Adoption Scam (Human Trafficking?) in Arizona/Utah

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

A couple are divorcing. The husband and wife both are called into respective councils. Decisions are made and discipline is undertaken for one or both spouses. They are both instructed as a part of their repentence process to proceed a certain way in their court case. 

A man is arrested on charges of defrauding millions, (as part of an alleged scheme with several other church members) and while out on bail, a disciplinary council is held. Councils are also held for the other church members. Discipline is issued and a plan of action put in place. The man and other church members are instructed to cooperate with the man's defense council to seek an advantageous outcome.

It's obvious that, if the church gets involved in such matters that are being resolved in court, there are so many moving parts and potential devastating consequences that well-intentioned leaders might unintentionally interfere with the proper legal outcomes.

In your examples the problem is you need new leaders.

[Meadowchik]

47 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In your examples the problem is you need new leaders.

That's the difficulty. Leaders can make unwise choices. They're human. Like I said, that policy helps prevent such hazards of leaders interfering with the legal process.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's the difficulty. Leaders can make unwise choices. They're human. Like I said, that policy helps prevent such hazards of leaders interfering with the legal process.

It would not be likely to stop interference in most of the examples you gave. I agree it is a good policy but I think your examples are not explanatory as to why.

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It would not be likely to stop interference in most of the examples you gave. I agree it is a good policy but I think your examples are not explanatory as to why.

Why would iyo the policy not likely prevent interference in those examples?

[The Nehor]

On 11/15/2019 at 12:39 PM, Meadowchik said:

Why would iyo the policy not likely prevent interference in those examples?

I give up.

[Meadowchik]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I give up.

I'll maker it simpler for you: if handbook says not to hold disciplinary councils over matters being disputed in the courts, then that helps prevent the holding of disciplinary courts because someone has filed charges or taken someone to court. Even if "influence" is attempted by a misguided leader, the rule reduces that leaders ability to enforce any influence over a judicial matter.

[Bob Crockett]

On 11/13/2019 at 4:43 PM, Calm said:

Do the victims have to be a complainant in a criminal case?  Maybe they are waiting to see what happens in criminal court before filing lawsuits.

If you are not referring to lawsuits, but just verbalization of being victimized, how would you describe this:

From the AZcentral article, it would seem at least two of his customers viewed the mothers as victims, though they may not have viewed them as criminally abused (there were multiple reports to law enforcement apparently triggering the investigation of Petersen, they may have indeed been among those reporting).

 

No. A victim does not have to be a complainant.  But it is very unlikely that a criminal matter will proceed without a willing victim to testify, particularly where the offense isn't rape, incest or sexual abuse. 

I'm interested in understanding how a government agency could pursue a scheme where consenting adults agree to a system where families in the end can be richly benefited.  I'd have a far different opinion if there was a victim stepping forward to make claims.  

[Bob Crockett]

On 11/13/2019 at 6:36 PM, The Nehor said:

That they are still interviewing the victims. 0h, and that you have an irrational need to defend an exploiter on any even hypothetical pretext which probably indicates a need for some self-reflection.

And, so, this is evidence?    An insult?   There is no irrational need .  There is an overwhelming need for international adoptions, and government steps in to thwart them.  From what I can tell, Peterson does little more than to offer small amounts of money to impoverished mothers willing to have their children adopted into US homes.   Seems a win win all around.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Bob Crockett

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

And, so, this is evidence?    An insult?   There is no irrational need .  There is an overwhelming need for international adoptions, and government steps in to thwart them.  From what I can tell, Peterson does little more than to offer small amounts of money to impoverished mothers willing to have their children adopted into US homes.   Seems a win win all around.

So you are going to do the ostrich and ignore the fraud to get these women government medical benefits by falsely claiming residency? The wire fraud? That it is a violation of the law to smuggle humans for this purpose? The inadequate prenatal care?

It is all okay because we need those babies? Mahanite principles of exploiting human life to make a big profit are okay because it fills a need and money is being made? Defrauding the government is okay because it fills a need? I am definitely veering into insult territory now.

