Directors
of the Global Development Group Board
Unit
6, 734 Underwood Road
Rochedale, QLD 4123
1st March 2014
Dear
David James Pearson, Geoffrey Winston
Armstrong
Ofelia (fe) Luscombe, Alan
Benson, David Robertson
The GDG Board has decided to
engage a Cambodian-based lawyer “to review
documentation that has been reviewed by the organization.”
The GDG Board has decided
not to instruct one of its three Cambodian based employees to meet with
Chanti and Chhork – the parents who allege that Citipointe church removed their
daughters illegally in 2008.
The GDG Board has decided
not to request of me the names of the two GDG-funded NGOs I have mentioned
in my correspondence that are, on the basis of the information I have, in
breach of the ACFID Code of Conduct and the human rights of the parents of
children in their care.
Why has the Global Development Group Board decided that the best
course of action is to engage legal counsel?
Given that neither GDG nor Billie Jean Slott will answer this question,
I will suggest two possible reasons:
To go through the correspondence with a fine tooth comb and see
if I have made any statements at all that are defamatory and enable Billie send
me a long legal letter telling me that the GDG intends to sue me for defamation
etc.
Billie’s job is to determine whether or not there is any
substance to the allegation that Citipointe church removed Rosa and Chita
illegally in 2008. Despite all the words that have been written this past five
years, this is actually quite a simple question to resolve from a legal point
of view. There are documents and GDG is in possession of these. As Geoff
Armstong stated on 25th Feb:
“Global Development Group has
copies of all the required documentation and has no problems with ‘SHE Rescue
Home’.”
The only question for Billie to
determine, from a legal point of view, is whether the ‘required documentation’
gave Citipointe the legal right to remove Rosa and Chita in 2008.
The evidence:
The 31st July 2008 ‘contract’ that Citipointe induced
Chanti and her mother, Vanna, to sign. Is it a legal document? Did it give
Citipointe church the legal right to remove Rosa and Chita from their family. I
am sure that the answer Billie will arrive at, as has every lawyer and
policeman who has viewed the document, is ‘no’.
However, earlier in July 2008 there existed, between Citipointe
and Chanti, a handshake agreement that Citipointe would take care of Rosa and
Chita during the family’s current financial crisis. I was a witness to that
agreement. The reason why Chhork did not place his thumb print on the 31st
July 2008 ‘contract’ was because he had no reason to believe that Rosa and
Chita staying with Citipointe was anything other than a temporary arrangement.
The 31st July 2008 ‘contract’ (despite the lie it contained about
Chanti’s family being homeless) is, in and of itself, innocuous.
On 11th 2008 August Rebecca Brewer announced to both
myself (in an email) and to Chanti in person, that Rosa and Chita would stay with
Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ until they were 18. She cited the 31st
July 2008 ‘contract’ as Chanti’s agreement to this proposition. Chanti
protested (her daughters were 3 and 6 at the time) and ‘kidnapped’ Rosa. The
police were called, Rosa was retrieved and Chanti’s visitation rights were
limited to 2 hours per month. She was effectively punished by Citipointe, with
the help of the police, for wanting to bring up her own child. (I mention ‘the
police’ here because there have been several times this past five years when
‘the police’ were prepared to help Chanti and Chhork get their daughters back
if I were to go to the police station to talk with them!)
The question for Billie is:
“Did Citipointe
church have the legal authority, on 11th August, to detain Rosa and
Chita against their parents’ wishes?”
If the church did not, and in the absence of any other
legally binding contract with either (a) a Cambodian government department or
(b) Chanti and Chhork, Citipointe was, on 11th August 2008, in
breach of Article 8 of Cambodia’s 2008 Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking
and Sexual Exploitation:
Definition of Unlawful
Removal
The act of unlawful removal
in this law shall mean to:
1) remove a person from his/her
current place of residence to a place
under the actor’s or a third
person’s control by means of force,
threat, deception, abuse of power, or
enticement, or
2) without legal authority or any
other legal justification to do so, take a minor or a person under general
custody or curatorship or legal custody away from the legal custody of the
parents, care taker or guardian.
The second most pertinent question for Billie is:
“Had Citipointe church, between
31st July and 11th August, entered into a legal contract
that give the church the right to hold Rosa and Chita against their parents
wishes?”
If such a contract exists it
would have to be between Citipointe church and the Cambodian Ministry of Social
Affairs because Citipointe entered into no other agreement with Chanti and
Chhork between 31st July 2008 and 11th August 2008.
If such a contracts exists, between
Citipointe and MoSAVY, Chanti and Chhork have never been provided with a copy
of it. After five years of asking, acting as Chanti and Chhork’s legally
appointed advocate, I have not been able to confirm the existence of such a
contract and nor has a copy of it been proved to me. Both the Ministry of
Social Affairs and Citipointe church refuse to conform or deny the existence of
such a contract, though Citipointe has often made vague suggestions that it has
documents relating to the legality of the church’s actions. Geoff Armstrong
also claims to have seen these documents. As Geoff wrote on 25th Feb:
“Global Development Group has
copies of all the required documentation and has no problems with ‘SHE Rescue
Home’.”
Excuse me for being pedantic here
but I take this to mean that GDG has in its possession a legal document that
gave Citipointe the right, on 11th August 2008, to tell Chanti and
myself that the church would keep Rosa and Chita until they were 18? Geoff will
not answer this questionand it is to be hoped that Billie will?
Is it possible that Geoff was
mistaken in what he wrote on 25th Feb? Is it possible that Citipointe may have
pulled the wool over GDG’s eyes and made declarations that led GDG to believe
that Citipointe had acted legally.
I trust that it is questions such
as these that Billie has been entrusted with the job of getting to the bottom
on. If Geoff was mistaken in what he wrote on 25th Feb. now is the
time to admit it.
In the event that Billie finds
there is a legal document giving
Citipointe the right, on 11th August 2008, to hold Rosa and Chita
against their parents wishes, natural justice demands that Chanti and Chhork be
provided with a copy of this document. Or do you, members of the Global
Development Board, believe that parents like Chanti and Chhork have no right to
(a) be appraised of the reason why their daughters have been removed, (b) have
no right to appeal the decision to remove their children and (c) to be provided
with the conditions under which re-integration of the children back into the family
can occur.
Given that GDG has all the
relevant documents in its possession (at least all the documents that
Citipointe has provided) determining the legality or otherwise of the church’s
actions on 11th August 2008 should take no more than an hour to
determine.
It Billie discovers that
Citipointe either (a) Did not have a legal right to hold Rosa and Chita on 11th
August 2008 or (b) that Citipointe has lied to the Global Development Group, I
trust that GDG will publically disassociate itself with Citipointe and cease
funding the ‘SHE Rescue Home.’
As Chanti and Chhork are waiting
in Phnom Penh to either speak with a representative of the Global Development
Group or to hear the outcome of Billie’s review of the correspondence, it would
be appreciated if this matter could be resolved quickly.
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment