On July 1, 2005, I decided to add this page concerning incidents that have happened since May 1, 2005, when I started this site. However, after reflection, I decided to begin this page from July 2004. In this way, I can fill in the current happenings with what has transpired before without crossing the time line very much. Of course, I will be referring to past events from time to time, especially if they have not been covered yet. However, when they get properly placed into the web site in order, then I will have to revise this page to eliminate duplication. But that's my problem, isn't it?

On July 19, 2004, my wife and I filed a complaint for the deportation of Shay Cullen from the Philippines through the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), attaching what we could about his past troubles, such as previous deportation complaints, complaints filed through prosecutors, and complaints that even reached court, dismissed or withdrawn after the filing. Accordingly, Shay Cullen was notified to respond, but the complainants were never given any access to the response he made, or even if he did not make a response.

In other words, he was maybe informed, maybe not. Because we never received any notice for him to file his rebuttal, we have no way of knowing. But the plot gets even thicker here:

On January 19, 2005, I and my wife read on his web page dated January 8, 2005 that "local officials" had filed a complaint for his deportation. Wow! Now we are somehow part of the local government! More so, he identified further in the second sentence that "A fact is that some relatives of the leading politicians are on trial for child sex abuse as a result of Fr. Cullen ..." Now, I may be wrong, but I am unaware of ANY leading politician's relatives are on trial, but I DO KNOW that my legally adopted son and the son of my house maid were accused by Shay Cullen and his employees back in the year 2000 and the case was finally ordered to court. Interestingly enough, since that time, the only thing that was done was to change the venue, and that is all. No arraignment, no subpoenas submitted, to activity AT ALL for what, five years? Yet Shay Cullen crow on the web page how they have filed charges and that they will be convicted!

Does the reader question the lack of enthusiasm to push through with the case? I don't, for one very simple reason: My daughter will have to be placed on the stand as the accusing witness, and guess who she'll point to as the rapist? He does not want to face that, so the case sits stagnant.

Unfortunately for him, that was not the extent of the claims: First and foremost, it was entitled "Campaign To Save PREDA's Children's Home." Does that mean to the reader that Shay Cullen IS the "Children's Home"?

On January 19, my wife and I signed a letter to the BID to question this web page, and provided a printout of it, stating the following facts:

1. Shay Cullen has consistently called me a member of the Olongapo Sex Mafia (I ask any independent researcher to try to find this bad organization, identify the members, file charges against them and get them into jail). I also quoted his accusation of "local politicians" and its relationship to my family.

2. Shay Cullen mentioned that a building permit was denied for his reconstruction after the Mt. Pinatubo volcano erupted in 1991. This clearly dates the request to 1991 or 1992, yet made in such a manner that the reader would think that the request was recently denied. Worse, he stated that the National Government (branch unnamed, of course) overruled the local City Engineer, and the building was constructed. Well, if the building was constructed over the objection of the local government office, WHY DOES HE CLAIM TO NEED TO "SAVE" PREDA'S CHILDREN'S HOME?

3. He also mentioned, without proof given that illegal surveillance was being done against Preda. Perhaps he may be paranoid? What does the reader think?

4. Now, this next item, I loved. I mean, I will quote word for word what he said, make my observation, then it is up to the reader to decide if my observation is on the mark or not:

"The local authorities illegally arrested and threatened three Preda children. The children were psychologically traumatized when threatened and brought to the police station beside the City Hall.

"The police and local government people would not release them to our social workers and it was only when we confused the arresting people so that the children could run to our vehicle that they were able to get out of the police station. They went after us but we sped away."

I ask the reader: Is the above not obstruction of justice? Did Shay Cullen actively take part in the illegal escape of detainees? Is this not a slap on the face of local officials by a foreigner?

5. After all the above, he made a rehash of an event of several years ago. At this event, he climbed up on a power pole, constructed a pulpit with curtains that he would open when the news media showed up (curtains clearly visible in the picture he provided). Now, I don't know about the reader, but a foreigner interfering with a public improvement project which was clearly obstructing its completion is not something that the government should condone, and SHOULD lead to his deportation, especially with his self-confessed obstruction of the arrest or detention of anyone, minor or adult. There certainly are legal ways to handle your concerns for others.

6. He next claims that the Asia Bank and World Bank refuse to take moral responsibility for the construction of this infrastructure project. Why should they? His baseless accusations of corruption such as this against the government of the country where he is residing as a foreigner should have long ago gotten him deported, but this has never been done despite so many complaints against him. Why?

7. And lastly, Shay Cullen implied that the European Parliament's Statement was for support of the above, but if you read the statement carefully, it was confined to welcoming his war against child prostitution. It had absolutely nothing to say in support for the above statements!

LINK HERE

In response to our letter to the BID, the BID sent a letter to Shay Cullen at Preda Foundation, Upper Kalaklan, Olongapo City, on February 14, 2005 URGING him to respond, but did not set any time limit. Whether he responded or not, I have no way of knowing, because nothing was ever received from Shay Cullen by me.

Again, On March 11, 2005, Shay Cullen published another web page entitled "PREDA Daily Journal of Activities for January 2004. Now, I believe that the date is a typographical error; otherwise, it would seem that it takes him a year to make up new information. Be that as it may, my wife and I wrote again to the BID with the following observations:

Shay Cullen publishes internal government memorandum for the City Director, ACPO to Camp Olivas along with an excerpt from Republic Act 7610, specifically referring to Sections 22 and 23 regarding privacy and publicity, which clearly shows that he is well aware of his illegal activities, and for which he is on trial for in Branch 73, Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City for just such publications (Court Case #327-2000). On pages 2 and 3 of the 5-page printed out web page, he clearly called the government of the Philippine "corrupt" and even included a link in German, making it a multinational smear against the government.

We then pointed out our previous letter of January, where he seems to admit that he obstructed justice, among other things.

We also mentioned the petitions filed for his deportation in 1988, 1989, 1996, 1997 and other filings by Filipinos, public officials and even a petition by the police force of Olongapo City.

We even brought up the question as to why Shay Cullen's immigration folder had no derogatory information in it in 2004, the lack of any response from him to us, and even questioned his right to change his organization from helping drug addicts to rape victims, especially children. We even asked plainly, "Were the children at one time locked away with drug/alcohol abusers?"

In response to this latest of our letters, we received a CC: that was sent to Shay Cullen at this address: 21st - 23rd St., Nazareth, Cagayan de Oro for him to respond to (basically the same letter that was sent February 14, 2005 by the BID to his correct address).

When my wife and I received this latest "urging" of a reply by the BID, we fired off a letter to the BID stating that we were very aware of the underhanded tactics that Shay Cullen has used against me and my children, among others, but we were not of the same character as he. We made sure that a copy of this letter and the request for his response was sent to his correct address.

Perhaps the BID is attempting to get rid of him through deportation, but it should be done quickly and legally without misdirected mail, whether on purpose or not. Does the reader agree?

July 22, 2005 – Harmut “Harry” Joost (pronounced “Yoost”) called me and informed me that Shay Cullen had convinced the German to revoke his passport, making Harry eligible for immediate deportation.

Now, as I understand the situation, Shay Cullen has been trying to get Harry deported for many years, and has used many underhanded tricks, such as filing a complaint with the BID without telling the recipient, and somehow convincing the authorities not to notify the recipient as well. I have been a victim of this tactic, as the only thing I have to show for it is a resolution dismissing the case against me (this is explained elsewhere). I have never received a copy of the complaint, even though I asked for it in writing to the BID, and although the complaint against me was dismissed, I was never given a chance to defend myself.

I do not know the details at all, but according to Harry, Shay Cullen filed a case against him in Germany for a crime he supposedly committed in Germany while he was here. I have no idea if this is true or not, but considering the past complaints of Shay Cullen and the underhanded way that he has in the past filed complaints against people who cross him, I have no doubt in my mind that Shay Cullen lied to the German authorities to get this man's passport revoked.

Now Harry will have to leave his home, his wife, his restaurant, as well as the many people that are depending upon him to fight for justice for them. He also recently started up a small tourism office in Barretto with not only the blessing of the local officials, but with their help, because he voluntarily accepted the task of being a liaison between foreigners and Filipinos whenever there is a dispute in order to maintain peace. He has never been paid for that task, yet he always did it. To my knowledge, there is not one other foreigner who would take on such a responsibility without pay.

Fair? You decide. But it sure seems a shame that this Irish priest, backed by the Catholic Church and some officials in the Philippines, can act so maliciously without some form of censure.

July 24, 2005 – I went on to the Preda website again today. Lo and behold, would you believe that when I read the April-May Preda Newsletter, I just had to comment upon it. But before I do, let me tell you what else I saw:

As you know, my wife and I wrote to the BID concerning the newsletters of Shay Cullen for January through March. Well, when I went to look at the archives of said newsletters, the last one posted is DECEMBER 2004! Inasmuch as you cannot go to the Preda web site to view these newsletters, and I DID copy them to send to the BID (copy also to the President of the Philippines, the CID at Camp Crame, and to the Love and Human Rights Forum in Japan), I will shortly put up those documents for your viewing. I may have to do it piecemeal because of the restrictions on picture sizes on this web site, but the overall document will be displayed in page format so that you can get an overall view of the web page as it was first viewed.

Shay Cullen occasionally changes the look and feel of his web site. Naturally, he wants a more professional look, and I cannot blame him for that. Keeping that in mind, some of the older web pages that I have will look a lot different when they are displayed, but the general theme will soon become clear as the reader begins to read his rhetoric. I state this because he will surely deny that what I have presented was his work. Normal. He doesn’t seem to accept the error of his ways, and keeps on at a frantic pace to make himself look better. No problem there, is there?

The first thing that I notice is that now he is importing busloads of children, to quote, “. . . two busloads of laughing, shouting and squealing Preda children. One is filled with most of the 47 young boisterous boys, . . “ and “. . . the second bus arrives with thirty-seven girls.”.

He often commented in his affidavits that he had twenty children (later raised to forty five) with a staff of twenty staffers. I noted that all his children at the time were female when my daughter was there, and many of his older photographs taken by reporters uphold this observation. Again, I question the fact that Preda originally stood for “Prevent, Rehabilitate Drug Abusers”, yet now seems to have no connection with that ideal at all.

Further, considering that he has SEXUALLY abused children housed in an open bay military type environment, and I have seen no permits posted for the construction of new quarters (nor any actual construction), where is he keeping the new male wards, many by his own admission sexual abusers and taken from jails? In with the sexually abused children? (PLACE LINK HERE TO PHOTOS OF PREDA CHILDREN'S QUARTERS INTERIOR) (LINK TO PICTURES OF PREDA CHILDREN, CIRCA LATE 1990s)

Does the reader note that he condemns the abusers, stating that he knows the family, the circumstances, etc., yet does not file any case; only files an inflammatory description of the abuse. Look at the documents that I am putting on this site – He and his staff KNOW how to file cases.

Besides, even though he KNOWS it is illegal to publish cases of child sexual abuse (he’s on trial in Branch 73 on Court Case 329-2000 for just that event with regards to my daughter), he not only continues, but expands his rhetoric. My wife and I’ll be letting the BID know about that in a few days. I doubt that that will get the pages pulled or cleaned up any. I believe he is too stubborn about the hype he puts out.

After all, in the very fourth paragraph of his April-May newsletter, he states he knows that the family is aware of the abuse, the police and authorities are aware of the abuse and even support payoff attempts to the family. If he has this much information, it SHOULD NOT BE PUBLICIZED UNTIL AFTER ALL THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED ARE CHARGED IN FRONT OF A PROSECUTOR! Even then, the law clearly states in Article III of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases (and I quote):

“SEC. 23. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS – All records pertaining to cases of sexual shall be strictly confidential and no information relating thereto shall be disclosed except in connection with any court or official proceeding based thereon.

The unauthorized disclosure of the aforementioned records shall be punishable by a fine of not more than two thousand four hundred pesos (P 2,400) or by imprisonment of not more than one (1) year or such fine and imprisonment.”