[Bob Crockett]

So, wire fraud is wrong . Falsely claiming benefits is wrong.  These are not part of any adoption scenario.  

But, your statement "smuggle humans for this purpose"?  Marshallians can come and go in the US without a Visa so long as they have a passport.  They can work, live and apply for and receive benefits.  They are almost Puerto Ricans.  

So, an adult Marshallian woman, with a passport, who can freely come and go in the US, is "smuggled?"  Passports are so easy to obtain for Marshallians I can't believe these women are entering without a passport. 

Fully competent adult women are being threatened and coerced?  If that were the case, we'd see a complaining victim.   Not.  There.  

We have several Marshallian adoptees in our stake.  Seems a popular thing to do; cost-effective and every body's happy.  Until an oppressive dictatorial government steps in to right something that is not wrong.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

So, wire fraud is wrong . Falsely claiming benefits is wrong.  These are not part of any adoption scenario.  

But, Bob, they ARE part of THIS adoption scenario.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

So, wire fraud is wrong . Falsely claiming benefits is wrong.  These are not part of any adoption scenario.  

But, your statement "smuggle humans for this purpose"?  Marshallians can come and go in the US without a Visa so long as they have a passport.  They can work, live and apply for and receive benefits.  They are almost Puerto Ricans.  

So, an adult Marshallian woman, with a passport, who can freely come and go in the US, is "smuggled?"  Passports are so easy to obtain for Marshallians I can't believe these women are entering without a passport. 

Fully competent adult women are being threatened and coerced?  If that were the case, we'd see a complaining victim.   Not.  There.  

We have several Marshallian adoptees in our stake.  Seems a popular thing to do; cost-effective and every body's happy.  Until an oppressive dictatorial government steps in to right something that is not wrong.

They are part of this adoption scenario so your statement is unequivocally wrong.

In 2001 a study was done of women in the Marshalls who gave their child up for adoption. 87% believed the child would come back to the Marshalls at 18. 70% thought the child would be returned if the adoption did not work out. While the numbers might be better today the misunderstanding persists. In Marshallese culture informal adoptions are common to relieve large families. The child is raised by another but keeps contact with parents. Marshallese mothers sign adoption papers that are usually in English that they cannot read and then find out they will probably never see the child again. Why does it continue? Easy money. Those less greedy then this idiot make about $13k a case and adoption brokers get about 2.5k for every child found. He was making much more.

In 2002 an Adoption Act was passed that made it illegal to solicit a baby for adoption in the Marshalls. Do you want to argue this guy wasn’t soliciting? Should we wait and see what these women thought they were doing before jumping to assuming innocence of a conman who was already defrauding the government and breaking the law? Do you really believe he told these women the truth when willing to deceive others for his own gain? Why are you defending this creep?

[The Nehor]

To all those still defending this cretinous creep I am just going to leave this here:

https://fox13now.com/2019/10/09/inside-the-home-used-in-alleged-adoption-scheme/

Someone please come back whingeing about how this is unfair and government overreach and how he is persecuted. I dare you.

Padlocks on the outsides of the bedrooms the women were staying in to keep them in. Locks to keep them in the basement too. Garbage piled up outside. At least if there was a fire there would be no one surviving to testify.

And we get this line from an adopter: “He is a good man and has done a lot of good to help adoptive families.” The self-absorption is disgusting. He could not be a bad person because he got me what I want! That he did that by exploiting others is irrelevant. Lock the slave-running scum in the bedroom of one of those houses and toss in a match.

Edited November 19, 2019 by The Nehor

[Bob Crockett]

On 11/18/2019 at 9:33 AM, The Nehor said:

They are part of this adoption scenario so your statement is unequivocally wrong.

