UNIQUE VALUE OF WHATSAPP MESSAGES
Why WhatsApp Chats Are Critical Evidence
While searching for email records to confirm rent payments, I came across WhatsApp exports, including those from Paula. These chat logs are one of the most accurate ways to reconstruct past events—providing insight into:
-
The events as they happened.
-
The attitudes and motives of those involved.
-
What was said, what was done, and, just as importantly, what was not done.
If round-the-clock video footage had existed, there would be no debate—the entire truth would be irrefutable. But since no such footage exists, WhatsApp chats are the closest equivalent.
Taken individually, they are already informative and revealing.
But when you have a dozen exports from key players, they become even more powerful.
Just as a police officer’s body cam footage is considered one of the most vital forms of evidence, WhatsApp chats provide a verifiable, timestamped snapshot of events—and crucially, an export cannot be doctored.
WHATSAPP MESAGES: UNALTERED TRUTH VERSUS FABRICATED LIES
Timestamped Conversations That Expose Contradictions and Manipulation
WhatsApp message exports provide indisputable, timestamped proof of real-time events—capturing motives, contradictions, and fabrications within the consortium’s narrative.
Unlike subjective recollections, WhatsApp chats are verifiable and court-admissible, ensuring transparency where manipulated allegations fail.
If their claims had any basis in reality, their own exports would support them—yet they refuse to provide a single verifiable exchange
The WhatsApp Messages That Expose the Lies
A prime example:
-
The WhatsApp chats between myself and Mercy.
-
Between Mercy and Ollie.
-
Between myself and Ollie.
-
Between myself and Paula.
-
Between Gail and me.
These all directly contradict Mercy’s allegations, demonstrating that there was no truth to her claims. Yet, the fallback argument becomes:
-
"That was her lived experience."
-
If the WhatsApp messages supported their allegations, my "lived experience" would be irrelevant, and they would be presented as absolute proof.
This is the stark hypocrisy in how the evidence is treated.
The Overwhelming Evidence I Have Produced
Few people can provide as much evidence as I have.
I have presented:
-
Mario’s videos.
-
Videos of WDS in July.
-
Videos of SAPS officers.
-
Thousands of WhatsApp messages.
-
Hundreds of emails.
-
Court papers (in which the consortium’s own submissions contradict each other repeatedly).
-
Recordings of conversations with key witnesses (Chandre, the Leirmans housekeeper, etc.).
-
Bail applications and representations to the SSP.
-
The PSIRA investigation findings.
-
400+ folders of meticulously organized evidence.
If the consortium had real evidence, why has it been necessary for them to fabricate it?
Most importantly, my version of events has never changed.
-
From day one, I have maintained the same, consistent account.
Meanwhile, the consortium’s narrative shifts constantly, depending on:
-
Who they are talking to.
-
What their audience already knows.
-
What evidence they have been confronted with.
Every new piece of evidence I uncover further corroborates my version of events, while further undermining theirs.
FACT FILES: WHATSAPP CHATS AS EVIDENCE
With multiple exports from central figures, these messages provide an unaltered, digital paper trail—much like a police body cam—making them one of the most compelling forms of evidence available.
If any messages had supported the consortium’s claims, they would have provided their own exports. Their failure to do so speaks volumes.
The Stark Difference in Transparency
Unlike the consortium, I have:
-
Made every piece of evidence available for scrutiny.
-
Shared folders containing thousands of pages of documentation.
-
Presented an open, transparent account from the very beginning.
Meanwhile, do you think anyone in the consortium would:
-
Offer up all their WhatsApp conversations?
-
Share their communications with their attorneys?
-
Disclose their private discussions with fellow members?
Of course not. Because the disparity in transparency between the two sides could not be more glaring.
-
Giving media interviews (where they repeat lies that have already been debunked) is not transparency.
-
Manipulating dossiers to fit a narrative is not evidence—it is propaganda.
Yet, whenever I present real, verifiable evidence, the reaction is always the same:
"Okay, but..."
FACT FILES: EXPOSING THE LIES, REVEALING THE TRUTH
I have provided overwhelming evidence—videos, WhatsApp messages, emails, court documents, recorded conversations, and hundreds of meticulously organized folders—corroborating my account from day one.
In contrast, the consortium's narrative constantly shifts based on their audience, the evidence they are confronted with, and their evolving strategy. If their allegations were true, why has fabricating evidence been necessary?
The Manufactured Victim Narrative
The reason they cannot and will not concede the fabrications is simple: If my version of events is correct, then they are the villains, and I am the victim.
-
They conspired to remove a tenant who, by any reasonable standard, was a perfect tenant.
-
They did so purely for financial gain—despite whatever lies they tell others or even themselves.
And because real evidence does not support their claims, their only options are:
-
Fabricate evidence.
-
Repeat the lies so often that they gain credibility.
-
Recycle those lies across different platforms (articles, petitions, media interviews, etc.).
-
Most reprehensibly—create victims to misrepresent as victims of a fraud.
Yet, despite the mountains of evidence proving their deception, their false narrative continues to dominate. Because the truth has no place in the public's consumption of facts.
FACT FILES: THE TRANSPARENCY GAP
Unlike the consortium, I have openly shared thousands of pages of evidence—WhatsApp messages, emails, court filings, and recorded conversations—ensuring full transparency.
In contrast, they conceal their communications, refuse to provide their own WhatsApp exports, and manipulate narratives instead of presenting verifiable proof. Giving media interviews to repeat debunked lies is not evidence—it’s propaganda.
Criminal Acts Committed to Support the False Narrative
The number of crimes committed to create, maintain, and enhance this false narrative is staggering:
-
Drugging someone to gain access to their bank accounts.
-
Embezzling over R1 million of guests’ money.
-
Rigging bail applications.
-
Obstructing justice with falsified dockets.
-
Several illegal arrests (including Ollie and Markus).
-
Secret, illegal SAPS operations under the cover of the main arrest.
-
Weaponizing the media to destroy reputations.
-
Using News24 articles to justify arrests, and arrests to justify civil matters, creating a loop of false credibility.
And yet, these blatant, well-documented crimes are not considered newsworthy.
FACT FILES: EXPOSING THE LIES, REVEALING THE TRUTH
Lacking real evidence, they resorted to fabrications—repeating lies, recycling false claims across media, and manufacturing victims to sustain their fraud narrative.
Yet, despite overwhelming proof of their deception, their version prevails because the truth is inconvenient.
The Emperor Has No Clothes
The consortium’s lies are not just false—they are layered in a way that creates an illusion of credibility.
-
They convince SAPS they have evidence.
-
SAPS carries out arrests based on false media reports.
-
News24 then cites those arrests as proof of a scandal.
-
The fabricated narrative gains momentum.
But at its core? There is nothing. They have no real evidence, just a self-perpetuating cycle of lies, one that collapses the moment any real scrutiny is applied.
Meanwhile, every single new WhatsApp export, email, court document, and witness testimony I uncover only further validates the truth:
-
My narrative has never changed.
-
Every piece of evidence supports my account.
-
The consortium has yet to provide a single verifiable fact.
Because there is no evidence of scamming—because there was no scam.
FACT FILES: CRIMES BEHIND THE FALSE NARRATIVE
A web of criminal acts was committed to sustain this fabricated case, including drugging individuals for financial access, embezzling R1 million in guest funds, falsifying dockets, rigging bail applications, and executing illegal arrests.
The media was weaponized to reinforce these lies, using News24 articles to justify arrests and vice versa—creating a self-perpetuating cycle of false credibility. Despite clear evidence, these crimes remain ignored.