Now, Shay Cullen has his version of Republic Act 7610, but the way he has it is very incomplete. After the 17^th page of the small pamphlet (where his input stopped), starting on page 18 is ‘RULES AND REGULATIONS ON CHILDREN IS SITUATIONS OF ARMED CONFLICT’. Then starting on page 25 is the ‘RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THE REPORTING AND INVESTIGATION OF CHILD ABUSE CASES’. Section 23 as quoted above is taken from pages 29 and 30. Starting on page 31 is ‘RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THE TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN’, and starting on page 36 is ‘RULES AND REGULATIONS ON CHILDREN OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES’.

As I see it, and the reader may certainly disagree with me, is Shay Cullen only wants to show the purpose of Republic Act 7610, but not the rules and regulations as spelled out by that act because it would clearly show him to be acting quite illegally. As I said, “That’s the way I see it.”

Now, to continue with the analysis of the April-May 2005 newsletter: Does the reader really believe that a mother would accuse her daughter of seducing her father? Think about that for a minute. Most mothers turn on their husbands when their offspring is threatened, don’t they? It certainly is grounds for (in most countries) divorce at the very least. In the Philippines, the best the poor woman could do would be to gather her daughter and separate from her husband, and that is done a lot in this country, let’s face it. No woman, as a general rule, wants to live with an unfaithful husband, no matter who he was unfaithful with, right? Yet Shay Cullen bandies this on the Internet as a common occurrence.

Note that Shay Cullen boldly mentions the girl’s name, falsified or not, but never mentions the abuser’s name, nor the court case supposedly filed, where it was filed, or any other pertinent information, should anyone actually want to check up on the case. According to the law, he’s already violated the law by giving out the particulars of the case, right (see above)?

Shay Cullen then asks “What should we do? Your comments are welcome.” Does this mean that this pedophile-hunting priest has no idea on how to proceed? Does the reader get the feeling that (and I admit I may be reading more into this question than there actually is, BUT…) this is a gentle feeler for getting more donations?

Next, it seems that Merlita has a name, but her mother does not, nor does the man. The claim is by Shay Cullen that she was “… sold into a sex bar for six months …”

Now think about this: Is every bar a “sex bar”? If it is a “bar” then they most likely sell drinks and have dancers, waitresses, bartenders and other hired help, and not every customer would be in solely to get sex. If she was “sold” to such a bar, what are the chances that this child would want to return to such an abusive mother? Children are pretty cagey, and most can escape from a light custody that would be in a bar. All she’d have to do is allow one customer to take her out for the night, and take the first chance she got to get away.

Going a little farther into his story, obviously the mother came to Preda and cooperated to have her daughter returned to her. Does this sound reasonable? PREDA is well known to be a place that investigates child abuse cases; just look at all the advertising for Preda around the home!!!!

The mother had the girl’s cell phone number. Whoa! The CHILD HAD A CELL PHONE? I thought the mother was very poor, and the girl was in sex slavery. The term slavery (and she was “sold” into a sex bar like property, according to Shay Cullen) indicates that she probably did not have any money, so where was she able to get a cell phone, and how did the mother know the number?

Now, two paragraphs after Shay Culler reports that the mother acknowledged her involvement, Preda now is entitled “Preda Home for Girls”. Well, if this is true, why is Shay Cullen stating that he now has 47 BOYS there?

Note that further down is a section entitled “Children recovering from wrongful imprisonment”. In this section, Shay Cullen claims that he is getting cases dismissed, having the complainant withdraw the charge and getting the judge to release the child. Why then has Shay Cullen and Preda, who filed charges against my adopted son, never withdrawn their own case? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical? After all, they are not pursuing the case, so why not have it withdrawn? No, Shay Cullen could not do that: It might be the correct thing to do!

In the section entitled “Legal cases against children dismissed”, there is an admitting that the cases proceed at a snail’s pace. For example, Shay Cullen has been on trial since July 1998 for grave oral defamation, yet to date he has yet to present any defense, and the prosecution quite often does not show up. Funny thing, though: Neither does he many times. Coincidence?

In the paragraph (same section) after the picture of the staff working with kids in jail, Shay Cullen says that “There are no guards, gates or punishments and so none escapes.” Apparently, then, the pictures taken by the news people who took pictures of the gates and padlocks at Preda were either mistaken, or the gates and padlocks were removed and the guards fired. Does the reader REALLY believe everything that Shay Cullen says?

Following this, he claims that an expose’ was done at the Subic Freeport. Ok, again, Shay Cullen, a foreigner guest in the Philippines denigrates the government of the Philippines, saying that visitors were “. . . disgusted by the inhuman conditions in the jails and were encouraged to protest the abuses . . .“ which clearly states that Shay Cullen continues to denigrate the government despite the many protests for his deportation.

In his next section entitled “Preventive education, CASA-GALs” he reiterates my point made above about the child sold to a “sex bar” in that “All parties make money except the child who is thrown aside.” Again, is his statement about the cell phone of the girl valid, based on this statement IN THE SAME NEWSLETTER?

In his section called “Media Advocacy” he mentions the many times that Pia Corvera was on television and other media coverage. The point here is that it is a good possibility that she was brainwashed as a child, which is in actual fact a form of child abuse, not to mention a violation of the law because she was reported by Shay Cullen as a victim of child abuse (see above quote of R.A. 7610).

And last but certainly not least, the final picture shows three persons dressed up in black capes and masks, showing their hands as if they were claws, yet the caption says “The kids from Preda carry placards and banners demanding an end to child detention.” Really? Does the reader see placards and banners that I don’t see?

In other words, I hope the reader can look at Shay Cullen’s newsletters with a bit more knowledge about what he does and does not say, and can pick apart as I do his misleading statements.

October 3, 2005 – Harry Joost called me and informed me that he had been arrested by Immigration agents who told him that he had a warrant outstanding in Germany for a kidnapping done in 1994.

Now this is very interesting, in that I have in my possession a Resolution issued by Immigration regarding a previous complaint against Harry that was ultimately dismissed. In this Resolution, it is clearly stated that no record of travel existed of Harry traveling at any time from 1993 until 2000. It further stated that he had no records in Immigration, yet when the agents came to get him in 2001, he had a valid passport and visa, so the arrest fell through, because his documents were in order.

Now, to further add some spice to the story, guess who shows up at the Immigration detention on Friday? Yes, Shay Cullen was there, and was attempting to take pictures of Harry. Why? There should be no connection to a kidnapping and robbery that Shay Cullen would be interested in - after all, he purports to be handling cases of child abuse, prostitution, etc., not robbery and kidnapping, right?

Well, obviously, he has more interests than protecting the innocent, as he claims. He also seems to be closely allied with the case of Harry's in Germany.

As an example of this meddling, look at his web page at preda.org. Select the NEWS link, and note the 06 October 2005 link. It does NOT say that a German linked to kidnapping and robbery was arrested; instead it says a German linked to CHILD SEX TRADE has been arrested. When you open the page, you will find that Shay Cullen knows more about the case than even the respondent, Harmut Joost. How did he get this information?

According to Harry Joost, Shay Cullen is the one behind the false charges lodged against him.

A couple of points here: Shay Cullen is not adverse to naming names, as can be found throughout his web site, yet there is NOT ONE mention of the names of the "two accomplices." Why? If either of them read the paper, listened to the news, etc., they would immediately know that they had to run and hide. In almost every case, ALL suspects are named in the news, because they could more quickly be tracked down with public information. Why are names not being released to the press? Do these people really exist? Maybe I am one of the unnamed accoplices, despite the fact that I am not German and had not met Mr. Joost until February 1998.

Another point of interest here is the obvious lies about the "Mr. Pumpernickel's Restaurant." Review again the pictures of said restaurant: There is no advertisement at all for anything alcolhol or entertainment, and although the web page of Shay Cullen refers to such things as a rundown place with private cubicles (see actual text). Please review the pictures of the establishment: Do you find any evidence of cubicles he mentions? Does it look run down? Is it even a bar that would be attractive to criminal elements, considering all the windows lining the establishment giving anyone an easy look at the goings on within?

No. Shay Cullen lies again.

October 19, 2005 – I received a letter from the Love and Human Rights Forum of Japan with an attached letter written by Shay Cullen and signed by the Preda staff. This resulted in my preparing and filing a case for libel. To view the facts of this case, see "LIBEL (2005-1961)" link.