In 2001 a study was done of women in the Marshalls who gave their child up for adoption. 87% believed the child would come back to the Marshalls at 18. 70% thought the child would be returned if the adoption did not work out. While the numbers might be better today the misunderstanding persists. In Marshallese culture informal adoptions are common to relieve large families. The child is raised by another but keeps contact with parents. Marshallese mothers sign adoption papers that are usually in English that they cannot read and then find out they will probably never see the child again. Why does it continue? Easy money. Those less greedy then this idiot make about $13k a case and adoption brokers get about 2.5k for every child found. He was making much more.

In 2002 an Adoption Act was passed that made it illegal to solicit a baby for adoption in the Marshalls. Do you want to argue this guy wasn’t soliciting? Should we wait and see what these women thought they were doing before jumping to assuming innocence of a conman who was already defrauding the government and breaking the law? Do you really believe he told these women the truth when willing to deceive others for his own gain? Why are you defending this creep?

So, what women are complaining?  What placement families are complaining?  You've resorted to insults; I have no skin in the game at all.  I could be wrong and am willing to admit it. 

The treaty restrictions don't mean anything to me.  Malum prohibitum laws are merely examples of an oppressive government being goaded by other licensed adoption agencies to reduce compensation.  Do you know that barbers and beauticians have to have licenses?  Why?  Adoption agencies are in the same boat.  

I sort of mumble on various topics, but I want to know what women have complained and what placement families have complained.  Is there one you can identify?

Edited November 19, 2019 by Bob Crockett

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

So, what women are complaining? 

It seems like some of the Marshallese women have complained.

6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The treaty restrictions don't mean anything to me.  Malum prohibitum laws are merely examples of an oppressive government being goaded by other licensed adoption agencies to reduce compensation. 

The 12th Article of Faith states: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

See also D&C 134:1: "We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."

And verse 5: "We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."

Surely there are limits to these precepts (such as the proverbial "Jews in the attic" scenario).  However, as a general rule we are obligated to obey, honor and sustain the law.

6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Do you know that barbers and beauticians have to have licenses?  Why?  Adoption agencies are in the same boat.  

I think some regulation of adoptions by the state is appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

So, what women are complaining?  What placement families are complaining?  You've resorted to insults; I have no skin in the game at all.  I could be wrong and am willing to admit it. 

The treaty restrictions don't mean anything to me.  Malum prohibitum laws are merely examples of an oppressive government being goaded by other licensed adoption agencies to reduce compensation.  Do you know that barbers and beauticians have to have licenses?  Why?  Adoption agencies are in the same boat.  

I sort of mumble on various topics, but I want to know what women have complained and what placement families have complained.  Is there one you can identify?

The people you harangue for not publicly speaking out probably speak little to no English, were recently liberated from fa;we imprisonment,, and the prosecutor has probably asked them not to comment to the press. Their silence is not indicative of anything.

You can hold US treaties in contempt but they are law. It is amazing you take this case which shows an attorney in complete contempt for law and basic humanity that might ave been prevented by more oversight and try to twist it into a complaint that there is too much oversight. Do you go to the memorials for victims of a mass shooting with a bullhorn and use that opportunity to call for looser gun control laws? Using this incident as a soapbox to rail against regulation of adoptions is pretty equivalent. 

Your tangent about barbers is inane. Barbers do not transfer legal rights and responsibilities regarding children. It is regulated for a reason. To protect children and birth parents and to prevent human trafficking. If a barber was using a chainsaw to cut hair would you use that opportunity to complain about barber schooling and licensing? Also, the requirements for licensing in those fields are set at the state level so they vary considerably. Same with adoption law though contempt of US treaties with other nations is, of course, illegal no matter what the state says.

If the women had complained we would not know it.  They would be working with the prosecutor and federal agencies. Of course the placement families do not complain. They got what they wanted. This predator was not trying to rob the adopters probably because they have more knowledge of their rights, speak the local language, and could easily turn the law onto him. No, he instead exploited the vulnerable as such Mahanites often tend to do.

[Bob Crockett]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The people you harangue for not publicly speaking out probably speak little to no English, were recently liberated from fa;we imprisonment,, and the prosecutor has probably asked them not to comment to the press. Their silence is not indicative of anything.

