contact@wix.com
+123-456-789
© 2035 by The Clinic.Powered and secured by Wix
THE "INGE" INTERVIEW
Introduction
This section requires specific mention as it highlights the central premise of the complaint. The article prominently features an interview with “Inge” Broad, though her surname is strategically withheld. This anonymity raises immediate concerns about transparency and accountability. It is unlikely to be for privacy or safety reasons. Instead, the anonymity served a calculated purpose: the Broads intended to use this article as a tool in future legal battles, presenting supposed corroborative evidence to support fabricated claims.
By withholding her surname, Keith Broad could leverage these articles in court without drawing attention to the deceit underpinning their narrative. A glaring double standard emerges. On one hand, Inge makes severe accusations, portraying herself and Keith as victims, while in reality, the opposite was true. Her statements were false, malicious, and deceitful.
The articles served as the only platform through which the Broads could substantiate their fabricated narrative—a crucial element for their legal applications while I was detained in Pollsmoor. These articles relentlessly attacked me, providing my opponents with a far-reaching platform to spread falsehoods, all while I was systematically denied the chance to respond or clarify.
Why did Media24 allow these individuals to use their publication as a tool to further their agenda? How did they turn falsehoods into purported truths without any filter, context, or investigation?
One of the principal motives behind WdS’s push for these articles was to fabricate credibility for their lies—claims about rent arrears, property damage, and lack of consent to subletting—that could not withstand scrutiny in court. The failures in 2022, particularly in civil court, underscored the baselessness of their claims. By orchestrating these articles, they sought to create an appearance of legitimacy, which required keeping Keith Broad’s name disconnected from the narrative.
The decision to withhold Inge’s surname was not a genuine journalistic decision. It was an intentional tactic to ensure these articles could later be weaponized in court. This manipulation constitutes a clear violation of the Press Code
This pattern of deceit reveals profound confidence in their fabrications remaining undiscovered and an arrogance stemming from a belief that they are immune to accountability. This unchallenged impunity underscores their sense of privilege, where they perceive themselves as above the laws that bind others.
SEPT 2021
R18,000,000*
(UNSOLD)
AFTER
DEC 2022
R31,000,000
FOR SALE
AN INCREASE OF R13 MILLION IN JUST ONE YEAR
The Hypocrisy Of The Broad's Statements And Actions Was Staggering
The Broads’ statements and actions throughout this saga were defined by an unparalleled level of hypocrisy, manipulation, and deceit. They portrayed themselves as victims while engaging in systematic exploitation, sabotage, and misconduct that not only contradicted their claims but actively harmed others.
Their hypocrisy manifested in actions and statements that were not only contradictory but also maliciously self-serving. The examples below illustrate their overarching duplicity and the extent to which they weaponized falsehoods to obscure their wrongdoing.
"INGE" BROAD
"Inge (surname withheld) told News24 it was heartbreaking and frustrating to see what was done to her and her husband’s luxury property on the Atlantic seaboard."
"INGE" BROAD
"It is costing us a fortune to repair the damage to our property, which was supposed to provide us with an income."
"INGE" BROAD
"No matter what we tried to get him out legally, the odds seemed always to be stacked in his favor. That was despite the damage caused to the property."
Examples Of Broad's Broader Hypocrisy
They publicly portrayed me as a scammer while they were, in fact, scamming and defrauding me.
They accepted my rental payments while simultaneously undermining the income source intended to fund these payments, all the while telling others I was in arrears.
They persistently alleged rent arrears, accusing me of paying a month’s rent and then stopping, despite my having paid them well over a million rand in rent and bills by the time the first articles were published—all this while they repeatedly breached the lease.
They claimed we hadn’t paid utility bills, despite these being fully paid. In April, I even had to pay R60,000 to the municipality after they cut off our electricity, having discovered that Keith and Inge Broad had not passed along any of the R630,000 we had paid them by that point.
They defrauded me into a lease agreement so that I would transform the property, only to twist those improvements later, maliciously claiming them as “damage.”
They led me into a lease agreement centred on a short-term rental model to generate revenue, only to later assert that they neither knew about nor consented to such an arrangement.
They accused me of scamming guests and causing them financial losses while actively working to turn guests into victims by concealing my lack of control over the properties after my December arrest.
They claimed I scammed guests who arrived post-arrest, omitting the critical fact that I had taken those bookings when I was still in control, and it was their actions that removed that control.
They feigned empathy for affected guests while intentionally creating situations that led to guest losses, manipulating these guests away from resolution to further their own interests.
They lamented the lack of legal support for landlords while failing to acknowledge their own baseless eviction attempts, which faltered due to the absence of legal justification.
BEFORE
AFTER
They decried injustice yet manipulated and misused the criminal justice system to achieve a fundamental injustice.
They criticized PIE legislation and landlord obligations while consistently violating these fundamental rules, embodying the rogue landlord behaviours that the legislation was enacted to prevent.
They alleged that groups of guests were prevented from checking in due to our actions, while they caused these incidents nearly every time they conducted illegal evictions.
They publicly displayed heartbreak over guest and property issues while systematically working to cause maximum distress and suffering to as many people as possible in pursuit of their financial goals.
They accused me of criminal conduct when, between them, their PI, and the SAPS officers they coordinated with, they collectively committed over 400 criminal offenses.
They bemoaned injustice while knowingly laying false charges to incarcerate me in Pollsmoor for their strategic advantage.
They claimed I caused them financial losses, yet they cost me tens of millions of rand, stole the property back, and advertised it at R13 million more than its pre-renovation value.
They alleged lost rental income while I faced millions in lost revenue due to their constant platform attacks, and they profited by renting the property at R25,000 per night (R7.5 million annually) due to the improvements I made, which they labelled as “malicious damage.”
They secured a protection order through deceit, claiming to the judge that 16 Leirmans Road was their family home, and falsely alleged that the men WDS brought to assault and eject the occupants were my “henchmen” sent to harass them.
They manipulated the court to have me sent to Pollsmoor over the alleged theft of worthless items, deceptively claiming these items were valuable assets. Yet when the time came to retrieve them, Inge Broad showed no interest in the alleged valuables but only asked about an office printer.
They labelled my rent for July to November as arrears, despite their July illegal eviction that barred me from using the property, compounded by a deceptive 500-meter exclusion zone they had the court enforce.
WDS included in his dossier guests who had booked with his associates—Denis, Johan, and Mario—all of whom he knew had embezzled R1.2 million, with Denis Dalton even participating in WDS’s illegal operations and safe searches in my home during my arrest.
"INGE" BROAD
"It is costing us a fortune to repair the damage to our property, which was supposed to provide us with an income."
"INGE" BROAD
"It is costing us a fortune to repair the damage to our property, which was supposed to provide us with an income."
The landlords tried to cut off all revenue sources while publicly shaming me for not paying rent.
The landlords denied the existence of a consortium yet simultaneously acknowledged their joint actions, cooperation, and coordinated attacks against me.
They vilified me over losses related to Omicron’s chaos and then spent a year attempting to bankrupt us, hoping to block refunds to guests and create similar issues in the future.
They falsely claimed we scammed guests during Omicron while corralling them into one indistinct group with a misleading promise of assistance, all while their true goal was to ruin my business and prevent guest reimbursements.
They accused me of causing guests losses of thousands of rands while orchestrating plans to induce losses on a much larger scale.
They berated me for losses while knowingly steering guests away from remedial routes, ensuring permanent losses instead.
They cited newspaper articles as proof of allegations, despite those articles being knowingly fuelled by the landlords.
They referenced my arrests and detentions as evidence of guilt, ignoring the fact that these events were orchestrated by the landlords.
They told guests arriving on the weekend of July 22-24 they had been scammed by a criminal, after having eight thugs forcibly enter the property and attempt a physical eviction during the guests’ stay, claiming the thugs were the “real guests.”
They stole my passport to obstruct my visa extension, then used this fact to their advantage in both civil and criminal courts as well as in Media24 articles.
They withheld my passport illegally and then attempted to have my bail revoked, citing my inability to present proof of an extended visa they knew I held because it was in that passport.
They accused me of intentionally not extending my visa, and when a replacement passport arrived, they stole and illegally held that one as well.
"INGE" BROAD
"It is costing us a fortune to repair the damage to our property, which was supposed to provide us with an income."
"INGE" BROAD
"It is costing us a fortune to repair the damage to our property, which was supposed to provide us with an income."
"INGE" BROAD
"It is costing us a fortune to repair the damage to our property, which was supposed to provide us with an income."
BEFORE
AFTER
AFTER
The Hypocrisy Of The ‘Interview’
Through its articles, Media24 provided credibility and legitimacy to outright lies. The allegations and fabricated narrative advanced in the articles were not just untrue; in most cases, they were the polar opposite of what actually happened. Reviewing the evidence reveals a narrative so drastically at odds with reality that it could easily be mistaken for fiction.
This is where Media24 played a crucial role, enabling Keith and Inge to “launder” their falsehoods—turning lies into accepted truths and allowing WdS’s version not only to dominate public perception but to exclusively inform it. By failing to publish any of the real facts, Media24 disregarded journalistic integrity entirely.
While I would still like to believe that they were simply misled, the stark contrast between the truth and what they published suggests otherwise. Using Inge’s interview as a case study, it’s impossible to imagine that Media24 could publish such a piece without either:
(a) there being sinister intent or significant conflicts of interest, or
(b) the most gross journalistic negligence conceivable—in effect rubber-stamping and publishing WdS’s authored body of work and allegations without question, substantiation, or filter.
Whatever the reason, Media24 transformed WdS’s malicious propaganda into “truth” in the minds of their readership.
The Media24 interview with the Broads serves as a damning reflection of their audacity to manipulate facts while presenting themselves as victims. Their statements in the interview are riddled with blatant hypocrisy, contradictions, and outright fabrications, painting a false narrative of their own innocence while condemning me without merit.
These comments, far from being factual or consistent, epitomize the extent of their duplicity and the lengths they were willing to go to distort reality. Below is a detailed breakdown of the hypocrisies evident in the statements made during the interview.
Examples of Hypocrisy in Statements Made in the Media24 Interview
The hypocrisy of stating, "No matter what we tried to get him out legally, the odds seemed always to be stacked in his favour," when the real reason for their frustration was that it had always been their intention to remove me from the property once I had finished refurbishing it. Their complaint was not about legal odds but about their failure to manipulate the legal system to achieve their unjust goals.
Making such allegations when they knew the only reason the civil courts had not granted an eviction order was that there was absolutely no legal justification, while they simultaneously and repeatedly violated the law by executing illegal evictions.
Stating, "A wall leading to the storage areas was broken through, and some of our private possessions were removed," when the changes they referred to—such as the Jack and Jill bathroom—were their own idea. After retaking the property, they not only kept these modifications but featured them prominently in the sales literature to boost the selling price.
