INDEX TO THIS SITE
1. Professional Resume for Ronald Bobroff click here to view
2. Misleading and unethical attack on Ronald and Darren Bobroff by Marelise van der Merwe published on Fin 24 website.
3. Latest letter from the Court appointed curator to the Practice
4. Fiction versus the Facts
5. Discovery's Malicious Vendetta
6. The Hijacking fo the Council of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces by Discovery's attorneys Edward Nathan
7. The Hijacked Discovery/ENS Law Society Council, attempts to sanitise, but then discards an explosive affidavit exposing the collusion and corruption between Discovery's attorney George van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town, Discovery Proxy Anthony Millar and Discovery Media Assasin Tony Beamish, in their common objectve of serving Discovery's agenda by way of bribery, corruption and fake news, to destroy RBP Inc., and Ronald and Darren Bobroff.
8. Carte Blanche
9. RBP's Books of account
10. Discovery's Media lackey Tony Beamish
11. Law Society exposes Discovery, and Edward Nathan's George van Niekerk, as being behind the attack on Ronald, Darren and RBP Inc.
12. Common Law Percentage Contingency Fee Agreements - routinely amounting to between 25 - 30% of damages recovered was the norm for over 70% of all South Africa's practicing attorneys for some twelve years.
13. Fake News article by Sally Rawesthorne of the Sydney Herald - Sun
14. Apparent collusion between Discovery's attorney George van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town and the National Prosecuting Authority
Marelise van der Merwe’s misleading and unethical attack on Ronald and Darren Bobroff published on Fin 24 website 19 July 2020
The question may properly be asked as to why Ms. Van der Merwe pictured above, would suddenly decide more than four months after former Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc. employee Zenobia Venter pleaded guilty to theft from the Practice of R1 902 225.05, and was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, was now suddenly hot news.
Was it mere coincidence that Discovery Health’s media lackey Tony Beamish (pictured above) had more than a year ago, on the 9th March 2019 addressed an email to me (click here to view),commencing with the words “Dear Monsieurs Bobroff”, which Beamish presumably regarded as demonstrating proficiency in French, and making reference to Venters allegation “that the alleged crimes were committed by her at the behest of Mr Darren Bobroff”.
Beamish's malice and agenda to defame us nevermind the facts was evidenced by his threat that “The story which I propose to write for a local publication will also hopefully be syndicated abroad, inter alia, in the Sydney Jewish Report and The Daily Telegraph”.
My factual response to Beamish(click here to view) supported by a letter dated 11 March 2019 ,from Mr van Staden, the Court appointed Curator to our Practice (click here to view)seemed to have extinguished Beamish's appetite to pursue what he must have realised was a false trail, and which rather than defame Ronald and Darren would have the opposite effectof demonstrating that we were wholly uninvolved in Venters thefts from the Practice.
Van der Merwe’s email (click here to view)was preceded by a telephone call I received a few days earlier from Ms. Catherine Rice, who sweetly attempted to soft soap me into agreeing to a pod cast interview “about your life in Sydney”.
She could not explain why this had suddenly become of interest to her more than four years after I had been forced to flee South Africa for fear of my life.
I immediately suspected that Discovery and its cronies had either hacked into my emails, or via the 24/7 surveillance to which Discovery have subjected us to in Sydney, had became aware of certain impending events, and that as had been the case during the previous six years during which Beamish would publish poisonous media and social media attacks on us prior to and contemporaneously with every Discovery funded court hearing against us and our Practice, as also in respect of attacks by attorney Anthony Millar on the Practice against our Law Society compliant Contingency Fee Agreements.
From the aforesaid we and our advisors realised that it was certainly no coincidence that in the weeks and days that preceded every single court hearing involving Discovery, or its proxy attorney Anthony Millar, Beamish would crank up his vitriol machine resulting in malicious and defamatory attacks on myself, Darren, our Practice and the Law Society (prior to its hijacking by Edward Nathan on behalf of Discovery in November 2015), appearing on Moneyweb and other publications which carried Moneyweb material.
Much like the canary in the mine, Discovery’s Jeffrey Katz’s tweets, have either heralded or acknowledged the poisonous material, and it was surely no coincidence that Katz should have swiftly tweeted the link to van der Merwe’s article once she published it online.
One needs to recall that after Darren and I had inadvertently exposed Katz and his employer Discovery Health's decades of institutionalised defrauding and extortion perpetrated upon Discovery Health members who had suffered injuries in road accidents, Katz repeatedly and publicly threatened that as revenge: “no matter what it takes, no matter what it costs, we will destroy you all”.
More recently he has boasted that "we have unlimited money and will never stop" (clearly referring to the ongoing harassment we have suffered at the instance of Discovery and its proxies even now and in Sydney).
That neither Darren, nor I were involved in any way whatsoever in Zenobia Venters thefts from our own Practice is clearly apparent from the content of a letter sent to me by the Court appointed curator to our Practice dated 11 March 2019, and in which he states the following: " I wish to advise that Mr Beamish did not approach me in this regard. I furthermore wish to confirm that I have not made any allegation of either you or Darren Bobroff having being involved in the alleged fraud perpetrated by Ms Z. Venter”, pictured above.
Whenever Practice employees required cheques to be written by the bookkeeping department in favour of service providers or others, the standard procedure was that the attorney and his/her secretary dealing with a particular case, were required to complete a cheque requisition form, which was to reflect the name of the client, the file number, the payee of the cheque and the amount thereof, and a copy of the service providers account was to accompany the triplicate requisition forms.
As is evident in the summons commencing High Court proceedings against Farraj (pictured above) and Venter by our Practices director Mr Stephen Bezuidenhout, Farraj/Leisegang and Venter cunningly abused the requisition procedure by fabricating accounts in the name of a fictitious Dr M M Botha, and which were submitted to the Practices bookkeeping department in hundreds of matters all of which were handled exclusively by Farraj/Leisegang and Venter.
Venter worked exclusively for Farraj/Leisegang.
The summons and particulars of claim may be viewed by clicking here .
My response to Beamish’s March 2019 letter, included the letter dated 11 March 2019 sent to me by the curator clearly stating that neither Darren or I were in any way involved in Venters thefts, as also the summons against Farraj/Leisegang and Venter was referred to and attached to my response to van der Merwe, yet she deliberately ignored these vital documents, in what was an obvious agenda to ignore the true facts and to defame us irrespective of whatever was contained in my response to her mail.
If the article authored by van der Merwe up to the point dealing with Zenobia Venters thefts could be described as biased and unethical, stronger language would be appropriate to the way in which she simply ignored my response to the question in her mail to me “What implications, if any, do you believe Ms Venters guilty plea may have for your own case?”
The only case Ms. van der Merwe could be referring to was the ongoing and absurd allegations by Discovery proxy, attorney Anthony Millar and spokespersons for the National Prosecuting Authority, that Darren and I had stolen “hundreds of millions of rands” from clients, and the even more bizarre “over a billion rand” from clients.
Yet Ms. Van der Merwe completely ignored two letters addressed to me by Mr Johan van Staden, the court appointed curator to the Practice of Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc., in which he repeatedly confirms that no missappropriation claims had been made by any of the Practices clients against the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund alleging theft by Darren or I. Mr van Stadens letters may be viewed by clicking here to read the letter dated the 28th August 2018 and by clicking here to view the letter dated 4th June 2019.
The Fidelity Fund is a fund created by the Attorneys Profession to reimburse clients trust monies belonging to such clients, which were misappropriated(stolen)by their attorneys.
Not only did Ms. Van der Merwe ignore Mr van Stadens letters, which totally exonerated Darren and I from the malicious allegations of having missappropriated trust money, she also chose to ignore an email addressed to our attorney Mr John Cameron dated 15th June 2020, and which can be viewed by (clicking here).
In this letter the Fidelity Fund again confirmed that no claims (in respect of trust monies)whatsoever have ever been made against it by any of our Practices clients.
Ms. Van der Merwes statement in her email , “In the interests of fair and balanced reporting, I am writing to offer you the opportunity to comment”, rings hollow, given how she completely ignored any facts or documents I had provided to her in what was clearly her intention come what may to follow a premeditated agenda to serve outside interests, rather than the truth.
In yet a further demonstration of her bias or lack of any intention of observing any aspect of ethical journalism ,she published shocking allegations against us by a Mr Eric September without making any reference to such allegations in her mail to me, so as to afford me an opportunity of responding thereto.
Mr Septembers allegations had been published by reporter Msindisi Fengu in the City Press in September 2018.
Fengu like van der Merwe had never informed me that he intended publishing Septembers allegations.
I only became aware of Fengu's article, when it was forwarded to me by a colleague shortly after it was published.
I immediately wrote to Fengu informing him that September's allegation that our Practice had finalised his Road Accident Fund claim and received payment of R1.4million, which had never been paid out to him was false.
To my astonishment, Fengus response to me included correspondence which September had received from attorney Vanessa Valente employed by our Practice, as also from our partner Stephen Bezuidenhout, in which the both of them had informed Mr September that the Practice had never finalised any personal injury claim on his behalf against the Road Accident Fund, nor had any been money received by the Practice from the Road Accident Fund.
They informed September (who had subsequently been convicted of raping and murdering his wife) that he had furnished two contradictory versions of how his “accident” had occurred. The one version given to the police was that he had been forced to swerve off the road to avoid colliding with a cow, in which event there could be no claim against the Road Accident Fund, and the other version was that he swerved to avoid a vehicle in his path and hit a tree.
Attorneys Andrews, Podbielsky and Grimsell who had been instructed by the hospital at which September had been treated for his injures were of the same opinion as attorneys Valente and Bezuidenhout, and which was that Septembers versions of how his "accident "had occurred were suspect, and that no valid Road Accident Fund claim existed. Copies of the correspondence I refer to, may be viewed by clicking here .
Given that City Press is owned by the same holding company as Media 24, one would assume that Ms. Van der Merwe would have spoken with Mr Fengu, or accessed hard copy or electronic material, comprising the correspondence between Fengu and Mr van Staden, Mr Bezuidenhout and myself.
She would then obviously then have been aware that September (convicted of raping and murdering his wife), was, in addition to being a violent criminal of the worst kind, was not to be believed.
The only inference to be drawn from Ms. Van der Merwe’s failure to put September’s allegations to me, but to nevertheless publish these in full, is that it was always her intention to cause as much reputational harm to Darren and I as possible, and that she is clearly doing so in accordance with an ulterior agenda.
To the extent that those in control of Fin24, or more importantly its holding company Media24 are committed to ethical and honest journalism, they would surely and once they have received a letter which is to be addressed to them concerning van der Merwes conduct, swiftly take appropriate action against her.
The media is a vital element of a free and democratic society and it wields enormous power – infinitely more so with the advent of electronic media where millions of readers can be reached at the click of a computer key.
With that power should come highly responsible and ethical conduct. and total fairness towards subjects of intended publication.
Given the shocking and recent history in South Africa of fake news, brown envelope reporters and the disgraceful abuse of print and electronic media by editors, journalists and reporters for political or personal agendas, surely the time is well overdue for stringent state regulation of all editors, journalists and reporters.
There should be appropriate tertiary educational requirements for all editors, journalists and reporters prior to being permitted to enter the time honoured profession of journalism, and just as doctors and lawyers are held to rigorous professional standards, have to annually renew their practicing licenses and are accountable for misconduct and subject to being disciplined or struck off the roll, so too and in the public interest should editors, journalists and reporters be held to professional standards.
Finally can it simply be a coincidence that neither van der Merwe nor Beamish make any mention of Mr Stephen Bezuidenhout who for more than three decades was a partner in the Practice of Ronald Bobroff and partners Inc., was intimately involved in the administration of the Practice, and the initiator of the High Court proceedings against Leisegang and Venter.
My detailed response to van der Merwe appears below.
"My Ref : Ronald Bobroff
Your Ref : Marelise van der Merwe
Date : 17 July 2020
RE: MEDIA ENQUIRY : FIN 24
I refer to your email received by me shortly after midnight Sydney time last night and requiring a response by 14:00 South African time today – very short notice.
I received a phone call on the 30th June 2020 at approximately 19:30pm Sydney time from Catherine Rice, who requested an interview with me “about your life in Australia as well as the allegations against you in South Africa”.
I note that both you and she work for the same organisation, and would be obliged if you would confirm whether or not you are working together with regards to any article you intend publishing concerning myself.
I am intrigued by the timing of your mail, given that Venter was rightfully found guilty of extensive theft and fraud perpetrated on the Practice, during her employment by attorney Phillipa Farraj aka Leisegang on behalf of Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc.
Given that Venters conviction was more than four months ago, I would be obliged if you would please indicate what has prompted your sudden need, and presumably that of Ms. Rice to do an article on me concerning Venter.
It has been my experience that every previous article written about my son and I, and the Practice, invariably by Discovery media lackey Mr Anthony Beamish, or others known to be closely associated with him were always linked to an impending event, and quite frankly given the plethora of invariably malicious and defamatory articles churned out by Mr Beamish and his cronies, everything is now old news.
It is important for me to inform you – although if you have read my website as you state you have done, you would by now be aware that the Court appointed curator to our Practice – Mr Johan van Staden has repeatedly stated that:
- The Practices trust account balanced to the cent – i.e. no trust funds whatsoever are missing,
- No claims of misappropriation of trust monies have been lodged against the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund by any of the Practices former clients – numbering many thousands of persons.
This fact was again confirmed directly by the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund in its email dated 15 June 2020 addressed to our attorney Mr John Cameron that “We confirm that we have no contingent claims registered against your clients” i.e. not a single one of the Practices thousands of former clients have alleged misappropriation.
Being the senior journalist you are, I sincerely hope that you will publish the documented fact that neither my son nor I misappropriated a cent of trust monies from any Practice client.
I do indeed stand by the contents of my website, and I thank you for taking the trouble to have read same.
Likewise everything on my website referring to me, my son, and his wife having to flee South Africa for fear of our lives. Nothing which has occurred subsequently has changed the factual perceptions as to the extent of the power and influence of Discovery and its attorney on senior persons within South Africa’s Law enforcement agencies.
In this regard you will of course be aware of the recent reports in the Daily Maverick, (with which I note you are also involved), concerning Edward Nathans payment to Mr Paul O’Sullivan of an amount of R3.5million.
Although members of attorneys Edward Nathan tried to soft soap the reasons for such payment, Mr. O’Sullivan is quoted in the same report stating that: “It was my contention that ENS’ assistance to Dudu Myeni contributed to my unlawful arrest, detention, torture and malicious prosecution and that this has caused me physical harm and monetary damages”.
As you will have noted on my website my wife’s unlawful arrest on trumped up allegations was likewise brought about by Discovery’s attorney ENS’ George van Niekerk.
With regards to question number 3, I am unable to understand why this is anything other than an invasion of my privacy, given that it is firmly and irrevocably established by the various reports by our Practices Curator, as also the Fidelity Fund itself that: there was absolutely no misappropriation of client trust funds whatsoever, and therefore my personal financial circumstances with respect are no one’s business.
However I remain unemployed, have received absolutely no income from my Practice since March 2016, and are most grateful for the generosity of family and friends.
With regards to all your questions relating to Venter, I trust you accept that she is a self-confessed thief and fraudster, and her dishonest attempts to exculpate herself should be regarded as being just that.
However there is a sinister background as to how she came to make these bizarre allegations.
Full details of same as also a comprehensive response to the same questions now being raised by you, will be found in my email to Mr Beamish and which is attached hereto.
You will note his threats to deliberately defame us and cause us as much harm as possible when he states: “The story which I propose to write for a local publication will also hopefully be syndicated abroad, inter alia, in the Sydney Jewish Report and The Daily Telegraph”.
You will also note a letter by the Curator dated 11 March 2020 in which he states the following, and which I attach for your convenience:
“I wish to advise that Mr Beamish did not approach me in this regard. I furthermore wish to confirm that I have not made any allegation of either you or Darren having being involved in the alleged fraud perpetrated by Ms Z Venter”.
I also attach a copy of the summons which was served upon attorney Farraj aka Leisegang and her secretary Ms Venter by RBP Inc, at the instance of our partner Mr Stephen Bezuidenhout setting out in detail how it is alleged that Venter and Farraj colluded in their joint endeavour to defraud the Practice.
I understand a complaint of serious unprofessional conduct has been made against Ms Farraj/Leisegang by the Curator and Mr Bezuidenhout to the Legal Practice Council.
I also understand, that despite Lt. Colonel Tobias Marais of the Hawks having being furnished by Mr Bezuidenhout and the Curator with the same information and supporting material as that referred to in the particulars of claim against Farraj, no prosecution has been instituted against her, and no reasons have to the best of my knowledge have been provided as to why this is the case.
Given that Venters allegations are obviously engineered fabrications, concocted by for and by her, same are irrelevant.
I do however wish to point out that there is “no case” against me, as was confirmed in a letter by our attorney Mr David Bayliss dated 11 May 2018, and a copy of which is attached.
I trust that I have dealt with all your queries, but would deem it a favour and in the interest of ethical and fair journalism, that you furnish me with a copy of any article you intend publishing before same is published for comment.
Finally I suggest you contact Mr Bezuidenhout on 083 737 4183, and the Curator Mr Johan van Staden on 082 494 7440, both of whom are in a much better position than I to tell you about the machinations of Venter and Farraj.
FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF MISAPPROPRIATION (THEFT) OF TRUST MONIES FROM CLIENTS BY DARREN AND I
Hereto below the latest letter from the Court appointed curator to our Practice dated the 4th June 2019, confirming that there are no pending claims submitted to the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund, nor any claims previously paid by them.
Given that Law Society’s governing 70% of all South Africa’s practicing attorneys permitted, promoted and encouraged their members to enter into common law percentage contingency fee agreements with their clients, one fails to understand how any person could seriously suggest that an attorney who entered into such agreements with clients, would have done so with fraudulent intent.
If that were to be the case tens of thousands of attorneys who would have entered into millions of such agreements with their clients from the time the Law Society’s issued such rulings – in June 2002 until April 2013, would have to be accused of doing so with fraudulent intent – surely an absurd and illogical proposition.
Similarly given that the Law Society of the Northern Provinces – at the time the largest Law Society in South Africa, and governing more than 70% of all South Africa’s attorneys specifically advised its 16 000 members, to enter into alternative fall back fee agreements given the novelty/newness of common law percentage contingency fee agreements, and the possibilities of a client challenging the validity of such an agreement; it would be equally absurd and illogical for any person, let alone a lawyer to suggest that any attorney who followed the LSNP’s advice and did so, was guilty of fraud in a client.
Click here to view letter sent by the Law Society of the Northern Provinces to the Deputy Judge President van der Merwe on the 12th October 2011 informing the judge that “Following the judgment given in the matter of PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc./National Potato Co-operative Ltd., by the Supreme Court of Appeal and the lack of certainty as to whether a Court would uphold common law contingency fee agreements as a result thereof, we have cautioned out members to provide for alternative fee agreements with clients in the event that the common law agreement was disputed or ruled invalid by a Court”.
Despite false and malicious allegations by Discovery proxy Anthony Millar and NPA spokesperson Luvuyo Mfaku in the South African Jewish Report, and other publications that we had stolen “hundreds of millions of rands”, and “over a billion rand”, from Practice clients, not a single one of the thousands of former clients of the Practice Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc. have made any claims against the Attorneys Fidelity Fund – a fund which reimburses clients moneys misappropriated from them by their attorney.
The Curator appointed by the court to our Practice after we were forced to flee South Africa for fear of our lives consequent upon threats of serious bodily harm or worse, made by Discovery proxies on the 15th March 2016; reported as early as November 2016 and subsequently thereafter, and again on the 4th June 2019, that not a single claim of misappropriation had been made by anyone of the Practice clients against the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund.
It is hoped that with the appointment of new leadership, the endemic corruption within sectors of the Hawks and the NPA will come to an end, and that the new leadership will carefully consider the true facts of the Discovery/Edward Nathan's George van Niekerk's fabrications, and see them for the lies they are. Further that it will be understood that the entire sequence of events leading up to the NPA investigation, at the instance of Discovery's attorney Mr George van Niekerk of Edward Nathan Cape Town, did not arise out of any wrongdoing, but exclusively out of a vendetta being conducted against us by Mr van Niekerk as attorney for Discovery Health, and as revenge by Discovery for us exposing its decades of institutionalised defrauding of its vulnerable members, who had sustained injury in accidents, to the tune of hundreds of millions of rands annually.
Discovery's Jeff Katz openly and repeatedly threatened “no matter what it takes, no matter what it costs, we will destroy you all, we have unlimited money to do so”.
Allegations of misappropriation of Practice clients trust funds
Not a cent of trust money belonging to clients was misappropriated/stolen from any Practice clients, and no clients have lodged any misappropriation claims against the Attorneys Fidelity Fund. This has repeatedly been confirmed by the Court appointed Curator to the Practice. His latest confirmation dated 4 June 2019 ,as also his confirmation dated 28 August 2018 appears below.
That RBP's fee agreements whereby complicated and expensive personal injury and medical negligence claims were somehow improper or unethical, and that this Law firm was the only one using such agreements.
The Law Society of the Northern Provinces, The Free State Lawyers Association, The Black Lawyers Association and the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope, were all of the opinion that such agreements were in the public interest, lawful and ethical, and for almost twelve years from 2002 up to and including 2013, almost 80% of all practicing attorneys in South Africa were permitted and encouraged to utilise such agreements.
Below see the ruling made by the Law Society with regards to Common Law Contingency Fee Agreements, and the further confirmation of the ruling made.
1. The 1st Ruling by the Law Society - August 2002
2. The Confirmation of the ruling by the Law Society - October 2003
3. Extract from an opinion expressed by Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Malcom Wallis in 2010 supporting such agreements, and critical of attorneys fees based on time.
4. Letter from the Law Society addressed to Deputy Judge President van der Merwe of the Pretoria High Court dated 12 October 2011 informing the judge that it supported such agreements, that it had permitted and encouraged its members to utilise such agreements since 2002, that it had not laid down any minimum or maximum percentage fee which its members could charge their clients, and that percentage fees in excess of 25% were entirely permissible.
5. Law Society President janse van Rensburg, in opposition to Millar's attack on such agreements (whilst he hypocritically has and continues to use common law contingency fee agreements), signed a 49 page affidavit, prepared by the Law Society attorney Andre Bloem of Rooth and Wessels Pretoria, and in which the Law Society vigorously defended its decade of permitting and encouraging its 16 000 members to utilise such agreements.
The entire affidavit may be viewed by clicking here to read.
That the Practices requirement that clients who wished to take advantage of obtaining legal representation by the Practice on a no win no fee basis, and whereby the firm carried the entire risk and cost of what was often years of High Court litigation and disbursements running into hundreds of thousands of rands; sign alternative fee agreements, was improper.
As will be noted in paragraph 5 of the Law Society letter to the Deputy Judge President of the High Court dated 12 October 2011, the Law Society itself had sent out written advisories to its 16 000 members.
No RBP clients were forced to sign any agreements whatsoever, unlike Discovery puppet attorney Anthony Millar whose poor and semi literate clients were touted from their Natalspruit hospital beds (see www.toutingattorneys.co.za), all RBP clients came to the firm by way of recommendation from family, friends or professionals, were free to decline signing any agreements, or of terminating their instructions to the firm at any time.
RBP Inc. in common with the Law Society's tens of thousands of other members offered their clients an opportunity of entering into alternative fee agreements and for the very reasons referred to by the Law Society in its letter to the then Deputy Judge President, and any criticism of this is malicious and without merit.
That Ronald and Darren Bobroff have been found guilty of unprofessional conduct by the Law Society.
The Law Society has confirmed in writing on the 1st February 2013, and again recently in October 2018 shortly before the Law Society of the Northern Provinces was dissolved and replaced by the Legal Practice Council, that never since the Practice was established in 1975, were any of its directors - Ronald Bobroff, Darren Bobroff and Stephen Bezuidenhout ever found guilty by any Disciplinary committee of the Law Society of any unprofessional conduct. Below is the Law Societys letter dated 1st February 2013 and an extract from its letter 16 October 2018.
That Ronald Bobroff, Darren Bobroff, his wife Lisa together with their two little boys left South Africa to avoid prosecution.
As at March 2016 to date, there has never been any prosecution of Ronald, Darren or Lisa(who never had anything to do with the Practice).
This despite wild and hysterical allegations made by a spokesperson for South Africa's National Prosecuting Authority, and unsurprisingly Discovery's puppet touting attorney Anthony Millar, by faithfully reporting on the captive publications and primarily in the Discovery controlled South African Jewish Report by Ant Katz, a relation to Discovery's Jeff Katz.
The only reason Ronald, Darren and Lisa left was on account of terrifying and credible threats made to Ronald on the 15th March 2016 that Discovery's agents would:
- At any moment have Darren's wife Lisa arrested and gang raped in prison by thugs hired for such purpose.
- That Ronald and Darren would be arrested at any moment and whilst in prison subjected to serious assault or murder.
Against the background of Discovery's Jeff Katz having continually threatened Darren, Ronald their partner Stephen Bezuidenhout, that he/Discovery would:
"no matter what it takes, no matter what it costs, we will destroy you all", "we have unlimited money with which to do so".
Katz accosted Darren, his wife and two little boys at Melrose Arch shopping centre marched up to their table and in a loud voice such that everyone in the restaurant could hear shouted “The Hawks (South Africa's specialised criminal investigation unit)are onto you, they will be arresting you soon”.
Please see below relevant extracts of the letter of complaint regarding Katz addressed to the Law Society.
Extracts of affidavit of RBP Director S Bezuidenhout relating to the threat made to him.
Email from Advocate Nazeer Cassim S.C to Ronald Bobroff regarding threat.
Anonymous emails having being received by Darren during February 2016, and obviously emanating from a source privy to highly confidential material to the effect that Ronald and Darren would be arrested and bail would be opposed by the National Prosecuting Authority.
Below see letter issued by attorney David Bayliss confirming that "at no stage have we been furnished with any charge sheet alleging/detailing criminal conduct on the part of either Ronald and Darren Bobroff".
If Ronald and Darren are innocent of any criminal conduct,why have they not returned to South Africa to "face the music"?
Darren, Lisa and Ronald had been advised and had intended to only absent themselves from South Africa for a few days, whilst the source of the threat above was identified and neutralised.
For that reason their return flights were booked for them to arrive back in South Africa,on 23rd March 2016.
See a copy of the air tickets below:
However after Ronalds wife Elaine was arrested on trumped up charges on the night of the 22nd March 2016, whilst she, her daughters and sons in law were meeting with Advocate Nazeer Cassim S.C at his home, by a very senior member of the Hawks, the circumstances changed immediately.
The admission by a Lt. Colonel member of the Hawks who had arrested Elaine, that effectively the only reason that he had arrested her was due to a telephonic instruction by Discovery's attorney George van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town.
It immediately became clear that Discovery's Jeff Katz's threats as to the power and influence of Discovery and its attorneys Edward Nathan were not idle ones.
The endemic and widespread corruption infesting South Africa's criminal justice system from top to bottom is a matter of public record, and has extended from successive heads of the Hawks and the NPA downwards to prosecutors, police officers and even the Chief Magistrate of Pretoria.
The evidence in this regard was presented day after day, and week after week before the Zondo judicial commission of enquiry, and may be easily accessed on the internet.
Renowned forensic investigator Mr Paul O' Sullivan was engaged by the Practice to investigate ongoing thefts of material from it, and successfully obtained a full confession from the culprit, Ms. Cora van der Merwe. (currently conducting business as Legally Accurate (PTY) Limited).
Fourteen months after van der Merwe had willingly accompanied Mr. O'Sullivan and his assistant on the way to his offices, she laid charges of kidnapping against Mr. O'Sullivan.
There is no doubt in the minds of those who were aware of Discovery's agenda, which happened to coincide with that of the NPA and the Hawks concerning Mr. O'Sullivan, that he was charged and persecuted for some two years at great financial and reputational cost.
After two years of torment Mr. O'Sullivan and his assistant were acquitted of all van der Merwe's charges, The Magistrate described van der Merwe as “an evasive liar, who kept changing her story", and her thefts for Discovery media assassin Beamish as “unlawful and malicious”.
Click here to read the judgment
Which fair-minded person, when confronted with these facts and the clear demonstration of the power and influence which Discovery and its attorney George van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town have been able to wield, and as will be noted below even extended to the hijacking in November 2015 of the council of the Law Society; would condemn us of being fearful to return to South Africa until and unless the endemic corruption has been rooted out, and Discovery and its attorneys' improper use of their power and influence has been exposed and stopped.
DISCOVERYS MALICIOUS VENDETTA
Consequent upon our exposure of Discovery's decades of institutionalised defrauding and deception of its members, Discovery's Jeffrey Katz who personally derived enormous financial benefit by virtue of his, and under his instructions his departmental staffs bullying and harassment of seriously injured road accident victims, commences a malicious vendetta involving fraud, bribery and corruption, as revenge and in respect of which Katz threatens that "no matter what it takes, no matter what it costs, we will destroy you all".
This site contains factual and substantiated proof how Discovery Health administrators (PTY) Limited (a wholly owned subsidiary of the public company Discovery Limited),via its in house debt collector Jeffrey Katz has waged a seven-year long vendetta against Ronald and Darren Bobroff, and the Practice of RBP Inc., as revenge against them, because in the course of their defending Practice clients Mark and Jody Bellon, they unwittingly exposed Discovery's decades of institutionalised defrauding and abuse of its members who sustained injuries on road accidents or other trauma related events.
You will read how Katz made specific threats on a number of occasions to RBP director Stephen Bezuidenhout, to RBP's senior advocate Nazeer Cassim S.C during the hearing of a matter, which Discovery's attorney George van Niekerk of Edward Nathan Cape Town stated that it did not involve Discovery directly or indirectly, (so why was Discovery's Katz there and also present at every matter involving RBP former client Mr Graham and his wife, and all matters against RBP where Katz's proxy Anthony Millar attacked RBP's law society compliant contingency fee agreements?) Katz repeated the same threat he had made to Bezuidenhout and Advocate Cassim i.e. that "We (Discovery) will destroy you all, no matter what it takes and no matter what it costs", to Ronald and Darren Bobroff on a number of occasions.
You will also read how Discovery, via its attorneys Edward Nathan effectively hijacked the Law Society Council, by packing it with Discovery attorneys and others closely connected to Discovery or ENS, and how it catapulted a shady ambulance chaser, Anthony Millar of Norman Berger and Partners, whose practice comprises largely of poor black road accident victims who are touted from Natalspruit Hospital; to the office of "president" of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces.
YouTube interviews with a few of Millar's touted clients: (affidavits have been taken from dozens of his clients by independent professional investigators and every client describes how he or she was touted in much the same way by Millar's tout Jabu ,as is described in the YouTube interviews below.
Unsurprisingly the Law Society has simply ignored dozens of complaints in this regard against Norman Berger and Anthony Millar, or simply swept the complaints under the carpet at secret meetings behind closed doors from which the Attorney and Advocate representing Berger and Millar's touted victims were excluded. To further compound its improper conduct the Law Society flatly refused to provide Millar's victims or their attorney with a copy of the recording, made at the secret meeting or the reasons why these serious touting complaints, of which normally only one proven touting of a client is sufficient to be struck off the roll; were simply ignored.
Millar has never previously served on any committee of the organized profession, and his rigged installation as "president' of the Law Society by Discovery / ENS, is a perversion of the integrity that the Law Society has always stood for, and irreparably taints it. Read the powerful and truthful affidavits filed by the Law Society's former president, Mr Busani Mabunda in 2012 and 2013, in which he fearlessly exposes Discovery and its attorney George Van Niekerk of ENS, as being behind the cynical use of a former RBP client to pursue its vendetta against Ronald, Darren and RBP. He accuses van Niekerk and RBP former client Mr Graham and his wife of perjury, and in addition van Niekerk of appalling unprofessional conduct.
Below you will read how 2014/5 Law Society President Strike Madiba, again expressly fingers Discovery on 30 July 2015, in an affidavit filed by him in court, of being behind the second round of litigation brought by it in the name of the same former RBP client previously used as a puppet against RBP Inc., Ronald and Darren, after its earlier application was effectively dismissed by the court.
THE HIJACKING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE NORTHERN PROVINCES BY DISCOVERYS ATTORNEYS EDWARD NATHAN
You will read how Millar, with the support of ENS's huge army of lawyers, step by step paved the way for his improper installation as "president" of the Law Society, and as confidently predicted by Discovery's Jeffrey Katz when he threatened Darren Bobroff on the 16th June 2015, and referred to above in Darren Bobroffs' complaint against Katz to the Law Society.
Was to remove the Law Society rule which prohibits anyone canvassing support for an attorney to be elected to the council of the Law Society. Rule 43 was specifically intended to ensure that candidates for election to the Law Society council should be attorneys of worth, respected by their colleagues, who had served for lengthy periods of time on committees of the Law Society, leaders in their communities and were fit and proper to serve as members of the Council.
As Millar was none of the aforesaid, the only way to get him onto the council was if Discovery's attorneys, primarily ENS but also other large corporate law firms, either the recipients of work from Discovery, or closely connected to ENS would use their collective hundreds of partners and professional staff to lobby for, and to vote for Millar. Therefore, this rule was abolished by virtue of Millar's motion at the Law Society 2014 annual general meeting, supported by Discovery's attorneys and proxies.
ATTEMPT BY MR ANTHONY MILLAR TO HAVE HIMSELF ELECTED TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LSNP - CLICK HERE TO READ
DISCOVERY'S ATTORNEY MICHAEL KATZ OF EDWARD NATHAN, AND HIS PARTNERS HIJACK THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY FOR THE BENEFIT OF DISCOVERY, WHICH IS ONE OF THE FIRMS BIGGEST CLIENTS - CLICK HERE TO READ THE SORDID MANNER IN WHICH THIS WAS ACHIEVED
Was for Millar to call for a special meeting of members of the Law Society seeking to force an "election" of members of the council. You will have read above and you will have noted Millar's letter demanding such a meeting, his attached resolution calling for an "election", and the requisition in terms of the Law Society's rule 16 which requires signature by at least 100 of its members.
You will note that the requisition is ONLY signed by Discovery's Jeff Katz and assistant Krawitz, Millar, Berger and their two assistants and EVERY OTHER SIGNATURE IS EXCLUSIVELY THAT OF DISCOVERY'S ATTORNEYS - THE DIRECTORS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF OF EDWARD NATHAN. This has to be the most astonishingly, brazen and arrogant manipulation of the Law Society in its entire history.
Discovery's Katz (in the pink shirt) plotting with his accomplice Millar (portly man in the white shirt).
Unsurprisingly the meeting called for was packed with Discovery proxies and the resolution called for was carried forcing an "election" for the council of the Law Society.
Was for Discovery via the various law firms it floods with work, to put up candidates for "election" to the council, which included directors of these firms, as also Discovery panel attorneys. Again by sheer weight of numbers, Discovery was able to ensure that its chosen candidates would be elected to the council.
Was to have Millar leap-frogged from his Louis Botha office obscurity, to the office of president of the council! There are some 18 000 attorneys governed by the Law Society of the Northern Provinces. A tiny proportion of these are ever elected, after years of decades in practice to the council of the Law Society, and in its 125-year existence the council has only had approximately 125 presidents or less. A councillor who may have any ambition of being elected as President of the Council is required to serve diligently on the council for many years, display a capacity for the enormous work load, and the proper and ethical service the office of President involves, serve and chair numerous important committees of the Law Society for many years.
Only then, do a minuscule number of councillors be held in such high esteem by their fellow councillors and the profession as a whole, to become eligible for election by fellow councillors as president of the council. Millar fails to qualify on any single one of these criteria, and probably the only previous occasions in which he had set foot in the Law Society building in Pretoria would have been to face complaints against him by clients.
In a shocking and farcical perversion of everything the Law Society has always stood for, Millar was "elected" by way of a rigged process whereby Discovery/ENS stooges voted for him. Millar has faithfully served his masters since then together with his fellow Discovery proxies, in causing the council to do a 360 degree about face departing from the ethical and honest stance taken by the former council vigorously opposing all the Discovery funded applications against it, RBP Inc., and Ronald and Darren Bobroff.
Whereas it had previously, staunchly and honestly stood for principle in resisting and exposing Discovery and its attorney’s relentless efforts to manipulate the Law Society to serve its agenda; it now effectively parroted the line taken by Discovery and ENS's George Van Niekerk in attacking Ronald, Darren and RBP Inc.
THE HIJACKED DISCOVERY/ENS LAW SOCIETY COUNCIL, ATTEMPTS TO SANITIZE, BUT AS THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE, THEN DISCARDS AN EXPLOSIVE AFFIDAVIT EXPOSING THE COLLUSION AND CORRUPTION BETWEEN DISCOVERY'S ATTORNEY GEORGE VAN NIEKERK OF ENS CAPE TOWN, DISCOVERY PROXY ANTHONY MILLAR AND DISCOVERY MEDIA ASSASSIN TONY BEAMISH, IN THEIR COMMON OBJECTIVE OF SERVING DISCOVERY'S AGENDA BY WAY OF BRIBERY, CORRUPTION AND FAKE NEWS,TO DESTROY RBP INC. AND RONALD AND DARREN BOBROFF
The 274-page May 2015 powerful affidavit, prepared by the Law Society's attorney, Mr Andre Bloem on instructions from the Law Society and its then president Mr Solomon Strike Madiba, throughout the document, but specifically in paragraph 14 thereof exposes the collusion between Millar, Discovery's attorney George Van Niekerk of ENS, and Discovery Medial Lackey reporter Anthony Kilroy Beamish, in pursuing the vendetta against Ronald, Darren and RBP Inc.
The hijacked Discovery/Law Society Council attempts to sanitize and then discards the explosive affidavit prepared by Law Society Attorney Mr.A Bloem of Rooth and Wessels, which graphically exposed how Discovery's Katz, its attorney George van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town, its proxy attorney Anthony Millar and Media Lackey Beamish were behind the vendetta and accompanying media campaign against Ronald Bobroff, Darren Bobroff and Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc.
ORIGINAL PARAGRAPH 14 BEFORE IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE AFFIDAVIT - CLICK HERE TO READ
After the farcical “election" results became known on or about 23 October 2015, and given that Millar was now a "councillor”, the original paragraph 14 was suddenly removed from that affidavit, and as you will note from the replacement paragraph 14, no reference is made to Millar at all.
That obviously was not enough to satisfy Discovery proxies on the council, and the entire truthful and courageous 274-page affidavit was discarded and substituted, by a venomous affidavit tailor made to further Discovery's interests.
Despite paying lip service to the principles of fairness and natural justice, that affidavit had attached to it, a biased and inaccurate report by a junior accountant employed full time by the Law Society, an affidavit by a mentally unstable former RBP employee who had been recruited by Beamish, and an affidavit by a ten times convicted fraudster and jailbird bookkeeper employed by RBP Inc., and bribed by Discovery via Millar to set up RBP for a SARS audit aimed at having the Practice shut down.
The obvious intention was to negatively and improperly influence the minds of any judges reading same against RBP, Ronald and Darren. Despite that contrived affidavit stating that RBP and its directors would be given an opportunity to rebut the allegations in the annexed documents at a Law Society disciplinary hearing, where the authors of those documents would face cross examination by RBP legal representatives; that of course never took place.
Instead the Law Society, now under the powerful influence of Discovery proxies on its council, made common cause with it, and with Millar at the helm trumpeting on television and elsewhere in the furtherance of his and Discovery's agenda against Ronald, Darren and RBP Inc.
In a complete and utter corruption of the council's long standing policy, requiring any councillor who has any interest in a matter serving before the council to recuse them self, and not be involved or privy to anything concerning such matters, Millar not only refused to recuse himself, but actively drove and continues to drive his and his master Discovery's agenda at council meetings, and has shamefully been permitted by the council to front the attack on Ronald, Darren and RBP in the media and elsewhere.
RBP have been furnished with the minutes of the council meetings concerned, by a councillor who is horrified at the corruption of the council, but is afraid to speak out due to Discovery's record of destroying anyone who stands up to it, and as arrogantly stated by Katz.
A letter sent to the Law Society by RBP's attorneys, seeking an undertaking that Millar would not be permitted to be involved or privy to any council meetings or correspondence relating to RBP, was simply ignored by the Discovery proxy packed council. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE AND SCANDALOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND AGAIN SHAMES AND TAINTS THE LAW SOCIETY'S ONCE PROUD RECORD OF INTEGRITY.
The ONLY complaints ever made against the firm in respect of its contingency fees have been by a handful of clients unlawfully solicited by Discovery to Millar, or by Millar himself as deposed to by RBP clients Clint Coleman and Martha Kok, where Beamish in the course of his engagement to serve Discovery's interests attempted to solicit them to Millar.
Ironically one of such clients, Glen Vivian after insisting that his claim be settled for the paltry R45 000 offered by the Road Accident Fund, eventually received R4.4 million after Darren and Ronald managed to persuade him to persist in the claim. His email expressing his gratitude to Darren can be read below, but after he was incited by Millar and others, he suddenly "complained" about Darren Bobroff’s 25% contingency fee. Perhaps Darren should not have done his duty as an attorney and should have permitted Vivian to accept the R45 000.00 offer.
Despite Discovery attorneys Millar and Van Niekerk maliciously and dishonestly stating that RBP charged percentage contingency fees of 40% or more, RBP have never charged more than the usual 25 - 30% fee in terms of such an agreement. Where an attorney charges on a time basis such as Millar professes to do, there is no cap on the time fee charged, and which is not limited to any percentage of the damages recovered for the client.
Millar being the dishonest hypocrit that he is, entered into an invalid and unlawful Common Law Contingency Fee Agreement with Ms. de la Guerre, the former RBP client/Discovery member he touted, to use as a puppet in attacking RBP's Common Law Contingency Fee Agreements.
Millar continues to use such agreement, and despite complaints being made against him and his partner Norman Berger to the Law Society, consistent with Discovery's Katz's boast to Darren Bobroff on the 16th June 2015 that Darren should not bother lodging complaints against Katz or Millar, as such complaints "would go nowhere", the Law Society's Jaco Fourie indeed saw to it that the complaints went nowhere.
Those at Carte Blanche who have furthered Discovery's interests, every one of whom involved in the attack is in some way financially beholden to Discovery, have scrupulously refused to mention or make reference to the numerous other well-known plaintiff attorneys who quite properly and ethically utilised Law Society compliant common law percentage fee agreements, copies of which were given to them.
This includes De Broglio, Josephs, Levin Van Zyl, Hirshowitz Flionis, Munro Flowers Vermaak and others. Similarly they have deliberately failed to mention that Fluxmans partner ,Selwyn Perlman ,who conducted an extensive personal injury practice, ethically and properly also utilized the identical percentage fee agreements utilized by RBP and tens of thousands of other attorneys, and who likewise find themselves victims of an attack by Millar for personal financial gain, where Millar has sued them on behalf of their former client Levensohn on an identical basis to the multiple attacks by Millar on Ronald, Darren and the Practice of RBP Inc. in respect of the Practices Common Law Percentage Contingency Fee Agreements.
RBP'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT
In September 2015 and consequent upon allegations by Discovery's attorney George van Niekerk, media assassin Beamish, and accountant for hire Vincent Faris, who had been instructed and paid by Discovery and furnished with RBP's entire client database stolen from the Practice server by RBP bookkeeper and serial fraudster Bernadine van Wyk for Discovery, in return for monetary and other gratification offered to her by Discovery, that the Practice had misappropriated client funds and contravened almost every statute which could be remotely applicable to an Incorporated Law Practice, a written invitation was extended to the Law Society to conduct an extensive audit of the Practices books of account.
Despite an intensive Law Society audit extending over 3 weeks, RBP's books of account did not reflect a cent trust shortage, but an excess of R27 million. Not a single client has ever complained to date, notwithstanding the relentless and corrupt campaign waged by Discovery, of not having been paid what was due to him or her, and despite a false allegation by the junior Law Society employee Ashwin Reddy in his contrived report that "the firm poses a risk to the Attorneys Fidelity Fund", the court appointed curator to the Practice of RBP Inc. found exactly the contrary to be the case, when he reported that the Practices trust account balanced to the cent, and that not a single claim had been lodged by any of the Practices clients against the Attorneys Fidelity Fund i.e. no theft whatsoever.
RBP's books are audited annually and no concerns have ever been expressed by its auditors during its 42-year existence. The firm regularly received certificates from the Attorney’s Fidelity Fund in recognition of the enormous amounts of interest the firm has paid to the Fidelity Fund.
