, and multiple fabricated charges—including false affidavits purportedly from Home Affairs—highlight an investigation that prioritized incarceration over justice. Even the low threshold for issuing arrest warrants in South Africa was unmet, leading to two magistrates’ outright rejection of the warrant application due to insufficient evidence. This failure to secure basic procedural compliance speaks volumes about the true purpose behind the docket. Instead of a good-faith effort to gather post-arrest evidence, SAPS, under Wouter de Swardt's influence, perpetuated falsehoods, strategically withheld crucial information about my visa extensions, and even fabricated immigration violations to weaponize the arrest process and mislead the judiciary.
The content breakdown of the docket underscores the complete lack of substantive evidence. Out of the 70 pages classified as “substantive,” 27 were dedicated to false affidavits, 35 consisted of procedural forms, and 12 represented false claims by Disberry, aligned with her financial interests. Disberry’s orchestrated contributions and the SAPS officers' apparent compliance further exemplify the manipulation of the docket for civil gain rather than criminal justice. This misuse of procedural systems underlines a deliberate and coordinated effort to deny me a fair and objective legal process, ensuring that the docket served as a tool for detention rather than a pathway to trial.
In its entirety, this case highlights severe systemic abuse, where private interests controlled public legal procedures, tarnishing the integrity of South Africa's criminal justice system. Every procedural action, from manufacturing immigration charges to falsifying affidavits, reveals a case built not on facts but on the manipulation of legal standards to achieve a wrongful incarceration. This docket’s intent was not to prosecute a crime but to dismantle my personal and professional life by exploiting procedural loopholes, with disregard for the principles of justice or rule of law. The evidence presented here makes it undeniable that this case was orchestrated with the singular goal of inflicting damage, underlining a profound corruption that demands accountability
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently." - Friedrich Nietzsche