ADDENDUM: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHATSAPP MESSAGES AS EVIDENCE, AND AS A COMPARISON WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE
The Reliability of WhatsApp Messages as Evidence
WhatsApp messages are among the most reliable forms of evidence, offering an accurate, contemporaneous record of past events, attitudes, actions, and motives. Unlike subjective testimony shaped by memory or personal bias, WhatsApp chats preserve verbatim exchanges, creating an unalterable snapshot of interactions as they happened. These records are inherently trustworthy, as both participants retain identical copies, ensuring authenticity and preventing tampering.
WhatsApp Messages as the Next Best Form of Evidence
In the absence of round-the-clock video footage or audio recordings, WhatsApp exports serve as the next best form of documentation. They capture real-time exchanges that reflect not only facts but also context, tone, and intent—elements often lost or distorted in retrospective accounts.
Comparable to forensic evidence or black box recordings in aviation, WhatsApp chats preserve critical details, ensuring accuracy where oral testimony or reconstructed timelines might falter. Both WhatsApp messages and black box recordings are designed to capture unfiltered truths for accountability, a principle that aligns perfectly with their role in evidentiary proceedings.
FACT FILES: EXPOSING THE LIES, REVEALING THE TRUTH
In the absence of continuous video or audio recordings, WhatsApp exports provide the next best form of documentation. They capture real-time exchanges, preserving not only facts but also context, tone, and intent—elements often lost in hindsight.
Much like black box recordings in aviation, WhatsApp chats serve as a permanent record, preventing distortion and manipulation. Their timestamped accuracy makes them invaluable in evidentiary proceedings, ensuring accountability where oral testimony or reconstructed timelines might fail.
How Courts View WhatsApp Messages
Courts universally regard WhatsApp messages exchanged near the time of a disputed event as critical evidence. These messages provide definitive snapshots of the periods they cover, offering clarity and coherence to complex disputes.
Unlike "lived experience," which is inherently subjective and varies depending on individual perception or interpretation, WhatsApp messages present concrete facts that can be independently verified.
The Transparency of WhatsApp Exports
The transparency of WhatsApp exports further enhances their credibility. If an individual making allegations refuses to produce their WhatsApp messages, it raises serious doubts about the validity of their claims.
Conversely, a willingness to disclose such records demonstrates both transparency and confidence in the truth. When taken collectively, a body of WhatsApp chats creates a cohesive, interwoven narrative that discredits fabricated allegations and exposes inconsistencies in subjective accounts.
FACT FILES: EXPOSING THE LIES, REVEALING THE TRUTH
WhatsApp exports enhance credibility by providing an unaltered, timestamped record of events. If an accuser refuses to disclose their messages, it raises serious doubts about the validity of their claims.
Conversely, a willingness to share these records signals transparency and confidence in the truth. When analyzed collectively, a body of WhatsApp chats forms a cohesive narrative, exposing inconsistencies and discrediting fabricated allegations.
The Limitations of "Lived Experience" as Evidence
"Lived experience," while valid as a personal perspective, cannot hold the same weight as WhatsApp messages when determining objective truth. Lived experience is often influenced by:
• Emotions
• Selective memory
• Personal bias, which may distort reality
In stark contrast, WhatsApp exports are impartial; they are not influenced by external factors, nor can they be manipulated to suit a narrative.
When comparing the two, it is clear that WhatsApp messages stand as a superior evidentiary tool, providing unambiguous facts where subjective accounts often muddy the waters.
Why WhatsApp Messages Must Take Precedence in High-Stakes Disputes.
In disputes where the stakes are high, reliance on WhatsApp messages over subjective recollections is not just preferable but essential. They anchor the narrative in facts, ensuring that truth prevails over perception.
FACT FILES: EXPOSING THE LIES, REVEALING THE TRUTH
While "lived experience" reflects personal perspective, it is often shaped by emotions, selective memory, and personal bias—factors that can distort reality.
In contrast, WhatsApp messages provide an impartial, timestamped record that cannot be manipulated to fit a narrative. In high-stakes disputes, they serve as an essential evidentiary tool, ensuring truth prevails over perception.