You can hold US treaties in contempt but they are law. It is amazing you take this case which shows an attorney in complete contempt for law and basic humanity that might ave been prevented by more oversight and try to twist it into a complaint that there is too much oversight. Do you go to the memorials for victims of a mass shooting with a bullhorn and use that opportunity to call for looser gun control laws? Using this incident as a soapbox to rail against regulation of adoptions is pretty equivalent. 

Your tangent about barbers is inane. Barbers do not transfer legal rights and responsibilities regarding children. It is regulated for a reason. To protect children and birth parents and to prevent human trafficking. If a barber was using a chainsaw to cut hair would you use that opportunity to complain about barber schooling and licensing? Also, the requirements for licensing in those fields are set at the state level so they vary considerably. Same with adoption law though contempt of US treaties with other nations is, of course, illegal no matter what the state says.

If the women had complained we would not know it.  They would be working with the prosecutor and federal agencies. Of course the placement families do not complain. They got what they wanted. This predator was not trying to rob the adopters probably because they have more knowledge of their rights, speak the local language, and could easily turn the law onto him. No, he instead exploited the vulnerable as such Mahanites often tend to do.

One insult after another.  First my thoughts, now my profession.  My position is simple.  In this case there is more to the allegations than the allegations.  I have heard adoption families talk about this case on Fox News.  

A criminal complaint or indictment relies upon the affidavit of a complaining witness.  Or a grand jury investigation.  The prosecution is required to disclose these names to the defendant.  You say, "the prosecutor has probably asked them not to comment to the press."   That isn't evidence.  

 

[Bob Crockett]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

It seems like some of the Marshallese women have complained.

The 12th Article of Faith states: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

See also D&C 134:1: "We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."

And verse 5: "We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."

Surely there are limits to these precepts (such as the proverbial "Jews in the attic" scenario).  However, as a general rule we are obligated to obey, honor and sustain the law.

I think some regulation of adoptions by the state is appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

What women have complained?  I'll eat crow and admit defeat.  But it isn't evidence for you to claim that there must be.

I'm a lawyer.  I don't necessarily respect malum prohibitum laws.  I mean, I don't violate them or advocate that others do; on the other hand I may take a public stance against them.  Restrictions on immigration is one particular area of law that I opposed.  Trump's tariffs is another.   Abortion is another.  Capital punishment is another.  Here, we have a case where families are precluded from forming due to the oppression of other licensed adoption agencies. 

No regulation is appropriate.  If women are free to murder their fetuses without any kind of retribution, they ought to be encouraged by money to take them to full term.  What better system would be to offer to pay a mother $40,000 for her baby?  As long as she is not a drug user and the father consents, why not? Wealth is shifted to families who need it from families who don't, and the families who pay really really want the kids.  

And there is no "smuggling" of women, something I've heard said many times here. Unless, of course, the Marshall women lack passports.  I haven't seen that.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Bob Crockett

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

What women have complained?  I'll eat crow and admit defeat.  But it isn't evidence for you to claim that there must be.

I've read a number of articles on this story.  I'll see if I can track down reported complaints from the Marshallese women.

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm a lawyer.  I don't necessarily respect malum prohibitum laws. 

Most laws have some elements of malum prohibitum and malum in se.  The speed limit is generally construed as malum prohibitum.  However, I live on a busy road with a 25 MPH speed limit that is regularly exceeded by a substantial amount (45+ MPH).  I think at some point driving too fast becomes reckless behavior.  Behavior that is indifferent to the welfare of others.  Behavior that carries a substantial risk of causing harm to others.  So the speed limit appears to be a mix of both malum prohibitum and malum in se.  Negligent homicide is another example of this hybrid concept.

I understand and agree with you that, in many respects, our society has become excessively encumbered by laws and regulations.  That said, Latter-day Saints are generally obligated to obey the law.

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I mean, I don't violate them or advocate that others do; on the other hand I may take a public stance against them.

