Latest News

Neil Diamond v Paul O’Sullivan and Annelien van der Walt

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””

read more
Paul O’Sullivan: The Face of a Wife-Beater and Liar

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.”

read more