The 'gamekeeper' is a poacher.
On 4/4/25 The Council of Reference(CoR) for Lanka Evangelical Fellowship(LEF) posted a 'Definitive Public Response' (hereafter 'DPR') to a series of serious allegations of criminal misconduct in Sri Lanka.
In Appendix 2, the report refers to a 'bogus letter'.
The DPR is both incomplete and disingenuous. As the brethren both knew in July 2023, and could easily have checked.
The extended email exchange in July 2023, and then other evidence of duplicity to sympathetic investigators, is printed below.
Here is my own post: (with no subtractions, as archived copies confirm)
5/6/23 Evidence Jeyakanth clearly did support appeals against the Thambalagamam splinter church building, despite reported denials. Previous signatures compared.
Translation in English.
Translation in Tamil.
Here is the letter:
Careful readers of the DPR, which I'll happily provide to enquirers, will note that the 8 points indicating to the CoR that the letter is bogus are reproduced, and taken from an email from a CoR figure, in July 23.
However before this exchange, the same representative, indicated that the genuineness of this email was an important test of JK's integrity.
17/6/2023
"If the letter you have published proves genuine, then I would agree that he [JK] is guilty of unchristian conduct in this matter, but I am sure you as well as myself would wish to be sure, it is genuine."
"If the letter you have published proves genuine, then I would agree that he [JK] is guilty of unchristian conduct in this matter, but I am sure you as well as myself would wish to be sure, it is genuine."
What the author actually meant to write, if the letter was true, is that JK not only was campaigning against another church's appeal to remain open to unsympathetic Government departments, but also deceived him about not doing so.
The Government Agent's Office, has confirmed receipt of this letter, and any independent party can confirm this.
This does not definitively prove that JK wrote it.
It could be that the Church appealed against its own existence, in order to frame JK.
It could be that another enemy of JK was so desperate to embarrass him, that they were willing to simulate this appeal against a fellow Christian church.
Who could that be?
We know JK and the DPR loves to paint Muralee as devilish, but he maintains close and warm relations with TEC and their elders.
Does the CoR really imagine he is the author of this genuine letter?
On close inspection the 8 points, don't look so solid after all. In fact the signature objection is downright spurious, as this brother knew, in July 2023.
Many may be accounted for by letter headed paper being sent to a translator for an official appeal and returned for signing and despatching, after photocopying.
Who prepared these 8 objections for CoR?
If Jeyakanth is so sure his letter is a fraud, he might wish to inform the Government Agent that the appeal in his name, which they received, is bogus, but he won't find them quite so credulous as Western churchmen.
The waters in Sri Lanka are indeed 'murky, but only one disputant here has a long track record of bribery and document fraud, according to his own associates.
The detailed exchange is below.
25/7/23 09:14
Dear [brother at CoR & 4 others],
Thanks for your candid reply.
Do you think the Government's Agent's Office is naive or corrupt? Even Jeyakanth acknowledges the stamp is genuine, otherwise he wouldn't use it to dispute the date.
If the date stamp is fraudulent, why would a fraudster concoct a date when he knows Jeyakanth is not in the country, since his movements are well known?
If you want to check, without notifying Jeyakanth, go yourself or via some independent party to the GA's office to enquire. They will certify receipt of the letter. Don't rely on a practised fraudster as your source, it ill befits you.
If Jeyakanth Selvarajah himself tries again to corrupt the officials there, he can expect a warm reception from the anti-bribery authorities, where his burgeoning reputation has proceeded [preceded] him.
Best wishes,
Charles
24/7/2023 1538
RE: Bogus Letter
Dear Charles,
Further to the incriminating letter which you recently posted on your website and which you kindly gave me further details last month. Having examined it closely and made enquiries in Sri Lanka we are satisfied that this letter is bogus. The internal evidence alone indicates that to be the case. Jeyakanth states that whilst the letter does bear his signature, he has no recollection of signing it and like us believes his signature was scanned in to a fabricated document. I imagine you will retain confidence in your sources and dismiss this suggestion, but please review carefully the comments below and reflect on whether you can with complete confidence post this on your website bearing in mind that if it is bogus you will be party to a very unfortunate and unkind slur on the reputation of a minister of the gospel. Perhaps if you wish to retain the letter on your website you should at least append the comments below adding words to the effect of ‘Those who retain confidence in Pastor Jeyakanth believe this letter is bogus and do so for the following reasons’ : -
1. The original is in Singhalese. Jeyakanth can speak this language reasonably well but can neither read or write it to any great degree. In fact he has sent the letter to a translator as he is not completely sure what the original says. He writes official letters in English or Tamil, not in Singhalese. His office staff likewise do not read or write in the language although Fernando can speak it quite well like Jeyakanth.
2. Point (3) in the letter states that Jeyakanth was objecting to the new building because ‘there were not many Christians in that place’. Jeyakanth would not make such a statement regarding the neighbourhood of his own church, GFC. The new church building is only a stone’s throw from GFC which has had congregations of 250+ for many years. This is simply not something Jeyakanth would state or infer.
3. There is no date on the letter, other than the government stamp. This is unusual and not Jeyakanth’s normal practise.
4. Jeyakanth usually signs his official correspondence with his title, i.e Rev Pastor etc. He would be unlikely to simply sign as ‘Jeyakanth’ to a public official, just as you would not sign off an official letter as ‘Charles’.
5. The letter was stamped as received 4.1.23. Jeyakanth was in the UK at the time.
6. The official GFC letterhead is normally in colour. Either this letter is a black and white scan of an original or [more likely] the letterhead was scanned from another document.
7. ‘yours faithfully’ is not Jeyakanth’s usual way of signing off a letter.
8. There is a feint line across the page running adjacent to the top of the signature. The paper look below is more mottled than the appearance above this line which also suggests the signature part has come from elsewhere. Also the top of the ‘J’ in the signature looks as if it may have been cropped off as it is exactly the same height as the other end of the signature.
I grant that none of the above points on their own provide conclusive proof of the bogus nature of this letter, but taken together they do present a strong indication of its dubious nature. Our enquiries in Sri Lanka lead in the same direction, and although I am not in a position to give you a name for the fabricator, we have a fair idea of the source. You do need to realise that both within and outside government departments there are numerous individuals only too ready to use whatever means they can to stifle Christian ministry, whoever the particular church leader happens to be. Jeyakanth can testify that there are those in various government departments who would like an excuse to interfere with the new church work in Thampalagamam [run by Jeyakanth’s former co workers] and have urged him to provide written objections which they can then act on. It seems likely that one over zealous scribe has taken matters into his own hands, although I am sure you will remain unconvinced.
Sincerely in our Lord
{The square brackets in the text are original, so I unusually used {} to denote my own comment.}
Dear [brother at CoR & 4 others],
Thanks for your candid reply.
Do you think the Government's Agent's Office is naive or corrupt? Even Jeyakanth acknowledges the stamp is genuine, otherwise he wouldn't use it to dispute the date.
If the date stamp is fraudulent, why would a fraudster concoct a date when he knows Jeyakanth is not in the country, since his movements are well known?
If you want to check, without notifying Jeyakanth, go yourself or via some independent party to the GA's office to enquire. They will certify receipt of the letter. Don't rely on a practised fraudster as your source, it ill befits you.
If Jeyakanth Selvarajah himself tries again to corrupt the officials there, he can expect a warm reception from the anti-bribery authorities, where his burgeoning reputation has proceeded [preceded] him.
Best wishes,
Charles
24/7/2023 1538
RE: Bogus Letter
Dear Charles,
Further to the incriminating letter which you recently posted on your website and which you kindly gave me further details last month. Having examined it closely and made enquiries in Sri Lanka we are satisfied that this letter is bogus. The internal evidence alone indicates that to be the case. Jeyakanth states that whilst the letter does bear his signature, he has no recollection of signing it and like us believes his signature was scanned in to a fabricated document. I imagine you will retain confidence in your sources and dismiss this suggestion, but please review carefully the comments below and reflect on whether you can with complete confidence post this on your website bearing in mind that if it is bogus you will be party to a very unfortunate and unkind slur on the reputation of a minister of the gospel. Perhaps if you wish to retain the letter on your website you should at least append the comments below adding words to the effect of ‘Those who retain confidence in Pastor Jeyakanth believe this letter is bogus and do so for the following reasons’ : -
1. The original is in Singhalese. Jeyakanth can speak this language reasonably well but can neither read or write it to any great degree. In fact he has sent the letter to a translator as he is not completely sure what the original says. He writes official letters in English or Tamil, not in Singhalese. His office staff likewise do not read or write in the language although Fernando can speak it quite well like Jeyakanth.
2. Point (3) in the letter states that Jeyakanth was objecting to the new building because ‘there were not many Christians in that place’. Jeyakanth would not make such a statement regarding the neighbourhood of his own church, GFC. The new church building is only a stone’s throw from GFC which has had congregations of 250+ for many years. This is simply not something Jeyakanth would state or infer.
3. There is no date on the letter, other than the government stamp. This is unusual and not Jeyakanth’s normal practise.
4. Jeyakanth usually signs his official correspondence with his title, i.e Rev Pastor etc. He would be unlikely to simply sign as ‘Jeyakanth’ to a public official, just as you would not sign off an official letter as ‘Charles’.
5. The letter was stamped as received 4.1.23. Jeyakanth was in the UK at the time.
6. The official GFC letterhead is normally in colour. Either this letter is a black and white scan of an original or [more likely] the letterhead was scanned from another document.
7. ‘yours faithfully’ is not Jeyakanth’s usual way of signing off a letter.
8. There is a feint line across the page running adjacent to the top of the signature. The paper look below is more mottled than the appearance above this line which also suggests the signature part has come from elsewhere. Also the top of the ‘J’ in the signature looks as if it may have been cropped off as it is exactly the same height as the other end of the signature.
I grant that none of the above points on their own provide conclusive proof of the bogus nature of this letter, but taken together they do present a strong indication of its dubious nature. Our enquiries in Sri Lanka lead in the same direction, and although I am not in a position to give you a name for the fabricator, we have a fair idea of the source. You do need to realise that both within and outside government departments there are numerous individuals only too ready to use whatever means they can to stifle Christian ministry, whoever the particular church leader happens to be. Jeyakanth can testify that there are those in various government departments who would like an excuse to interfere with the new church work in Thampalagamam [run by Jeyakanth’s former co workers] and have urged him to provide written objections which they can then act on. It seems likely that one over zealous scribe has taken matters into his own hands, although I am sure you will remain unconvinced.
Sincerely in our Lord
{The square brackets in the text are original, so I unusually used {} to denote my own comment.}
Three faces to the same chameleon?
The Thampalagamam brethren strongly contest JK's construction of the legal situation, so would many others, including judges, I suspect. (Note the date of this appeal was reactive, not proactive, and a month after "JK's" letter, despite his claims.)
The Government Agent for Trincomalee, alert to further attempts at bribery, has only received one letter from JK on this subject, during this period. This may be confirmed at the office by any independent investigator, as the brethren at CoR know well.
Go figure.
An archive of files pertaining to LEFC.
The Cooke-Mullins Report.
LEF's Definitive Public Response - an introductory reply.
Section 5 - a series of child rapes at 6MP, by JK's employees, covered up by JK and LEF, till now.
Appendix 2. Thambalagamam. The 'gamekeeper' is a poacher, a 'fraudulent' letter has been authenticated by the Sri Lankan Government Agent.
Section 8.6, p.87 - The unanswered questions about an early house purchase in Mitcham, which was first denied.
Section 8.12, p.94 The 6 pastors' letter of complaint about JK's immorality and extortion - specific questions about land registration.
Home
The Cooke-Mullins Report.
LEF's Definitive Public Response - an introductory reply.
Section 5 - a series of child rapes at 6MP, by JK's employees, covered up by JK and LEF, till now.
Appendix 2. Thambalagamam. The 'gamekeeper' is a poacher, a 'fraudulent' letter has been authenticated by the Sri Lankan Government Agent.
Section 8.6, p.87 - The unanswered questions about an early house purchase in Mitcham, which was first denied.
Section 8.12, p.94 The 6 pastors' letter of complaint about JK's immorality and extortion - specific questions about land registration.
Home