Wednesday, April 9, 2014

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

QLD 4152   
9th 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 31st 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 31st July 2009 ‘contract’.

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

(4) Citipointe knew that the 31st 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 31st 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:
1remove 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


  1. I am a laywer who would like to look at supporting you on this case. There may well be a legal right for the parents to sue the church in Australia. How do I contact you?

    1. Many thanks, Anonymous. My email address is: