Letter for Leigh Ramsay re the court's refusal to provide documentary evidence to Chanti and Chhork the legality of Citipointe's removal of Rosa and Chita in 2008 or their continued detention by the church in Feb 2014

Leigh Ramsay
Citipointe church
322 Wecker Rd
Carindale QLD 4152 

9^th Feb 2014                                        

Dear Leigh

Whatever tactic you have employed to prevent the court from providing Chanti and Chhork with copies of the ‘contracts’ and/or agreements Citipointe has with the Ministries of Foreign and/or Social Affairs has worked. As parents of Rosa and Chita they have still not, in five years, been provided with a reason why their girls were removed or of any documentary evidence that the removal was legal. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what is going on here.

This blog is about to be visited by a new set of people who will find it very interesting indeed and, it is to be hoped, will start asking Citipointe the kinds of questions I have been asking for five years.

For their benefit a few indisputable facts:

- Chanti and Chhork have been asking Citipointe to return their daughters to their home for five years now. This is their right unless the Ministry of Social Affairs can produce some evidence that the family home is not a safe place for Rosa and Chita to live. MOSAVY has produced no such evidence this past five and a half years.

- Citipointe has not, at any point this past five and a half years, produced one document proving that the church’s actions in removing Rosa and Chita from the family home in 2008 was legal. The only document that Chanti and Chhork have is the July 31 2008 that you tricked Chanti into signing with her thumb print. Every lawyer who has viewed the document and police at the ‘Anti Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection Department’ declare that this document gave Citipointe no right at all to hold Rosa and Chita against their parent’s wishes in 2008 or at any time since then.

- Citipointe claims that it entered into agreements with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Social Affairs in relation to the church’s custody of Rosa and Chita. Citipointe has refused every request by Chanti and Chhork, by myself and by LICADHO to be provided with copies of these purported agreements.

- The Ministry of Social Affairs has likewise refused all requests to provide documents relating to the legality of Citipointe church’s actions in removing and retaining custody of Rosa and Chita for five and a half years against the wishes of their parents. MOSAVY refuses to either confirm or deny that such documents exist. Indeed, MOSAVY refuses to even acknowledge receipt of letters or emails.

- In the absence of any documentation relating to the legality of its actions, Citipointe is guilty under Cambodian law of human trafficking.  (See “Law on Suppression of the Kidnapping and Trafficking of Human Persons and Exploitation of Human Persons”)

- That Citipointe has been able to break Cambodian law by essentially kidnapping Rosa and Chita with impunity is unsurprising. That corruption exists within the Cambodian judiciary is well known and an accepted fact of life in Cambodia. The outcome of court cases in Cambodia are subject to the whim of court officials who can be, and are, swayed by the rich and powerful who can pay (be they Khmer or foreign) to get the outcome that suits them best from the courts.

- My complaint to SISHA about Citipointe’s illegal removal of Rosa and Chita resulted in my meeting with Mr Lao Lin and members of his investigating team in May last year. The investigators asked not one question relevant to my complaint. Indeed, they refused to allow me to present any of the evidence I had (and I have lots) of Citipointe’s guilt in relation to Cambodian law. The vehemence with which the ‘Anti Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection Department’ refused to even look at my evidence, is strongly suggestive that Citipointe paid the ‘Anti Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection Department’ to turn a blind eye just as it has paid MOSAVY to allow it to kidnap the children of poor Cambodian parents. If you, if MOSAVY or  the ‘Anti Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection Department’ find this last statement defamatory, please sue me. Perhaps, if this matter were before a court, the English language media might, at last, see fit to start asking a few questions.

Given that LICADHO is essentially powerless to prevent human rights abuses by expatriate NGOs, I will now initiate the next (and very public) phase of my campaign to force Citipointe to release Rosa and Chita from their Christian prison or, (perhaps a better metaphor) from the Christian children’s zoo where poverty tourists can visit and spend some ‘quality time’ with the tame children that Citipointe has ‘rescued’ from their financially impoverished families.

I have one last question for you: Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ is in receipt of monies that come from tax-deductible donations from the Australian public. How many tax-deductible dollars does Citipointe receive from Australia each year to administer the ‘SHE Rescue Home’?

best wishes

James Ricketson