# 71 letter to Pastors Ramsey and Mulheran re secret agreement entered into by Citipiointe, 2 village elders and one policeman

Dear Leigh and Brian

As always, my letter speaks for itself.

I leave for Australia today and trust, if it is true that Citipointe intends to release Rosa and Chita, that this will happen in a timely fashion and in accordance with an agreed-upon reintegration program.

I trust also that, in accordance with the requests made many times this past five years, that Citipointe and/or the Global Development Group will supply MOUs to verify that the removal of the girls in 2008 and their detention since that time was legal.

best wishes

Pastors Leigh Ramsey and Brian Mulheran

322 Wecker Road

Carindale

QLD 4152

29th May 2014

Dear Pastors Ramsey and Mulheran

Chanti has, this morning, provided me with a copy of a document drawn up by the “Head of Ponley Nekom Village, Ba Poung Commune, Peam Rour District, Prey Veng Province.” It is dated 26^th May. I have attached a copy of the document in Khmer and a translation of it.

This 26^th May document makes reference to an agreement that has been witnessed by (1) Police of Peam Rour District and (2) Head of Ba Poung Commune, in addition to the signatory of it - the Head of Ponley Nekom Village.

There is no reference in this document to the nature of the agreement that has been entered into between these three men and Citipointe. There is no reference to Chanti and Chhork having been a party to this agreement – the terms and conditions of which Chanti and Chhork have no knowledge of.

In the preparation of whatever agreement has been entered into, Chanti and Chhork had no opportunity to be advised by anyone.

As Chanti and Chhork’s legally appointed advocate I would have been in a position to provide some advice but had no knowledge of the agreement until after it was struck. As Chanti and Chhork’s legally appointed counsel, Mr Michael Johnson would have been the person best suited to provide Chanti and Chhork with advice regarding whatever agreement Citipointe was proposing on 23^rd May.

Before asking Chanti and Chhork to enter into any other contractual agreements regarding Rosa and Chita, could you please provide copies of these to Chanti and Chhork, to myself and to Mr Michael Johnson.

If it is Citipointe’s intention to return Rosa and Chita to their family, as intimated in this 26^th May document, the re-integration process needs to be carried out in a way that minimizes the potential damage done to both Rosa and Chita and the family by their sudden transfer from a Christian institution in Phnom Penh to a Buddhist family in a fairly remote village in Prey Veng.

As Citipointe is aware from previous correspondence, I am in the process of trying to find a school that is appropriate for Rosa and Chita to attend such that they can continue their education at the level to which they have been accustomed this past six years. I do not know what this level is, what subjects they have been studying or any other particulars regarding their education. Could you please provide me with as much in formation as possible about Rosa and Chita’s education to date such that I can find the best possible school for them?

If Citipointe intends to return Rosa and Chita to their family it would be in the interests of both the girls and their family that this occurred during a school vacation. And it would be preferable if sufficient time elapsed between Citipointe’s decision to release the girls and the commencement of the new school term for all the necessary arrangements for the transfer to be made with a minimum of disruption to their lives. As I may well be in Australia it would be appreciated if you could give me sufficient warning that the transfer is to take place so that I can travel to Cambodia and assist the family in adjusting to the new state of affairs.

Regardless of our differences, the re-integration process is one that Citipointe and I must work on together. There needs to be an agreed-upon time-table, in writing, such that Chanti and Chhork know what their rights, responsibilities and obligations are; such that both Citipointe and I know what our respective responsibilities are vis a vis Rosa and Chita over the next few years.

The first step in achieving a smooth transition for Rosa and Chita back into the family is for Citipointe to let Chanti, Chhork, myself  and Mr Michael Johnson know precisely what the nature of the agreement is that has been entered into between Citipointe and the three men referred to in the document signed by the Head of Ponley Nekom Village on 26^th May.

best wishes

James Ricketson

Events moved very fast this day, as I was packing to leave for the airport. There was some confusion (a lot, as it transpired) as to what was going on; what had already gone on. Shortly after sending the above letter to Pastors Ramsey and Mulheran, I sent the following note.

“Closer questioning of Chanti revealed that yesterday, after promising me that they would sign no more documents without first showing them to Mr Johnson and myself, representatives of the church arrived at their home and told them the must place their thumb prints on certain documents if they wanted to get Rosa and Chita returned to their care. 

Given Chanti's promise to me yesterday, she was reluctant to admit that she had a copy of the document she and Chhork signed. I am having it translated now but it seems that Citipointe has decided to intimidate Chanti and Chhork into signing a document that will see the release back into their care of Rosa and Chita.

If this is what the translation reveals, I would like to point out that for five years Citipointe has been maintaining that the decision to release the girls was one to be made by the Ministry of Social Affairs.

As soon as have an accurate translation I will write again - either from Cambodia or Australia.

best wishes

An hour later I had a translation:

CONFIRMATION

            Reference on request of YEM CHANTHY, dated 31^st July 2008 to International C T Phnom Penh Organization of Recuse and Care in order to accept my two children to adopt and take care and studying ago and also I still recognize for official because of I made in without forcing from any person.

Date, May 28, 2014

                        Witness                                                           Thumbprint of Spouse

Chief Office of Peam Ror District                Husband                                Wife

CHEA SOKHA                                        PHUN CHHORK              YEM CHANTHY

       Head of Ponley Nekhom

                 Signature

               TEP PHUN

Certified

Having seen applicant

has made in front of us in genuine

Date: May 28, 2014

Head of Commune

(Signed and Sealed)

Upon talking to Chanti and Chhork with a proper interpreter I learnt, to my shock, that Citipointe had dumped Rosa and Chita with their parents the day beforehand – a fact I had not picked up because Chanti (whose English is rudimentary) had used (or it seemed so to me) the future tense, not the past! I now wrote the following:

Dear Leigh and Brian

When Chanti and Chhork told me this morning that Rosa and Chita were to be returned to the family they used the future tense. Upon conducting an interview with them just now, with a competent translator, I learnt that representatives of your church turned up yesterday with Rosa and Chita and presented their parents with an ultimatum. Here are the girls, if you want them to stay, place your thumb prints here.

Under these circumstances I can understand why, after so many years of false promises, Chanti and Chhork took the opportunity and placed their thumb prints of a document which attempts to provide retrospective validity to the 31st July 2008 'contract'.

The speed with which this has happened, the total lack of a reintegration process, of consultation,  is clearly a response to the legal letter from Mr Michael Johnson. Citipointe knew that whilst it could ignore me it could not ignore a barrister prepared to take this matter to whatever court was required for it to be resolved in accordance with the law.

Two points need to be made here:

(1) Citipointe has yet to provide any evidence at all that its removal of Rosa and Chita in 2008 was legal and

(2) Citipointe's dumping of Rosa and Chita at the drop of a hat, in the total absence of due process, and with no offer to assist them from here on in in their lives, reveals the true motives of the church in keeping them this long. From what Chanti and Chhork tell me the sum total of the church's assistance to the reintegration of the girls back into the family is one 50 kg bag of rice and two bicycles - with a total value of around $100.

(3) Citipointe will now be free to trick some other materially poor parents to give up their daughters to fill the beds vacated by Rosa and Chita. Given that it has taken me close to six years to get Rosa and Chita back (with the vital help of Mr Michael Johnson) these poor Cambodian parents have little or no chance of getting their daughters back.

Whilst it is good that Rosa and Chita have been returned to their family, the circumstances surrounding their return leaves so many questions unanswered - the key one being: "Where are the MOUs that gave Citipointe the right to take the girls in the first place?"

best wishes

# 70 Chanti and Chhork's request to GDG for information they are entitled to in accordance with the ACFID Code of Conduct, to which GDG is a signitory

Directors of the Global Development Group Board

Unit 6

734 Underwood Road

Rochedale, QLD 4123

23^rd May 2014

Dear    David James Pearson

Geoffrey Winston Armstrong

Ofelia (fe) Luscombe

Alan Benson

David Robertson

We are the Cambodian mother and father of Chanti Rosa and Chanty Cheata. Our daughters have lived in Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ since 2008 against our wishes.

The Global Development Group (GDG), of which you are Executive Director, provides funding to Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home.’ This funding has been approved, through the Australian Council for International Development, by AusAID.

The GDG is bound by the Australian Council for International Development Code of Conduct and is obliged, in accordance with the Code, to be ‘transparent’. The meaning of the word ‘transparent’ is clear in the Code of Conduct.

‘An organisation’s openness about its activities, providing information on what it 
is doing, where and how this takes place and how it is performing’.

Neither Citipointe church nor GDG has provided us with any of the information we have requested since Citipointe church removed our daughters from their home in 2008. Instead, the church keeps promising to return our daughters but never does.

We have read the ACFID Code of Conduct and understand that we, as parents of Rosa and Cheata, are known as ‘stakeholders.’ We read the following in the Code of Conduct:

B.1.1 Accountability to primary stakeholders

Signatory organisations will ensure that their purpose and processes are shaped by stakeholders and that their work is open to review and comment by partners and participants alike. In all instances those directly affected by aid and development activities are considered the primary stakeholders and their views afforded the highest priority.

Obligation:

Signatory organisations will prioritise accountability to local people and those directly 
affected by aid and development activities, prioritising their needs and rights

As stakeholders our views about Citipointe church’s refusal to return our daughters have been ignored. As stakeholders our needs and rights have been ignored. We are told that our rights are outlined in two Memoranda of Understanding Citipointe church entered into with the Cambodia government – the first in 2008 and the second in 2009. Citipoint church and your own GDG have refused to provide us with copies of the two MOUs so we do not know what our rights are or what we must do to have our daughters returned to us.

As a ‘signatory organisation’ (to the ACFID Code) the GDG is obliged to “analyse the needs and expectations of key stakeholders in all aid and development activities, pursuing informed and balanced accountability to each.” Our own needs and expectations have been ignored for nearly 6 years.

We request that the Global Development Group provide us with (a) Annual self-assessment by GDG for the years 2008 - 2014 “by the signatory organisation’s governing body”, and (b) a reason why our complaints to Citipointe since 2008 have been ignored. It is the responsibility of the GDG to see to it that there is  “an independent complaints handling and discipline process.”

Finally, the Code of Conduct is clear about the Global Development Group’s obligations:

“Obligations on the signatory organisation to be ethical and transparent in marketing, fundraising and reporting.”

Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ has behaved in an unethical way by presenting our daughters to sponsors and donors as victims of human trafficking. The ‘contract’ Citipointe tricked me, as mother, into signing on 31^st July 2008 makes it clear that it was only the fact that the family was very poor at the time that caused me to ask the church for help for a short time. Rosa and Chita were not victims of human trafficking. I have never been a victim of human trafficking myself, even though Citipointe says that I was.

Could you please provide us both, as parents, with answers to our questions and with copies of any documents the Global Development Group has in its possession that relate to our daughters removal and detention by your funding partner, Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ – as you are required to do as signatories of the ACFID Code of Conduct?

Yem Chanti                                                                 Both Chhork

                        Mother                                                                        Father

# 69 ACFID Code of Conduct committee refuses to ask GDG to provide copies of MOUs in support of Citipointe's assertion that the church removed Rosa and Chita from their family in accordance with Cambodian law

ACFID Code of Conduct Committee

Australian Council for International Development

12 Napier Close, Deakin ACT 2600                                                 

23^rd May 2014

Dear    Dr Sue-Anne Wallace

Greg Brown

John Gilmore

Bandula Gonsalkorale

Harwood Lockton

Dr Petrus Usmanij

Fadlullah Wilmot

Dr Simon Smith

Michelle Pearce

Julie Mundy

Earlier this month, with my assistance, Chanti and Chhork secured the legal representation of an Australian barrister by the name of Mr Michael Johnson.

Mr Johnson wrote to Citipointe church requesting that Rosa and Chita be returned to their family by 23^rd May. Today. The girls have not been returned. I will forward, separately, the two pages of Mr Johnson’s letter to Citipointe.

In the meantime, distressed by the refusal of the ACFID Code of Conduct Committee to even acknowledge receipt of hers and her husband Chhork’s complaint about the continued detention of Rosa and Chita, Chanti has, with my help, read a translation of the ACFID Code of Conduct. With her newfound knowledge of her rights and with my assistance, Chanti has composed a letter for Mr Geoff Armstrong, Executive Director of the Global Development Group in her bid to get answers to questions that she is entitled, in accordance with the Code, to be provided answers to.

Chanti’s letter is now with a translator and will be ready for her to sign on Monday – at which point we will send it to the Global Development Group.

I imagine that Geoff Armstrong will ignore the letter, regardless of the ACFID Code of Conduct. This has been his response to all letters sent to him this past few months relating to the legality of Citipointe’s removal of Rosa and Chita. Through its funding of the ‘SHE Rescue Home’, and in accordance the ACFID Code of Conduct, GDG is complicit in Rosa and Chita’s continued detention. GDG’s refusal to provide copies of the MOUs to Chanti and Chhork is a breach of the ACFID Code of Conduct but this will be of no concern to Mr Armstrong because your committee does not adhere to the Code itself.

If experience is anything to go by, the ACFID Code of Conduct Committee will, as it has with Chanti and Chhork’s complaint, stand by GDG’s refusal to respond to Chanti and Chhork’s letter. So be it. The legal battle over the custody of Rosa and Chita has a long way to go yet and there will be egg on a lot of faces when justice is eventually achieved.

best wishes

James Ricketson

# 68 legal letter to Citipointe church re the church's illegal removal of Rosa and Chita in 2008

Private & Confidential

Senior Pastor Leigh Ramsey

Pastor Brian MulheranCitipointe Church
PO Box 2111
Mansfield, Queensland
Australia, 4122

2^nd May, 2014.

Dear Pastors Ramsey and Mulheran,

IN THE MATTER OF CHANTHY ROZA & CHANTHY CHEATA – CAMBODIAN CHILDREN

I am formally and legally authorised, engaged and instructed to write to you by my clients - the parents of Chanthy Roza and Chanthy Cheata (“two children”).

My clients have requested that their two children be immediately released into their legal custody, guardianship and care and by no later than Friday, 23rd May, 2014.

I am instructed by clients that their two children are currently unlawfully detained by Citipointe Church (“Citipointe”) control in Cambodia against the express wishes of my clients sas the two children’s legal parents. I am advised that the two children have now been unlawfully detained for some five (5) years. I am instructed that the two children were removed from my clients’ legal custody, care and guardianship by Citipointe pursuant to an alleged Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed between Citipointe and the Government of Cambodia in 2008 and subsequently in 2009. 

As I understand it from my clients both MOUs were held out or represented to my clients (as the children’s parents) as the foundation for Citipointe’s legal rights, conferred on it by the Cambodian government, to remove and or detain the two children againast the express wishes of my clients.

I am instructed that since 2008, requests have been repeatedly made by my clients and their advocates for the physical production of one or both such documents evidencing Citipointe’s legal rights to remove and or detain the two children. I am instructed that no MOU executed by Citipointe and Government of Cambodia has been produced by Citypointe to substantiate its legal rights of access and or detention of the two children. 

Therefore, in the absence of Citipointe being able to produce forthwith any official government conferred MOU legally executed, I am instructed by my clients to request Citipointe release the said two children to the legal custody, care and guardianship of their parents forthwith. 

For clarity and to avoid misinterpretation, Friday 23^rd May is an indication of the very latest date for the return of the children to my client’s custody, guardianship and care.

Given the deep sensitivity of this matter and the length of time involved, this letter has also been copied to the following:

1

.    The Under-Secretary of State of the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Cambodia.

    The Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs; and

  the Australian Ambassador to Cambodia, representing the Government of Australia.

As Citipointe is an Australian registered charity within the meaning of relevant Commonwealth legislation, Citipointe will clearly appreciate the considerable reputational issues at stake in this matter. These potentially include the substantial bilateral ties between Australia and Cambodia.

There is also domestic Australian political, community and ethical sensitivities at play. In particular, for Citipointe, there may be significant Australian or international legal considerations in play should Citipointe continue to decline the said two children to their parents against their clear, express and unequivocal demand. I understand the Australian media is also closely following the progress of this matter.

On behalf of my clients, I look forward, initially, to confirmation of Citipointe’s intention to release the two children, and secondly, specific details regarding the completion the children’s release at the earliest opportunity. For confirmation purposes I may be contacted by direct email. 

With compliments

MR MICHAEL A. JOHNSON BA., LLB (UQ)., M.PHIL  (Cambridge); Ex.Ed (Harvard)

Barrister-At-Law of the Supreme Court of Queensland.