Omitting that the first arrest and bail application was the result not of fraud charges but of Inge’s false accusation of theft. She claimed I had stolen items she knew were safely stored, intentionally misleading the authorities to advance her narrative.
The double standards of stating, "The flooring was changed, and the furniture reupholstered," while conveniently omitting that they had praised and encouraged these changes at the time. The work was necessary because the existing furniture and flooring were filthy, outdated, and infested. Ironically, they later used these improvements to justify higher rental and selling prices.
Stating, "The house was filthy," when the "filthy" condition they referenced was the state we found the property in after months of unoccupancy, caused solely by their obtaining a fraudulent protection order. That order, based on perjury, excluded me from coming within 500 meters of the property and left it neglected.
The hypocrisy of stating, "It is costing us a fortune to repair the damage to our property which was supposed to provide us with an income," when they knew I had spent nearly R100,000 repairing it in November 2022 after returning once the 500-meter exclusion zone was confirmed as withdrawn. This damage had been caused by the eight thugs they had paid to squat on the property, who used it as a party venue.
Stating, "We tried blocking his adverts each time we saw any, but he kept creating new ones," when those adverts were the very mechanism by which I would recover my investment and fund the rental payments. This action directly undermined the financial model agreed upon at the outset.
The hypocrisy of stating, "The laws are really not fair towards property owners," when their rogue and illegal conduct was the real cause of their legal failures. Their complaint about fairness was rooted in their frustration that they could not unlawfully steal back the property and its profits after I had invested in significantly increasing its value.
Stating, "The pumps of the Jacuzzis burnt out, the inverter was not working, the steam bath was not working, and neither was the sauna," while ignoring that this damage resulted from the reckless behavior of the thugs they had paid to squat on the property following my July arrest.
The hypocrisy of stating, "According to Inge, after Russell was finally out of the house, she was there one day cleaning up when a family of twelve people arrived from overseas for a wedding in Cape Town," when the only reason she was there was to intercept arriving guests, deliver her speech about being scammed, and manipulate them into filing police reports to further her agenda.
Stating, "Inge told News24 they had fallen for one of the fraud adverts and paid in advance," when she knew the bookings had been made in good faith. It was her actions—having me arrested and jailed—that resulted in guests being unable to access the properties they had paid for.
Claiming, "According to Inge, she managed to find them alternative accommodation at short notice," while omitting that the only reason the guests required alternative accommodation was because she had illegally stolen the property and deliberately failed to notify Booking.com about the situation.
Stating, "The prevention of illegal eviction laws in South Africa is problematic for owners like us," when their frustrations stemmed from their inability to conduct further illegal evictions without consequences. The laws they decried were designed to protect tenants from precisely the rogue behavior they engaged in.
Claiming, "No matter what we tried to get him out legally, the odds seemed always to be stacked in his favour," while ignoring that every attempt they made—whether through civil courts or outright illegal evictions—was both baseless and criminal in nature.
Stating, "That was despite the damage caused to the property," when the so-called "damage" included full refurbishments, two new kitchens, landscaping, and interior design improvements that contributed to the R13 million increase in the property's value.
Claiming, "Russell allegedly rented properties without the owners’ consent," when the entire proposal to rent, along with the short-term rental model, was their idea from the outset.
Stating, "Visitors started arriving only days after Russell’s eviction, further complicating matters," when the event they referred to was not an eviction but an arrest orchestrated to disguise an illegal eviction. There was no court order permitting them to reclaim the property.
Claiming, "Inge (surname withheld) told News24 it was heartbreaking and frustrating to see what was done to her and her husband’s luxury property," when withholding her surname was a calculated tactic to manipulate legal proceedings. The so-called “damage” was actually extensive improvements that significantly increased the property's value and appeal.
Conclusion
The statements made by the Broads in the Media24 interview were a masterclass in hypocrisy and manipulation. Every claim they made was a deliberate distortion of the truth, designed to vilify me while concealing their own misconduct and the criminality that underpinned their campaign. These statements were not just misleading; they were actively harmful, intended to further their agenda of defamation, financial gain, and the destruction of my reputation. The interview stands as a stark reminder of their willingness to weaponize the media to obscure the truth and perpetuate their lies.
BEFORE
AFTER
"Heartbreaking"
Her reference to "heartbreaking" is especially hypocritical, profoundly disingenuous, and a complete inversion of the truth:
Reality: The Broads were thrilled with the transformation of the property throughout the renovation process, frequently expressing their appreciation. As soon as the refurbishment was completed, they began attempting to reclaim the property to profit from its increased value without honouring the remainder of the lease.
The Renovations: The extensive improvements included a complete overhaul—professional interior design, landscaping, new kitchens, full redecoration, new flooring, and even the construction of an amphitheatre and outdoor terrace. These changes increased the property’s market value by an estimated R13 million, all funded out of my own pocket.
Post-Tenancy Misrepresentation: After my illegal eviction, the property was listed for sale using the very features I had added as selling points. If the property had truly been in the poor condition they alleged, or if I had undertaken unauthorized work, why were the improvements neither reversed nor removed but instead leveraged to command a higher selling price?
Convenient Omissions: This gross misrepresentation of the property's condition reveals the duplicity in the Broads' narrative, designed to elicit sympathy and divert attention from their illegal actions. While their comments sought to evoke emotional and financial harm, they ignored their own substantial financial gain from the property's increased value.
BEFORE
AFTER
What is Truly Heartbreaking?
The Broads' statements invert the reality of what is heartbreaking. If Media24 wants to explore what truly deserves that description, it lies in the following:
Heartbreaking is spending a year transforming a property, investing life savings, and pouring love and care into the project, only to spend the next year fighting tooth and nail to keep it.
Heartbreaking is battling people with no morals, who would stop at nothing and commit any crime to achieve their goal.
Heartbreaking is seeing the media give these individuals an unchecked platform to spread their lies, providing a megaphone for deceit that destroyed everything I had worked for.
Heartbreaking does not even begin to describe being illegally arrested, unlawfully detained, and then subjected to the appalling conditions of Pollsmoor Prison.
Heartbreaking is sitting inside those prison walls, knowing that the very people responsible for these injustices were actively ensuring I would remain there.
Heartbreaking is coming out of Pollsmoor in August, only to discover that WDS, Inge, and Keith Broad had frightened my staff so much with their lies that there were none left, leaving my business in ruins.
Heartbreaking is returning to find my entire jewellery collection stolen and my livelihood destroyed.
Heartbreaking is watching as everything I built is dismantled, piece by piece.
Heartbreaking is standing in the property you poured your heart into, being dragged away, and watching your keys handed from the investigating officer to WDS, knowing that within the hour, WDS would pass them to the landlord.
Heartbreaking is being dragged away from your three dogs, knowing that no one will be there to love and care for them, and that they have no home. I spent the first few weeks in Pollsmoor frantic to hear they were okay, only to be further heartbroken when I learned, after my release, that they spent three weeks confused and terrified, having been dumped in a garage by the owners with no food or water.
Heartbreaking is being granted bail, only to have it revoked through lies from the investigating officer.
Heartbreaking is standing in court, helpless and unable to afford an attorney, listening to Johan Victor, representing the landlords, deny me the use of my Llandudno properties as a bail address, despite having no legal grounds to do so, in an effort to undermine my bail application.
Heartbreaking is returning to Pollsmoor for a second time, knowing that this time, those responsible would ensure there were no mistakes in keeping me there.
Heartbreaking is attending court appearance after court appearance, hearing the investigating officer tell more lies to extend my detention, and knowing that justice was being trampled on at every turn.
Heartbreaking is finally leaving Pollsmoor with nothing but the clothes on your back.
Heartbreaking is spending the next year and a half with no life, trying to pull together the pieces and evidence needed to motivate investigations and achieve justice in a system that is apathetic at best.
Heartbreaking is knowing that at the end of 2021, I had created a truly unique collection of properties, with R30 million in movable assets, an extensive art collection, an extensive jewellery collection, and a portfolio that would generate R20 million a year in profits—a well-earned reward for countless years of working 18-hour days, every day of the year.
Heartbreaking is walking out of Pollsmoor with nothing but the few mouldy clothes returned to me by the owner of Fisherman’s and a large debt to my mother for the legal bills.
Heartbreaking is not having seen my mother since 2020, first due to COVID-19 and then due to the actions of Keith, Inge, WDS, Sergeant Duna, Sergeant Stevens, and others. Now, I must fight to get my immigration status normalized, all while having been diagnosed with lung cancer in 2022. I lost a year in which I should have been able to travel, and I now live in fear that by the time I can, it will be too late.
Heartbreaking is having built a portfolio with immense pride in both the properties themselves and in hosting guests, ensuring their perfect stay, only for those who stole everything from me to have rewritten the public narrative. They painted me as the scammer, fraudster, and villain, while they enjoy the fruits of my labour, free of consequences—so far.
BEFORE
AFTER
"She alleged the couple were almost financially ruined due to Russell not having paid rent or utilities for about a year”
This statement is deliberately deceitful and a complete distortion of the facts.
The Broads had financially ruined themselves long before I entered into a lease agreement with them. Years of accumulating crippling personal debts had left them in dire financial straits, forcing them into a position where they needed to sell the property. It was their desperation to offload this burden that led to their deceitful tactics in securing the lease arrangement with me. Far from being responsible for their financial ruin, I was the one stabilizing their precarious situation. Within the first six months of the lease, which commenced on 15 October 2021, I had paid approximately R900,000 in rent and utilities. Additionally, I covered the costs of essential repairs and maintenance—expenses that were the landlord's responsibility but were paid out of my pocket.
Despite their financial benefits from my tenancy, Keith Broad repeatedly attempted to evict me illegally. These efforts included half a dozen illegal eviction attempts, multiple civil court cases, and targeted attacks on my business platforms, profiles, and income streams. Keith even enlisted WDS to pursue these efforts, yet they failed to regain the property through legitimate means. In reality, Keith Broad was over a million rand better off because of my rent and bill payments during the lease.
My investments further increased the property’s value by over R10 million. Within the first six months alone, I paid the Broads more in rent and utilities than Keith had generated from the property in the previous two years combined. Their claims of financial ruin are thus fabricated—a manipulative narrative aimed at evoking sympathy and concealing their fraudulent attempts to reclaim a property that had significantly appreciated in value due to my investments.
The article omits critical facts essential to understanding the broader context. For example, in August 2022, Keith Broad obtained a protection order against me by perjuring himself in court, falsely claiming the property was his family home while conveniently omitting that I was the legal tenant under a valid lease. This protection order included a 500-meter exclusion zone, barring me from accessing the property from July to November 2022. During this period, Keith, WDS, and their hired associates unlawfully took possession of the property, causing substantial damage. Despite this, I continued to meet my financial commitments, paying rent quarterly in advance until July 2022. Therefore, the claim that I did not pay rent for a year is patently false.
When I was finally able to return to the property briefly in November 2022, I began undoing the damage they had caused. However, in December, I was arrested again under false pretences. The article’s portrayal of events completely disregards this timeline. It falsely paints me as being in arrears, ignoring that I was barred from accessing the property for six months due to their fraudulent actions in obtaining the exclusion order. The last rental payment I made covered the period through July 2022, and I continued to honour my lease until I was unlawfully evicted.
These omissions and the failure to seek my comment highlight the journalistic failures in this article. Had the journalist made any effort to investigate court records—many of which are public—or even sought my side of the story, they would have uncovered the truth.
Any responsible journalist should have questioned why, if I had been in rent arrears for a year, the Broads had not succeeded in evicting me or obtained a court order for non-payment. The journalist’s failure to investigate, verify facts, or reach out for my comment not only breaches fundamental journalistic principles but also contributes to the spread of damaging falsehoods.
BEFORE
AFTER
"I thought we followed all the right procedures when we let the property to him."
This is a misleading statement that seeks to shift blame for their illegal actions onto the legitimacy of the leasing process.
I entered into a legitimate and legally binding lease agreement with the Broads, which clearly outlined my rights as a tenant, including the right to sublet the property to short-term guests—a key part of my business model.
The suggestion that they followed "all the right procedures" is an attempt to create the illusion that their subsequent actions were justified.
However, their repeated attempts to illegally evict me, without following any proper legal process, directly contradict this claim.
Furthermore, the Broads knowingly engaged in these unlawful actions despite being fully aware of the terms of the lease agreement and the nature of my business.
Their attempts to terminate the lease were based on fabrications, such as false claims of tenant damage and rent arrears, which they knew were untrue.
This statement is part of a broader effort to rewrite history and absolve themselves of responsibility for their illegal conduct, despite the fact that they stood to benefit significantly from the increase in the property’s value.
"No Matter What We Tried To Get Him Out Legally, The Odds Seemed Always To Be Stacked In His Favour."
This statement is entirely misleading and fails to acknowledge the real reason their legal eviction attempts failed: they were based on falsehoods and illegal actions from the outset. The odds were not "stacked in my favour," but rather, the legal system recognized my rights as a lawful tenant under a valid lease.
I had entered into a five-year lease agreement, paid rent in full and in advance, and undertook substantial renovations with the full knowledge and approval of the owners.
Keith and Inge Broad, however, sought to reclaim the property without fulfilling their obligations, after I had invested significant time and money into improving it.
Their claims of tenant damage, unpaid rent, and unauthorized use of the property were complete fabrications.
The courts dismissed these baseless claims because they lacked any legal foundation.
What the Broads fail to mention is that they tried to benefit from the increased value of a property I refurbished at my own expense while denying me the time necessary to recoup my investment, thus revealing the real motive behind their efforts.
Their hypocrisy is further highlighted by the fact that their eviction attempts were not confined to legal avenues—they executed multiple illegal evictions, resorted to intimidation, and enlisted WDS to forcibly take back the property.
Their narrative in this article is a gross distortion of the truth, portraying themselves as victims when in fact, they were the aggressors engaged in a fraudulent scheme to enrich themselves at my expense.
BEFORE
AFTER
"A Wall Leading To The Storage Areas Was Broken Through And Some Of Our Private Possessions Were Removed."
This statement is a deliberate distortion designed to mislead the reader about the nature of the renovations and the handling of the Broads' personal items.
The work on the wall was not only approved but also suggested by Keith Broad himself.
I renovated the room off the courtyard that housed old, unwanted items the Broads had left behind when they vacated the property in early October. These were items they did not want to take with them or pay to store but also did not wish to discard.
As a favor, I agreed to keep the items temporarily. However, after two months, I could no longer delay the work on that room. I hired a professional inventory firm to catalogue every item in the room, including detailed photographs.
I then leased a professional storage unit to house the items securely—at my own expense, despite it being unnecessary. I even added Keith Broad to the contract, granting him equal and unlimited access to the storage.
A professional removal firm was hired to transport the items, and the inventory company returned to verify that everything was accounted for and in its original condition.
As per Keith Broad’s suggestion, I installed a doorway between the master bathroom and the renovated room, creating an ensuite for the new room and integrating it with the main house. The work was minimal, as the wall was not load-bearing, and involved simply adding a door.
The duplicity of this claim is evident when considering that the renovation, including the doorway, was prominently featured as a selling point in the property’s sales literature after my arrest.
Keith Broad never reversed the work, further demonstrating that it was approved and appreciated at the time. The Broads welcomed these changes while they benefited from them but later exploited the opportunity to misrepresent them for their own gain.
The Post-Renovation Sale And Misrepresentation
After my arrest, Keith Broad listed the property for sale almost immediately, appointing multiple agents to market it.
These listings, available on national property websites like Property24, showcased dozens of photographs highlighting the improvements I made, including the newly added doorway.
The property was advertised as a luxurious, modernized villa—a stark contrast to its condition when I first leased it. These ads directly contradict the claims of "damage" and demonstrate that the improvements were key selling points.
Any journalist conducting even basic research online could have found these advertisements, which reveal the lies in the Broads’ narrative. Additionally, photos of the property prior to my lease would have shown it as dark, outdated, and rundown—entirely different from its condition post-renovation.
This blatant inconsistency between the Broads' claims and the available evidence should have raised significant red flags for any journalist.
Misleading Claims And False Charges
It is unclear if the journalist interviewed "Inge" directly or simply published quotes provided by WDS, but the lack of verification demonstrates severe journalistic negligence.
Given WDS's role in the December High Court case and his history of fabricating narratives, the journalist should have exercised caution. Instead, the claims were published verbatim, without any attempt to investigate their accuracy.
Regarding the storage unit: after my August bail release, Inge and WDS altered the original false theft charges, escalating the value of the items to nearly a million rand to qualify the case as a Schedule 5 offense, complicating bail.
Despite knowing the items were securely stored, Inge and WDS accused me of stealing them. When my attorneys arranged a meeting at the storage unit, all the items were found exactly as catalogued. Inge displayed no relief, knowing all along the claims were false. Her sole concern was retrieving an office printer and an orange glass bowl—further exposing the fabricated nature of the charges.
BEFORE
AFTER
"We Did It Through A Reputable Agent And Paid Them For A Background Check."
The mention of an agent presents a significant journalistic failure.
One of the primary responsibilities of any credible publication, particularly when publishing serious accusations, is to contact key sources for verification.
Despite referencing an agent in this statement, the journalist failed to contact the agent, who would have provided essential context.
The agent in question, Anton Moller, facilitated the lease agreement and had direct knowledge of the terms and conditions.
Anton Moller even provided an affidavit that contradicted many of the false claims made by the Broads, including their assertions about rent arrears and unauthorized short-term rentals.
By neglecting to reach out to this readily accessible source, the journalist failed to uphold basic standards of accuracy and verification.
This failure demonstrates a glaring lack of diligence, professionalism, and fairness on the part of the publication, leaving readers with a one-sided, distorted narrative.
This omission further highlights the article's failure to meet the requirements of the Press Code: [1.0] (reporting truthfully), [1.1] (verifying facts), [1.2] (seeking comment).
"I Met Mr. Russell Briefly, And He Was Very Charming And Friendly, And The Agent Thought He Was Wonderful," Said Inge.
The "agent" referenced in this statement is Gail Broad, who is not an impartial third party but Keith Broad’s sister, the very person who introduced me to Keith in the first place.
The journalist failed to disclose this critical relationship, a fact that would have been easily verified through a cursory inquiry.
By omitting the familial connection, the article gives the impression that the agent's opinion was unbiased, which is patently false.
This omission constitutes a significant breach of journalistic integrity and raises serious questions about the impartiality of the article.
Failing to disclose that the "agent" was a family member of the landlords undermines the credibility of the claims made by the Broads and casts doubt on the objectivity of the entire narrative.
The journalist had a duty to verify the relationship between the agent and the landlords, as this context was crucial for an accurate understanding of the situation.
BEFORE
AFTER
"In Due Course, They Became Aware Of The Short-Term Letting Scheme."
This statement is one of the most blatant lies within the article and is entirely contradicted by the facts.
The Broads were fully aware of the short-term letting arrangements well before the lease was signed, as this was the foundation of the agreement.
The short-term rental model was not only disclosed but was the sole reason for the lease agreement.
The Broads understood that I would sublet the property to guests to recoup the substantial investment I made in renovating and improving the property.
The claim that they were unaware is a complete fabrication and a deliberate attempt to distort the truth for their own gain.
These arrangements were discussed in detail with Anton Moller, Keith Broad’s managing agent, and Gail Broad, Keith’s sister and agent.
Thousands of messages, emails, and communications exchanged with these parties confirm that the short-term rentals were openly discussed and agreed upon.
Further evidence includes contracts, payment records, and documentation that explicitly outline the terms of the agreement.
Not a single email or communication suggests that the Broads were unaware of or opposed to the short-term rental model, further exposing this lie.
The journalist’s failure to investigate this claim or seek my comment on such a crucial point demonstrates a fundamental breach of journalistic duty.
Considering the absence of any evidence to support this statement and the wealth of evidence contradicting it, its inclusion in the article is indefensible.
This falsehood violates the Press Code.
"No Matter What We Tried To Get Him Out Legally, The Odds Seemed Always To Be Stacked In His Favour."
This statement misrepresents the facts entirely.
The "odds" were not "stacked in my favour"—the law was.
The Broads repeatedly failed in their eviction attempts because they had no legal grounds to remove me.
Their frustration stemmed not from bias but from the fact that their actions constituted property theft—attempting to steal back a property I had legally leased and extensively refurbished, all while disregarding the terms of the lease agreement.
The courts simply upheld the law, which protected my legal rights as a tenant.
The Broads’ portrayal of the legal system as unfair is a calculated misdirection aimed at excusing their own illegal actions and failed manipulations.
Had the journalist reviewed publicly available court records, they would have found abundant evidence of the Broads’ unlawful conduct, including their illegal eviction attempts and false claims in court.
The failure to investigate or verify such a crucial aspect of the story is a breach of fundamental journalistic principles.
BEFORE
AFTER
"That Was Despite The Damage Caused To The Property."
This statement is one of the most egregious and easily disproven lies in the article.
Not only did I not damage the property, but I significantly improved it during my tenancy, increasing its market value by an estimated R13 million.
The extensive renovations I carried out—including landscaping, interior design, new flooring, and refurbished furniture—transformed the property into a luxurious space far superior to its original state.
Evidence of these improvements includes hundreds of photographs, glowing guest reviews, and listings on platforms like Instagram, all showcasing the property’s high standard during my tenure.
When the Broads eventually sold the property, they used the very features I added as selling points, achieving a far higher sale price due to these improvements.
If there had been "damage," as they claim, they would have reversed these changes rather than profit from them.
This false accusation is a transparent attempt to tarnish my reputation while concealing the fact that the Broads benefited financially from my work.
The journalist’s failure to scrutinize such a serious claim demonstrates a lack of due diligence.
"The Flooring Was Changed, And The Furniture Reupholstered."
This statement is deliberately misleading and distorts the context of the changes made.
The original flooring was a filthy, lice-infested 30-year-old carpet that was uninhabitable and unsanitary.
I replaced the carpet with brand new ceramic tiles, paying for the work myself, to make the property habitable and aesthetically appealing.
Similarly, the sofas were old, dirty, and in poor condition. Rather than discard them, I chose to have them professionally reupholstered at my own expense—a far more costly option.
The high-quality fabric used not only preserved the original pieces but also significantly enhanced the property’s overall appeal.
Both the flooring and the furniture upgrades were massive improvements, evident from before-and-after photos.
The Broads were thrilled with these changes at the time, praising the improvements and showing no intention to reverse them when they regained control of the property.
These very upgrades were featured prominently in the sales literature when they listed the property, using them as selling points to achieve a higher price.
For the Broads to now misrepresent these improvements as “damage” is not only dishonest but also self-serving.
The publication’s failure to investigate these claims—despite the existence of abundant evidence—constitutes a breach of its obligations under the Press Code.
BEFORE
AFTER
"The Walls Were Spray Painted. The House Was Filthy."
This statement is an outright lie, designed to create a false impression of neglect and misuse.
The walls were not “spray painted” haphazardly, as implied.
I hired professional decorators to repaint both the interior and exterior of the property, ensuring a high-quality, modern finish that was done to professional standards.
The claim that the house was “filthy” is equally false.
The property was meticulously maintained during my tenancy, as evidenced by guest reviews, my online hosting profiles, and the numerous photographs taken throughout my time there.
In addition to painting, I undertook significant improvements, such as a complete kitchen refurbishment, replacing greasy, outdated brown mosaic tiles with a sleek, modern chrome finish that transformed the space entirely.
These improvements were featured prominently in the sales literature when the property was later put on the market, completely undermining the false narrative that these changes were "damage."
The dramatic transformation of the property—from an old, rundown, and drab state to a modern, luxurious home—is plainly visible in any before-and-after photo comparisons.
The failure of the journalist to investigate or verify these allegations before publishing them constitutes a breach of the Press Code.
"The Laws Are Really Not Fair Towards Property Owners," She Told News24.
This statement is an attempt to generate unwarranted sympathy while distorting the legal reality.
South African tenancy laws are indeed fair to both landlords and tenants, provided that all parties act within the law.
What these laws do not protect—and rightfully so—is rogue landlords who deceive tenants into signing leases, allow them to invest millions into refurbishing properties, and then attempt to steal the property back once the improvements have been made.
The Broads’ repeated legal failures were not due to the laws being unfair, but because their actions—attempting to benefit from fraud and illegal evictions—were unjustifiable under the law.
The suggestion that the laws unfairly protected me ignores the fact that I was a legal tenant acting within my rights, while the Broads were attempting to exploit and manipulate the legal system for their own benefit.
The involvement of WDS and Media24 in distorting this legal narrative played a key role in furthering the Broads’ campaign of deception, enabling them to falsely portray themselves as victims.
This deliberate misrepresentation is yet another instance of irresponsible journalism, failing to provide any context or balance to the claims made by the Broads.
BEFORE
AFTER
"The Pumps Of The Jacuzzis Burnt Out, The Inverter Was Not Working, The Steam Bath Was Not Working, And Neither Was The Sauna," She Added.
This claim is an outright fabrication, contradicted by the documented condition of the property at the time of the illegal eviction on 24 July.
At that time, the property was in excellent condition, as evidenced by photos, videos, and guest reviews on our online profiles.
The property’s decline began after WDS and his thugs forcibly took over the property, leaving it in disrepair.
It is well-documented that the thugs hosted a party at the property on the night they took possession, with security firms confirming that members of the Nigerian mafia were among the guests.
When I briefly regained access to the property in November, the damage caused by these squatters was undeniable.
-
The garden was overgrown. -
The bougainvillaea plants I had purchased were dead. -
The Jacuzzi, sauna, and other facilities were in disrepair. -
The interior of the property was filthy.
These damages were caused entirely by the squatters, not by me, and are further evidenced by my efforts to repair the property in November, during the three weeks I was allowed access.
I personally spent that time undoing the damage left by the squatters, restoring the property to its previous high standard before being illegally evicted again in December.
The Broads’ claim that I caused this damage is not only false but intentionally deceitful, as the damages were a direct result of their own actions in illegally taking back the property and allowing it to fall into neglect.
"It Is Costing Us A Fortune To Repair The Damage To Our Property."
This statement is not only misleading but a complete reversal of the facts.
The reality is that I bore the cost of repairing the damage caused by their thugs after the illegal eviction, not the Broads.
The property was in excellent condition when I was illegally forced out, as evidenced by the photographs and guest reviews from the time.
The decline of the property into disrepair began after WDS and his thugs took over, and the Broads allowed them to use the property as a party venue, causing significant damage.
After briefly regaining access to the property in November, I personally spent a fortune restoring it to its original pristine condition.
The Broads’ claim that they were burdened with repair costs is both false and deeply deceptive, as they profited significantly from the improvements I made to the property.
BEFORE
AFTER
"Which Was Supposed To Provide Us With An Income."
This statement is a blatant distortion of reality.
During the first few months of my tenancy, the Broads received over R1 million in rental and utility payments.
Their income would have continued to flow had they not sabotaged my business operations and attempted to unlawfully terminate the lease.
The Broads actively blocked my legitimate business advertisements and profiles on platforms such as Airbnb and Booking.com, cutting off the very income streams they now claim to have lost.
Their actions were a deliberate attempt to force me out of the property and nullify the lease, enabling them to reclaim the property without honoring their legal obligations.
To now allege financial loss when they were the direct cause of sabotaging the income stream is both dishonest and hypocritical.
"We Tried Blocking His Adverts Each Time We Saw Any, But He Kept Creating New Ones," Said Inge.
This statement is an outright admission of deliberate sabotage and interference with my business operations.
The lease agreement explicitly allowed subletting, which was the cornerstone of my business model and the means through which I planned to recoup the substantial refurbishment costs I incurred.
The Broads’ attempts to block my legitimate advertisements on platforms such as Airbnb and Booking.com were calculated to undermine my business, disrupt my income, and force me out of the property.
This admission of malicious intent is especially egregious given the financial harm it caused, not just to me but to guests who were affected by the Broads’ actions.
It is appalling that Media24 published this statement uncritically, failing to investigate the legality or morality of their actions.
Had the journalist sought my input or conducted basic research, they would have uncovered the malicious nature of the Broads’ actions and the profound financial and reputational harm it caused.
Instead, Media24 amplified a narrative that falsely portrayed me as the villain while giving the Broads a platform to boast about their destructive behavior.
BEFORE
AFTER
"According To Inge, After Russell Was Finally Out Of The House, She Was There One Day, Cleaning Up, When A Family Of Twelve People Arrived From Overseas For A Wedding In Cape Town."
This statement is entirely false and maliciously misleading.
After my arrest, orchestrated by Inge and Keith Broad with the involvement of WDS, the Broads made no effort to inform platforms like Booking.com or Airbnb that I was no longer managing the bookings.
Had they informed these platforms, the guests could have been offered alternative accommodation or refunds well in advance of their arrival.
Instead, the Broads deliberately withheld this crucial information, ensuring that guests arrived unaware of the situation.
This was a deliberate act intended to create chaos and to further their false narrative that I had defrauded guests.
The Broads and WDS manipulated the situation, telling arriving guests that they had been "scammed" while intentionally blocking the remedial processes offered by booking platforms.
The Broads used this engineered crisis to bolster fabricated criminal allegations against me and to damage my reputation irreparably.
It is appalling that News24 failed to verify these claims or seek comment from me before publishing them, particularly when they were so easily disprovable.
"Inge Told News24 They Had Fallen For One Of The Fraud Adverts And Paid In Advance."
This statement is categorically false.
All bookings I accepted were legitimate and conducted in accordance with the lease and the business model.
During court proceedings between December 2022 and March 2023, WDS presented a dossier claiming I had accepted bookings for 11 groups of guests, but upon review, it was clear that only one of these bookings was made by me.
The remaining bookings were made by Dennis Dalton and Mario Buffa, two individuals also involved in property management and connected to the Broads’ associates.
WDS and the Broads were fully aware of this distinction yet deliberately misrepresented the facts to the media to bolster their false allegations against me.
The guests’ unfortunate situation was a direct result of the Broads’ failure to notify platforms of my arrest, not any fraudulent activity on my part.
It is shocking that News24 did not investigate this claim, which could have been easily disproven with a basic review of booking records or a request for my comment.
BEFORE
AFTER
"They Were Even Told The Property Was Wheelchair Friendly As They Had An Octogenarian Coming Along. When The Property Is Not Suited For That," Inge Said, Adding That The Family Was Shocked When They Realized They Had Been Defrauded."
This claim is blatantly false.
The only property I managed that was advertised as wheelchair friendly was Fisherman’s Bend, which was equipped with a lift providing access to all floors.
None of the other properties, including Monterey or Hive, were ever advertised as wheelchair accessible.
I have always been meticulous in ensuring that property descriptions on booking platforms accurately reflected their features and accessibility.
This fabricated detail is another example of how WDS and the Broads twisted facts to support their false narrative of fraud.
Had News24 checked the booking platforms or sought my comment, they would have seen there was no misrepresentation regarding wheelchair accessibility.
The journalist’s failure to verify such a serious accusation is a clear breach of journalistic standards and demonstrates a lack of due diligence.
"According To Inge, She Managed To Find Them Alternative Accommodation At Short Notice."
This claim is highly questionable and likely false.
The court dossier prepared by WDS during proceedings clearly states that the guests found their own alternative accommodation and makes no mention of Inge assisting them.
If Inge had genuinely been concerned about the guests, she could have informed Booking.com or Airbnb, who have dedicated resources to arrange alternative accommodations for displaced guests.
Instead, she and WDS deliberately allowed the situation to escalate, using it to frame me as a fraudster and to further their fabricated claims.
This calculated behavior demonstrates a clear intent to harm both me and the guests involved for their own benefit.
It is unacceptable that News24 published this claim without verifying its accuracy or considering the broader context of the situation.
BEFORE
AFTER
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell
"The power of the press should be used to build up, and not to destroy." James Gordon Bennett