Showing posts sorted by relevance for query strongsville. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query strongsville. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Strongsville international adoption agency raided by FBI

Next up, the U.S. Child Placing Agencies.


Strongsville – The FBI has confirmed to Channel 3 News that they executed a raid on a Strongsville international adoption agency Tuesday morning.

Back in December the U.S. Department of State debarred European Adoption Consultants (EAC) from continued operation citing “a pattern of serious, willful, or grossly negligent failure to comply” with standards for international adoption.

On Tuesday the FBI raided their offices and the home of its founder – but they wouldn’t elaborate on the nature of the raid other than to say they were “executing a warrant.”

Among the allegations by the state department, the EAC "…failed to adequately supervise…preventing the sale, abduction, exploitation, or trafficking of children."

And that they failed safety procedures that prevent "…solicitation of bribes; Fraudulently obtaining birth parent consent…" to get the children here.

The organization posted on their website in December: “Despite the fact that we disagree with many, if not most, of the statement and are considering the option of appeal, we still have to make a plan of transfer of all cases by the end of this month.”

The organization can no longer transact any adoptions, which, they indicate left several families in limbo.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/cuyahoga-county/strongsville-international-adoption-agency-raided-by-fbi/408463967

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Monday, August 17, 2020

DOJ Takes Down International Trafficking Tiny Humans Adoption Operation In Strongsville, Ohio

Strongsville seems to be the focus, de jour.

I wonder what Lisa Page has to say since Russia banned the U.S. from international adoptions.

I should twat her.

The same thing goes on in the United States, except it is much more gruesome because no one cares about the horrors of Child Protective Services, Foster Care & Adoption, the oldest form of survival.


Three Individuals Charged with Arranging Adoptions from Uganda and Poland Through Bribery and Fraud

Three women were charged in a 13-count indictment filed on Aug. 14 in the Northern District of Ohio for their alleged roles in schemes to corruptly and fraudulently procure adoptions of Ugandan and Polish children through bribing Ugandan officials and defrauding U.S. adoptive parents, U.S. authorities, and a Polish regulatory authority.
Margaret Cole, 73, of Strongsville, Ohio, Debra Parris, 68, of Lake Dallas, Texas, and Dorah Mirembe, 41, of Kampala, Uganda, were charged in the indictment.  In relation to the Uganda scheme, Parris and Mirembe were each charged with one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and commit visa fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, three substantive FCPA counts and three substantive counts of money laundering.  Parris was also charged with one count of mail fraud.  In relation to the Poland scheme, Parris and Cole were each charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States.  Cole was further charged with one count of making a false statement to a U.S. accrediting entity and one count of making a false statement to a Polish authority.
“The defendants allegedly resorted to bribery and fraud to engage in an international criminal adoption scheme that took children from their home countries in Uganda and Poland without properly determining whether they were actually orphaned.  The defendants sought to profit from their alleged criminal activity at the expense of families and  vulnerable children,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian C. Rabbitt of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.  “These charges clearly show that the Department of Justice is committed to protecting children worldwide, including those involved in the international adoption process.”
“These defendants are accused of orchestrating an alleged scheme that bribed Ugandan officials, defrauded the United States and manipulated parents inside and outside of the country,” said U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman of the Northern District of Ohio.  “As a result of this alleged conduct, prospective parents were deceived, hundreds of thousands of dollars were misused and innocent children were displaced from their homes.”
“These three defendants preyed on the emotions of parents, those wanting the best for their child, and those wishing to give what they thought was an orphaned child a family to love,” said Special Agent in Charge Eric B. Smith of the FBI’s Cleveland Field Office.  “These defendants allegedly lied to both sides of the adoption process, and bribed Ugandan officials who were responsible for the welfare of children.  Parents, prospective parents and children were emotionally vested and were heartbroken when they learned of the selfishness and greed in which these three engaged.  The FBI will never cease in its efforts to protect the innocent and unwitting from those who prey on that trust and confidence and we will vigorously pursue and hold those responsible accountable.”
With respect to the Uganda scheme, the indictment alleges that Parris and Mirembe, together with others, engaged in a scheme to pay bribes to Ugandan officials to corruptly procure the adoption of Ugandan children by families in the United States, including the adoption of children who were not properly determined to be orphaned and who had to be ultimately returned to their birth parents.
Specifically, Parris, Mirembe, and their co-conspirators allegedly (1) paid bribes to social welfare officers in exchange for them issuing welfare reports recommending that certain children be placed into orphanages without first ensuring that the children were actually orphaned or that putting them up for adoption was in the children’s best interest; (2) paid bribes to Ugandan magistrate judges to obtain court orders placing those children in an orphanage that was willing to accept the children without inquiring into whether they were actually orphans; (3) paid bribes to court registrars to cause the court registrars to assign the cases of these children to two corrupt “adoption-friendly” judges; and (4) paid bribes to the corrupt Ugandan judges to obtain orders to permit their clients to bring the children to the United States for adoption.
Parris, Mirembe, and others also allegedly lied to, and concealed material information from, adoptive parents, including lying about the bribe payments and whether the children were properly determined to be eligible for adoption, and concealing other material information about the children’s history.  The indictment also alleges that Parris, Mirembe, and others agreed to cause false documents to be submitted to the U.S. Department of State to hide the corrupt and fraudulent scheme and to mislead it in its adjudication of visa applications for the Ugandan children being considered for adoption.  The co-conspirators and the entities they worked for received more than $900,000 in connection with these adoptions.
With respect to the Poland scheme, the indictment alleges that after clients of their adoption agency determined they could not care for one of the two Polish children they were set to adopt, Cole and Parris took steps to transfer the child to Parris’s relatives, who were not eligible for intercountry adoption and one of whom had a criminal arrest record.  After the child was physically abused, Cole and Parris took steps to conceal their improper conduct from the entity responsible for accrediting U.S. intercountry adoption agencies—and from the Polish authority responsible for intercountry adoptions—in an attempt to continue profiting from these adoptions. 
An indictment is merely an allegation and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. 
If you believe you are a victim of this offense, please visit https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/victim-witness-program or call (888) 549-3945.
The FBI’s Cleveland Field Office is investigating the case.  Trial Attorneys Jason Manning and Alexander Kramer of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Chelsea Rice of the Northern District of Ohio are prosecuting the case.  The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs assisted in the investigation.
The Criminal Division’s Fraud Section is responsible for investigating and prosecuting all FCPA matters.  Additional information about the Justice Department’s FCPA enforcement efforts can be found at www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa.
The year 2020 marks the 150th anniversary of the Department of Justice.  Learn more about the history of our agency at www.Justice.gov/Celebrating150Years.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Monday, December 2, 2019

Lisa Page & Her First Child Welfare Propaganda Psyoptic Cover Up

Lisa, my dearest....

You know I know that you know....

I shall assign you a C-, for you shall have to do much better than this, Precious....

Did Melanie Sloane help you with this one?

Just asking.

Seriously, this crap was an hilarious attempt at child welfare overt, dstractionary psyoptic like that #MeToo psyoptic.

This is about trafficking tiny humans.

Keep it real, girl, because you know you read the Detroit texts,

Try to impress me on your next psyoptic.

This is about Parental Rights.

#maytheheavensfall

The Last Russian Adoption



Strongsville international adoption agency raided by FBI


Image result for lisa page
Pretty, pretty Lisa Page

Lisa Page Speaks: ‘There’s No Fathomable Way I Have Committed Any Crime at All’STRIKING BACK


EXCLUSIVE
Photo Illustration by Kelly Caminero/The Daily Beast
The former FBI lawyer and ongoing Trump target breaks two years of silence in this exclusive interview. And she has quite a lot to say.

Molly Jong-Fast
Updated Dec. 01, 2019 9:32PM ET / Published Dec. 01, 2019 7:59PM ET
It’s not often that you interview a subject who has no interest in being famous. But recently, I did just that when I sat down with Lisa Page the week before Thanksgiving in my hotel room in Washington. Page, of course, is the former FBI lawyer whose text-message exchanges with agent Peter Strzok that belittled Donald Trump and expressed fear at his possible victory became international news. They were hijacked by Trump to fuel his “deep-state” conspiracy.

For the nearly two years since her name first made the papers, she’s been publicly silent (she did have a closed-door interview with House members in July 2018). I asked her why she was willing to talk now. “Honestly, his demeaning fake orgasm was really the straw that broke the camel’s back,” she says. The president called out her name as he acted out an orgasm in front of thousands of people at a Minneapolis rally on Oct. 11, 2019.

Advertisement


That was the moment Page decided she had to speak up. “I had stayed quiet for years hoping it would fade away, but instead it got worse,” she says. “It had been so hard not to defend myself, to let people who hate me control the narrative. I decided to take my power back.”

She is also about to be back in the news cycle in a big way. On Dec. 9, the Justice Department Inspector General report into Trump’s charges that the FBI spied on his 2016 campaign will come out. Leaked press accounts indicate that the report will exonerate Page of the allegation that she acted unprofessionally or showed bias against Trump.

How does it feel after all this time to finally have the IG apparently affirm what she’s been saying all along? She said she wouldn’t discuss the findings until they were officially public, but she did note: “While it would be nice to have the IG confirm publicly that my personal opinions had absolutely no bearing on the course of the Russia investigations, I don’t kid myself that the fact will matter very much for a lot of people. The president has a very loud megaphone.”

Page, 39, is thin and athletic. She speaks in an exceedingly confident, clear, and lawyerly way. But having been through the MAGA meat grinder has clearly worn her down, not unlike the other women I’ve met who’ve been subjected to the president’s abuse.  She is just slightly crumbly around the edges the way the president’s other victims are. 

My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again.
“It’s almost impossible to describe” what it’s like, she told me. “It's like being punched in the gut. My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again. The president of the United States is calling me names to the entire world. He’s demeaning me and my career. It’s sickening.”

“But it's also very intimidating because he’s still the president of the United States. And when the president accuses you of treason by name, despite the fact that I know there's no fathomable way that I have committed any crime at all, let alone treason, he's still somebody in a position to actually do something about that. To try to further destroy my life. It never goes away or stops, even when he’s not publicly attacking me.”

Advertisement


Does it affect you in your normal day-to-day life?

“I wish it didn’t,” she said. “I'm someone who’s always in my head anyway – so now otherwise normal interactions take on a different meaning. Like, when somebody makes eye contact with me on the Metro, I kind of wince, wondering if it’s because they recognize me, or are they just scanning the train like people do? It’s immediately a question of friend or foe? Or if I’m walking down the street or shopping and there’s somebody wearing Trump gear or a MAGA hat, I’ll walk the other way or try to put some distance between us because I’m not looking for conflict. Really, what I wanted most in this world is my life back.”


Rising Through the Ranks
Lisa Page did not aspire to fame or fortune. She was, she says, “one of those nerdy kids who from very early on knew I wanted work for the government and make the world a better place.” Born in the San Fernando Valley, she and her family moved to Ohio in her teens. She went to American University in Washington and then moved back home to central Ohio to attend law school, living with her parents so she could save money.

After graduating from law school, she was one of an elite group selected for admission in the Department of Justice Honors Program in 2006—and the only woman in her class of five entering the Criminal Division. She worked as a federal prosecutor for six years before moving across the street to the FBI’s office of general counsel. Soon after her arrival, the deputy general counsel over national security law hired her for a new special counsel-type position in 2013.

Once there, her path begins to be set.

“I start [in the role] in early 2013, and there are two big events that kind of set the trajectory for the rest of my career at the FBI: the Boston bombing in April 2013, and Edward Snowden’s leaks in June of the same year,” she told me. “And those are both significant in their own ways, because the Boston bombing introduces me to Andy McCabe, who at the time was the head of the counterterrorism division at the FBI. Two months later, the Snowden leaks hit, which became a transformative moment for the intelligence community, setting off a series of reforms by the Obama administration with respect to the legal authorities that we rely on to collect intelligence.”

Eventually, she was asked to lead that effort, “which gives me a lot of exposure to senior FBI executives, as well as leaders through the IC, DOJ, and White House.”


Page continued to rise through the ranks of the FBI and was assigned to more significant and substantive work. She became close with McCabe. Eventually she became McCabe’s special counsel.

Hillary’s Emails and Russia—All At once
RELATED IN POLITICS

New Kavanaugh Book: Sen. Feinstein Dithered on Ford Letter

Judge Rules Don McGahn Must Testify in Impeachment

I Did Time for Phone-Jamming for the RNC—They’re at It Again
By February 2016, she was working on one of the most important investigations at the FBI–the Hillary Clinton email case. “We knew that the case was going to get picked apart,” she says. “And we know there's not a person on the FBI team or the DOJ team who thinks this is not the right result. There is no case to be brought here. But it’s very busy. It’s very intense. Director [James] Comey was very clear he wanted this completed as soon as humanly possible and outside of the political environment. So there was a real focus to get it done before the conventions that were happening that summer. And so that’s what we did.”

The Greatest Trick the Trumpists Ever Pulled
J'ACCUSE!
Molly Jong-Fast

“But her emails” would soon give way to an actual threat to national security, one that existed not in the fever dreams of Fox and the Breitbart comments section, but in the real, dangerous world the FBI exists to protect us from, where things like foreign meddling in our elections takes place: strong evidence of Russian interference in the election on behalf of Trump.


“There are two things that happen in the late summer of 2016,” Page says. “The first, of course, is that the FBI gets the predication [courtesy of loose-lipped George Papadopoulos], which starts the Russian investigation. We learn about the possibility that there’s someone on the Trump campaign coordinating with the Russian government in the release of emails, which will damage the Clinton campaign.”

“Predication” sounds mild for what it really means; in the summer of 2016, the FBI and the intelligence community were seeing increasing signs from a variety of intelligence sources and programs (that Page cannot and will not discuss due to classification reasons) that members of the Trump campaign were tied to a variety of Russian intelligence services, and that the Russian Federation was in the midst of trying to manipulate the 2016 United States election with a sweeping information warfare and propaganda effort. As The New York Times reported on Nov. 22, “U.S. intel services concluded, and have told Senate Republicans, that Russia mounted a massive disinformation campaign to implicate Ukraine in 2016 meddling and hide its own role.”

At the end of July 2016 Page finds herself transitioning from one investigation, the Hillary Clinton email inquiry, to another the Russian government disinformation probe. The president is not under investigation, but the FBI is trying to determine if someone associated with his campaign is working with Russia.

“We were very deliberate and conservative about who we first opened on because we recognized how sensitive a situation it was,” Page says. “So the prospect that we were spying on the campaign or even investigating candidate Trump himself is just false. That’s not what we were doing.”


Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Getty
From Anonymity to Infamy

From summer 2016 to spring 2017, Page worked for McCabe, who had become deputy director. They were very busy, but things were largely normal. And then, on May 9, 2017, FBI Director Comey was fired. What was that like?

“It was horrible,” Page said. “It was a devastating moment at the FBI. It was like a funeral, only worse, because at least when someone dies, you get to come together and celebrate and talk about that person. He was still alive. But he was inaccessible to us. It jolted the ranks and the investigation. It was so abrupt. He was there one day and gone the next.”

Was that very unusual?

“Well, I mean, all of it was!” she replied. “The FBI director had just been fired. Yes, it was totally within the authority of the president, but it was unprecedented and unimaginable given the circumstances. The president fired him with the knowledge that, of course, we were investigating Russian contacts with his campaign. I mean, it just gave the aura of an obstructive effort.”

Page would have probably just been another FBI lawyer if it wasn’t for the extraordinarily politicized environment and a President who had a habit of attacking career government employees. Page, like many other targets of Trump’s wrath, felt the pressure both from the external force of his massive social media presence, but also from within the government.

“At the end of July in 2017, I am informed by the DOJ Inspector General's office that I’m under investigation for political text messages and honestly, I have no idea what they're talking about,” she told me. “I have no recollection. And initially they’re very coy about it. They don’t tell me much about it. I don't have the first clue what they're talking about. What I do know is that my text messages will reveal that I had previously had an affair. I’m overwhelmed by dread and embarrassment at the prospect that OIG investigators, Andy, and my colleagues, now know or could learn about this deeply personal secret.”


She doesn’t think for a minute that her texts with Peter Strzok are too political. They are largely devoted to work and to talking about family members and various articles they read. The few texts that so convulsed the Republicans involved Page asking for reassurance that Trump wouldn’t become president, and Strzok replying with “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Glenn Kessler wrote in The Washington Post that “some of the texts reflect a deep animus toward Trump and the way he conducted himself during the 2016 campaign.”

Having an opinion and sharing that opinion publicly or privately with another person is squarely within the permissible bounds of the Hatch Act.
She is convinced that she’s followed the rules. She is after all a lawyer and knows that she is a restricted employee under the Hatch Act and can’t engage in partisan political activity. “And I know I’m nowhere close to that,” she says. “I don’t engage in any sort of partisan politicking at all. But having an opinion and sharing that opinion publicly or privately with another person is squarely within the permissible bounds of the Hatch Act. It’s in the regs. Yeah, it says it plainly. I’m thinking, I know I’m a federal employee, but I retain my First Amendment rights. So I'm really not all that worried about it.”

So she hires a lawyer and meets with the IG, who interviews her a number of times. A very small number of people at the FBI know about the investigation, and it stays a secret for six months, and it remains a secret for six months, until the day after Michael Flynn pleads guilty. Then in early December 2017, the day after Michael Flynn pleads guilty, a story comes out about Page being under investigation for political bias—and it includes the affair. The affair was not part of IG’s investigation and not part of their review.

The Inspector General’s office had guaranteed Page and Strzok that the affair would not be made public. But then, The Washington Post included the affair in its story. And in a slip of a second, Page goes from being an anonymous government lawyer to playing an unwilling and recurring role in Trump’s twisted tweetstorms.

“So now I have to deal with the aftermath of having the most wrong thing I’ve ever done in my life become public,” she says. “And that’s when I become the source of the president’s personal mockery and insults. Because before this moment in time, there’s not a person outside of my small legal community who knows who I am or what I do. I’m a normal public servant, just a G-15, standard-level lawyer, like every other lawyer at the Justice Department.”

And despite how awful that felt, Page had no idea it was going to get much, much worse.

Trump’s ‘Truly Reprehensible...Stunt’
“After this comes out, there's a firestorm, of course, and now the president and the Republicans on the Hill latch on to this, and it becomes about political bias,” she explains. “A week or two later, Rod Rosenstein [then the deputy attorney general] was scheduled to testify on the Hill. And the night before his testimony, the Justice Department spokesperson, Sarah Flores, calls the beat reporters into the Justice Department. This is late at night on a weekday. Calls them in to provide a cherry-picked selection of my text messages to review and report on in advance of Rod Rosenstein going to the Hill the next morning.”

Lisa Page Took Rosenstein’s Trump Tape Talk Seriously
TAPEGATE
Betsy Swan

Why does she think the administration released her text messages?

“You’d have to ask Sarah Flores,” she says. “I can tell you that the reporters there that night were told that they weren’t allowed to source them to the Justice Department, and that they weren’t allowed to copy or remove them, just take notes. That’s what I know.”