DISCOVERY'S MEDIA LACKEY, TONY KILROY BEAMISH
Beamish admitted to all three RBP directors in January 2014, that he had been "brought back" from the south of France where he lives, to South Africa by Discovery. He has since then, and despite professing to be a journalist, written about nothing else than attacks on Ronald, Darren, RBP, and anyone associated with them, or the firm. To date he has written in excess of 45 malicious attacks, primarily in fringe publications such as Moneyweb and Noseweek.
Moneyweb which continues to lose money and has recently again changed hands, seems set to disappear into insolvency, and obviously welcomes Beamish's hysterical drivel, as a means to boost its flagging fortunes.
During a recent court hearing March 10, 2016, where Beamish's vicious and puerile tweets and other social media attacks on Ronald and Darren were canvassed, including Beamish sending his filth to the parents of the children in Darren Bobroff’s children school class, and having regard to the shocking levels to which Beamish stooped in these communications, the presiding Judge Neil Tuchten was sufficiently disgusted to describe Beamish as:
"THROUGHLY MEANSPIRITED "
"HIS WRITING AS "DOGGEREL” and
"I DONT THINK I WOULD LIKE A PERSON LIKE THAT TO HAVE A MEAL IN MY HOUSE "
ONE CAN ONLY BUT TOTALLY AGREE, WITH THE JUDGES OPINION OF BEAMISHES CHARACTER!
Beamish recruited RBP employee Cora van der Merwe to serve as his spy and thief in the Practice, and she obligingly stole Practice, client and directors personal information off the Practices server and emailed all of this to Beamish.
Investigators indicated that this was the case, and renowned forensic investigator Mr. Paul O'Sullivan interviewed Cora van der Merwe on the 14th October 2014.
After van der Merwe initially denied the allegations against her, she eventually confessed in full when confronted with scores of emails containing stolen material to Beamish.
Fourteen months later she suddenly laid charges of kidnapping against Mr O'Sullivan and his assistant Ms. Naidu. The NPA ever keen to attack Mr O'Sullivan and of course by then firmly under the influence of Discovery and its attorneys jumped at the opportunity of prosecuting Mr O'Sullivan and Ms.Naidu.
After years of court appearances and millions of rands in legal fees the presiding magistrate threw out van der Merwe's trumped up allegations and the NPA's trumped up charges and labelled van der Merwe as an "evasive liar", and her theft of material from RBP for Beamish as "malicious and unlawful".
Given that van der Merwe made herself guilty of theft and that she did so at the instance of Beamish, advice has been received that Beamish could and should be charged as being an accessory to theft, and it is understood that Mr. O'Sullivan and Ms.Naidu are considering the various options against Beamish and Millar whom it is understood, put van der Merwe up to laying charges against them, as also with regards to van der Merwe.
LAW SOCIETY EXPOSES DISCOVERY, AND EDWARD NATHAN'S GEORGE VAN NIEKERK, AS BEING BEHIND THE ATTACK ON RONALD, DARREN AND RBP INC.
1. "No matter what it takes, no matter what its costs, we (Discovery) will destroy you all"
A threat repeatedly uttered by Discovery's Jeffrey Katz, to RBP Director Stephen Bezuidenhout, Darren Bobroff and Advocate Nazeer Cassim S.C during a matter where Cassim represented the firm.
The reason for the threat was Ronald and Darren's inadvertent exposure of decades of institutionalised defrauding of members of Discovery Health who had sustained injury in road accidents, by Discovery's Broomberg, Schwartzberg and Katz.
2. "The Trust account balances to the cent " - no client funds misappropriated whatsoever
Extract from the report of the Curator appointed by the Court to the Practice of Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc, after Darren and his family and Ronald, were forced to flee South Africa for fear of their lives, after receiving threats which could only have come from sources connected to Discovery.
3. "No claims have been lodged with the Attorneys Fidelity Fund" - This is a fund set up by the Profession to repay clients from whom their attorneys stole money.
Extract from the Court appointed Curator/Inspectors report concerning the Practice of RBP Inc.
The Curators report clearly exposes the malicious lies and defamation pumped out by Discovery's proxies, Attorney Anthony Millar, Anthony Beamish, Ant Katz, as also by spokespersons of the National Prosecuting Authority and the Hawks, that " hundreds of millions of Rands had been stolen", and subsequently even more absurd allegations, that the amount stolen had by October 2016 been found to have exceeded R1 billion! ; to be dishonest fabrications.
Sadly the South African Jewish Report has been captured by Discovery, and has become little more than a mouth piece for the drivel put out by Beamish. Given that its controlling board includes Shawn Mattison, Discovery executive and others who have business and/or personal relationships with Discovery and its directors, it is no accident that within days of Beamish's drivel being published, as had been the case since 2016, firstly online in Moneyweb, followed the day after in the Citizen, and then religiously, or perhaps not so religiously but disgracefully in the Jewish Report.
This publication is now regarded widely within South Africa's Jewish Community as being little more than a scandal sheet, and a forum for those who control the publication and their friends, to stroke each others egos by way of fawning articles of praise. Never mind that some of the recipients of the praise, have a long history of being scoundrels.
One wonders why recent reports in the media complete with photographs of three senior Jewish Advocates who were exposed by the courts taxing master as having charged eight times more than the law permits , did not merit a one liner, let alone a full page as is always the case with Darren and Ronald Bobroff.
Similarly an alleged massive tax fraud engineered by Edward Nathan for the benefit of Christo Wiese, a director of the disgraced Steinhoff group of companies, as also unnamed Edward Nathan members, has so far not merited a single mention in the Jewish Report online, or heaven forbid in print and one awaits with interest to see whether this will ever occur.
The total amount of money received by the Practice from the Road Accident Fund in respect of compensation obtained for clients, together with that portion of the costs payable by the Road Accident Fun in respect of the accounts of all experts and advocates whose services had been utilised during the period, was approximately a Billion Rand for the decade December 2006 - March 2016.
Therefore the allegations above of theft of a Billion Rand, that would have the astonishing result that not one of the Practices thousands of clients, over more than a decade would have received a cents compensation, and not a single advocate or medico legal expert would have been paid, as we together with our partner Stephen Bezuidenhout ,would have pocketed the entire Billion Rand!
That such nonsense should be publically alleged by the National Prosecuting Authority, leads one to understand why it has been constantly under attack in the Courts and by various public interest bodies committed to the rule of law as being incompetent, riddled with corruption and serving agendas other than those which South Africa's constitution requires it to follow.
A number of key and senior officials of the NPA and the Hawks have been found guilty of corruption by the courts, and the head of the NPA currently faces a court application to remove him from office.
* Refer to the section on Forensic Investigator Paul O'Sullivan below.
4.The charging of common Law percentage contingency fees of between 25-30% on damages recovered for clients by RBP Inc, is theft! - This allegation has been made by Discovery proxy, shady ambulance chaser Anthony Millar who has previously and continues to overcharge the vulnerable, and often illiterate black road accident victims, he touts from Natalspruit Hospital.
Far from limiting his fees to the 25% of the damages recovered for the client as the Constitutional Court finally ruled in February 2014 to be the maximum contingency fee permissible, Millar's unlawful common law contingency fee agreement specifically states in paragraph 1.2 that "The fees on an attorney and own client scale will be calculated on a time basis and in this respect I understand "any other basis" means:- "that it is not limited to a fee relative to", "the amount involved (as the amount involved shall not in any way be taken into account nor shall it have any effect on this agreement or the rate charged".
Click (www.toutingattorneys.co.za) to view some of the interviews with his touted clients
It is clearly no coincidence that the N.P.A has parroted Millar's allegations, in a malicious High Court application brought by it, unlawfully seeking to misappropriate our lawful offshore lifesavings, as Millar's co-conspirator Discovery's attorney Mr. George van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town who has made the same allegations, is known together with his brother who is a senior N.P.A prosecutor in Cape Town to have brought extensive pressure to bear on the N.P.A, so as to further Discovery's agenda that "no matter what it takes, no matter what it costs, we will destroy you all", be fulfilled.
Significantly, and notwithstanding that the Law Society has confirmed in affidavits filed in court, that more than 74% of its 16 000 members would only represent personal injury clients on a Common Law Contingency percentage basis, and which the Law Society permitted, promoted and encouraged from 2002 to 2014, one wanders why the Council of the Law Society, controlled by Discovery since 2015 to date (click here to read how that was achieved); has failed to attack or strike off any other one of its thousands of members, but only targeted us after it was hijacked by Discovery in October 2015.
Many observers have wondered why the NPA have not attempted to freeze or seize RBP Director and shareholder Stephen Bezuidenhout's funds and/or assets, given that Bezuidenhout's share in the Practice was greater than that held by Darren Bobroff, and that Bezuidenhout received millions from the Practice by way of salary and dividends, most of which was exported to Malta to purchase two multi million Rand flats.
Further to the extent that Bezuidenhouts money was earned from the Practices Common Law Contingency Fee income, if for arguments sake that fee income was regarded by the NPA as the proceeds of crime, Bezuidenhouts assets to the extent that they were purchased with the proceeds of such income, would also then be subjected to freezing and seizure by the NPA and Assets Forfeiture unit.
It should be clearly understood that any allegation that any fee income earned by the Practice was the proceeds of crime is absurd and denied, but the example is given simply to illustrate how mysterious it is as to why Bezuidenhout has been left untouched by the NPA.
The answer to this is that the NPA is clearly, and at the very least strongly under the influence of Discovery, and its attorneys Edward Nathan as it has only sought to attack two directors of Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc., being Ronald and Darren Bobroff, as has consistently been the case by Discovery and its attorney George van Niekerk.
Similarly Millar who acts on the instructions of Discovery/van Niekerk in the furtherance of Discovery's vendetta against Ronald and Darren Bobroff, and in return for having successfully received protection against being struck off the roll of attorneys by the captive Law Society, and also being rewarded by being appointed to Discovery's so called panel attorneys, which is nothing other than a sophisticated touting scam, has similarly only attacked Ronald and Darren Bobroff.
Within days of Ronald and Darren and his family, as a consequence of terrifying and credible threats, and which can only have come from sources within Discovery, were forced to flee for fear of their lives, Millar met with Bezuidenhout and Zimerman who had entered into an agreement previously to purchase the Practices current client files, but which agreement Discovery's attorney van Niekerk had urgently applied to the court to set aside.
RBP auditor Mr Andrew Fischer was also present at that meeting held at the Practices office on the 31st March 2016.
In his affidavit which may be viewed by clicking here, Mr Fischer describes how Millar abused his Discovery engineered position as President of the Law Society for personal financial benefit, to intimidate and to thereafter entice Bezuidenhout and Zimerman to enter into a fraudulent agreement with him, the effect of which would be to enable Millar on behalf of his Masters at Discovery and ENS to obtain judgments based on fraudulent agreements with Bezuidenhout and Zimerman, against Ronald and Darren Bobroff.
These judgments would then be, and were used by Millar to attach Ronald and Darrens assets, and also to terrorise Ronald's wife, by repeatedly sending the Sheriff of the Court with instructions to attach and remove the 30 year old contents of her home.
The deal proposed by Millar was that with regard to Zimerman, in return for Zimerman fraudulently, and unethically colluding with Bezuidenhout to abandon the valid agreements in terms of the Contingency Fees Act entered into with those former RBP clients who Millar had touted and incited to challenge RBP's fees, was that Millar would see to it that the Law Society would permit Zimerman to retain all the RBP client Road Accident Fund matters which had been transferred to Zimerman , to remain with him, notwithstanding that it was clear that the application brought by Discovery to set aside the sale of such files by RBP to Zimerman would succeed. Indeed Millar kept to his part of the bargain.
The reward for Bezuidenhout for his betraying Ronald Bobroff with whom he has served his articles of clerkship in 1976, had joined as partner from 1989, and who had grown rich and comfortable thanks to Ronald's ability to build the Practice into one of the most successful personal injury Practices in South Africa, was that Millar being the President of the very Law Society who had applied to the court to have Bezuidenhout struck off the roll of attorneys, was perversely that Millar would see to it that Bezuidenhout was not struck off the roll, and Millar permitted Bezuidenhout's attorney Mr Trevor Fagri to draft the affidavit for Millars signature, and which was then filed in court in the striking matter effectively opposing Bezuidenhout being struck off, and to no ones surprise in what a senior colleague was in court reported in a "choreographed" sequence of events including a remark by one of the judges that "Bezuidenhout was little more than an employee of RBP" (despite Bezuidenhout being a man in his sixties, having been a partner with the Practice since 1989, running his own Practice within the Practice, with his own team under his direct control, coming and going as he pleased, seemingly always away on holiday and most definitely his own boss, was hardly "merely an employee"), but so skilfull was the web of deceit woven that Bezuidenhout was presented as one of the three monkeys who see, hear and know no evil.
No prizes for guessing why the NPA has ignored RBP partner Mr Stephen Bezuidenhouts Millions of Dollars in offshore assets in Malta(a clue - Bezuidenhout permitted himself to be captured by Discovery proxy Millar, for personal financial and other benefit), click here to read an affidavit by RBP Practice auditor Mr Andrew Fischer exposing the collusion between Bezuidenhout and Millar.
Regrettably the captured Law Society Council and its legal representatives, in addition to deliberately withholding the Curators report from the Court which struck us off by default, after denying us an opportunity of being heard, they likewise also failed to bring to the Courts attention the fact of its having permitted, promoted and encouraged the use of identical fee agreements utilised by RBP and thousands of the Law Society's members, it's 49 page affidavit filed in court click here to view in the landmark de la Guerre Case in support of the lawfulness and public benefit brought about by common law percentage contingency fee agreements, as well as the emphatic endorsement by a highly respected Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Malcom Wallis in a paper in September 2010 and where he stated;
"Whilst we have a statute that regulates this topic, it is badly drafted and generally ignored by the attorneys who act on Contingency. In practical terms these attorneys conduct litigation on a no win no fee basis where, at the successful conclusion of a case, they will tax a convention bill of costs (which covers a fair proportion, but not all of their disbursements) and charge over and above that a proportion, usually 25% though sometimes less with small claims, of the damages recovered"
This being the case, how could it ever be alleged that the use of such agreements was improper, let alone, absurdly, theft?
5. In a letter written by the Law Society to the Pretoria High Court Deputy Judge President on the 12th October 2011, strongly justifying its support of common law percentage contingency fee agreements it stated:
“For example although no minimum or maximum percentage is prescribed and given that attorneys and their clients are free to negotiate a contract in the same way as any other contract between competent parties, we indicated to our members that should the 25% cap referred to in the Act, be exceeded, it will have to be justified, having regard to the various aspects which will have to be considered such. This will inter alia include the complexity of the matter, the overhead cost structure of the firm, the extent of the disbursements to be covered by the attorney, the anticipated period that the attorney would have to carry such disbursements and wait for payment of fees, as well as other criteria such as those referred to in Rule 80 of the Law Society's rules.
Following the judgment given in the matter of PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc./ National Potato Co-Operative Ltd. by the Supreme Court of Appeal and the lack of certainty as to whether a Court would uphold common law contingency fee agreements as a result thereof, we have cautioned our members to provide for alternative fee agreements with clients in the event that the common law agreement was disputed or ruled invalid by a Court".
This threat which was made by Discovery's in-house medical costs debt collector Mr Jeffrey Katz, and as referred to at the beginning of this site, "no matter what it takes, no matter what it costs, we will destroy you all" ,was made repeatedly after Darren and Ronald Bobroff, whilst defending clients Mark and Jody Bellon, against Katz and Discovery's fraud and bullying, inadvertently exposed decades of institutionalised defrauding by Discovery Health of its members who sustained injury in road accidents.
As stated below, this exposure led to thousands of attorneys advising hundreds of thousands of their clients that were Discovery members, that they were not obliged to give in to Katz's threats to deprive them of accident generated medical care, and this in turn according to a letter written by Katz to the Law Society in 2011, led to the amount which Discovery had been extorting out of its members who had sustained injuries in road accidents, dropping to 25% of what had been the case prior to the criminal and fraudulent conduct by Katz and his employers being exposed. See the extract of the letter below and Click here to read the entire letter
"Discovery is suffering ongoing, mounting harm as a result of the Society's failure to date either to withdraw or to correct the LSSA notice circulated at the start of the month. We confirm that, since the LSSA notice Discovery has recovered less than 25% of its usual recoveries of past medical expenses for a corresponding time period
Ironically, Katz who was accused in affidavits made by a number of RBP clients of attempting to bribe them into turning against us, and maliciously threatened and defamed us from 2011 to date, whilst portraying himself as a paragon of virtue, recently exited his position as national chairperson of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies under questionable circumstances.
Katz who had been a member of the Council of the South African Board of Jewish deputies for fifteen years , including two years as its national chairman, together with Mr Doron Joffe, the boards treasurer and longstanding board council member(also coincidentally a partner in Discovery's attorneys Edward Nathan), accused the board of financial irregularities.
One is puzzled how such an accusation can be made, given that Katz fails to explain how this startling fact had never previously come to his or Joffee's attention during the many years that they had both been members of the Jewish Reports board.
COMMON LAW PERCENTAGE CONTINGENCY FEE AGREEMENTS - ROUTINELY AMOUNTING TO BETWEEN 25 - 30% OF DAMAGES RECOVERED WAS THE NORM FOR OVER 70% OF ALL SOUTH AFRICA'S PRACTICING ATTORNEYS FOR SOME TWELVE YEARS.
However and notwithstanding that Katz/Discovery's local panel of attorneys were instructed by Katz to only utilise such agreements, he and his proxies Mr Anthony Millar (go to toutingattorneys.co.za) and Mr George van Niekerk of Edward Nathan Cape Town were magically able to "convince" the National Prosecuting Authority, that the use of such agreements suddenly became theft, because a Civil Court held in 2014 that such agreements were invalid.
Of course no such allegation is made in respect of Katz/Discovery's panel attorneys, who on Katz's instructions utilised such agreements, nor the 74% of the Law Society's 16 000 members, who responded to a Law Society survey to the effect that the only agreements they used were common law percentage fee agreements.
Unsurprisingly and given that Millar had become Discovery's proxy in return for Discovery attorneys ENS ensuring that the dozens of touting complaints against Millar at the Law Society, would be quietly shelved in return for Millar attacking RBP's Common Law Percentage Contingency Fee Agreements, and routinely issued vulgar statements to the media and published same on social media, attacking Ronald and Darren, he was coyly silent about attorney Selwyn Pearlman of Fluxmans use of a Common Law Percentage Contingency Fee Agreement in the matter of Levensohns vs Fluxmans in which Millar unsuccessfully attacked Pearlmans agreement with Levensohn, and in which the Appeal Court held that Levensohns claim against Fluxmans had prescribed, as more than three years had passed from the date of Pearlmans accounting to Levensohn.
CHRONOLOGY AND TIMELINE
1.28 September 1998 – Judgment by Cameron J in the Headleigh Clinic Case No.28862/97 reported in SALR 2001 (4) SA 360 dealing with an attorney’s 25% common-law contingency fee agreement in which the Court held the agreement to be valid. Significantly this judgement was delivered AFTER the promulgation of the Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997, attached hereto as Annexure “RBA1”.
Following on widespread screening of American Trial Movies throughout South Africa featuring the American system of one third percentage contingency fees, Plaintiff Attorneys are inundated by requests from clients to contract on that basis, and enquiries thereafter directed to the LSNP which resolves to investigate South African Law on the issue.
2.30 May 2002 – The Law Society of the Northern Provinces obtains an Opinion from Advocate Labuschagne SC which expresses the view that common-law contingency fee agreements are valid and can co-exist with the Contingency Fees Act, such Act not in any way specifically prohibiting common-law agreements, attached as Annexure “RB2A”.
3. August 2002 – Law Society of the Northern Provinces regulating more than 60% of Attorneys in Practice, issues a ruling enthusiastically permitting its members to enter into common-law percentage fee agreements. The ruling authored by Councillor and Court Practice Committee Chair, C P Fourie, refers to 25% as the effective norm, and enthusiastically remarks “A step forward? For sure!”,attached as Annexure “RBA3”.
4. October 2003 – The Law Society of the Northern Provinces issues a further confirmation of its earlier ruling in which it notes that “It is now more than a year since the Law Society of the Northern Provinces gave the green light to its members to enter into common law contingency fee agreements with their clients. The feedback is that it was well received and that, by and large, it works well”. Again 25% is effectively referred to as the norm, given that such percentage is specified in the Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997, attached as Annexure “RBA4”.
5.The ruling by the Law Society of the Northern Provinces is adopted and supported by the Free State Law Society.
6.The rulings by the two Law Societies is adopted and supported by the Black Lawyers Association, bringing the number of attorneys officially permitted and encourage to utilise such agreements up to some 70% of the profession.
7.Feedback by Natal members of the South African Personal Injury Lawyers (SAAPIL) was that the use of such agreements was universal amongst all Plaintiff Personal Injury attorneys.
8. 1 June 2004 – Price Waterhouse Case – 448/2003)ZASCA 64; 3 All SA (SCA) (1 June 2004).
The Supreme Court of Appeal decides that the decade’s long prohibition against maintenance and champerty i.e. prohibiting litigation funders form receiving a share of the proceeds of litigation, is no longer a part of South Africa’s common-law. Therefore it is lawful and valid for lay persons to receive a percentage of the damages recovered in actions funded by them. In that case the percentage contracted was for 45% of the millions eventually recovered from Price Waterhouse. A by the way remark, referred to by Lawyers as “obiter”, was made by one Judge to the effect that Attorneys would not be permitted to do that which the Court had now said could be done by unregulated lay persons, a copy attached hereto as Annexure “RBA5”.
8.1 The Law Society of the Northern Provinces obtains opinions from three senior advocates, all of whom agreed that the statement by the one Judge was “obiter”. i.e. by the way, and not to be regarded as a binding ruling by the Court. Many Lawyers interpreted the Court’s decision as developing South Africa’s common-law so as to enhance the Public’s access to the Courts. It was believed that it would be discriminatory and inconsistent, for attorneys, who are tightly regulated by the Law Societies, not to be permitted to do that which the Court had stated could be done by completely unregulated lay persons.
8.2 As the Contingency Fees Act did not anywhere state that Attorneys could not represent clients on a no win – no fee basis, otherwise than in terms of the Act, it was the opinion of Advocate Labuschagne SC on behalf of the LSNP and subsequently Advocates M Brassey SC and Hopkins, in the de la Guerre and SAAPIL matters, that common-law contingency fee agreements could validly exist side by side with the Contingency Fees Act.
9.2005 – The Law Society of the Northern Provinces informs its members that after taking opinions from senior advocates on the Price Waterhouse obiter – by the way remark of the Judge, the advocates and the Law Society remain of the opinion that common-law percentage contingency fees are permissible and valid. Again 25% is referred to as the norm.
10.On 23 September 2008, and after Millar had attacked his colleague, Attorney Deon Goldschmidt’s Law Society compliant common-law contingency fee agreement, the then President of the LSNP filed an affidavit expressing the Council’s strong support for such agreements, which was essentially the same as the 27 page one filed in the de la Guerre matter, attached hereto as Annexure “RBA6”.
11.August 2010 – Highly respected Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Malcolm Wallis, presented a paper at an international conference on legal costs. He had the following to say concerning fee litigation in South Africa:
“Contingency fee agreements have been relatively successful in South Africa in making personal injury litigation available to even the very poor in our community. Whilst we have a statute that regulates this topic it is badly drafted and generally ignored by the attorneys who act on a contingency. In practical terms these attorneys conduct litigation on a ‘no win-no fee’ basis where, at the successful conclusion of a case, they will tax a conventional bill of costs (which covers a fair proportion, but not all, of their disbursements) and charge over and above that, a proportion, usually 25% though sometimes less with small claims, of the damages recovered. The latter fee is not recoverable from the other side. Whilst there are occasional complaints of over-reaching in these arrangements by and large they appear to work well and people are willing to sacrifice part of their damages in return for making some recovery”.
“Lastly if something can be done to break the near universal reliance on charging by time, particularly by attorneys, but increasingly by counsel, that would be a good thing. Our courts have bemoaned it as a basis for charging fees; describing it as putting a premium on slowness and inefficiency”.
The Judges paper is attached with the relevant portions marked and attached hereto as “RBA7”.
12.It was stated in the de la Guerre judgment, an inexplicably the court state that as a seasoned practitioner Ronald should have been aware of what he referred to as the “numerous authorities holding common law contingency fees to be invalid, and further that Ronald should have been aware of the letter written by the Judge President to the Natal Law Society in which he expressed his disapproval.
12.1 However such comment with respect was wholly incorrect and inappropriate, and quite clearly so imminent a lawyer as Supreme Court Judge Malcolm Wallis was also clearly unaware. He was also clearly unaware of any letter from the Judge President to the Natal Law Society, as referred to, or regarded it as irrelevant almost a decade later.
12.2 Had he been aware of such authority, he would surely have mentioned this in his paper, which was thereafter published the following year in the professional journal “The Advocate”.
Again one presumes that had the publishers of the Advocate’s Journal or the editor thereof, been aware as at August 2011 of any South African Case Law holding common-law contingency fee agreements to be invalid or unlawful, the editor would have placed a note at the commencement of the article or at the end, indicating that since the learned Judge had presented his paper, there had been such a decision.
13. In the LSSA’s (Law Society of South Africa) annual report March 2011 at page 28 thereof, Mr Clem Druker, Chairperson of the LSSA’s Contingency Fees Committee, and also at the time a serving member of the Council of the Cape Law Society, announced on behalf of the Cape Law Society that:
“Given the fact that the Cape Law Society Council is now prepared, in principle, to side with all the other bodies which recognize common-law contingency fees...” attached hereto as Annexure “RBA8”.
13.1 Significantly, Discovery’s attorney, Mr George van Niekerk, who has consistently severely criticized RBP, and by implication of the Councils of the LSNP and Free State Law Societies, as also the Black Lawyers Association who had consistently promoted and supported common-law percentage contingency agreements, as also every one of the many thousands of attorneys who utilized common-law contingency fee agreements and on Cape Councillor and/or on its committee.
14. In November 2011 LSNP President, Mr Tony Thobane, an oft acting Judge of the High Court, had the following to say concerning common-law contingency fee agreements in his President’s report:
“We plan to do everything in our power to ensure that when issues around the common law fee agreements are litigated upon, the interests of our members are protected, intertwined with the interests of our members, are the interests of the public for whom the common law fee agreements provide access to justice. The cause is worth fighting for and neither effort nor resource will be spared”. Attached as Annexure “RBA9”.
15. On the 6 December 2011, Law Society of the Northern Provinces President, Mr Johannes van Rensburg, deposed to an affidavit filed in court in the de la Guerre matter, in which inter alia had the following to say concerning common-law contingency fee agreements as attached in annexure “RBA6”.
“On 21 June 2002 the Council of the Law Society made a ruling permitting its members to enter into certain common law contingency fee agreements other than in terms of the provisions of the contingency Fees Act”.
“The interest of the Law Society in the present application is to advance legal argument pertaining to the validity of common law contingency fee agreements”.
The Law Society advances the following contentions:
15.1 that the same need expressed by the public and members of the Law Society and which gave rise to the enactment of the Contingency Fees Act continued to be expressed with increasing urgency with regard to the introduction of a simple, easily understood and equitable contingency fee agreement, given the perceived unpopularity and impracticality of the agreement provided for in terms of the Contingency Fees Act;
15.2 that consequent upon decades of screening on South African televisions and cinema circuits of American programs depicting various forms of contingency fee litigation, for example Erin Brokovitch, a Civil Trial and others the South African public have become exposed to the concept of the simple, fair and workable American Percentage Contingency Fee Agreements. The Law Society has in turn been informed by many of its members, that clients request that members enter into such agreements, rather than the complicated agreement provided for in terms of the Contingency Fees Act after the details of the agreement in terms of the aforesaid Contingency Fees Act have been discussed with the clients;
15.3 that given that the majority of victims of all forms of wrongfully caused personal injuries, suffer financial loss such as to render them unable to afford legal services in the normal way, an acknowledged need has arisen for assistance via common law contingency fee agreements, so as to enable such victims to assert their rights to claim damages against the wrongdoer;
15.4 that the inequality of arms which prevails between the majority of road accident victims on the one hand and the large and powerful institutions such as the Road Accident Fund/Insurance companies on the other hand, speaks to a particular need for personal injury victims to gain access to justice through easily understandable and practical common law contingency fee agreements;
15.5 That the common law recognises circumstances under which a valid common law contingency fee agreement may be concluded;
15.6 That the aforesaid circumstances are in consonance with the constitutional right of persons to have access to the Courts as enshrined in the Constitution;
15.7 Alternatively, that if it is held that the common law referred to supra does not exist as a matter of right, it will be submitted that the common law needs to be developed in terms of Section 39 (2) of the Constitution to incorporate the right to conclude a common law contingency fee agreement in the circumstances envisaged supra;
15.8 That the Contingency Fees Act, whilst constituting an admirable attempt at providing access to justice by litigants unable to afford the normal costs of litigation, has unfortunately by virtue of its impractical and unworkable provisions not been utilised by the attorneys’ profession to any significant extent;
15.9 The wording of the Contingency Fees Act is ambiguous and problematic. A straight percentage fee is not provided for, but rather a complicated formula in which the attorney is initially required to stipulate a so-called normal fee. In terms of Rule 80 of the Law Society’s Rules an attorney’s normal fee is subject to a whole variety of parameters and this provision in itself would no doubt give rise to endless disputes in the context of a contingency fee agreement;
15.10 That the normal fee is then to be doubled upon a successful conclusion of a matter, but the total of the success fee is not to exceed 25% of the monetary result obtained. Whereas it was always understood that the 25% maximum referred only to the attorney’s fee, it was recently held in the matter of RMA van der Merwe v Mariette Geldenhuys, Case No.36216/06 (WLD) that counsel’s fees are also to be included under the 25% cap. This demonstrates the unworkability of the Contingency Fees Act as in many cases this would result in the attorney’s fee being negligible in relation, to say senior counsel’s fees;
15.11 That in terms of Section 4 of the Contingency Fees Act where summons has been served, the legal practitioner is obliged to file an onerous and extensive affidavit with regard to any offer of settlement, and which is in addition to be accompanied in terms of Section 4 (2) by an affidavit from the client. Given that a number of offers are usually made in most personal injury claims, some times during the days preceding the trial and on the day of the trial, this section results in the absurd situation of attorneys and their clients having to make repeated affidavits each time a new offer is made;
15.12 That given that;
15.12.1 the Contingency Fees Act was promulgated in 1997 and the prescribed agreement in 1999;
15.12.2 the vast majority of RAF claims are handled on a contingency basis;
15.12.3 most RAF claims are settled prior to reaching trial stage;
15.12.4 some two hundred thousand claims are lodged against the RAF annually primarily by attorneys and that from 1999 to date in excess of one million claims would have been lodged by attorneys on behalf of clients;
An irresistible inference must be drawn that attorneys and their clients in RAF matters are not utilising the agreements in terms of the Contingency Fees Act to any extent as only one (1) affidavit in terms of Section 4 of the Contingency Fees Act was filed with the Law Society during the first ten years that the Contingency Fees Act has been in force. Some attorneys have submitted copies of agreements concluded between themselves and clients to the Law Society, although it was not necessary to do so as follows: 2001-1, 2005-11, 2005-29, 2007-15,2008-8,2010-18 and 2011-21;
*(i.e. a reasonable inference is that at least 1 million RAF claims were handled by attorneys who charged at least a 25% common law contingency fee).
15.13 that the Law Society’s ruling on common law contingency fee agreements has been followed by at least the Law Society of the Free State and the Black Lawyers Association;
16.During the period 1999 to date the Law Society’s records indicate that some complaints were received from clients relating to overreaching and some overcharging. Of these complaints very few related to fees in terms of common law contingency fee agreements.
16.1 In 2000 the Law Society conducted survey amongst its members. A copy of the Law Society’s letter containing the relevant questions and answers are attached hereto as Annexure “RBA10”.
16.2 The relevant questions and the average response thereto are:
16.2.1 What percentage of plaintiffs in your practice has a need for assistance by means of common-law percentage contingency agreement in order to assert their claims in court?
Answer : 94.94%
16.2.2 In what percentage of cases administered by your practice is a common law percentage contingency fee agreement utilised?
Answer : 76.4%
16.2.3 If you utilise common law percentage contingency fee agreements, do you ascertain the prospects of success before entering into such agreements with client?
Answer : Yes
17.In the North Gauteng High Court the introduction of new practice directives with effect from 25 July 2011 has had a considerable impact.
17.1 The aforesaid practice directives only provide for a fee agreement in terms of the Contingency Fees Act and not for common law contingency fee agreements. As the majority of agreements between attorneys and their clients in third party matters appear to be common law contingency fee agreements, attorneys are faced with an array of practical difficulties in dealing with the matters and finalising them speedily in the best interest of the clients.
17.2 It is submitted that in the light of the impracticality arising from the Contingency Fees Act and the need for a workable alternative, common law contingency fee agreements may validly be concluded within the stated recognised parameters”.
18.On the 20 February 2014, the Constitutional Court, delivering judgment in an appeal against the decision of the North Gauteng High Court which had held in the de la Guerre and SAAPIL matters that common-law contingency to be invalid, stated as follows and is hereto attached as Annexure “RBA11”;
18.1“uncertainty reigned in the attorneys’ profession about the correct legal position in relation to contingency fees;
18.2could these fees be charged only under the Act, or also outside its provisions?
18.3RBP was one of the firms which charged more than allowed for in the Act, as the rules of its professional association allowed”.
19.It is therefore submitted that there can be no proper basis for criticizing or penalizing any attorney for contracting with a client to act on contingency outside the provisions of the Contingency Fees Act, prior to the date on which the Constitutional Court finally ruled on the issue.
20.Certainly it could never be said that members of the LSNP were in any way acting unprofessionally by doing so, or overreaching clients by complying with their Council’s rulings, which were reaffirmed year after year for more than a decade, during which the Council expressed consistent support for common-law contingency fee agreements.
21.Even van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town, the attorney Discovery used throughout its vendetta against Ronald and RBP Inc. in an article published by him in De Rebus – the South African attorneys journal – noted as follows” for many contingency fee agreements have been a matter of contention, and the questionable existence of common law contingency fee agreements after the enactment of the contingency fees act, in particular, has led to much confusion.
22.Indeed van Niekerk is entirely correct in finally acknowledging what he refers to as much confusion but in reality was a situation where the governmental regulatory bodies representing more than 70% of all attorneys practising in South Africa were of the firm opinion that common law fee agreements were valid and permissible, that as recently as February 2011 the Cape Law Society of whose Council van Niekerk was a member resolved to adopt the same approach as the Law Societies of the Northern Provinces and the Law Societies of the Northern Provinces and the Law Societies of the Free State: thereby effectively bringing the percentage of attorneys in South Africa whose governing bodies were of the view that common law contingency fee agreements were valid and permissible to over 90%.
The South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (SAAPIL) which at the time comprised of most attorneys throughout South Africa, representing victims of all forms of trauma and medical negligence was made aware from its members throughout South Africa that all forms of personal injury and medical negligence litigation was conducted exclusively by way of common law percentage fee agreements.
23.For anyone to seriously suggest that any attorney who contracted with a client, could in any way be guilty of theft or fraud simply because a civil court held – more than a decade after such fee agreements were permitted, promoted and encouraged by the Law Societies, is absurd, malicious, and wholly at odds with the long established principle mens rea being an essential element of any common law crime.
It would also have the bizarre result of many thousands of attorneys suddenly becoming thieves and the Councillors of the three law societies which had adopted the view that common law fee agreements were valid, also suddenly becoming accessories to theft.
24.Perhaps the most enlightening of all the Law Society’s actions in support of common-law percentage contingency fee agreements, is the content of its letter to the then Deputy Judge President of the North Gauteng High Court on 12 October 2011, attached hereto as Annexure “RBA12”.
24.1 The letter in question attached a proposed model common-law contingency fee agreement, and also noted the following:
24.2 that attorneys could properly charge more than 25% of monies recovered subject to the guidelines set out in such letter, specifically, “For example although no minimum or maximum percentage is prescribed and given that attorneys and their clients are free to negotiate a contract in the same way as any other contract between competent parties, we indicated to our members that should the 25% cap referred to in the Act, be exceeded, it will have to be justified, having regard to the various aspects which will have to be considered. This will inter alia include the complexity of the matter, the overhead cost structure of the firm, the extent of the disbursements to be covered by the attorney, the anticipated period that the attorney would have to carry such disbursements to be covered by the attorney, the anticipated period that the attorney would have to carry such disbursements and wait for payment of fees, as well as other criteria such as those referred to in Rule 80 of the Law Society’s rules”.
A copy of the letter referred to above is attached in the above annexure “RBA12”.
25. With regard to the Price Waterhouse Case, all three Counsel from the Law Society secured opinions were ad idem that Southwood J’s remarks were obiter. The Law Society chose to rely on the opinion of Labuschagne SC. Further it appears that Southwood J may have had second thoughts if one has regard to his statements in the Mnisi case as commented on in a paper by Professor Magda Slabbert – “The Judicial Approach to Contingency Fee Agreements” published in 2013 (78)(THRHR). The author considers and refers to the obiter by Southwood AJA in the Price Waterhouse Coopers Case, where the learned judge adopted a very firm approach in stating inter alia that:
“Any Contingency Fee agreement between such parties which is not covered by the Act is therefore illegal” Attached as Annexure “RBA13”.
She however notes that when the learned Judge had occasion to consider an agreement between Attorney Mnisi and his client, which was clearly not in compliance with the Contingency Fees Act and was essentially a common law contingency fee agreement, the honourable judge did not hold the agreement invalid, but as stated by the Author “ Regarding the terms of the contingency fees agreement, it is respectfully submitted that Southwood J appeared somewhat ambivalent in his finding that the agreement was “clearly not covered” by the (Contingency Fees ) Act and the Agreement appears to be illegal” This stands in stark contrast to the learned judges earlier dictum, to which he made reference, in the Price Waterhouse Case that any contingency fee agreement between such parties which is not covered by the Act is therefore illegal” This dictum suggests that invalidity is an unavoidable consequence of a finding that a contingency fee agreement does not comply with the Act. Yet, almost six years later, in Mnisi, Southwood J was only prepared to for a prima facie view that the contingency fee agreement was invalid, despite stating that it was “clearly not covered by the Act”. Instead of making an order declaring the agreement invalid, the Judge directed the Registrar to refer the matter to the President of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces (LSNP) to investigate, inter alia the validity of the contingency fee agreement and Mnisi’s failure to file the affidavit prescribed by section 4 of the Act”.
"Fake News Article by Sally Rawsthorne of the Sydney Herald - Sun"
Response to Sydney Morning Herald Article
Discovery which has now commenced doing business in Sydney and Melbourne, and as has been the case with the Citizen, Sunday Times and the Jewish Report, which sadly reflect what has become of South Africa’s once world class media (Business Day excluded) ,has successfully, directly or indirectly colluded with the Sally Rawsthorne employed by Sydney Morning Herald which is part of the Fairfax Group, and which regularly features as a defendant in defamation actions; to parrot the ongoing lies published since January 2014 by Discovery's hired media assassin Beamish and his cronies including Ant Katz of the Jewish Report, Graeme Hosken of the Sunday Times and Laura du Preez.
Social media connections with Discovery’s gang in South Africa, including Beamish, Hosken, Discovery's Jeffrey Katz, taken together with the fact that Katz tweeted Rawsthornes malicious article almost simultaneously as she did, follows her on twitter, and that she follows Sunday Times journalist Graeme Hosken, graphically illustrates the collusion involved. Click here to view the tweets
Rawsthorne clearly lacks any sense of decency. She arrived unannounced at the door of Ronald’s home early Friday morning 3rd August 2018, and rang the doorbell incessantly until Ronald came downstairs, and without opening the door he enquired who was there. Rawsthorne responded that she was from the Sydney Morning Herald and that she wished to interview him concerning the South African Interpol Red Notices. Ronald partly opened the door whilst still in his pyjamas and told Rawsthorne that he had been awake all night due to the pain caused by a fractured ankle, apologised for his appearance and told Rawsthorne that he would be happy to speak with her if she just wait ten to fifteen minutes for him to shower and dress.
Whilst this interchange took place Rawsthorne or her photographer Jani Barrett who had accompanied her, surreptitiously took a photo of Ronald in his pyjamas, but never disclosed this , and went through the charade of persuading Ronald and Darren to agree to what was probably at least twenty photographs in twenty poses, because, as Rawsthorne put it, "we want our readers to see how you and Darren are living and the stress you are under".
What kind of people are they?
During the interview Ronald took Rawsthorne through the history of Discovery's seven year vendetta against Ronald and Darren and the Practice of RBP Inc., and which commenced after Ronald and Darren in the course of defending Practice clients, Mark and Jody Bellon stumbled upon Discovery's decades of institutionalised defrauding of its members who had sustained injuries during road accidents.
Ronald went on to tell Rawsthorne that the Council of the Law Society upon being informed by Ronald at its January 2011 monthly meeting what he had ascertained concerning Discovery, was told by those of its councillors who conducted Plaintiff Personal Injury Practices, that they and their clients had experienced similar unlawful threats and demands. The Council of the Law Society then resolved to send an advisory to its 16 000 members warning them to be vigilant in protecting their clients interests against unlawful demands and threats made of them and their clients by any medical aid. Click here to view the 1st LSNP Advisory sent out to members dated 1 February 2011 and Click here to read the Law Society's 2nd advisory sent to members dated 15 April 2011
Ronald informed Rawsthorne, and on the same day mailed her these advisories, as also a threatening letter which Katz had sent to the Law Society Click here to view letter threatening to sue it.
On the last page of his second letter Katz disclosed the true reason for his and his employers anger and which was that after the Law Society had sent its advisories to its members, Discovery’s illegal rake off extorted from those of its members who had sustained injuries in road accidents, abruptly dwindled to 25% of the hundreds of millions it had for decades duressed out of its vulnerable members.
Ronald explained to Rawsthorne that given that Katz was receiving millions of rands in commission based on the hundreds of millions extorted by him and his staff from their helpless victims, one could understand why Katz and his employers – the obscenely wealthy directors of Discovery would endorse the repeated threat publically made by Katz, that as revenge for Ronald and Darren(doing what lawyers are supposed to do in fearlessly defending their clients), inadvertently exposing his and Discovery's fraudulent and illegal conduct, he/Discovery threatened that “no matter what it takes, no matter what its costs, we will destroy you all”.
For reasons only known to Rawsthorne, and most likely so as to deflect readers attention from the real reason for Discovery's having waged war against Ronald, Darren and their Practice, rambled on about a comment Ronald had made to her, and not in the words used by him when Ronald explained to her why there was a strong political agenda behind certain government interests which had clearly facilitated the collusion between Discovery's attorney George van Niekerk and other partners of Edward Nathan being able to improperly influence the National Prosecuting Authority, and a senior member of the Hawks.
That was on account of the attorneys profession having elected Ronald to lead the professions opposition to decades of ongoing efforts by successive minsters of transport, and CEO’s of the Road Accident Fund to try remove the legal profession from playing any meaningful role within the Road Accident Fund Compensation Scheme, and thereby reduce the levels of compensation available, to road accident victims most of whom to be poor persons of colour, to negligible levels.
Further that Ronald had been successful together with a number of other dedicated attorneys in frustrating the South African Governments efforts to plunder the billions of rands in the road accident fund, as has been the case in every other South African parastatal/organisation including Eskom (The electricity supply commission) South African Airways and many others.
Ronald informed Rawsthorne that Katz had threatened RBP director Stephen Bezuidenhout that he/Discovery would "destroy you all", and that Bezuidenhout had deposed to an affidavit filed in court Click here to read affidavit deposed to by Stephen Bezuidenhout, and that Katz had uttered the identical threat to senior advocate Nazeer Cassim S.C in a matter where Mr Cassim represented the firm, and that advocate Cassim had reported the threat to Ronald, and in an email offered to testify in respect thereof .Click here to view email by Advocate Cassim S.C.
Ronald forwarded Rawsthorne a copy of Bezuidenhouts affidavit and a copy of Cassims email, and referred specifically in a mail addressed to her and which is available for reading at the foot of this comment, but of course Rawsthorne had obviously been instructed not to mention Discovery or anything negative about it, and only coyly referred to an "Insurers operatives", but had no difficulty in continuously defaming Ronald and Darren by way of allegations allegedly made by a former RBP client, which she did not put to Ronald or Darren for their response, as she obviously preferred not having to put the response which would have been that neither of them had dealt with that matter, were aware of what had transpired once that deceased clients wife had been touted by Discovery proxy Anthony Millar, and between the two of the concocted a perjured affidavit.
Ronald referred her to the way in which Discovery’s media assassin Tony Beamish, had together with Discovery proxy Attorney Anthony Millar recruited Cora van der Merwe, a 50 year old woman whom Ronald had agreed to employ as a candidate attorney, notwithstanding her having had what may be politely referred to as a colourful past; to steal material from the Practice relating to its clients, its files, and even directors personal documents including will and family trust deeds for them.
Ronald went on to inform Rawsthorne that van der Merwe had been exposed by South Africa’s renowned forensic investigation Mr Paul O’Sullivan, and that she had made a full confession to him and his assistant Ms Melissa Naidu, during an interview with her at the Practices offices, that she had been recruited by Beamish to steal RBP Practice, client and directors personal information off the Practices server for Beamish and Millar.Click here to read Mr. O'Sullivans affidavit in this regard
Ronald also told Rawsthorne about Pauls fearless anti-corruption campaigns in South Africa, that Paul had apparently spent time in the employ of the United Kingdom Intelligence Agency MI-6, and had exposed South Africa’s then commissioner of Police and head of Interpol for the corrupt scoundrel that he was, which led to his being sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment.
She then went on using wording clearly intended to depict Ronald as some sort of crackpot, when she maliciously and falsely stated “he detailed the plot of the fake kidnapping of a former spy of the USSR, infiltrated into his law firm... Erin Brockovitch and MI6.
See below where Rawsthornes dishonesty and lack of any semblance of journalistic ethics are exposed.
The Transcript of Ronald’s recording of the interview below demonstrates exactly how contrived and misleading Rawsthornes articles have been, how she scrupulously protects Discovery and its proxies, and deliberately fails to mention any of the true facts which would provide readers with an understanding of how and why Ronald and Darren have been victimised for defending Practice clients, speaking truth to power and that they have done nothing whatsoever wrong.
Ronald detailed how Discovery’s attorneys Messrs Edward Nathan had hijacked the council of the Law Society on behalf of its biggest client Discovery, when unrelenting efforts by its attorney George van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town to harass and manipulate the Law Society into serving as his and his client’s pawn had failed.
Ronald forwarded Rawsthorne three affidavits deposed to by successive Law Society Presidents fingering Discovery and its attorney George van Niekerk of using former RBP client Mr Graham and his wife as pawns, in what in reality were court applications in which, “the relief (orders), provided for in the Notice of Motion (i.e. the Court Application), is essentially not sought by the Grahams, but by van Niekerk and/or Discovery, on whose behalf van Niekerk acts. It is abundantly clear that the Applicants (the Grahams) play a secondary role in these proceedings)”.
Ronald also forwarded Rawsthorne extracts from an explosive affidavit prepared by the Law Society’s attorneys on its behalf, describing in detail the collusion between Millar, Beamish and van Niekerk in the vendetta and the malicious attacks on RBP’s law society complaint contingency fee agreements.
Ronald also informed Rawsthorne of the attempt which was made by the newly appointed Discovery controlled council in November 2015, to sanitise that affidavit by removing its most incriminating paragraph 14. Click here to read the original paragraph 14. However because the rest of the affidavit was replete with numerous and detailed exposures of the corrupt activities of Millar, Beamish and van Niekerk; the Discovery puppet Law Society Council discarded that affidavit entirely and replaced it with one tailored to suite Discovery’s agenda to destroy Ronald, Darren and their Practice.
Whereas the previous independent Law Society Council prior to its hijacking by Discovery’s attorneys Edward Nathan, had stood for honesty and principle, that was no longer the case, and effectively the puppet council from November 2015, became little more than an extension of Discovery’s firm of attorneys.
Notwithstanding all this and having received all relevant documents Rawsthorne simply ignored them all, as that would hardly suite her agenda and that of those whose interests she was serving. Click here to read Millar's letter to the Law Society with a requisition compelling the Law Society to hold a special meeting of its members, and with every signature on that requisition being exclusively that of Discovery's Katz, his proxy Millar and every partner of Discovery’s attorneys Edward Nathan. Click here to view a selection of quotes from the three affidavits filed in court by the Law Society fingering Discovery and accusing van Niekerk and the grahams of perjury. Click here to view the sanitized paragraph 14 from the discarded Law Society affidavit, more substantial extracts from the discarded affidavit may be viewed on this website.
Discovery’s Jeffrey Katz who received millions in commissions on the hundreds of millions of rands he and his staff illegally and immorally extorted out of injured and helpless members of Discovery captive medical aid scheme, who had sustained injuries in road accidents, became enraged at the prospect of his ill-gotten gains being exposed, and abruptly terminated, consequent upon Ronald and Darren’s exposure of his and his employers deceitful and fraudulent conduct.
Any journalist worthy of the title would have afforded Ronald and Darren an opportunity of responding to any third party allegations which they intended publishing, but of course given Rawsthorne’s clear agenda, and clearly pursued in collusion with Discovery’s Beamish and Hosken, she deliberately did not do so, but nevertheless published false allegations by the wife of since deceased RBP client, Mark Chetty and in the context of the quote she attributes to Sandy Chetty, it is highly unlikely that Rawsthorne interviewed this woman, but rather simply regurgitated what had been published by her colluder Hosken in the Sunday Times, and who had also not afforded Ronald or Darren via their attorney an opportunity of commenting on Sandy Chetty’s allegations.
Although neither Ronald or Darren represented Mark Chetty, whose extremely difficult claim (it turned out he was drunk at the time of the accident and probably caused same),Sandy Chetty is quoted as stating that “ the firm’s partners enriched themselves off our pain and suffering”. “They dragged everything out, raising the costs. We were told by the RAF [Road Accident Fund] we would get 8 million rand, but when we got to court the Bobroffs told us they had signed the settlement for 4.2 million rand,”.
Her late husband’s claim, as she was well aware was attended to by an RBP employed lawyer together with advocates Zubair Khan and Ian Zidel SC whose photographs appear below below, and who together achieved an outstanding result for the late Mark Chetty, and who together with his wife were ecstatic at the outcome of the claim (and understandably so as Chetty having driven drunk, may well have been the cause of the accident) and the fee charged to him in terms of the Practices Contingency Fees Act Agreement.
Zubair Khan Ian Zidel SC
Rawsthorne states that “two other former staff members, Bernadine van Wyk and Cora van der Merwe, claim the Bobroffs overcharged clients and breached their legal bookkeeping obligations”, but she did not put allegations attributable to van Wyk and van der Merwe to Ronald or Darren so that they could comment on or rebut same, yet she remained coyly silent about van Wyk having been convicted on ten counts of fraud by false pretences, having being imprisoned, having being bribed by Discovery through its proxy attorney Anthony Millar to deliberately set up the Practice for an audit by the South African Revenue Services, after she had effected certain dodgy entries in the Practices books of account on the one hand, and ignored instructions to effect required entries in such books, as also that van Wyk had stolen R1.3million rand from attorney Schalk de Bruyn by whom she was previously employed, nor that van Wyk had confided much of this to the Practices receptionist Ms Liza Bouwer, and whose affidavit describing this had been forwarded to Rawsthorne, who simply ignored this all.
Similarly whilst Rawsthorne was happy to refer to Cora van der Merwe and van Wyks claim that “the Bobroffs overcharged clients and breached their legal bookkeeping obligations” she kept silent about van der Merwes confession to forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan Click here to read affidavit by Forensic Investigator Paul O'Sullivan (of her recruitment by Beamish and theft of extensive amount of material off RBP's Practice server, her fabricated allegations of kidnapping against O’Sullivan and his assistant – which was thrown out by the court (Click here to read the judgment acquitting Paul O'Sullivan) and in which the Magistrate labelled van der Merwe as an evasive liar, and her theft for Beamish and Millar of RBP Practice, client and directors material as “malicious and unlawful”; despite Ronald having fully informed Rawsthorne of these facts and forwarding her O'Sullivans affidavit and the judgment acquitting O'Sullivan.
Ronald informed Rawsthorne that;
- Cora van der Merwe was initially fiercely loyal to the Practice, and had taken great exception to the way in which Discovery proxy Millar and Discovery’s Katz were receiving extensive and wholly one sided publicity from Beamish via publication of Beamish’s publications in Moneyweb, a shabby failing internet publication run by Ryk van Niekerk, believed to be related to Discovery attorney George van Niekerk of Edward Nathan Cape Town.
- Cora's report detailed the fraudulent and fictitious attendances claimed for by Millar in his bill of costs, and in which he sought payment from Mr Mashiloane of hundreds of thousands of rands, and in a matter where one of Millar’s unqualified staff members recovered a measly R37 000.00 (AUD $3 700) compensation for Millar’s hapless victim. Click here to view report and letter sent to attorney Anthony Berlowitz as also her Afrikaans email to Moneyweb editor Ryk van Niekerk Click here to read as also the English translation of this email Click here to read
- Cora had been instructed by attorney Anthony Berlowitz in her capacity as a legal cost consultant, and prior to her being employed by RBP Inc., to oppose an outrageous account - bill of costs submitted by Discovery Proxy Attorney Millar, for payment by one of his touted and impoverished black clients Mr A Mashiloane.
- Van der Merwe had confided to Ronald, after he had called her in to his office for a pep talk , after she had been pressurised by the Practices bookkeeper with regards to various procedural irregularities and excessive sick leave;
- She "wanted to open her heart" to him and that during the recording of the interview van der Merwe stated:
- She had been contacted by Discovery hired media assassin Beamish who had sought to ingratiate himself with her by way of ongoing social media exchanges and telephone calls, and which she clearly understood to be intended to recruit her as Beamish's spy in the Practice.
- That she would furnish Ronald with dozens of Whatapps she had exchanged with Beamish via her two cell/mobile phones as also her laptop that she had exchanged with Beamish, as well as a number of emails which Beamish had copied to her, which she understood it to be an attempt by Beamish to impress her as by demonstrating his connections with Judge Bertelsmann and others in high places.Click here to view email exchange from Judge Eberhard Bertelsmann to Tony Beamish. (It therefore came as no surprise that as a reward for van der Merwe stealing Practice, client and directors personal information off the Practices server for Beamish and Millar, a marketing initiative for van der Merwe's newly established business as a cost consultant - i.e. to prepare bills of costs on behalf of attorneys clients, and to oppose bills of costs against such clients, Discovery arranged and funded and indaba (seminar) on legal costs, and in which Bertlesmann, Millar and Beamish were promoted as presenters of such seminar.Click here to read the advertising material
- That Beamish had told her that he owned a villa in the South of France, and that he regularly entertained one of South Africa’s most senior judges - Eberhard Bertelsmann(a reformed alcoholic and drug addict) , for a number of weeks annually together with his whole family at Beamish's villa in the South of France, and that Bertelsmann was assisting Beamish to facilitate his role in Discovery’s ongoing vendetta against RBP Inc. Ronald and Darren.
- She knew how to "handle" Beamish so as to lead him to believe that she had been captured by him, and was ready and available to spy on the affairs of the Practice for him, because she had many years previously been employed by the South African Navy, and trained in counter espionage.
- That she had been sent to a Russian University to study allied topics.
So as to provide Rawsthorne with insight to van der Merwe’s perverse, and to put it plainly evil character, Ronald detailed how after van der Merwe had been dismissed from the Practice, she had photo shopped a picture of Darren and his secretary Joan Berger from the firm’s website, inserted a photo of Joan’s baby in between Joan and Darren and emailed that fabricated photo bearing the message "you can ask Joan how much money Darren did gave (sic) her to have a baby and why" ,to Darren’s wife and to Joan’s husband in an attempt to ruin their marriages.
Rawsthorne was emailed a copy of an application made to court for a protection order against van der Merwe (Darren brought a similar application) resulting in an order being made against Cora.Click here to read the application for a protection order by Joan Burger, Darren's secretary
Rawsthorne whilst publishing van der Merwe’s malicious allegations against Ronald and Darren deliberately concealed this information.
This is not the first protection order obtained against Cora as her ex husband was forced to obtain one on account of Cora arriving at his home and accosting him and his wife, as also trashing the premises.
Rawsthornes allegations that Ronald “ said Ms.van der Merwe was a spy in the cold war” is a fiction of Rawsthornes malicious imagination, as is her catchy phrase in the print version “spies, lies and St.Ives” and likewise her fabrication that Ronald had said that van der Merwe was “ a former spy from the USSR, who had infiltrated his law firm”.
As is now apparent Rawsthorne was intent on parroting the false drivel written by Graeme Hosken in South Africa’s dwindling publication Sunday Times, and amusingly which Hosken had lifted almost word for word from an article in the Jewish Report communal newspaper, allegedly written by Tali Feinberg, but according to reliable sources, by Beamish.
As will be noted from a screenshot Click here to view South African Jewish Reports contact us page taken off the Jewish reports website, its controlling board includes Shaun Matisonn - a director and principal officer of Discovery, and others known to be closely associated in one way or another with Discovery's directors, Gore, Schwartzberg, Broomberg and co.
If Rawsthorne or Hosken had sought comment on the perjured allegations by former RBP bookkeeper and Discovery recruit Bernadine van Wyk, aka Jansen van Rensburg, aka Burgers, they would have been told:
That van Wyk had been recruited by way of a bribe offered to her by Millar on behalf of Discovery and which included payment of R1 million, employment by Discovery, and which was dependant on her stealing the entire contents of the Practices computer server and containing the Practices entire bookkeeping system, incorporating client ledgers, the Practice’s general business ledgers, directors personal financial information and everything else relating to the Practice and its clients, and making same available to Millar, Discovery’s hired media assassin Beamish, and Discovery’s attorney George van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town. As will be noted in the affidavit by RBP receptionist Ms.Liza Bouwer to whom van Wyk had confided what she was up to, it was clear the plot was that van Wyk should set up the Practice of RBP Inc. by way of dodgy bookkeeping entries, thereafter tipoff SARS which would lead to an audit, which van Wyk then confidently predicted to Lisa that the Practices directors would be arrested, and the firm being closed down in August 2012 at the time of the SARS audit.Affidavit by RBP Receptionist Ms.Liza Bouwer - click here to view
Rawsthornes dishonesty becomes almost embarrassingly clear where she reports “he (Ronald) said Mrs van der Merwe was a spy in the cold war” and earlier on in her article that Ronald detailed “a plot involving the fake kidnapping of a former spy from the USSR who infiltrated his law firm … Erin Brockovitch and MI-6”.
