# 56 Chanti and Chhork's formal 2012 request to Citipoine to return Rosa and Chita to their family

Chanti and Chhork have been asking Citipointe church to return their daughters for several years. Three or four times a year Citipoointe would promise them that Rosa and Chita would be returned soon. Chanti and Chhork would become excited but nothing ever happened. It became clear by 2012 that Citipointe had no intention of giving Rosa and Chita back – as expressed in the church’s 11^th August 2008 email: “Rosa and Chita stay with us until they are 18 or until she can provide a safe environment for them, as defined by LICADHO and the Ministry of Social Affairs.”

Neither LICADHO nor the Ministry of Social Affairs had a ‘definition’ of a ‘safe environment’. The definition changes according to the whims of Leigh Ramsey – the bar being raised whenever Chanti and Chhork had achieved the latest goal set for them by Citiopointe.

In 2012 made a formal request to Citipointe to return their daughters. (See below). Citipointe ignored it. The church had in its two captive young Pentecostal girls and was not going to give them back to their parents under any circumstances. And the church was making money out of Rosa and Chita at the same time as it was saving their souls - presenting them to donors and sponsors as 'victims of human trafficking' .

I wonder how much money Citipointe has made out of Rosa and Chita? Certainly not one dollar of it has gone to the rest of the family.

I would have thought that there was some law in Australia that Citipointe was breaking in stealing Rosa and Chita and exploiting them for financial gain. It seems not! In Cambodia, of course, there is no rule of law and Citipointe can do what it likes without fear of repercussions. Indeed, Citipointe can even use the Cambodian judicial system to sue me for writing blog entries such as this that 'dishonour' the church and arrange for me to get a two year suspended jail sentence and a $1,500 fine!

Bv   Kingdom of Cambodia

Nation Religion King

efg

REQUEST FOR CHILD CUSTODY

We, BUN CHHAK, male, aged 27; and the wife YEM CHANTHY, aged 26, currently residing at Rented House No. 619G, Group 4, Samaki Village, Sangkat Russey Keo, Khan Russey Keo, Phnom Penh, who are the parents of the two children: PHUN ROSA, female, aged 10; and PHUN CHITA, female, aged 8

Respectfully submit to

CITIPOINTE Organization

Subject  : we would like to have custody of the above-named girls

We, the parents of the two girls, would like the CITIPOINTE Organization to give us the custody of the two girls, so that they can come back to live together with their parents.

Therefore, CITIPOINTE, please make a favorable decision.

I wish everyone in CITIPOINTE good health and long-term success.

Have seen and certified that the thumbprint on the right side has truly been affixed by BUN CHHAK, the father, and YEM CHANTHY, the mother. Date: 26 July 2012 Chief of Samaki Village (Signed) Y NOENG

Date: 26 July 2012 Right Thumbprints of the Parents              Father                       Mother     (Thumb printed)         (Thumb printed)        BUN CHHAK       YEM CHANTHY

# 55 ACFID'S refusal to abide by its own Code of Conduct and ask questions relating to the legality of Citipointe church's removal of Rosa and Chita from their family in 2008

The Australian Council for International Development (ACFID), whose job  it is to see that NGOs in receipt of AusAID approved tax-deductible funding act in accordance with  the ACFID Code of Conduct, does not abide by its own Code. ACFID refuses to ask Citipointe or the Global Development Group to produce MOUs or any other documents these NGOs have in their possession pertaining to the removal of Rosa and Chita in 2008 and their detention in a Pentecostal institution in Phnom Penh since then.

Chita and Rosa 

Ms Sam Mostyn

President

Australian Council for International Development                           10^th April 2014

Dear Ms Mostyn

It is now more than seven weeks since I wrote my first letter to you, on 18^th Feb. You have acknowledge receipt of any of my letters.

May I refer you to:

E.3 ACFID Code of Conduct Complaints Handling, Scope of complaints process

vi The Code of Conduct Committee may initiate its own Inquiry into an issue which may have sector wide significance…

and

The Code of Conduct complaints process will be conducted independently of ACFID governance bodies and signatory organisations.

vii If either of the parties is not satisfied with the outcome of a Code of Conduct Committee investigation, they may lodge an appeal with the Code of Conduct Appeals Officers. Appeals may only be submitted in cases where ACFID itself was the complainant in the first instance or where the Code of Conduct Committee had initiated its own inquiry. (italics mine)

Given that ACFID is able to initiate its own enquiries, why do you resolutely refuse to ask Citipointe church and the Global Development Group to provide (1) Copes of the 2008 and 2009 MOUs and (2) Any court document that either NGO has in its possession that awards legal custody of Rosa and Chita to the church? You do not require a complaint from myself to ask this question.  Why is ACFID protecting Citipointe and the Global Development Group from the kind of scrutiny that ACFID is there to provide?

My questions to you remain as they were 7 weeks ago:

“Do parents in the 3^rd world whose children are removed by Australian NGOs (supposedly working in accordance with the ACFID Code of Conduct) have a right to be provided with documents relating to the legality of their children’s removal; a right to (a) be provided with copies of  MOUs, (b) be provided with reasons for their children’s removal, (c) be provided with an avenue of appeal against the decision to remove, (d) to be informed as to their visitation rights, (e) be able to request that their children not be indoctrinated into a branch of the Christian faith, and (f) of what they must do to get their children back?”

best wishes

 James Ricketson

Rosa and Chita being 'groomed' by Citipointe in preparation for their removal from the family. This same practice continues today with other faith-based NGOS is Cambodia

Chita, a couple of weeks before her illegal removal by Citipointe

A rare home visit for the girls

Poor though she may have been, Rosa was a very happy and much loved child who was well fed. So was Chita. Her crime, Chita's crime, the family's crime was that they were poor Buddhists, not Christians. I wonder what Citipointe's God makes of the church's kidnapping of children in His name!

2006. Chanti makes a modest living selling cool drinks to thirsty passers by from the red ice-box.

Chita, in the hands of Christians who truly believe they are doing girls like these a favour in 'rescuing' them from their poor heathen families and indoctrinating them into the Christian faith. With the complicity of a corrupt Cambodian government a 'stolen generation' of Cambodian children is in the making.

# 54 Another request to Tony Abbott to get Peta Credlin to ask Citipointe for MOUs

A photo of Rosa in the early days of her indoctrination into Citipointe Pentecostalism, given to her Buddhist parents - Chanti and Chhork - to leave them in no doubt as to whose control (body and spirit) Rosa was now!

The Hon. Tony Abbott, MP


Prime Minister


Parliament House


CANBERRA ACT 2600

9^th April 2014

Dear Prime Minister

The automatically generated response to my letter to you of 7^th April reads:

“The matters raised in your correspondence relate to the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. As such, the Prime Minister has referred your correspondence for a response.”

What is the point in referring my letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs when she (or those in her office whose job it should be) refuse to ask Brisbane-based Citipointe church a simple question:

“Please provide the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with copies of the MOUs that Citipointe believes gave the church the right to remove Rosa and Chita from their family in 2008 and detain them contrary to the express wishes of their parents, Chanti and Chhork to this day.”

Why is your government, at every level from the Australian Embassy in Cambodia,  through ACFID and up to your own office, protecting Citipointe church by refusing to ask for documents pertaining to the legality or illegality of the church’s removal of Rosa and Chita in 2008?

Please do not send me another automatically generated letter referring this letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Ask Peta Credlin to get on the phone to Citipointe with a simple request:

“Please supply the office of the Prime Minister with copies of the 2008 and 2009 MOUs in the next two hours.”

Unless Citipointe chooses to refuse this request (and incur the wrath of Peta), it is one that would take five minutes to achieve – scanning the MOUs and sending them electronically.

If Citipointe, in receipt of tax-deductible Australian dollars through AusAID approved Global Development Group,  is under no obligation to prove the legality of its activities in Cambodia, and the same applies for other AusAID approved NGOs, it should come as no surprise that Australian tax-payers are being rorted by unscrupulous NGOs such as the ‘SHE Rescue Home.’

Yours sincerely

James Ricketson

Chita (left) and Rosa (right) during a rare home visit in 2013. Their mother, Chanti, is behind them, pointing.

# 53 An invitation to Pastor Brian Mulheran to sue me for defamation in Australia

A photo of Rosa in the early days of her indoctrination into Citipointe Pentecostalism, given to her Buddhist parents - Chanti and Chhork - to leave them in no doubt as to whose control (body and spirit) Rosa was now!

Pastor Brian Mulheran

322 Wecker Road

Carindale

QLD 4152   
                                                                  
9^th April 2014

Dear Brian

If you or Pastor Leigh Ramsey had any moral conviction at all, if you really believed that I had ‘threatened to dishonour’ or ‘defame Citipointe church’, you would sue me in Australia.  You did not and will not sue me in Australia because you know that the rule of law applies in Queensland; that a defamation suit would involve Citipointe being obliged by the Supreme Court to provide evidence of the legality of the church’s removal of Rosa and Chita from their family in 2008 and the ‘SHE Rescue Home’s’ detention of them to the present day.

Chita and Rosa in 2011 during a rare home visit

In Cambodia, however, a country with no effective or functioning rule of law, no such evidence is required. Allegations will suffice. James Ricketson threw a bowl at the police. Did the police arrest him for assault? No. Why not? Because the incident didn’t happen.  It sounds damning when it issues from the mouth of Citipointe’s Judge though.

Given that you have managed to have me sentenced to a two year suspended jail sentence and fined $1,500 for ‘threatening to dishonour’ or ‘threatening to defame’ Citipointe (depending on which document you read) lets see what you can do with the following statements – all of which are defamatory if they are not true.

Citipointe did not deem this spotlessly clean modern home to be suitable for Rosa and Chita to live in!

(1) Citipointe induced Chanti to ‘sign’ the 31^st July 2008 ‘contract’ by telling her that the agreement was with LICADHO – a Cambodian Human Rights NGO.

(2) Citipointe lied to Chanti and her mother, Vanna, about the contents of the 31^st July 2009 ‘contract’.

(3) Citipointe did not counter-sign the 31^st July 2008 ‘contract’, rendering it of no legal value at all.

(4) Citipointe knew that the 31^st July ‘contract’ was not a legal document but chose to present it to Chanti in the months following as if it was one. And act in relation to Rosa and Chita as if the ‘contract’ gave your church certain rights.

Rosa and her mum, holding baby Kevin, in 2011

(5) Citipointe lied to Chanti (and myself) when the church told her she would have regular access to her daughters and that Rosa and Chita would be returned to the family whenever she and Chhork asked for them to be returned.

(6) Citipointe deceived the materially poor parents of other girls at the same time (2008) and effectively kidnapped them, as the church did Rosa and Chita.

(7) When Chanti removed Rosa and Chita from the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ in Oct 2008 Citipointe called the police to have the girls returned to the church’s care – despite your church having no legal right to be detaining Rosa and Chita.

(8) When Chanti’s daughters were apprehended by the police in Oct 208, Citipointe told Chanti and her husband, Chhork, that any further attempt to remove Rosa and Chita from the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ would result in their being arrested and jailed. Citipointe cited the 31^st July 2008 ‘contract’ and agreements the church had entered into with LICADHO and Chab Dai to justify this second act of kidnapping.

Rosa and her adoring grandmother at a time when Chanti's family was intact, poor but very happy a few years before she was kidnapped by Citipointe church

(9) As punishment for wanting to be reunited with her daughters in Oct 2008, Chanti and Chhork’s access to them was restricted to 2 hours per month; 24 hours of visits per year to be supervised by church personnel. At the risk of belabouring the point, in Oct 2008 Citipointe had no legal right to be detaining the girls after Chanti and Chhork had made it clear that they wanted their daughters returned to their care. The church’s actions in this instance would be called kidnapping in Australia or any other country where the rule of law applies.

(10) In undertaking the active indoctrination of Rosa and Chita into Citipointe’s particular brand of evangelical Pentecostalism, the church was (and has been for five years) in breach of the AusAID rules regarding proselytizing. Using Australian tax-deductible charity dollars to indoctrinate Rosa and Chita is (and has been for five years) an act of fraud committed against the Australian Tax Office.

(11) In the past five years, close to six years now, Citipointe has not provided Chanti and her family with $1 in financial aid – despite what the church asserts on its website regarding providing assistance to families.

(12) Citipointe has exploited Rosa and Chita for financial gain by presenting them to sponsors and donors as ‘victims of human trafficking’. Not one dollar of the money the church has raised through the financial exploitation of Rosa and Chita has been given to their family.

Chita and Rosa in 2005

I trust that there is enough here, Brian, for your lawyers to commence defamation proceedings against me in Australia. Of course you can do so in Cambodia again if you so choose, but the church will look even more ridiculous than it does right now if you do.