ADDING THE CRITICAL ROLE OF EMAIL EVIDENCE
The Enormous Volume of Emails Exchanged (2021–2022)
Beyond the thousands of WhatsApp messages, there exists an overwhelming volume of email correspondence exchanged between all relevant parties throughout 2021 and 2022. These emails are just as valuable as evidence, both in terms of what they prove and what they disprove.
They substantiate my position—one that has remained unchanged and consistent for over four years.
They disprove entirely the consortium’s shifting narrative—a narrative that has constantly evolved depending on:
-
Who they are speaking to.
-
What their audience already knows.
-
What they have been caught lying about previously.
Emails are not just witness statements—they are time-stamped records of exactly what was said, when it was said, and how those involved responded at the time.
The Emails: A Devastating Blow to the Consortium’s Credibility
One of the most damning aspects of the email evidence is not just what is said, but what is missing.
In the hundreds upon hundreds of emails exchanged, there is a glaring absence of any reference to:
-
The supposed "fraud" they later claimed was taking place.
-
Any mention of double bookings beyond the three already acknowledged.
-
Any accusations of scam-related wrongdoing.
-
Any concerns raised in real-time that align with their later allegations.
If the allegations were genuine, these accusations would have appeared in email correspondence at the time. Instead, their total omission proves that many of the allegations were fabricated after the fact.
Emails That Disprove Every Allegation
Hundreds of Communications, No Evidence of Fraud
The consortium’s shifting narrative is exposed by the very emails exchanged during the period of alleged misconduct.
Across hundreds of correspondences, there is a glaring absence of any reference to fraud, complaints, or mismanagement—because these accusations were fabricated long after the fact.
Unlike manipulated statements, email records are timestamped, verifiable, and prove that every allegation was retroactively constructed to fit a false narrative
Emails Prove My Consistency vs. Their Manipulation
Unlike the consortium, my position has never changed.
-
From the very beginning, I laid out my version of events.
-
Every email, WhatsApp message, and official document aligns with that version.
-
Every new discovery in the email records further validates my account.
By contrast, the consortium’s narrative is fluid.
They have:
-
Shifted their accusations depending on who they are trying to convince.
-
Changed key details as more evidence has surfaced.
-
Manipulated information depending on what their audience already knows.
The email evidence exposes this deception—they were not raising these concerns in real-time because those concerns did not exist at the time.
This is not just a lack of evidence for their claims—it is evidence that their claims were actively fabricated well after the events in question.
FACT FILES: WEIGHT OF EMAIL EVIDENCE
Beyond thousands of WhatsApp messages, an extensive volume of email correspondence from 2021 and 2022 further substantiates the speaker’s position. T
hese emails disprove the consortium's shifting narrative and serve as time-stamped records of events, clearly showing the lack of any mention of fraud, double bookings, or scam-related wrongdoing at the time. The absence of such references in the emails proves the allegations were fabricated after the fact, severely undermining the consortium's credibility.
Conclusion: Emails + WhatsApp = A Devastating Case Against the Consortium
-
The WhatsApp exports provide real-time insight into what was actually happening at the time.
-
The email evidence confirms this further, while simultaneously exposing the fabrications of the consortium.
The combination of these two forms of evidence is a devastating indictment of the consortium’s dishonesty. While I have made all my evidence publicly available, the consortium refuses to do the same. Because they can’t.
If their emails and WhatsApp messages supported their claims, they would have released them immediately. The fact that they haven’t speaks volumes.
Once again, the conclusion is clear: ❌ There is no evidence of a scam—because no scam ever took place.
FACT FILES: EXPOSING THE LIES, REVEALING THE TRUTH
The combination of WhatsApp exports and email evidence provides a clear and real-time account of the events, further exposing the consortium's fabrications.
While the speaker has made all their evidence publicly available, the consortium has refused to release theirs, suggesting their claims are unsupported. The absence of such evidence reinforces the conclusion: no scam ever occurred.
THE DOZENS OF TESTS THAT PROVE THE EVIDENCE NEVER EXISTED
Evidence Was Necessary—Yet It Never Materialized
The consortium, particularly Mr. de Swardt, Paula Disberry, and Keith/Inge Broad, alongside SAPS (especially Sergeant Stevens), repeatedly made extreme and categorical allegations—insisting that they had substantial evidence to support them.
And yet, at every critical moment where producing evidence would have been beneficial, necessary, or even essential, none ever surfaced. If their claims were true, why was evidence never presented when it mattered most?
Two Reasons No Evidence Exists
There are only two possible explanations for why, despite their repeated promises, no evidence ever materialized:
-
It does not exist—because the allegations were fabricated, manipulated, or misrepresented.
-
It was never needed—because the goal was never conviction or trial, but rather incarceration, destruction, and reputational ruin.
The method was simple:
-
Fabricate an extreme allegation
-
Deliver it with absolute conviction
-
Assure everyone that evidence will follow
-
Use media outlets like News24 to "launder" the lies into seemingly legitimate allegations
-
Use those media reports to justify SAPS involvement, arrests, and objections to bail
And on this basis, they were very successful. They relied on repetition and recycling—not evidence—to create the illusion of truth.
FACT FILES: THE STRATEGY
There are two possible reasons why no evidence ever materialised: either it doesn't exist because the allegations were fabricated, or it was never needed, as the goal was never conviction, but rather destruction and reputation ruin.
The consortium employed a simple method: fabricate an extreme allegation, deliver it with conviction, promise evidence, use media outlets like News24 to legitimise the claims, and then justify legal action. This strategy relied on repetition and recycling of lies, not evidence, to create the illusion of truth.
How They Exploited the Legal System
In South Africa, the evidentiary threshold for arrest and remand is dangerously low.
-
Unlike in the UK, where the Crown Prosecution Service requires a strong likelihood of conviction before a case proceeds, in South Africa, a mere suspicion of wrongdoing is often enough to:
-
Arrest someone
-
Lay charges
Remand them to prison for months while a case is “built” after the fact
-
They did not need real evidence—they only needed:
-
A complicit Investigating Officer willing to misrepresent the facts
-
A media willing to amplify the lies uncritically
-
Enough smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of wrongdoing
The goal was never to prove a case—the goal was to destroy me before a case could ever be tested.
FACT FILES: EXPOSING THE LIES, REVEALING THE TRUTH
In South Africa, the evidentiary threshold for arrest and remand is dangerously low, allowing for arrests and charges based on mere suspicion, without the need for real evidence.
Unlike the UK, where strong evidence is required before proceeding with a case, South Africa’s system allows for wrongful imprisonment, especially with the support of a complicit Investigating Officer and uncritical media amplification. The goal was never to prove guilt, but to destroy the speaker's reputation before any case could be tested.
Where Is the Evidence They Promised?
If the consortium had genuine evidence, it would have been produced at:
-
The civil hearings where Keith Broad attempted to reclaim the property
-
The two arrests where they attempted to keep me in Pollsmoor for months or years
-
The various civil cases launched by Paula Disberry
-
The multiple legal filings where they fabricated affidavits instead of providing proof
-
The media reports, where instead of evidence, they relied on blatant misrepresentations
-
The booking platforms, where they could have used real evidence instead of demonstrably false claims about unauthorized rentals
-
Instead, at every stage, they failed to produce anything.
Instead of providing actual proof, they:
-
Fabricated statements (e.g., Keith Broad’s protection order application)
-
Used illegal tactics to suppress opposing evidence (e.g., ensuring I was in prison while they pushed appeals through)
-
Fed demonstrable lies to the media about rent arrears and property damages
The pattern is unmistakable:
-
Create a false claim
-
Assure everyone that evidence will be provided
-
Let time pass while the damage is done
-
Ensure that, by the time people realize no evidence is forthcoming, it no longer matters
Even when they were directly challenged to provide the evidence, they never could—because it never existed.