If you are simply criticizing those laws (rather than excusing or justifying Mr. Petersen's apparent violation of them), then I see your point.

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Restrictions on immigration is one particular area of law that I opposed.  Trump's tariffs is another.   Abortion is another.  Capital punishment is another.  Here, we have a case where families are precluded from forming due to the oppression of other licensed adoption agencies. 

No regulation is appropriate.  If women are free to murder their fetuses without any kind of retribution, they ought to be encouraged by money to take them to full term. 

With respect, I disagree.  I think some regulation of adoptions is appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bob Crockett]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.  I think some regulation of adoptions is appropriate.

Other than commercial regulation which governs all contracts and criminal laws which govern relations, what?

I mean, a woman can agree to murder her fetus largely with impunity.  If that can be done, why not an adoption?

Edited November 20, 2019 by Bob Crockett

[Anijen]

Someone remarked that they probably do not speak English. Just to clarify; I would posit that almost all the Marshallese involved speak English.

Most Marshallese below the age of 70 speak very good English. In fact, like Native American languages, Marshallese is slowly going extinct. They teach in English in all their schools K-12. Missionaries usually learn the Marshallese language from the youth who speak very good English. So just to clarify the language is not one of the barriers.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Anijen

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Other than commercial regulation which governs all contracts and criminal laws which govern relations, what?

International adoptions need to be regulated, by virtue of them being international.

Adoptions also need some oversight to the extent there is a risk of coercion/duress, human trafficking, child laundering, etc.

47 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I mean, a woman can agree to murder her fetus largely with impunity.  If that can be done, why not an adoption?

First, I reject the pairing of adoption with abortion.  That a woman may have a generalized right to elective abortion does not operate to give her carte blanche to sell her babies.

Second, there are substantial risks of wrongdoing/corruption that can arise in relation to adoption.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Global adoption is a big business, fraught with loose regulations and profit incentives that have made it a target for kidnappers, human traffickers, and pedophiles.

Despite regulations on international adoptions, and with some countries even banning all foreign adoptions, the problem has continued. Kidnappers continue to fuel the trade, and adoption agencies continue to skirt the laws.

“What I stumbled on was horrific,” said Ed Opperman, a private investigator and host of “The Opperman Report” radio show.

Opperman began investigating cases of parents trying to locate their real children and of kids looking for their real parents. In some countries, “there’s no vetting whatsoever,” he said. “There is money to be made in this adoption business.”

Third, abortion is regulated by law (as are organ transplant, which also potentially impinge on personal autonomy, but are nevertheless susceptible to wrongdoing/corruption), so your citation to it does not work.

A woman has a right to get an abortion, but she may also need protection from being coerced into getting an abortion.

A woman has a right to give her child up for adoption, but she may also need protection from being coerced into doing so, or from her baby being kidnapped.  And on and on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bob Crockett]

4 hours ago, Anijen said:

Someone remarked that they probably do not speak English. Just to clarify; I would posit that almost all the Marshallese involved speak English.

Most Marshallese below the age of 70 speak very good English. In fact, like Native American languages, Marshallese is slowly going extinct. They teach in English in all their schools K-12. Missionaries usually learn the Marshallese language from the youth who speak very good English. So just to clarify the language is not one of the barriers.

And, further, Marshallese have unique travel rights in the U.S.   The treaty permits them to come and go with ease, if they have a passport.  No visas.   About as liberal as Puerto Ricans except PRs don't need a passport.

That is why I question the "smuggling" and coercion charges.  I suppose one could smuggle a resident of Arizona into California and coerce her to stay in a seedy motel while she awaits her baby, but I don't see it.

[Bob Crockett]

Is it really true that these women are padlocked in their rooms?  That’s wrong.  What woman says that?

[Bob Crockett]

You conservatives (I consider myself one; Trump is not) condemn anonymous whistling blowers in the impeachment proceedings.  I condemn accusations against Peterson withOut complaining witnesses!!