Wednesday, April 20, 2016

# 190 Why Scott Neeson should be in jail for the illegal detention of children and abrogating the legal and human rights of their impoverished parents.




Dear Scott

You have 700+ children in residential care.

In one of your latest Sponsored Facebook advertisements you acknowledge that all but 35 of these children have families they can visit during Khmer New Year celebrations.

That’s 665 children, approximately, who have families but who are nonetheless living in what amounts to an orphanage. (Despite each child bringing in $150 a month in sponsorship monies for CCF, they sleep 2, 3 and 4 to a bed. And on the floor!)


The same old questions arise:

Why are these 665 children growing up in an institution when they have families?

How many of these children have families living in the provinces?

How many of these children have families living in or around Steung Meanchey?

It is understandable that kids from the provinces are provided with residential care but as I understand it the vast majority of kids have families in Phnom Penh.

How much does such a ‘Sponsored’ post on Facebook cost you?


And:

Do you own (or have a long lease on) the property on which is to be found the ‘Black Bamboo’ restaurant? 

Is the $300,000 figure I have been given for renovations an accurate one or a bit high?

If you are the owner/lease holder on ‘Black Bamboo’ did you use your own money to acquire it? Or did the money come from generous sponsors and donors who think their contributions to CCF are going to help materially poor Cambodian families?

The same apples for the land upon which the World Housing homes are being erected.

Do you own the land? Are you now the owner of 360+ homes ‘gifted’ to poor families? Homes that have added between $500,000 and $1 million to the land? If you are not the owner, who is he/she?

You will not answer these questions, of course. This is your way. Transparency and accountability play no role in your running of CCF.

Luckily for you, for the time being at least, no journalists in Cambodia will even ask you  questions of the kind I ask. The reason for this, in the case of the Phnom Penh Post, is obvious. You have bought the silence of the Post’s journalists by acquiring a significant stake in the newspaper. It is worth your while to lose around $25,000 a month to make sure that PPP journalists will ask no questions and publish no stories that are not hagiographic PR puff pieces that contribute to the myth about yourself that you have been cultivating for many years now.

As for the Cambodia Daily I (and many others) are very curious to know whether you have made a deal with Bernie Kirsher such that he too will not allow the Daily to publish anything negative about you. Time will tell.

Then there’s Khmer 440. Not that this site is to be taken at all seriously but you have, nonetheless, taken it over with a view to guaranteeing that you are not exposed as a fraud on it.

The extraordinary efforts you embark on to control your public image pale in comparison to the extraordinary efforts you go to to control the families whose kids wind up in CCF care.

I have been asking you for 18 months now to make public a copy of the pro forma contract that you force parents to sign when you take their kids into residential care. You have refused to do so. Likewise, you refuse to allow the parents themselves to retain a copy of the contract they have signed, or to show it to any NGO (or lawyer) who might be in a position to advise them about the legality of it; about the advisability of signing it.

The sections of the CCF contract that I think would be (should be) of interest to lawyers and human rights groups are:
  
3(I)         The Parents/guardians agree to reimburse and compensate any cost of expense including blood test and vaccination for child, and financial and materials support to their family, although it was a gift or loan, and other expenses while their children were residing in CCF if they demand to bring their children back or the decision made by the child him/herself and that such those decisions may affect the child’s future and advantages without obvious justification from the parents/guardians.

And:

Any dispute that may arise out of this Agreement shall be settled by the Parties amicably. Any dispute which cannot be amicably settled by the Parties shall be settled by binding arbitration in a location to be decided by the mutual agreement of the Parties. The dispute shall be settled by one arbitrator or more mutually agreeable by the Parties. The arbitrator’s decision shall be final and binding on the Parties. The Parties agree that they will not refer their dispute to any court in the Kingdom of Cambodia.

Article 6           Severability

If any of the provisions of this Security Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable, this Security Agreement shall be construed as if not containing those provisions and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be construed and enforced accordingly.

So, CCF receives considerably more in funds from sponsors to care for one child for a year than that child’s entire family earns in a year!  And yet you expect, demand, that any parent who wishes to have their child returned to their care must repay CCF an amount that these extremely poor people cannot afford. And you have intimidated them into believing that they have signed away their right to have their dispute with CCF settled in a court of law! Not only is this morally reprehensible, it is a form of bondage and illegal under Cambodian law.

If human rights organisations such as LICADHO and ADHOC were genuinely concerned about the human rights of impoverished families whose lives you now control they would commence legal proceedings against CCF. That they do not do so speaks volumes of these same human rights organisations’ complicity, through turning a blind eye, in the multiple orphanage scams that blight Cambodia.

I hope that at some point in the not-too-distant future a lawyer commences a class action suit, signs up 100s of parents and children (now young adults) who have essentially been kidnapped by CCF and drag you and your NGO into both the court of public opinion and the Phnom Penh Municipal Court. The relevant law:

Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation

Article 8:Definition of Unlawful Removal

The act of unlawful removal removal in this act shall mean to:
1)    Remove a person from his/her current place of residence to a place under the actor’s or a third persons 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 to take a minor person under general custody or curatoship or legal custody away from the legal custody of the parents, care taker or guardian.
Article 9: Unlawful removal, inter alia, of Minor

A person who unlawfully removes a minor or a person under general custody or curatorship or legal custody shall be punished with imprisonment for 2 to 5 years.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7259345/Law-on-Suppression-of-Human-Trafficking-and-Sexual-Exploitation-15022008-English

I do not believe that CCF has any legal right to be taking minors from their families and refusing to return them when asked - citing contracts that are, in themselves, illegal. And there can be no doubt that CCF has no legal right to be controlling (as it does) the lives of young men and women who are over the age of 18.

You need to get your house in order, Scott. The media will not give you a free run forever – not even those parts of the Cambodian media whose silence you have, essentially, bought.

If you believe that I am defaming you here (your Neeson Trolls are forever accusing me of doing so) commence legal proceedings against me. I would be delighted to meet you in court.

cheers


James

73 comments:

  1. Where are the human rights groups that should be protecting the rights of the children? How can they remain silent in this clear abuse to fund Neeson's business model? The lack of action by these groups and the lack of enforcement by the government is atrocious!! Neeson should be imprisoned along with those who assist in facilitating these illegal activities!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Cambodian media is a disgrace. So too the so-called human rights groups that keep silent on the exploitation of poor Khmer families by sham orphanages like CCF. Scambodia!

      Delete
    2. This tragedy in Cambodia is a result of complicity of The Cambodian print media and their gutless journalists
      Who put greed before human suffering .
      Of course the so called Human rights groups in Cambodia who are selective in whom they consider the victims of abuses are guilty too.

      Delete
    3. Journalists working in the Cambodia print media in particular those at The Phnom Penh Post do you ever consider the implications for your reputation and your future career .
      In this modern digital age the world is so small and information is disseminated everywhere .
      In the journalistic world news travels fast.
      I am aware that what is happening in Cambodia regarding the Phnom Penh Post and the other newspapers is becoming well known ..
      So in the future when you apply for another job with a reputable paper elsewhere will you be proud to mention on your C V that you worked for The Phom Penh post ?
      Will that paper consider hiring someone who does not comply with what is required by the standards of Ethical Journalism ?

      Delete
    4. The Camboian Daily prints ..
      "The News without fear or fear or favor" What hypocrisy !

      Delete
    5. The Camboian Daily prints ..
      "The News without fear or fear or favor" What hypocrisy !

      Delete
  2. I wonder if it is true, that CCF is holding young men and women over the age of 18 (and therefore adults under Cambodian law) against their will? Not even their parents have the right to hold a young adult against their will. It is hard to imagine that Scott Neeson would be so foolish as to do as is suggested here. What evidence do you have, Mr Ricketson, to support this contention of yours?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous 3.07

      I rely, for a lot of my information, on reports that I get from former CCF staff and former CCF children, now adults. As far as former CCF staff go, they have all signed non-disclosure contracts and so cannot have their names attached to the allegations they make without fear of being dragged into court.

      As far as some of the ex CCF kids are concerned, many have younger siblings still caught up in the CCF net and parents who have signed ‘contracts’ with CCF whose contents they are unaware of and/or do not understand. They have been told by CCF that if they breach the conditions of these contracts they will be in debt for the rest of their lives.

      These families are already the poorest of the poor and, quite understandably, do not wish to jeopardize the few crumbs that are thrown their way by CCF by demanding anything from CCF. They have no understanding that that they have both legal and human rights. And even if they did, the contract they have signed stipulates that they cannot apply to any court of law to have these rights acknowledged.

      Bear in mind that CCF receives more sponsorship money for one child resident in a CCF dormitory than his or her entire family earns in a year. Of this amount ($1,800) just $250 each year goes to the family as ‘rice support’. For a desperately poor family this $250 worth of rice is not a ‘gift’ they would (or could) easily give up in pursuit of their legal rights to have their child (or children) returned to them. The power rests entirely with CCF. The parents are powerless.

      Many families have more than one son or daughter resident at CCF so the amount of money CCF is making out of these kids (if there are three or more) is several times larger than the entire family’s annual income. Are these families aware of just how much money CCF is making, through sponsors, to take care of their kids? In the case of the families I have spoken with, no. The $250 a year in rice support is presented to them as generosity on CCF’s part.

      …to be continued…

      Delete
    2. …following on…

      The following falls into the category of rumour. However, it is a rumour that comes from a variety of sources and so is worth exploring. It is that young children resident at CCF are being told that if they do not do well in their studies at school they will have to repay the costs of their education; that if they are evicted from CCF for any reason they will have the replay the costs incurred in CCF caring for them to date. (The kids do not realize that these costs have been more than met by generous sponsors.)

      Is the hanging of this Damoclean sword above the heads of young kids nothing more than a cruel education technique to encourage them to study hard? Or are threats such as these intended to let the kids and their parents know that their lives are now under the control of CCF and that if they step out of line the consequences will be dire?

      The argument that I cannot prove that children are being so threatened is a valid one. However, given that Scott Neeson’s CCF is run in total secrecy, that he and his board will not answer any questions as a matter of principle, what do I do with the persistent flow of anecdotes about 2, 3 and 4 kids to a bed; about parents denied the right to have their kids returned to their care on the basis of a contract; with kids being told they will have to repay the costs of their education and accommodation if they do badly at school? Just sit on it until I have ‘proof’?

      In the real world of journalism the word ‘allegation’ is used often. It has been alleged that so and so did such and such. (Allegations that Kem Sokha had a mistress, for instance.) Journalists do not use the word ‘allegation’ unless there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence in support of whatever is being alleged of if it is deemed to be in the public’s interest to be made aware of the allegations – even if they turn out not to be true.

      Journalists give the person against whom the allegation has been made an opportunity to refute it. If the response is ‘no comment’ (as is Neeson and the CCF board’s) the journalist can run the story and risk being sued or sit on it out of fear of being sued.

      …to be continued…

      Delete
    3. …following on…

      As is the case with so many questions put to Scott Neeson this past year, he could, if he had any commitment at all to the precepts of transparency and accountability, issue a press release to the effect that (1) CCF does not withhold copies of contracts from parents and (2) that no CCF children (past of present) are told that they must do well at school or repay the costs of their education and accommodation. Appended to this press release could be a copy of the pro forma contract CCF gets parents to sign. And the press release itself could be accompanied by a press conference in which Neeson promises to answer all questions put to him by the press. This would be transparency and accountability in action.

      This is not going to happen. The media is not going to insist that Neeson answer questions. Human rights groups are not going to insist on being provided with copies of the pro forma contract and Scott will be hoping that if he simply ignores the questions I am asking I will give up asking them and the status quo will be maintained. However, Scott is also smart enough to know that he is sitting on a powder keg. One day some former CCF kids, now adults, will go public with what they know; what they experienced. So too will former members of staff. Once the lid has been taken off this Pandora’s Box it will be impossible to put it back on again.

      Neeson is being very badly advised by his board if he thinks he can simply keep running CCF in the way he has over the past few years. When the house of cards collapses, as it will, members of the board will be responsible for what has occurred.

      The worst part of the collapse of CCF will be the enormous damage done to the families who have become dependent on CCF for their kids accommodation and education. What will happen to them? Who is going to pick up the pieces?

      And when CCF hits the wall financially will Neeson sell his assets to help the struggling families? Will the houses ‘gifted’ to the poor families but now owned by Scott or someone else within the CCF ‘family’ be actually given to the families or will the land and the houses be sold by the owner – securing for him or herself a huge profit?

      And when this happens, (yes, if this happens) will the Cambodian media and human rights organizations throw their hands up and say, “My goodness, we never saw this coming?”

      The kindest thing that can be said about the silence of the media and human rights groups is that they lack the moral courage of the convictions they espouse in public.

      Delete
  3. I sent the following to both LICADHO and ADHOC a couple of days ago:

    “Why do LICADHO and ADHOC remain silent when it comes to the legal and human rights abuses perpetrated by so many NGOs whose business model, whose modus operandi when it comes to raising funds, involves the removal of children from their families?

    Scott Neeson's Cambodian Children's Fund is but one of many such NGOs.

    It is time for both LICADHO and ADHOC to ask Scott Neeson to provide you with copies of the 'contracts' he forces parents to enter into with CCF; contracts that Neeson refuses to allow the parents to keep copies of; contracts which, he tells them, forbids them from seeking redress in court should they fall out with CCF.

    Neeson is on very shaky ground - both legally and morally - and you cannot (or should not) continue to bury your heads in the sand, turn a blind eye and allow this to continue without comment.

    best wishes”

    I thought to myself: “Here is the smoking gun! Even if these human rights organisations can tolerate all Neeson’s other scams (World Housing being the most obvious) they cannot tolerate his forcing the parents of children in CCF’s care to sign ‘contracts’ that forbid them from using the Cambodian legal system (the courts) to fight for their parental rights!

    I was wrong. Neither LICADHO nor ADHOC is going to touch this Neeson orchestrated contractual scam a barge pole. This raises a whole host of questions about why and how it is that these human rights organisations, so quick to denounce the human and legal rights breaches of the Cambodian government, remain silent when these same breaches are perpetrated by NGOs!

    Could it be that this is a Pandora’s Box (hornet’s nest) that LICADHO and ADHOC do not want to lift the lid on because they know that there are many other NGOs in Cambodia guilty of these same breaches? Not only that, there are NGOs such as Chab Dai that actively support the illegal detention of children based on illegal contracts the parents have entered into with Christian NGOs.

    ALL contractual agreements between NGOs and impoverished Cambodians they are ‘helping’ should be made pubic and both ADHOC and LICADHO should be vetting all of them to see if they breach the human and legal rights of the Cambodians who sign them. And if they do, the NGOs should be charged with criminal offences and be shamed in public by both human rights organisations and the media.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a cluster fuck! Who are these people helping !!!. The NGOs and the human rights orgs? Themselves only they couldn't give fuck . Exploiting children for money and who knows what else if they are up to this type of behavior then I would be extremely concerned but the possibility that a number of these ORGs are run by pediofile rings.

      Delete
    2. If the human rights organisations have no interest in the human rights of kids in NGO care or of their families who is going to protect these very poor and vulnerable families from unscrupulous NGOs such as the Cambodian Children’s Fund? No one. And if the media is not going to write about it, how will sponsors and donors ever know what is being done in their name; paid for with their money. Yes, this is a major cluster-fuck and everyone, it seems, has a vested interested in keeping their lips sealed, averting their gaze and acting as if these NGO-generated human and legal rights abuses are not occurring.

      Delete
    3. It's little wonder Neeson, Heather Graham and the CCF board will never willingly reply to their questions you ask them James. They have to keep contracts like this hidden from the outside world. It's unlawful and down right creepy to think Neeson and his Team portray themselves creating tomorrow’s leaders. It's clear that their actions are not in the best interest of the children or families. The should be fully investigated but who is going to do it? We know this will never happen. Reaching out to their supporters and public awareness given here on your blogs for people to read and determine for themselves who's telling the truth.

      Delete
    4. hello, my name is miss Justina i was having problem with my husband
      and also having challenge in my business.i did not know what to do to put an end to
      it.one day i was making some research online,when i came across a testimony on how some one
      sow a seed of faith to [Help A child foundation orphanage home] and her life change for good.so i contact the
      email address,[helpachildfoun@gmail.com] it was own by a pastor.i told him what i am passing true.the pastor told me that
      there is nothing his god cannot do. i should have faith and believe that every things will been fine.
      the pastor told me to sow a seed of faith to his new [HELP A CHILD FOUNDATION orphanage home] he just build now to help
      the less privilege in the society, and god will reward me. i did as he said.he pray with me and told me that
      very soon every things will been fine.after one week, the problem i was having with my husband that almost
      break up my marriage and my business that was facing some challenge, every things stop. my husband came to
      beg me and ask me to forgive him, my business was moving well.thanks been to the god of pastor favor.
      i am using this opportunity to let you know that,if you are passing some difficult in any area of
      your life, please do not give up in life, just sow a seed of faith to [HELP A CHILD FOUNDATION ORPHANAGE HOME]
      and have faith and believe that the god of pastor favor will
      solve it for you.thanks, this is the email contact. [helpachildfoun@gmail.com]

      Child Foundation is an international charity organization that helps children living in poverty remain in school. The children sponsored through our programs are high achievers, and many of the children we assist are orphans or children living in emergency situations. By enhancing the quality of life for children in need, as well as their respective families, we actively help them gain access to education. Sponsor a high achieving child today!

      Help the Children exists to alleviate the
      suffering of children and their families
      throughout the Africa and
      around the world.

      Delete
  4. The silence of these inept human rights organizations and of the Cambodian media is deafening!! You mean that none of them will protect a child's human rights or the rights of a family? What kind of jellyfish are these? They act so bold and righteous when soliciting donations but are truely out of sight when it comes to protecting the rights of children!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the silence of the human rights organisations is extraordinary. If a significant part of their role, their agenda, is to safeguard the human and legal rights of poor and powerless Cambodians, why do they act as though scams such as Neeson's are not taking place? They are taking place right underneath the noses of LICADHO, of ADHOC, of the Cambodia Daily, Of the Khmer Times, of the Phnom Penh Post. And of the various embassies (the US especially) who provide CCF with either financial or moral support. The term 'Scambodia' is well deserved when it comes to describing not just the scams that take place here but the tacit approval given to these scams by the international donor community, by the media and human rights organisations.

      Delete
    2. Let me get this straight:

      Sponsors give CCF $150 a month to support kids in residential care.

      If the parents want their kids back they have to repay CCF the $150 a month sponsors have given to CCF to support that kid?

      And if the parents want their kids back but are not in a position to repay CCF the thousands of dollars sponsors have given CCF to support these kids the parents can’t take CCF to court?

      Am I missing something here? Or is it that once parents have signed one of these contracts they have, according to CCF, no right to have their children returned to them unless they pay CCF?

      I am not sure what the right expression is to describe this but ‘debt bondage’ springs to mind.

      “Debt bondage (also known as debt slavery or bonded labor) is a person's pledge of their labor or services as security for the repayment for a debt or other obligation.”

      I am sure what the right word is to describe the silence on the part of human rights organisations about Scott Neeson’s exploitation of impoverished families for his own gain: SPINELESS.

      The same goes for the media who have been bought by Neeson: SPINELESS

      Delete
    3. Why would he give up his lucrative position where he had career and was wealthy to move to destitute area and give all to charity and then do what you said? Makes no sense-pkus I only see accusations and inuendo- I have no stake in this. In fact I only just now learned of it. You need to give proof, though, before slandering this man who reportedly has helped thousands.

      Delete
  5. One of the questions I’d like to put forward .

    The subject of David Fletcher .

    I, like most people, hate rock-spiders.

    But I, like others, question why David Fletcher has never had his day in court. Never even been interviewed by the police.

    At the time, back on 2010, Scott Neeson made claims Fletcher was grooming young girls. The young lady Yang Danny was the alleged victim of rape. Neeson was quick to pro-claim and heavily promote through his social media Facebook page that he had saved her and was going to take care of her and her family. As with most of Neeson's claims, this was aimed to raise more cash donations. He never helped the family at all. Once they’d served his purpose he moved on. Its all about the money with Neeson.

    Coming after setting up David Fletcher was Neeson’s newest venture forming his so called child protection unit CPU. Headed by his long time buddy Jim " James McCabe " - convicted of robberies and drug offences while working as a police officer in Australia.

    The Danny story which Neeson milked to raise funds did eventually indeed become a victim when she was trafficked into China and sold as a bride . So my question for Neeson is “Are you behind this human trafficking because it has your finger prints all over it.”

    How are people like Neeson and his cronies still able to operate? It's fairly simple. Cambodia ranks as in the top 10 most corrupt countries in the world. And everything that comes out of Neeson's mouth is a lie . Karma will have it's day with you Neeson. Your empire created on the backs of the poor will one day come back and take you down. Your name will not be remembered as a hero, but as a man who fooled kind hearted people into believing your trickery and deception.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Out of interest anon 7.47 what evidence do you have to back up your claim that Yang Danny was ever trafficked into China and sold as a bride. Simply stated you are talking out of your arse. It is "put up or shut up" time. If you have evidence then please produce it. FYI proclaim is one word and not hyphenated, it appears you are illiterate as well as a liar. You also state that James McCabe was convicted of robberies and drug offences, as far as I was concerned it was in the singular and not plural, if it was several robberies and drug offences could you please list them all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have come across no evidence that Scott Neeson or anyone at CCF was in any way involved in Yang Dany's sudden departure for China. A couple of weeks before she left she told me that APLE had instructed her not to appear in court to repeat what she had said for my camera - namely that she had not been raped by David Fletcher. I had showed her a copy of the doctor's report, written after two alleged rapes, which indicated that Yang Dany was still a virgin. She made no mention to me about leaving for China and, to the best of my knowledge, had neither a passport nor the money to go to China. Then, all of a sudden she was gone, her mother, Sekun, was related to a house where the mdia could not find her and she was told not to speak to the press - members of which she had already told her daughter was not raped.

    As fot the allegation that Scott Neeson was actively involved in the pursuit and persecution of David Fletcher there can be no doubt. Scott has had ample opportunity to disassociate himself from Andrew Drummond's quotes and has taken none of them. He stands by his allegation that Mr Fletcher was 'grooming' young girls - despite there being no credible evidence presented to the court that this was the case.

    As for whether James McCabe was convicted of one or more than one drug sting (robbery) is neither here nor there. He was a corrupt cop-turned-criminal who did time in jail and now he is working for a corrupt organisation - the Cambodian Children's Fund.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I assume that you are addressing your comments to anon 7.47 James because like me you know his post has no substance. Please also indicate where Scott Neeson has stood by any allegation. As per so many of your previous posts he simply ignores you and your continued lunacy inspired posts as would any sensible human being.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No, I was addressing my comments to Anon 6.00.

    Whilst Anon 6.00 is wrong about Scott Neeson's involvement in Yang Dany's repatriation to China, he is right in the rest of what he writes about Yang Dany and about the role Neeson played in defaming him. Here are Neeson's exact words, as quoted to Andrew Drummond:

    "...people like Fletcher are a continuous source of worry .There is little doubt Fletcher devotes his time here to grooming young girls. He has nothing to do with the boys.  We have had girls of 13 and 14 turning up with his charity business cards. He had told their parents he wants to adopt them, care for them. They think, because he gives out food, he is good.  But he is grooming. They cannot see the other side.

    'He also took a 14-yr-old into town without her parents permission, to go shopping.

    'The fact is that these children can be bought. It's difficult to stop it. The British Embassy have been told about Fletcher. Many organizations have files on him, but nothing has happened.

    'If you can get this guy sent packing you are doing a service to the children here.'"

    A week later David Fletcher was arrested in Thailand - 'sent packing'. There was no charge. He was simply arrested. It would take another few weeks before a charge would materialise in Cambodia, but only AFTER an offer of $30,000 in compensation had been made to Yang Dany and her mother if charges were laid against Fletcher.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So we are are back to the question what proof does anon 7.47 have that "she was trafficked into China and sold as a bride" He has zero, so as previously stated he is talking out of his arse.

    You really need to counsel your trolls a little better James so that they do not continue to make fools of themselves (and you)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear James Mc Cabe, Alan Lemon or Scott Neeson (aka Anonymous 7.11)

      I am not sure which of the three of you is hiding behind your Anonymous persona but it doesn't matter, really. All three of you are in hiding. All three of you refuse to answer any questions at all. All three of you hope (and it is a forlorn hope) that you can play word games and shoot the messenger.

      As for whether or not Yang Dany was trafficked to China I have no idea. I know only that an impoverished young woman who had admitted to not being raped and who was being sought by journalists and due to appear in court suddenly went to China and disappeared. If she left with a passport, who paid for it? If she left without a passport the chances are that she was, indeed, trafficked. It matters little either way. She is now gone and unable to either testify in a properly constituted court of law or talk to any more journalists. She has been silenced. By whom I will leave to readers of this blog to conjecture.

      As for my 'trolls' I have no desire or need to control them. They open the discussion about your scams up at the same time as you try to close any discussion down with your crude attempts to shoot the messenger.

      Alan, you are a lawyer. You are an ex-cop who studied law, got his degree, never practiced (other than a bit of conveyancing) but are familiar enough with the way the law works to know that your boss's contacts with families (see above) are both immoral and illegal. You, with your legal background, are a party to such sham contracts and will be held responsible - morally and legally - when they are revealed to be fraudulent. The Cambodian media and human rights organisations, through their silence, through their turning of a blind eye, are your allies. They will not ask you, Scott, the CCF board any questions at all about these illegal contracts. You are home free, right? Maybe, but don't count on it.

      Delete
  11. My question James was addressed to anon 7.47 and still is

    So we are are back to the question what proof does anon 7.47 have that "she was trafficked into China and sold as a bride" He has zero, so as previously stated he is talking out of his arse.

    There is no need to be so defensive about the work your trolls do. We all already know they are idiots and by confirming it and feeling the need to defend them lowers your credibility even more (if that is possible)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Alan, Scott, James (aka Anonymous 8.05)

      There is actually some evidence, in the form of a phone call from her father, that Yang Dany was trafficked. Not enough to stand up in a court of law, if such a thing existed in this country, but certainly enough to raise more than a few questions. Questions like:

      (1) Where did Yang Dany, too poor to buy feed two weeks earlier, find the money to by a passport to leave the country?

      (2) How was it that Yang Dany was able to get a passport so quickly?

      The alternative line of questions is:

      (1) If Yang Dany travelled to China without a passport, who paid the bribes necessary for her to get out of Cambodia and into China with no legal travel documents?

      (2) Is it simply a coincidence that Yang Dany's disappearance to China coincided with APLE's desire to get her out of the country so that she could neither testify on a trial or speak to the media?

      (3) If there is eventually a trial, will APLE bring Yang Dany back to testify or claim, in court, that the NGO has lost contact with her and so cannot produce her as a witness?

      These are the questions that go through any sensible person's mind. Your demand for 'proof' is disingenuous. You are simply trying to throw up a smoke screen. all three of you are engaged in the illegal detention of 700+ kids whose parents have been forced to sign an illegal contract. Fortunately, for you, you have the Cambodian media and human rights organisations covering for you. it will not always be this way, however. There are too many lies, too many scams to be ignored for too long - even by those journalists and human rights organisation representatives who are, at present, in your pocket, Scott.

      Delete
  12. Anonymous 8.05
    You ask for facts.
    Let me give you some facts .
    Do you accept that the contracts that (Daddy) Scot Neeson forces the parents of the children in his Orphanage to thumbprint and then does not give them a copy are illegal.

    These contracts do not allow the parents to reclaim their children without repaying (Daddy) Neeson a substantial sum of money which of course he knows they are unable to do so as the are among the poorest in society .

    This is not only illegal but morally reprehensible .
    You support CCF and this travesty , what does that make you ?

    you are very loud in asking for facts .
    Now you are challenged with some, will you give me an answer ?
    Of course you will not , you never do when asked to try and defend the indefensible .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gents, instead of trying to change the subject would it not just be a little more honest to say Yes, you are correct that anon 7.47 had zero evidence to back up his gossip innuendo gossip and rumor and none of it is fact. It is just more shit stirring from a member of team Ricketson who had had most likely had one too many drinks again.

      If there is solid evidence then why not give the facts. You can't because there are none, exactly the same with the rest of the rubbish that gets published here.

      Delete
    2. Dear Scott Neeson, Alan Lemon and James Mc Cabe

      I really don't care one way or the other if any of you is Anonymous 6.08, though I suspect that one of you is.

      And please don't pretend that no-one at CCF reads this blog.

      Forget about whether Yang Dany was trafficked or not. It is of no relevance to the topic of this blog - which is that Scott Neeson adn CCF have, in accordance with Cambodian law (Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation) engaged in industrial scale human trafficking.

      Here is the relevant section:

      Article 8:Definition of Unlawful Removal

      The act of unlawful removal removal in this act shall mean to:
      1) Remove a person from his/her current place of residence to a place under the actor’s or a third persons 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 to take a minor person under general custody or curatoship or legal custody away from the legal custody of the parents, care taker or guardian.
      Article 9: Unlawful removal, inter alia, of Minor

      You can try and distract the attention of readers of this blog by shooting the messenger (rather ineptly, I might add) and rabbiting on about whether or not Yang Dany was trafficked, but if you have any commitment to truth, to transparency and accountability you should turn your attention to CCF's criminal removal of children from their families.

      You are indeed lucky that no newspaper in this country will touch this story with a barge pole. And extremely fortunate that human rights organisations such as LICADHO and ADHOC have your backs covered and will ask not questions; demand no copy of the illegal contract you get impoverished parents to sign.

      Your luck can only last so long.

      Delete
    3. Mate, try telling your friend anon 7.47 it is no relevance to the topic of this blog. They were the ones that brought the subject up (no doubt in an inebriated state) I am merely asking relevant questions to show their statements to be the same sort of nonsense that you frequently post

      Delete
    4. Neeson belongs in prison along with his board of directors and employees that are complicit in his scams!!

      Delete
    5. So here is what we do know: shortly before Yang Dany's departure to Cina, she had no money and no passport. To enter China legally, she would at least need a passport. Travel is not free, consequently she would need money to travel. We know that APLE did not want her to appear in court or testify in court. We know that APLE told Dany and her Mother, that they would get $30,000 (approximately an amount that would take them 30 years to earn at the dump) if they said that David Fletcher raped Yang Dany. We know that Yang Dany disappeared into China and that her Mother has been relocated (presumably by APLE) so that she can not speak to the press. We know that APLE is an extremely corrupt organization, as is CCF. Can you connect any dots?

      Delete
    6. So scuttlebutt rumor and innuendo, still zero proof she was trafficked into China and sold as a bride as stated by the idiot anon 7.47

      Delete
    7. Are you disputing that she was trafficked or disputing that she was sold?

      Delete
    8. Alan, let me see if this example works for you. It is well known that your ex-girlfriend (who runs a hostess bar), dumped you for a Nigerian man. She has since had a child with him. Would it be considered rumor and innuendo, that she preferred him over you??

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 10:05, I think we would call it natural conclusion, that she preferred the Nigerian man over Alan Lemon. Most would say that it was a certainty!

      Delete
    10. Dear Anonymous 9.17

      Yes, it is possible that Yang Dany won the lottery and woke up thinking, "I am going to China to find a husband." Then down to the passport Department she trotted, paid her money, had a passport made up for her very fast and off she went. There were some problems when she got to the border, however. Something wrong with her passport. She had to call her father to see if he could sort it out. Apparently he could because within a few days she was in China. And the fact that this sequence of events took place at the same time as APLE told her not to appear in court, at the same time as her mother was given new lodgings by APLE and told not to talk to the media, is all just coincidence! Right?

      There is one error in this last comment by Anonymous 8.31. Whilst Yang Dany and Sekun were told that they could receive $30,000 in compensation if they accused Mr Fletcher of rape, I am not sure who put this proposition to them. It may have been some other person (organisation) with a vested interest in getting rid of Mr Fletcher.

      Right now I am not too much concerned with whether Yang Dany was trafficked or not. What I am concerned with here, in this blog entry, is CCF's industrial scale abuse of the human and legal rights of 700+ children (and young adults) and their families?

      Are any of the contracts that CCF has forced parents to enter into legal? Does the Ministry of Social Affairs have copies of them? Does the Ministry of Social Affairs approve of contracts that deny parents the right to seek redress in a Cambodian Court of law if CCF is holding their children against their wishes? Why are neIther LICADHO or ADHOC asking Scott Neeson about these contracts? Why is the print media keeping quite about them? If these contracts are illegal (and they are) surely CCF's illegal detention of 700+ children is news! Much bigger news than the front page beat up in the Cambodia Daily this weekend: SUSPECTED US CHILD ABUSER ARRESTED IN PHNOM PENH!

      And the evidence used to support this headline, the the words of
      Major General Heisela:

      "...I only heard - from person to person - that he was involved in pedophilia in the state of Oregon in the US."

      There are 10 men by the name of Eric Erdmann who live in Oregon.

      This particular Eric Erdmann is no longer in police custody, as any reader would find out when they got close to the end of the article.

      A great headline followed by innuendo and scuttlebutt.

      Delete
  13. Dear Anonymous 10.05, 10.12

    What has Alan Lemon's ex-girlfriend and Nigerian boyfriend got to do with anything?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely right James!
      But what it does show clearly is the caliber of supporter that you have on here!
      shit throwing lowlifes with no evidence of any wrongdoing .
      That includes you by the way !!

      Delete
    2. It is a simple example to Alan Lemon (following his continued request for proof) of how enough facts line up, and reasonable conclusions are drawn. The same as lining up the facts on Yang Dany, and can logically deduce that she did not travel to China after winning the lottery! The most logical conclusion is that she was either trafficked or sold (if one can make a distinction between the two).

      Delete
    3. So the most logical conclusion is the same as proof is it anon 11.34 ? James, why do you sign the weekend leave pass out of the funny farm for supporters such as these. I wonder if many posts on this section could have been written by Fletcher with the illegal electronic device he brags about having whilst in jail

      Delete
    4. Alan, I think nothing would satisfy your definition of proof. This sold or trafficked conclusion doesn't serve your agenda well. Taking children from their mothers and housing from the impoverished is more important n your line of work. Surprised that you are working today, would have thought that you've sucked off the NGO tit enough for one week! Were there babies to steal today?

      Delete
  14. Dear Neeson Trolls

    There have only been 2 or 3 occasions since I started this blog when I have resorted to moderating comments. These have been when your comments constituted spam designed to derail any attempts at reasonable discussion about the topic at hand. I let you post pornographic links, abuse me in whatever way you like and even issue thinly veiled threats. However, this is serious now and the discussion will be reserved for those who wish to make intelligent comments about the topic in hand - which is that Scott Neeson and CCF are in breach of Cambodian law in having forced parents of children in the NGO's care to sign illegal contracts. If I am right in this assertion Neeson is, in accordance with Cambodian law, in breach of "Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation; Article 8:Definition of Unlawful Removal."

    If you want to argue against this proposition, please do. I, and others reading this, will be interested to hear (read) the arguments you mount.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point James Team Daddy Neeson avoid the important questions and as always resort to smear as a smokescreen in not answering questions about their exploitation of the poorest in society, families and children .

      Using illegal contract to coerce families to giving up their children, inserting a clause that ensures parents can not reclaim their children and then using the children in their business model as products to garner donations .
      Said donations are a multi million dollar business for them , where does the money go ?

      Just look at the figures James has put up here ,
      note the increase in salaries in the last 3 years .
      Their are many anomalies in the financial statements of CCF which any ethical auditor would expose.


      Clearly a form of human trafficking and exploitation .
      Any questions or answers team Neeson ? or just more smear and smokescreens ?





      Delete
    2. @ Anon 1.31

      If Ryan Witcombe was getting $75,000 a year working for CCF I'd love to know what all the other expats working there are getting?

      Delete
    3. I think many employees would love to know that Ryan Witcombe was getting $75,000 a year! Yes, I wonder how much the others are getting!

      Delete
    4. And how much are Alan Lemon and James Mc Cabe getting? Tax-free? And, hey, while on the subject of Alan Lemon, he a lawyer, right? A trained and qualified lawyer who does all CCF's legals. Which means that he has looked at this contract for parents and said, "Yeah, that'll work." Work for CCF, that is. I wonder what the Australian Embassy in Cambodia makes of these three con artists? And are the Australian Federal Police stationed in Cambodia keeping an eye on these guys?

      Delete
  15. Scott neeson is creating Cambodia's largest modern day stolen generation - 700 + children - and what do the so called human rights NGOs have to say about it? De nada. Zilch. Maybe Neeson is a major donor to Licadho and Ad Hoc and they are in his pocet just like the media.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous 2.32

      Welcome to Scambodia, a country where everything and everyone is for sale if you've got enough greenbacks

      Delete
  16. People need to read this. It clear now that you have not been just some deranged blogger . Time to bust Neeson's empire . Good work James. Handwork from yourself with commitment like no other ..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't, with this blog, have either the power or the desire to 'bust' Neeson's empire. he is clearly very good at raising money and needs to re-invent himself and CCF. He could start with:

      (1) Drawing up fair contracts with families that enable them to pursue their rights in court if they feel the need to.

      (2) Allow parents to retain copies of their contracts and encourage them to seek advice from independent bodies.

      (3) Give to the 360 families the homes that were 'gifted' to them, or come to some equitable arrangement whereby each of the families can acquire their homes over a period of time.

      (4) Seek advice from people who have had experience in the field in how best to integrate children who live locally back into their families and communities; reserving residential care for children from the provinces only.

      This would be a good start.

      In Hollywood people re-invent themselves all the time. Neeson could do it. In a year CCF could be off and running again - in a new and different direction; one that acknowledges that institutional care is damaging to children and should be used as a last resort only.

      Delete
    2. This blatant disregard for child rights needs to get into the major press! Not just Cambodian press, who we know, will do nothing! Someone needs to publish a major article on Neeson's scams, the human rights violations, taking houses intended for the impoverished, the ex-policeman that make up his CPU.

      Delete
    3. So now James blog only publishes what James wants to be published. Only to be expected I guess. You are a total hypocrite when it comes to free speech James

      Delete
    4. No, Anonymous 5.20

      I'll publish anything that is relevant to the topic in hand, or to any recent topics. I am not going to publish nonsense, however, not just now. You and other trolls write nonsense in the hopes that you can divert the subject away from Neeson and CCF or in the hope that you can, if you use the right abusive language, shoot the messenger. This is tiresome and an unwanted distraction at this point. If you have anything to say about Neeson's illegal contracts, say it. If you believe that they are legal, say so and argue your case.

      Delete
    5. It is totally relevant to the topic in hand James that you are insane, however you block all posts that question your mental stability. As all people have to do is to check out your James Ricketson blogs on topics other than Cambodia 440 to understand that you are a total head case. Get some help mate

      Delete
    6. Dear Team Neeson Troll (aka Anonymous 6.53)

      Many thanks for your suggestion.

      Any reader who feels inclined to take up your advice could start here:

      Sunday, November 2, 2014

      # 25 Scott Nesson locks poor family out of their home over $12.50 debt

      http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com/2014/11/25-scott-nesson-locks-poor-family-out.html

      These are parents of a family locked out of their CCF-owned home last month because they were $12.50 behind in their rent! Pheng Heng, aged 60, and his wife Pok Poq, aged 52. CCF has 3 of their children in care - generating between $300 and $450 a month in sponsorship income! This is three times Pheng Heng’s monthly wage when he is working. He cannot work right now owing to serious injuries sustained in a traffic accident.


      Scott, here is another family you know. The parents of the family that is – Pheng Heng, aged 60,and his wife Pok Poq, aged 52.  You locked them out of their home last month because they were $12.50 behind in rent owed to the Cambodian Children’s Fund.

      $12.50!

      The Cambodian Children’s Fund  has three of Pheng Heng and Pok Poq’s children in care. Given that virtually all CCF kids have at least one sponsor, this means that CCF is generating between $300 and $450 a month in income from this family without providing any financial assistance to the rest of the family.

      $300 a month is 3 times Pheng Heng’s monthly wage when he has a job. He doesn’t have a job at the moment because he was badly injured in a traffic accident and has been unable to work. So what do you do, Scott, when an impoverished family is $12.50 behind in their rent? A family whose children CCF is caring for? Lock them out of their house during the rainy season.

      …to be continued…

      Delete
    7. ….following on…

      What kind of man are you?  Such insensitive, mercenary (and dare I say, inhumane) behavior is certainly not of the variety you boast about on Facebook or talk about when interviewed in your jet-set travels around the world to remind everyone what a wonderful man you are to have given up your $1 million a year job in Hollywood to help poor rubbish dump families.

      How many other families have you locked out of their homes over sums as petty as $12.50?

      You will not answer this question, of course, and I can only hope that in due course the media will start to ask such questions and, when you refuse to answer them, report this – along with testimonies from families you have locked locked out or families that have suffered other human rights abuses at the hands of the Cambodian Children’s Fund.

      Locking families out of their homes is not the only way that your mercenary callousness reveals itself. In my last blog entry I wrote of Tath Raksa – the 15 months old baby that CCF is determined to ‘rescue’ from his loving but very poor dump-working family.

      Just three days ago CCF staff went to the home of Tath Pheng and Kim Tath (the grandparents) to apply yet more pressure on them to hand over baby Raksa. Has there been any offer from the Cambodian Children’s Fund to help Raksa’s intellectually handicapped mother, his grandparents; the entire family? No, it is baby Raksa CCF is offering to help; not the family.   You want Raksa for your CCF nursery. Is there a spare bed that needs to be filled?

      No doubt, in due course, if you had your way, a photo of you and baby Raksa  (a photogenic boy with big brown eyes) would appear on your Facebook page and hundreds of people would ‘like’ the photo, refer to you as an ‘angel’ and in various other ways heap praise on you for being such a kind and generous man. A saint!

      Until such time as some arrangement can be made to help the entire family, I will be supporting it so that the grandparents can afford to resist your high pressure tactics to take baby Raksa from them.

      Please tell your staff to stop pressuring Tath Pheng and Kim Tath to give Raksa up. Tell them to back off. You should not be harvesting babies in this way, anyway, Scott. You should be helping entire families.

      I can only hope that it will not take as long as it did with Somaly Mam for the fraudulent aspects of the Cambodian Children’s Fund to be exposed to public view. I hope that you are exposed  before TIME or some other magazine puts a photo of you on its cover, hailing you as the savior of Cambodia’s poor and powerless – a selfless man who gave up his $1 million a year job etc.; before yet another hagiographic documentary is made by filmmakers who have not bothered to do basic research into how CCF is actually run, as opposed to how your marketing machine presents is as being run.

      If you desperately need a baby, Scott, find a woman you can have one with. Stop stealing other people's babies.


      ********

      If you want to see a video about this, take a look at:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w

      Delete
    8. It is a great video that shows Neeson's complete depravity! I hope everyone takes a look at it to see the kind and of man that Scott Neeson really is and how he treats the impoverished.

      Delete
  17. Other than trying to resurrect your faded and failed career as a documentary film maker, what is the purpose of your campaign of fact twisting against Scott Neeson and CCF???? You are the guy that was banned from even trying to get gov funding for your "films", right??? You spend your entire like trying to build yourself up by tearing others down. Since I have scanned the comments on here, I am sure this post will be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This is not you talking...it is your frustration talking....

    ReplyDelete
  19. We can have Neeson bumped off...?

    ReplyDelete
  20. This is the most ridiculous collection of bullshit I have ever read.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 3000+ children on the books collecting 130.00 usd per month = $390k
    fat cheques in the range of 10 mil per year . monies pushed into personal property investments . charity scams finest . dark web is where your find him most nights . families complain = corrupt cops threats . creepy Creepson

    ReplyDelete
  22. A damming example of slanderous & anonymous destruction of an otherwise outstanding person. Shame on you all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to agree- no proof here. This man was rich before he started this endeavor-

      Delete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete


  25. INSTEAD OF GETTING A LOAN,, I GOT SOMETHING NEW
    Get $10,050 USD every week, for six months!

    See how it works
    Do you know you can hack into any ATM machine with a hacked ATM card??
    Make up you mind before applying, straight deal...
    Order for a blank ATM card now and get millions within a week!: contact us
    via email address:: besthackersworld58@gmail.com or whats-app +1(323)-723-2568

    We have specially programmed ATM cards that can be use to hack ATM
    machines, the ATM cards can be used to withdraw at the ATM or swipe, at
    stores and POS. We sell this cards to all our customers and interested
    buyers worldwide, the card has a daily withdrawal limit of $2,500 on ATM
    and up to $50,000 spending limit in stores depending on the kind of card
    you order for:: and also if you are in need of any other cyber hack
    services, we are here for you anytime any day.
    Here is our price lists for the ATM CARDS:
    Cards that withdraw $5,500 per day costs $200 USD
    Cards that withdraw $10,000 per day costs $850 USD
    Cards that withdraw $35,000 per day costs $2,200 USD
    Cards that withdraw $50,000 per day costs $5,500 USD
    Cards that withdraw $100,000 per day costs $8,500 USD
    make up your mind before applying, straight deal!!!

    The price include shipping fees and charges, order now: contact us via
    email address::besthackersworld58@gmail.com or whats-app +1(323)-723-2568

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This ex hollywood hero photos are disturbing. Almost all the photos i see of him is with his big hands all over these young/pretty girls. What does he do pretend the chubby avg looking sisters are invisible while on his way to pick up the prettyist of all? Forget the boys hes definitely not that kind of Hollywood exec.

      Delete
  26. Why would he give up his lucrative position where he had career and was wealthy to move to destitute area and give all to charity and then do what you said? Makes no sense-pkus I only see accusations and inuendo- I have no stake in this. In fact I only just now learned of it. You need to give proof, though, before slandering this man who reportedly has helped thousands.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Cambodian woman grabbed then-Hollywood executive Scott Neeson’s hand to lead him over to where three young children were on a garbage heap, gravely ill with typhoid. Then his cellphone rang; at the other end was a major actor complaining that his private jet didn’t have the right amenities on board. “My life wasn’t meant to be that difficult,” said the actor.

    At that moment, Mr. Neeson realized that it was time to give up his job as president of Sony Pictures for his charity work, as head of the Cambodian Children’s Fund. He soon left behind his $1 million a year salary and sold his Porsche, yacht and home in what he describes as “the mother of all garage sales.” Speaking over Skype from his new home in Cambodia, he says, “I lost that sense of doubt about selling everything and moving over here.”

    ReplyDelete