Ms
Sam Mostyn
President
Australian Council for
International Development
9th March 2014
Dear Ms Mostyn
I do not wish, at this point, to
deal with the contents of the letter written by Chris Adams on 7th
March 2014 and signed by Marc Purcell, other than to make the comment that it
was quite inappropriate for Marc to talk with (or attempt to talk with) ‘Geoff’
before sending me the letter written by Chris.
After my two hours spent with
Judge Phou Pov Sun on Friday I would just like to place on record the following
facts:
The
complaint made against me by Citipointe church is dated 30th Oct
2012. 17 months ago. A decision by the court to deliver the warrant to me was
made on 26th Feb 2014. Geoff Armstrong made reference to this
warrant in quite specific ways two days beforehand – on 24th Feb.
This could easily be explained by Geoff’s having a copy of the unexecuted
warrant in a Global Development Group file. That the warrant was only issued
two days after Geoff’s return to Australia could well be a coincidence, of
course. It may well be that it was Citipointe church, in pursuit of its desire
to have me arrested etc was able to arrange for the warrant, siting on Judge
Phou Pov Sun’s desk for 17 months, executed.
I
sat with Judge Phou Pov Sun as we looked at the evidence provided by Citipointe
church to the court in support of the proposition that I had ‘profited’ from
prostitution. It was my film, SLEEPING WITH CAMBODIA, broadcast around the
world in 1996 and 1997. The documentary’s themes include prostitution,
homelessness, street kids and Non Government Organizations. The proposition
presented to the Judge was that I had ‘profited’ from selling the film and so
was making money out of prostitution. A long conversation ensued between myself
and Judge Phou about the difference between making a film about a subject and
selling the film and profiting from the subject of the film – in this case
prostitution. It took some time for Judge Phou Pov Sun to grasp this concept
but I managed eventually.
It
is not my intention here to give a blow by blow account of my conversation with
the Judge but one further example should suffice to give you some idea (lest
your knowledge of the subject is limited) of how Cambodian justice is
administrated. As you will see below, Nicole Roberts, asserts that I had told
the oldest of Chanti’s daughters, Rosa, to a foreign country. Judge Phou Pov
Sun asked me if this was so. I replied ‘no’. He then asked me if I had any
documents to prove that I had not intended to take Rosa to a foreign country. I
then had to give Judge Phou Pov Sun a lesson (though I am no lawyer) in the
requirement of the court to prove my guilt; not the other way around. Judge
Phou Pov Sun eventually nodded his agreement.
Upon
looking through Judge Phou Pov Sun’s rather thick file I was as surprised to
find what was NOT included in it as I was, what WAS! I will deal with only one
document here. It is the original complaint made on 30th Oct 2012. I
have not corrected the spelling errors. The indented sections, in bold italics,
are my own responses to Nicole Roberts’ assertions.
“I am Nicole Roberts,
the representative of Citipointe International and AID (CICA) located at #191
street 10BT, Sansamskol Village, Sangkat Boeung Tum Pun, Khan Meanchey, Phnom
Penh, represented by Mr Kong Rady, Attorney at Law (address and telephone
numbers)
Subject suing Mr James Ricketson, born on
01-04-1949, holding Passport number…of disclosing information of the vulnerable
girls and hindering the act of prevention, assistance or re-education for the
children not to be victims of human trafficking, committed in Phnom Penh.”
Rosa and Chita are not victims of
human trafficking. They are the daughters of poor parents who were offered
short-term help by Citipointe church. The evidence for this is to be found in
the document dated 31st July 2008 that Citipointe tricked Chanti
into signing. This document, whilst not legally binding in any way, makes it
clear that it was poverty only that led Rosa and Chita’s mother and grandmother
to agree to the help offered to them by Citipointe church.
What evidence does Citipointe
offer to the court in support of the
notion that Rosa and Chita were victims of
human trafficking?
“I would like to
inform the director that James Ricketson has tried to get two girls who are
vulnerable child victim of human trafficking whose mother was also a child
victim of sexual trafficking, out of the NGO’s shelter in order for him to
continue making a film called CHANTI’S WORLD for his personal benefit.”
Rosa and Chita’s mother, Yem
Chanthy, was never a victim of sexual trafficking.