Rosa, a keen dancer, bops along to music on the TV a year or so before Citipointe arrived on the scene! Her grandmother, Vanna, prepares dinner in the background

I trust that one of those to whom I am copying this letter with the power to do so will insist that you supply the MOUs you claim gave you the legal right to steal Rosa and Chita. I trust also when it becomes apparent that there are no MOUs that give you the rights you have asserted, that Pastor Leigh Ramsey will be charged, under Cambodian law, with ‘illegal removal’ 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.

best wishes

James Ricketson

Rosa at school a couple of years before her kidnapping

Rosa and Chanti 2006

# 52 A request to Prime Minister Tony Abbott that he get Chief of Staff Peta Credlin to ask questions that Foreign Minister Julie Bishop refuses to ask

Chita (left) and Rosa (right) during a rare home visit in 2013. Their mother, Chanti, is behind them, pointing.

James Ricketson

Europe Guest House

# 51, Street 136

Phnom Penh

015611478; 017 898 361

jamesricketson@gmail.com

The Hon. Tony Abbott, MP


Prime Minister


Parliament House


CANBERRA ACT 2600

7^th April 2014

Dear Prime Minister

I have written several letters recently to Foreign Minister Julie Bishop regarding the illegal removal of children from their materially poor parents in Cambodia by Australian Non Government Organizations. I have received no response.

Chita's last day at home in July 2008, with dad, Chhork, new baby Srey Ka and mum, Chanti

This ‘stealing’ of children, along with  indoctrination of them into the Christian faith is being funded by tax-deductible Australian dollars - in contravention of Cambodian law, of AusAID rules regarding proselytizing, and of the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID)  Code of Conduct.

Australia’s Ambassador to Cambodia, Ms Alison Burrows, AusAID and ACFID have given their tacit approval for these illegal removals by refusing to ask these NGOs for documented evidence of the legality of their actions.  I am referring here to two NGOs in particular – Brisbane-based Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ and its funding partner the Global Development Group (GDG).

Chita kisses her baby sister, Srey Ka on her last day of freedom

Of all of the many questions that should be asked of Citipointe and GDG, AusAID and ACFID, two stand out. They require only ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. The asking of them would take five minutes and the answering of them by the NGOs would only take five minutes also. Supplying documents in support of these answers (scanned and sent via the internet) would take half an hour.  

“Did Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ abide by Cambodian law in 2008 when the removed two girls, aged 3 and 6 at the time, from their materially poor family?”

Chita here in the hands, literally, of the Christians who are just about to make her mum Chanti an offer too good to refuse!

The answer to this question is to be found in two Memoranda of Understanding that Citipointe entered into with the Cambodian Ministries of Foreign and Social Affairs in 2008 and 2009 respectively. I have been asking this question for five years now. Neither Citipointe nor GDG will provide the relevant MOUs to the parents of the girls removed from their care, to myself (as their legally appointed advocate) or to anyone else who asks to see them.

After a prayer meeting and singalong Rosa, Chita, other kids and their parents have been well groomed for the offer that is just about to be made by Citipointe church

The second question relates to the Cambodian Ministry of Social Affairs guidelines on alternative care for children: 

“The rights of parental authority over their children remain with the family unless it has gone through the courts and the family relinquishes all responsibility”.

Chanti and Chhork have not ‘relinquished reponsibility’. On the contrary, they have been asking that their daughters be returned to them for five years now.

Question number 2 is this:

“If a Cambodian court awarded custody to Citipointe, could the church and/or its funding partner, the Global Development Group, please provide a copy of a legal document to this effect?”

Food parcels handed out by Citipointe to the kids and parents

Given that you have, in Peta Credlin, a Chief of Staff  who does not suffer fools gladly and who is unafraid of asking difficult questions and expecting answers (as opposed to spin), perhaps Peta could get on the phone and ask these two questions of Citipointe church and the Global Development Group. If they cannot supply documented proof of the legality of their actions, the tax-deductible status of Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ and the Global Development Group should be revoked.

Along with a food parcel, Chanti is about to be offered assistance by Citipointe that seems, to her and to me,  to be very generous and with the best of intentions to help the entire family.

If Citipointe is guilty of ‘illegal removal’ of Rosa and Chita in 2008 (in accordance with Cambodian law) and of proselytizing (AusAID rules) and has breached the ACFID Code of Conduct I believe that the Federal police should be asked to investigate to see what Australian laws the NGO may have broken.

yours sincerely

James Ricketson

A few months later Citipointe gives Chanti and Chhork this photo - leaving them in no doubt that it is the church's intention to turn their Buddhist daughter into a Pentecostal Christian. This is contrary to AusAID guildeines but no-onw within AusAID, the Australian Embassy or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is at all concerned by this blatant evangelising on the part of Citipointe