FACT FILES: EXPOSING THE LIES, REVEALING THE TRUTH
The consortium failed to produce any real evidence at critical moments, such as civil hearings, arrests, legal filings, and media reports. Instead, they resorted to fabricating statements, using illegal tactics, and feeding lies to the media.
The pattern is clear: they created false claims, assured evidence would follow, and allowed time to erode the truth, knowing no real evidence ever existed. Despite being challenged to provide proof, they never could, as the evidence was fabricated or non-existent.
The Desperation to Delay and Manipulate Legal Proceedings
One of the most blatant examples of their bad faith tactics was the postponement of the hearing by six months to November 2022. Why was this done? Because they knew that if the June hearing proceeded, they would lose.
At that point:
-
I had paid nine months of rent in full and on time.
-
I had renovated the property at my own expense.
-
I had 4.5 years remaining on my lease—a contract that explicitly justified and permitted the rental operations.
Had they had genuine, explosive evidence, they would have used it then and there.
Instead, they stalled for time—because they had nothing real to present.
FACT FILES: POSTPONEMENT OF THE HEARING
The consortium’s postponement of the hearing to November 2022 was a deliberate tactic to delay the inevitable. By that time, the speaker had paid nine months of rent, renovated the property, and had 4.5 years remaining on their lease, which permitted rental operations.
Had the consortium possessed genuine evidence, they would have presented it immediately, but instead, they stalled for time because they had no real proof.
DISPARITY IN THE BURDEN OF PROOF
The Unfair Playing Field
I am constantly challenged to prove X or Y, and the evidential bar is always set extremely high. Others appear to accept their word. I keep hearing what person A or B said, but they only offer their words. That would not be acceptable to me, nor should it be accepted by others. There is very little that cannot be investigated or given credence.
Especially when there is a fundamental and insurmountable difference between the two positions. When I am asked to sift through emails, data, photos, and other sources to find something that may prove or disprove a statement made by any individual, it is often like looking for a needle in a haystack.
If the question is about a specific booking, there will be hundreds; however, the guest will only have one. If the question is about a specific client, there will be thousands; however, the client will only have one claim, one refurbishment, or one holiday. And if they are being questioned in the context of a complaint, it is clear that one serious incident has come to their attention, and they will have gathered and stored evidence at the time.
I don't have that luxury. If I’m being asked to recall events, there have been hundreds of discussions about relationships, work, personal matters, romantic encounters, transactions, and so on over the last 30 years. The same principle applies.
So, even if the evidential burden were the same for both, I would start at a minor disadvantage. If the evidential burden is greater for me than for them, it becomes completely unfair. You clearly have more faith in the honesty of the average guest or client than I do, and you are probably less experienced in listening to lies that result in them getting what they want.
Take Tshimbi’s complaint as an example. What she complained about at the time differs from what an attorney wrote to us two days later, which in turn differs from what she has told you. For someone who was supposedly so upset about:
-
The inadequate airport transfers
-
The unusable kitchen
-
Other grievances
And who was having a disagreement about checking out, where she was told her complaints were invalid and no refund would be issued—are we really suggesting that if she was reasonable and we were unreasonable, she would not have taken any videos or photos? There were several adults in their party. The first thing I and most people would do if unsatisfactory cars appeared would be to take numerous photographs.
Although Tshimbi is pretty sure she didn't complain at the time, she only brought it up as an issue once inside the property. And she certainly didn't complain about the cars when they were chauffeuring her to a luxury villa for free—a villa she was only using because she had booked an early flight and didn’t want to pay for the previous day.
FACT FILES: DISCREPANCY - EVIDENCE & COMPLAINTS
I was being asked to sift through vast amounts of data, emails, and records to disprove statements made by others, while others only need to provide their words.
This imbalance becomes even more apparent when examining specific complaints, such as Tshimbi’s, where her narrative changes over time—from complaints about airport transfers and the kitchen to later statements from her attorney and further discrepancies.
