Latest News
Mkhwanazi Inquiry: Mr Paul O’Sullivan (Day 1)
Mr Paul O’Sullivan appeared before the Ad Hoc Committee to give evidence concerning corruption, misconduct, and interference within the criminal justice system. The Chairperson explained that the purpose of the meeting was to hear his account and to allow members to...
O’Sullivan’s new tormentor: JSE-listed company CEO alleges Paul is a “sellout” to Zunaid Moti’scriminal enterprise
Mantengu CEO Michael Miller fires back at Paul O’Sullivan, calling him a “sellout” to a criminal enterprise linked to controversial businessman Zunaid Moti. In this explosive interview with Alec Hogg, Miller claims O’Sullivan took money and shares to withdraw sworn affidavits — and accuses the Johannesburg Stock Exchange of covering up share manipulation. With death threats, legal battles, and accusations flying, this is one of the most explosive BizNews interviews yet.
The story of a court endorsed home-wrecker
2.3 You severely assaulted our client last week by, among other things, knocking our client’s glasses off her face twice, pouring water on her computer, shouting loudly in her ear, pushing her around and throwing her to the ground, kicking her and hitting her with a hanger. Our client had to wear a neck brace for a day to make the pain bearable.
2.4 Our client’s eyelid was blue and swollen and our client could not sleep on her back for two nights due to all the bruises.
2.10 Your unacceptable behaviour creates the impression that you want to isolate our client from her friends, her religion and free choices.
2.11 You regularly saw a psychiatrist until April 2019, and used mediation for your mood disorders.
Antony Mostert & Another v Simon John Nash, Paul Robert O’Sullivan, Sarah-Jane Trent & Others
“[98] Moreover, the forensic report does not contain facts and the averments that the forensic report does contain are substantially false. The respondents do not make out a case that the contents of any future version of the forensic report will be different or anything other than substantially untrue.
[99] The respondents’ statements regarding the applicants reflect an absence of concern on the part of the respondents, not only with the truth or correctness of those statements but also with the language used to express them.”
Neil Diamond v Paul O’Sullivan and Annelien van der Walt
“”29 From the tone and content of the first respondents threats and his past conduct and ‘name’ that he has made for himseif in the media, it is clear that he is a self-appointed vigilante who has taken it upon himself the self-appointed right and duty to root out crime wherever, in his subjective opinion, crime manifests itself. He does not claim any appointment under the faw to have this task. He does not claim any rationale beyond the reason for his picking the various persons that he chooses to target for his alleged crime fighting activities. Indeed, bereft, for the most part, of any admissible evidence, he chooses to threaten and intimidate his targets to achieve his own end. He also, quite evidently, enjoys publicity in the press for his self-appointed “white knight” activities.
30 It will be submitted that it is evident that the first respondent is emotionally unstable and believes himself to hold some special place in society where the ordinary rules of societal conduct do not apply to him. Persons such as Mr O’Sullivan are quite evidently dangerous in society if left unchecked””
Paul O’Sullivan: The Face of a Wife-Beater and Liar
“He (Paul O’Sullivan) then walked away, stopped, and walked back to Odette (his wife) and smacked her through her face with an open palm. She fell on the ground.”
“Upon returning home, I (Odette) noticed that Mr Paul O’Sullivan had damaged my motor vehicle, a Ford Fiesta, registration. Number 767 FLY GP. He scratched the word “SLUT” on the right rear door of my motor vehicle.”