During Ronald’s explanation to Rawsthorne about the background to the Law Society’s decision to permit its members to utilise American style no win – no fee percentage fee agreements, whereby the attorneys would receive a percentage of the damages recovered for a client, Ronald told her that consequent upon the screening of American movies in South Africa in the late 1990’s featuring court cases in which attorneys were seen to be charging such fees, and that the movie dealing with a class action by the inhabitants of a small American town whose water supply had been poisoned by an upstream industrial plant, and which featured a Para legal, Erin Brockovitch as the star of the film, and in which her employers percentage contingency fee agreements had featured prominently, made a strong impact on South African viewers, and led to increasing requests by personal injury victims to their attorneys to act on the same basis. This is in fact referred to in detail in a 49 page affidavit filed by the Law Society in the landmark de la Guerre case, and in which the Law Society fiercely defended its stance that such agreements were lawful and valid in South Africa.
Rawsthornes reference to Brockovitch in the context of the USSR etcetera, was to somehow try and conjure up an image in the reader’s mind that Ronald had as it were, lost the plot.
The reference to MI-6 was in the context of Ronald relating to Rawsthorne Investigator Paul O’Sullivan’s background and credentials, which he understood to have included service with MI-6.
At no stage did van der Merwe say that she was or had been a KGB spy and at no stage did Ronald tell Rawsthorne that this was the case, although Rawsthorne falsely reported this to be so. Click here to view email to Ms Lizanne van Staden with whom van der Merwe shared an office and in which she berates Lizanne for telling Ronald that she had studied at a Russian University.
Notwithstanding that Ronald had told Rawsthorne what van der Merwe had done, and as promised he emailed her an affidavit by Paul O’Sullivan in which Paul describes how van der Merwe after initially denying the allegations against her, eventually confessed in full when confronted with the scores of emails to which was attached material which she had stolen of RBP’s computer server and forwarded to Beamish.
Given corrupt and deceitful tactics engaged in by other Discovery media proxies in the past, Ronald told Rawsthorne after she had stated that she would be recording the interview, that she would do likewise, and the transcription will be made available on this site as soon as it is received.
Website viewers who take the time to read the transcript of the recording will soon realise how Rawsthorne deliberately concealed all important third party facts and material, including documents and affidavits by various presidents of the Law Society, correspondence from the Attorneys Fidelity Fund, and categorical rebuttals of any misappropriation or theft of client trust funds in the written report furnished on the 16th November 2016 by the court appointed Curator (receiver) to RBP Inc., after Ronald and Darren were forced to flee South Africa for fear of their lives, consequent upon ongoing threats to seriously harm them, and which threats continue now even in Sydney.
In particular Rawsthorne deliberately failed to even make reference to the explosive and exculpatory finding by the curator, notwithstanding that it had been mailed to her Click here to read the relevant extracts from the Curators report.
The curators report is also on Ronalds website bobroffronald.com, and on Bobroffinfo.com, and which she stated she had read and in which the curator stated the following:
“Detailed accurate reconciled records have been maintained and is available on request. On 10 October 2016 a month end and a year ending September 2016 report was compiled and all the balances were in place. A system integrity check was also performed and all was found to be in order” i.e. The Practices Trust account balances to the cent. i.e. if any money had been stolen/misappropriated from money received on behalf of clients, the trust account would not have balanced and there would have been a shortfall to the extent of any misappropriation.
“As at 4 November 2016 the firm has trust liabilities in the amount of R13,130,113-97 and trust assets in the amount of R13,130,064-94. The shortfall in the amount of R47-03 relates to VAT on bank charges which is being rectified”.
It is therefore clear that no money whatsoever, let alone the absurd allegation of an amount exceeding R1 billion and in respect of ill-gotten gains (stolen money) had been misappropriated, whereas in fact not a cent is missing.
" No claims have been lodged with the Attorneys Fidelity Fund, and the Attorneys Fidelity Fund is being kept appraised of the attendances made by the curator and his department, and the status of the winding up of the Practice of Ronald Bobroff and Partners Incorporated Attorneys".
The Attorneys Fidelity Fund is a fund set up by the Attorneys profession to reimburse clients whose attorneys have stolen/misappropriated the client’s funds. Click here to read the letter from the Attorneys Fidelity Fund
That the curator also reported, and the Fidelity Fund confirmed again almost a year later in 2017, that not a single one of the Practices thousands of former clients had made any allegations of theft or lodged any claims against the Attorneys Fidelity Fund.Click here to read the letter from the Attorneys Fidelity Fund
Although Rawsthorne was taken through the full background to the Law Society’s permitting, promoting and encouraging its 16 000 members to charge Common Law Contingency Percentage Fee Agreements and:
That it was therefore unfair and inexplicable why the court which struck Ronald and Darren off the roll of attorneys, did so largely due to a report by a Law Society employed inspector to the effect that to a large extent because the Practice utilised such agreements, (also that the court had )denied them an opportunity of a short postponement within which to file a report by a forensic auditor, and of filing opposing affidavits which would have clearly demonstrated that there was no truth or merit in the allegations made against them.
That the Law Society had filed a 49 page affidavit in the landmark case of de la Guerre , in which RBP's law society compliant common law percentage contingency fee agreement, had been attacked by Millar, on behalf of de la Guerre who had been touted for him by Discovery’s Katz; and in which the Law Society vigorously and staunchly defended its stance in permitting, promoting and encouraging its members use of American style common law percentage - no win - no fee - fee agreements. Click here to read the most relevant portions of that affidavit;
Rawsthorne remained silent about all the above material facts.
Ronald sent Rawsthorne an explanatory email, together with a number of important documents attached, as also the documents referred to below, and all of which were completely ignore by her. A copy of letter and all attachments appear below and each item may be clicked to view.
A further list of vital documents and emails sent by Ronald to Rawsthorne, and simply ignored by her appear below and may be viewed by clicking each item.
Perhaps the clearest indication of the collusion between Rawsthorne and Discovery’s Jeffrey Katz, his media assassin Beamish and accomplice Graeme Hosken of the Sunday Times appears from them all following each other on twitter, and Katz tweeting Rawsthorne’s article within minutes of her doing so, Click here to view the tweet
The question may rightly be asked how and why at this particular time and day would these corrupt conspirators be following each other and tweeting about Rawsthornes obligingly delivering the goods, and obviously as will be noted in Ronald’s messages and emails to Rawsthorne deliberately as boasted by Katz served as a “special birthday present for Ronald’s birthday” which is on the 7th August.
What words are there to describe such persons, and does Rawsthorne have no shame or conscience ?
APPARENT COLLUSION BETWEEN DISCOVERY'S ATTORNEY GEORGE VAN NIEKERK OF ENS CAPE TOWN AND THE NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY
We have been informed by extremely reliable sources that Discovery's attorney George van Niekerk of Edward Nathan, has been colluding with the National Prosecuting Authority in attempting to concoct trumped up allegations against Ronald and Darren Bobroff.
Bizarrely these include the allegation that because the Practice of Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc., in common with 74% of all the Law Society's members agreed to assist clients in terms of common law contingency fee agreements, the fees charged in terms thereof of between 25-30% plus VAT, in accordance with Law Society rulings, in good faith and in the genuine belief that such agreements which were permitted and promoted by the Law Society, suddenly became theft and fraud because a Civil Court finally ruled, that such agreements were invalid in 2014.
The fact that these absurd allegations have only been against Darren and Ronald, and not a single other of the 20 000 plus attorneys who entered into millions * of such agreements for more than a decade, creates an obvious inference as to what is really going on. * Page 17 paragraph 7.12.4 "Some two hundred thousand claims are lodged against the Road Accident Fund annually, primarily by attorneys and that from 1999 to date in excess of one million claims would have been lodged by attorneys on behalf of their clients".
The wild allegations by the NPA that lawful after tax money which emanated from various lawful sources, and held in offshore accounts by Ronald and Darren are the proceeds of crime, are based on a series of contrived fictions.
The NPA had to find some formula to link the US Dollar values of the offshore funds to fees charged by RBP Inc. Given that the Practices trust account was correctly reported by the court appointed curator to have balanced to the cent i.e. no client funds misappropriated/stolen, and that the curator further reported that not a single one of the Practices thousands of former clients had lodged any claims of theft against the Attorneys Fidelity Fund, The National Prosecuting Authority had a problem because no monies whatsoever were misappropriated or stolen from clients by RBP Inc.'s directors Stephen Bezuidenhout and Ronald and Darren Bobroff.
So the NPA's P.Biseswaar together with the RAF's Marius Werner obviously decided that they would have to somehow concoct a scenario, no matter how absurd that some of the money which the RAF had paid to RBP Inc. in respect of client settlements was stolen, and of course only by Ronald and Darren and not Bezuidnhout, who dealt with far more clients than Darren did and that such amount should then equal in rands the US dollar amount of Ronald and Darrens offshore funds in Israel.
Undeterred by the fact that there was no theft whatsoever, they must have by trial and error, and probably assisted by one of the RAF's actuaries worked out that if they took 10% of all the money paid to the Practice by the RAF in respect of client settlements from December 2006 up to March 2016 i.e. 10% of R96 911 828.911 = R9 691 181.89, and only at a specific time, on a specific day given that the exchange rate fluctuates from minute to minute, they had a bingo moment when the figure equalled the dollar amount.
Their next challenge was how to somehow concoct a basis on which to allege that the amount R96 911 828.91 had been stolen from RBP clients, and of course again only by Ronald and Darren. Astonishingly what is supposed to be South Africa's "elite" criminal investigation unit - the Hawks , and its National Prosecuting Authority embarrassingly stated that Ronald and Darren had overcharged - unnamed clients, in respect of unnamed settlement or judgement amounts, a blanket 10% of the total amounts paid to the Practice by the RAF during the period December 2006 - March 2016 of R96 911 828.91.
Minor details such as the fact that RBP 25% shareholder Bezuidenhout would have received 25% of the fictitious 10% overcharge , that the overcharged fees would have been used to cover the Practices 30 - 40% annual overheads, the VAT of 14% would have to have been paid, that company tax of 38% would have to have been paid and so on; were conveniently ignored.
Numerous senior and experienced lawyers including retired judges who had read the NPA's preservation (freezing) application have expressed their concern that a High Court Judge should have been prepared to grant the NPZ the preservation/freezing order based on such obvious nonsense, and to add insult to injury to have done so ex parte i.e. without Ronald or Darren being afforded an opportunity of filing affidavits exposing the NPA's application on the grounds on which it was based, as embarrassing and wholly without merit!.
The only response in Biseswaars replying affidavit was that the reference to the NPA's complete failure to have regard to all the deductions which should have been made off the concocted theft amount of R96 911 828.91, was that it was "creative" accounting.
Further it is alleged that "Ronald and Darren" convinced clients to enter into multiple fee agreements so as to defraud clients, and avoid income tax and a string of other absurd allegations. Of course this conveniently ignores the fact that the Law Society advised its members to enter into alternative fallback agreements, in case a court should ever rule that common law fee agreements were invalid. Click here to read the Law Society's first advisory dated 1 February 2011, as also the 2nd advisory dated 15 April 2011.Click here to read the letter from Law Society to the deputy Judge President D J P van der Merwe dated 12 October 2011
One awaits with interest to see whether the NPA and the Asset forfeiture unit, launch a similar attack against the substantial local and offshore assets of Attorney Michael de Broglio who emigrated to the United States in 2016, he having advertised extensively that he accepted instructions at a fee of 33.3% plus VAT of the damages recovered for clients.
It is public knowledge that he built up a very extensive Practice comprising thousands of clients, and would consequently have earned hundreds of millions of Rands fees in terms of such agreements. I do not criticise Mr de Broglio in any way, as he was simply doing the same that tens of thousands of other attorneys were also doing, in good faith.
It is common knowledge in the plaintiff injury fraternity and in particular amongst Mr de Broglio's erstwhile colleagues that he was able to amass tens of millions of dollars in offshore assets and resides in a palatial home in Florida in the U.S.A
In fact we await with interest to see whether, the NPA will allege that any other of the thousands of attorneys who also utilised common law contingency fee agreements, and who charged fees between 25-35%, entered into multiple fee agreements with their clients as recommended by the Law Society are also guilty of theft and fraud, and that any savings and funds that they may hold locally or abroad, are also the proceeds of crime. The Law Society has the responses of the many firms of attorneys to a survey conducted by it, and in which these firms confirmed utilising such agreements. Presumably the Hawks have obtained the names of these firms, and are impartially also seeking to prosecute the owners of these firms, and to also attempt to seize their assets as the proceeds of crime.
This would include personal injury firms Flowers & Vermaak, Josephs, Natasha Kelly, Levin van Zyl and Hirschowitz Flionis, Clive Unsworth, Israel Goldberg, Gert Nel, Attorney Kroukamp, a number of whom are Katz's panel attorneys, and all of whom routinely utilised the same common law contingency fee agreements as RBP did.
We find the "excellent cooperation" referred to by the NPA with the Israeli authorities unsurprising, given that Discovery's attorneys Edward Nathan represents the Government of Israel in South Africa, and that senior director Mr Michael Katz, and some of his partners ,who are members of the executive committee of the South African Jewish Board of deputies, have close contacts with many Israeli politicians and highly placed functionaries in Israeli government departments.
1.Discovery’s Katz and Discovery’s belligerent attorney (who was accused of perjury by the Law Society), George van Niekerk of Edward Nathan - Cape Town, Proxy Anthony Millar and media lackey Beamish, in concert with certain employees of the Road Accident Fund, the National Prosecuting Authority and the Jewish Reports Ant Katz, have been making wild and unsubstantiated allegations that “the Bobroffs” (never RBP second senior director Mr Stephen Bezuidenhout who was made effectively invisible) had stolen hundreds of millions of Rands – only to be swiftly overtaken by Ant Katz and Millar with allegations that the amounts stolen was now over a Billion Rand!
2.So the question may be asked, what facts have emerged after the court appointed curator to the Practice of RBP and teams of auditors spent over a year scouring through every page of the Practices records and files, coupled with an obviously orchestrated media campaign by Beamish, Ant Katz and van Niekerks Media Lackey and ever so obliging Laura du Preez from the Star Personal Finance designed to incite and inflame former RBP clients to make claims against the Practice.
3.Without doubt all the aforesaid must now be extremely disappointed to have noted that the report by the court appointed curator to the Practice is that the Practices trust account balanced to the cent and that there was absolutely no shortfall whatsoever, and that all the books of account especially the trust account which receives monies ,received on behalf of clients was perfectly kept.
4.They must have been even more disappointed to have read in the curators report that not a single claim was ever made by any of the Practices former clients of any funds having been stolen. That was again confirmed in a letter received from the Attorneys Fidelity Fund (A fund set up by the profession to reimburse any client from whom their attorney had stolen money in the course of his or her practice). A further letter from the Fidelity Fund in June 2017 confirms what the curator had reported in November 2016. i.e. not a single theft claim by any one of RBP’s thousands of former clients.
5.Copies of the relevant parts of the Curators report and the Fidelity Funds letter are attached hereto as annexure “10” and annexure “11”.
6.Given that the curators report makes it abundantly clear that there has been no theft/misappropriation of any RBP Inc. clients funds, one can only hope that responsible journalists and deceptive judges will have regard to this undisputed truth, the contrary of which has been so skilfully and dishonestly promoted by the armies of highly paid lawyers employed by Discovery, its proxies and others.