Those texts were selected for their political impact. They lack a lot of context. Many of them aren't even about him or me.
Sarah Isgur Flores has left the administration and referred questions to the Justice Department. The department declined to comment.

As Politico noted at the time, “The DOJ decision to release the text messages to the media and lawmakers before the IG report has drawn criticism from outside the department.” Ben Wittes wrote on the Lawfare blog, “Rosenstein here has, at a minimum, contributed to that circus—at the expense of his own employees. In throwing a career FBI agent and career FBI lawyer to the wolves by authorizing the release to the public of their private text messages—without any finding that they had done anything wrong—he once again sent a message to his workforce that he is not the sort of man with whom you want to share your foxhole.”

Page felt abandoned by the FBI and Justice because of the release of the messages and because the bureau issued no statement defending her and Strzok. “So things get worse,” she continues. “And of course, you know, those texts were selected for their political impact. They lack a lot of context. Many of them aren’t even about him or me. We’re not given an opportunity to provide any context. In a lot of those texts we were talking about other people like our family members or articles we had sent each other.”

I ask her what she did next.

“There’s not really anything to do,” she tells me. “I go back to work. I try to keep my life together.” But she didn’t stay. She left the FBI in May 2018 (which is why she says she is now free to talk to the press—she hasn’t worked for the government for 18 months).

 Could she have stayed if she had wanted to? “No, not for much longer. It was very inhospitable.”

Does it feel like a trauma? “It is. I wouldn’t even call it PTSD because it's not over. It’s ongoing. It’s not a historical event that is being relived. It just keeps happening.”

And it’s still going on? “I mean, he tweeted about me four days ago,” she told me on Nov. 18. “When Roger Stone got convicted, he asked, why isn’t Page in jail too? Not to mention, you know, his truly reprehensible, degrading stunt at his rally, in which he used my name to simulate an orgasm. And I don’t ever know when the president’s going to attack next. And when it happens, it can still sort of upend my day. You don’t really get used to it.”

Watching the Justice Dept. Collapse
She’s not on Twitter, or Facebook, or Instagram or anything, so she relies on a group of her close friends—the support system, along with her husband, that has helped her get through the last two years—to be her alert system.

“I’ll get a text from a friend alerting me to an outrageous tweet by the president and my first question is always—is it about me? Often the answer is yes,” she says.

I ask her about how for about a month back when all this started, Trump called her the “lovely” Lisa Page. She postulates that it’s possible after her congressional testimony that he saw a picture of her. Which makes as much sense as anything in Trumpworld. One thing becomes quickly apparent talking to Page; what really upset her, what still devastates her, was not the end of her extremely promising career at the FBI, but instead what Trump has done to the FBI itself.

It’s crushing to see the noble Justice Department, my Justice Department, the place I grew up in, feel like it’s abandoned its principles of truth and independence.
“It’s very painful to see to places like the FBI and the Department of Justice that represent so much of what is excellent about this country, not fulfilling the critical obligation that they have to speak truth to power,” she tells me. “The thing about the FBI that is so extraordinary is that it is made up of a group of men and women whose every instinct is to run toward the fight. It’s in the fiber of everybody there. It’s the lifeblood. So it’s particularly devastating to be betrayed by an organization I still care about so deeply. And it’s crushing to see the noble Justice Department, my Justice Department, the place I grew up in, feel like it’s abandoned its principles of truth and independence.”

Page accepts that her life will never be the same, that there’s no “normal life” to return to. She’s still married to her husband and they have two small children. Ultimately, she was just another public servant like Fiona Hill or Marie Yovanovitch. She was dragged into the spotlight, her text messages weaponized, and her life destroyed so that the Trump administration could have a brief distraction.

The era of Trump populism always had an ugly edge, particularly toward women. Trump revels in bringing misery to his opponents and will always seek out and exploit any weakness. Page “wasn’t nice to him,” and so in his eyes she can be endlessly targeted and assaulted.


It’s tempting to describe this as just part of Trump’s deep, baked-in misogyny and sociopathy, but in Page’s case it’s worse; it’s a sign of how deeply he’s corrupted the government to serve his will and his whims. His apologists have become part of Trump’s own squad of witch-hunters, hunting fantasies like “Ukrainian interference” while attacking the people who tried to protect us from Russian attacks.

It’s not just that Lisa Page may never be safe as long as Trump is President.

It’s that we won’t be safe, either.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Monday, December 5, 2016

International Adoptions: The Importation of Tax Credits

Would you like to know why these U.S. international adoption agencies are so upset with the new, proposed regulations?

I bet you would.

It is because these Christian charities are going to cut into their profit scheme of selling humans from their international acquisitions of salvation by selling chattel in the name of God.

The 2016 tax credit for a foreign adoption is quite the lucrative scheme for all stakeholders involved.

"My new mommy and daddy said that God told their tax adviser that I
am worth $13,400 a year to them
and that did not even include the tax exempt trust fund!"

Topic 607 - Adoption Credit and Adoption Assistance Programs
Qualified adoption expenses

The schemes are run like this.

A church comes up with the "save the savages" scheme utilizing the age old salvation pitch of the imperialist morality parade..

Of course, no one questions the work of God as it is a tax-exempt organization.

This means the Christian child trafficking adoption organization can now solicit foundations to assist in its efforts to provide affluent nurturing homes to those poor, disadvantages children.

(Just as a side note.  Domestic adoptions acquire its children goods from the poor, or in the spirit of the nomenclature for federal funding: "abused and neglected"; "at-risk"; and "vulnerable and targeted populations".)

Now, comes the reasonable fees the agency may assess for the adoption.

Here is a price list promoting the end of year tax season to buy adopt kids.

(Please note that these price lists do not include citizenship processing fees.)

"Agency fees" is nothing but a diluted term to make buying a human trafficked child more palatable in the eyes of one's tax preparer.

The new parents now have a permanent tax deductible dependent and will more than likely give back a healthy tax exempt donation to the Christian human trafficking organization, like the ones busted in Guatemala and Haiti that are in the process of being shut down by the U.S.

Here is a link to U.S. Senators Bob Casey Bill and Sherrod Brown's attempt to make the adoption tax credit fully refundable.

We now have a synoptic overview of the money scheme in international adoptions, but it gets better.

Not once does one find language requiring legal verification that the child is an orphan, whether a paper orphan, meaning parental rights have been terminated, or that the parents are deceased, or even that reasonable efforts were made to place the children with kin.

The reasonable efforts is the underlying premise as to why the U.S. refuses to sign on to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Reasonable efforts would significantly interfere in these Christian human trafficking adoption organizational financial operations.

So, the moral of the story for domestic and foreign adoptions is this:  deportation human trafficking of kids are not tax deductible, but still profitable.

International adoptions may get harder due to proposed U.S. regulations

WASHINGTON — It’s been nearly 19 years since a social worker placed Douglas Althauser’s 5-month-old Cambodian son in his arms and said, “Here you go, Dad.”

Nothing has been the same since.

Althauser, now a Westerville lawyer, was 36 when he adopted Michael, now 19.

Before that moment, he’d traveled, he’d published a book. He’d received a couple of college degrees.
But “I can’t think of a single thing that was important to my life prior to becoming a father,” he said, reflecting on the moment he first held his boy. “All those things went on the back burner."

Michael was one of more than 15,000 children adopted internationally in 1998. But by 2015, that number had dwindled to 5,647.

And now, international adoption agencies worry that a sweeping set of proposed State Department regulations could erode that number further.

“This would have the effect of strangling international adoption,” said Thomas Taneff, a Columbus adoption attorney.

Others say they’re a much-needed attempt to better protect children and families from being set up to fail.

“If you want take care of kids, more oversight and better conditions for success should trump any business objective,” said April Dinwoodie, chief executive of the Donaldson Adoption Institute, a research and advocacy organization that studies adoption.

Among the proposed provisions that critics worry most about:

• Effectively preventing agencies from charging prospective adoptive parents for the cost of caring for their child after families are matched with a child. Families say that because they’r e adopting from impoverished countries, they feel obliged to pay for food, clean water and medical care during the period between being matched with a child and taking their children home.

• Creating a second level of authorization to adopt from a specific country in addition to the existing accreditation process. Adoption agencies say this creates yet another layer of bureaucracy, requiring more staffing and more potential hurdles to adoption.

• Requiring parents pursuing international adoptions to participate in their state’s foster care training. Critics say some states don’t offer the level of training required by the new regulations, and that the foster training doesn’t provide the specialized training that adopting a child from a foreign country might require.

“These rules would have a devastating effect on international adoption,” said Chuck Johnson of the National Council for Adoption.” “It’s regulation upon regulation, but they really in our opinion did not get to the real root of some of the issues we wanted to get at.”

Many say the rules are well-intentioned — a response to high-profile cases of corruption, fraud and child trafficking.

In 2003, a Pennsylvania man was arrested for child sex trafficking. His victim was a Russian girl he’d adopted in 1998. In 2010, a Siberian boy was sent alone on a flight back to Russia after his adoptive mother decided she could no longer care for him.

But such cases, though high-profile, are rare, argue critics of the new proposals.

The greater risk, said Taneff, is leaving children in orphanages in impoverished countries.

“What’s the worst evil?” he asks. “Is it, ‘let’s cure this thing with a sledgehammer so all kids get stuck over there because we want to minimize fraud on less than 1 percent of cases?’ ”

Taneff, himself the father of an adopted girl from China, said the existing international adoption process is fraught with bureaucratic hurdles.

“I consider myself an above-average smart person, and my wife is too,” he said. “But the amount of red tape that already exists is daunting, and this is simply more red tape, more bureaucracy. Who suffers in the end? The child in that orphanage.”

A State Department official said the changes simply aim to improve a system that has placed more than 200,000 children over the past 15 years.

“The proposed changes seek to strengthen standards for those seeking accreditation or approval to provide intercountry adoption services,” the official said, speaking only on the condition of anonymity.

But Dinwoodie said the increased educational requirements are aimed at preparing adoptive families for as many potential challenges as possible. And the fee rule, she said, is aimed at protecting adoptive parents from financial fraud.

“There should be some kind of clear understanding of what the money goes for, who handles the money and where it goes to,” she said.

“Adoption and intercountry adoption has traditionally been a savior mentality, these strong Americans are going to go help kids in other countries, we can do this better. Children have needs in other countries and we, in some shape, are designed to fill a need. But at the same time, it has to be with the highest level of ethics … having more checks and balances is a good thing.”

Among those who signed on to a congressional letter opposing the regulations was Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who said pre-adoption trainings already work to prepare parents for adoption.
“Adding even more costs to this already expensive process and making parents jump through unnecessary hoops could make it impossible for some families to adopt and deprive children of loving homes,” he said.

In Strongsville, Margaret Cole has handled 8,000 international adoptions through her agency, European Adoption Consultants, in the 25 years she’s been in business. She’s watched, meanwhile, as other agencies have gone out of business, overwhelmed by regulations and cost.

She doesn’t oppose the idea of reform. But she said many of the reforms proposed make little sense.
“We don’t have the staff to do things that don’t do any good,” she said. “There are babies starving, and if we spend the money on a license instead of helping orphans, then what? Why would we do that? We already have licenses.”

Althauser, meanwhile, feels grateful that the adoption process for him was relatively easy, though the paperwork involved made it something of “an endurance test.” His son, now a sophomore in college, is studying video-game design.

“You just can’t regulate the commitment a parent is willing to have in order to adopt a child,” he said. “Those of us who have worked so hard to be able to adopt a child have really shown a lot of dedication to being great parents.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©