The lack of photos or videos from her, despite the severity of the complaints, further highlights the inconsistencies in her claims, raising doubts about the validity of her accusations.
The Complete Absence Of Proportionality, Replaced With Absolutism
Once, I had an argument with Airbnb when they paused our listings for a week due to our declining too many bookings.
The reason? The party crowd. When I spoke with Airbnb, their threshold was seven declined bookings per X period per host—not per property. So a host with six or eleven properties was 6x or 11x more likely to be paused, which gave them 80% to 95% less wriggle room. Airbnb acknowledged this was unfair, and I believe they later changed it.
The same principle applies to any business or person:
-
If 100% of your transactions result in complaints, you are running a fraudulent business.
-
If 75% do, something is deeply wrong.
-
If 50%, it’s still serious.
-
If 25%, there’s a major problem.
-
If 10%, it’s concerning.
-
If 1%, that’s normal business variance.
I challenge anyone to argue, with a straight face, that a business with complaints running at under 10%, let alone 5%, let alone 1% is doing anything unethical.
FACT FILES: EXPOSING THE LIES, REVEALING THE TRUTH
Airbnb’s listing pause policy, where hosts with multiple properties faced greater scrutiny due to a threshold of declined bookings.
Similar principles apply to any business—if complaints consistently make up more than 10% of transactions, the business is facing serious issues, but if under 10%, it is within normal business variance and should not be considered unethical.
The notion that businesses with low complaint rates are engaged in unethical practices is nonsensical at best.
The Reality Of The Luxury Villa Industry And The Manufactured Fraud Narrative
In an industry like luxury villas, where:
-
Guests are actively encouraged to complain, lay charges, and allege fraud,
-
A narrative of fraud has been carefully constructed,
-
Petitions, online articles, and attorney communications prove nothing beyond what is already known, proportionality is everything.
Of those involved, many have misrepresented events.
Of the genuine complaints that remain, they form a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction.
And all of this occurred during:
-
An expansion of 5000%,
-
Omicron’s chaos,
-
Major refurbishments,
-
Archaic systems that were overwhelmed,
-
Staff struggling to cope.
Yet, despite this extraordinary context, these factors are deliberately ignored, and a false narrative is sustained.
The Ongoing Lack Of Evidence
To date, not one shred of evidence has been provided that:
-
Stands up to scrutiny
-
Did not originate from within the consortium, was manipulated, or was fabricated by the consortium.
-
At the point of drafting this, News24 has not provided a single shred of evidence to support the allegations they have amplified.
-
It appears that zero due diligence was done.
FACT FILES: LACK OF EVIDENCE AND DUE DILIGENCE
To date, no evidence has been provided that holds up to scrutiny or is free from manipulation or fabrication by the consortium.
Despite the amplification of allegations by News24, they have failed to present any supporting evidence. It is apparent that no due diligence was conducted in the process.
ATTORNEY JOHANNES LOUBER INCLUDING WHATSAPP CHAT EXPORTS
WHATSAPP CHAT EXPORT
The Attorney’s Record of Keith & Inge Broad’s Escalating Lies, Criminality and Aggression
This WhatsApp chat export provides a detailed legal record of Keith and Inge Broad’s systematic misconduct, as documented by legal counsel. The exchanges reveal:
✔ The timeline of escalating legal attacks, proving that every move was premeditated and coordinated.
✔ The moment Wouter de Swardt was appointed, marking a significant increase in criminal conduct.
✔ The attorney’s direct involvement in defending against fabricated claims, exposing the false narratives pushed by Keith and Inge.
✔ The legal strategy used to counteract unlawful evictions, fraudulent filings, and procedural manipulation.
These messages obliterate the false claims made by Keith and Inge Broad, proving that their legal manoeuvres were never about justice—but about executing a calculated property takeover.
"Truth is not only violated by falsehood; it may be equally outraged by silence." - Henri Frederic Amiel