What evidence does Citipointe
offer to the court in support of the
notion that Yem Chanthy was a victim of
sexual trafficking?
CHANTI’S WORLD is a documentary
record of my experiences in Cambodia since 1996. Documentary filmmaking is my
profession. Chanti and her mother have been the subjects of my documentary
since 1995. Her children, as they were born, joined the ‘cast’ of the
documentary.
I have made no personal benefit
and even good sales of the finished film will not cover the costs I have
incurred this past 19 years.
“The film also intends
to discover the identity of the ex-victim and vulnerable child victims of human
trafficking which have already been identified on the website.”
I don’t know what this statement
means.
“Recently we were
informed by the girl named Chanthy Rosa, who has stayed in the centre, that
James came to see her and he informed her that he has intended to take her to a
foreign country but he has not communicated with us about this at all.”
I have never once visited Chanthy
Rosa or her sister Chita in the ‘SHE Rescue Home’. If Citipointe church
maintains that I did visit, on what date did I visit?
I have never said that I intended
to take Chanthy Rosa to a foreign country. Chanthy Rosa and her sister Chita
belong in Cambodia with their mother, their father, their brothers and sisters,
their uncles and aunts, their village and their community. Cambodia is their
home, Buddhism is their religion.
Nicole Roberts is lying.
“Therefore we have
serious concerned about her safety. Mr
James is trying all his means to convince the girls’ family to remove the girls
from the centre so that he is able to take advantage from the girls.
Now he is paying renal fees for the girls family
to stay in Samaky Village, Sangkat Russy Keo.”
I am not attempting to get Yem
Chanthy and Both Chhork to remove the girls from the centre. I am supporting
the parents, as their advocate, in their wish to have their daughters re-united
with the family. I have been doing so for five years, since Nov 2008 when I
discovered, upon having it translated, that the 31st July 2008
‘contract’ is fraudulent.
What evidence does Citipointe
church have that I intend to take advantage of the girls?
“What James has done
are hindering the act of prevention, assistance or re-education for the
children not to be victims of human trafficking by disclosing information and
identity of the vulnerable girls from the centre for his own benefit. “
I repeat, Rosa and Chita are not
victims of human trafficking. It is up to Citipointe church to provide evidence
that the girls were ever victims. The day before they were recruited by
Citipointe (filmed by myself) they lived in a small room just a few streets
back from the river. Chanti’s mother, Vanna, was supporting the family selling
vegetables in the markets.
“It is the criminal
offences punishable to Law of Suppression of Human Trafficking articles 25 and
49.”
(1) It is on the basis of the 31st
July 2008 ‘contract’ that Citipointe held Rosa and Chita until Nov 2008.
(2) From 11th August
2008 until around 15 months later when Citipointe entered into an agreement of
some kind with the Cambodian Ministry of Social Affairs, there was no
memorandum of understanding between Citipointe and the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs that give the church the right to detain Rosa and Chita against their
parents’ wishes. The Global Development Group, in possession of a copy of the
MOU since it formalized its relationship with Citipointe, knows that Citipointe
had no legal right. GDG is, through either incompetence or design, complicit in
the illegal detention of Rosa and Chita.
As of 9th Feb 2014 the
state of play is:
(a) Citipointe refuses to provide
Chanti and Chhork with a copy of the pre-July 2008 MOU.
(b) The Global Development Group
refuses to provide Chanti and Chhork with a copy of the pre-July 2008 MOU.
(c) The Australian Council for
International Development refuses to confirm or deny that it would demand a
copy of this MOU in the event of an investigation being initiated by Chanti and
Chhork. An investigation that did not look at the legality of Citipointe
church’s removal be a farce. ACFID’s attitude, revealed through its refusal to
answer the question, is clearly that Chanti and Chhork are not entitled to be
provided with a copy of the MOU and any other documents relating to the
continued custody of their girls by Citipointe.
ACFID has nailed it colours to
the mast and is now, morally at least, complicit in the illegal removal of Rosa
and Chita from their parents.
Please Ms Mostyn, could you
respond with a letter signed by yourself and not one written by a spin doctor
and bearing Marc Purcell’s signiature?
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment