Adoption Scam (Human Trafficking?) in Arizona/Utah

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes it does. Isn't it common for the church to suspend judgment on worthiness issues when criminal matters are not yet resolved? Maybe that's more for white-collar crimes.

They do wait generally until after legal proceedings are completed. The intent (I suspect) is to prevent church disciplinary councils from being used as evidence in legal proceedings or attempts to call participants in the council to testify or for the council’s proceedings or decisions to taint the legal outcome of the case in any way. Someone could argue that an LDS juror who heard no action was taken on a specific disciplinary council and later served on a jury for that same case might be predisposed to find them not guilty or vice versa if you reverse the circumstances. If you wait you avoid potential problems.

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They do wait generally until after legal proceedings are completed. The intent (I suspect) is to prevent church disciplinary councils from being used as evidence in legal proceedings or attempts to call participants in the council to testify or for the council’s proceedings or decisions to taint the legal outcome of the case in any way. Someone could argue that an LDS juror who heard no action was taken on a specific disciplinary council and later served on a jury for that same case might be predisposed to find them not guilty or vice versa if you reverse the circumstances. If you wait you avoid potential problems.

Also they might be avoiding issues around obstruction of justice. 

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Also they might be avoiding issues around obstruction of justice. 

Huh?  Where'd you get that?  How would the Church be implicated in having obstructed justice?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Also they might be avoiding issues around obstruction of justice. 

 

I would be careful with that term. It has many meanings but I doubt a disciplinary council would create any of them.

[InCognitus]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They do wait generally until after legal proceedings are completed.

This is stipulated in the church handbook, if I remember correctly (or unless that has been changed), to wait until after a decision has been reached by a criminal or civil court before proceeding with a disciplinary council.

 

[Bob Crockett]

On 11/11/2019 at 6:52 PM, ttribe said:

Would you be interested to know that approximately half of the women who were found in one of Petersen's house when he was arrested have now decided to keep their babies?  Perhaps that's because they are no longer being coerced.  Just a thought.

So nobody?  Not a single woman is a complainant?    What does that tell you?

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

So nobody?  Not a single woman is a complainant?    What does that tell you?

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:

Quote

Another birth mother said a fixer for Petersen coerced her into staying in an isolated house in Arkansas. When she fled the house with two friends, she said the fixer threatened to call the police and make them pay their airfare.

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).

Quote

Two adoptive parents in Utah told investigators that they visited a birth mother at a house owned by Petersen in a Salt Lake City suburb, according to the court documents. They saw 15 or more pregnant women in the house; some appeared to sleep on mattresses on a bare floor, court documents said. One of the parents remarked to the investigator that Petersen's adoption operation seemed like a "baby mill." 

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Calm

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

So nobody?  Not a single woman is a complainant?    What does that tell you?

[Calm]

The government has decided not to go after the adoptive parents as they are seen as victims (azcentral article iirc), even if the adoptions are viewed as illegal.

I bet the parents would view themselves as victims of Petersen for misrepresenting his service as legal pretty quickly if they were charged though.  Some may view themselves as victims now because of the uncertainty of whether the adoption could be challenged or not.  If somehow a Marshallese mother or bio father was able to find a lawyer who would work pro bono or had the money to pay a lawyer, how many years must pass before they could no longer take the parents to court to get their child back?

Edited November 14, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

So nobody?  Not a single woman is a complainant?    What does that tell you?

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.

[The Nehor]

On 11/11/2019 at 12:45 PM, smac97 said:

It also presents an interesting hypothetical, at least.  If members of the Church express to a local leader "concern" about the professional activities of another member, does the bishop have a duty to report those "concerns" to law enforcement?

It depends on what they know. Being concerned about someone does not mean you have evidence of criminal actions or intent. There are people in the church I know that I would never go into business with in any way. Not because of anything they have done but because of things they have said or done or the way they have acted that make me believe they are probably willing to con people. Some I have even liked on other levels. If they had evidence or a really strong suspicion of criminal activity then yeah, they should report.

[The Nehor]

The number of charges keep growing and it looks like they now know how he was paying for the childbirths. He was allegedly illegally signing the women up for Medicaid as Arizona residents and robbed the government of about $800k. Hmmmm.....yet he made over 2 million when the money from the adopters was intended to cover that care. Instead, it looks like he pocketed it.

[Calm]

The AZcentral article has the women being promised $10,000, but the reports are of $6000 and $4000 to two separate women. Makes me wonder if he actually paid the women the full amount or shorted them by claiming expenses. 

[Meadowchik]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Huh?  Where'd you get that?  How would the Church be implicated in having obstructed justice?

Thanks,

-Smac

If the church tries to mediate a sin that is also a criminal act, before due process, and a leader declares a matter reconciled.

I think it can vary from state to state, countries, etc..., but our bishop criticised us for filing as police report on a Sunday because my husband was assaulted on a Sunday. It is my understanding that the church trying to pressure us to not file a report of a crime could be obstruction of justice. 

Anyways, that's a minor example which made it clear enough to me that less sensible parties could really neglect the duty to report crimes or pressure victims to not report crimes.

[Meadowchik]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would be careful with that term. It has many meanings but I doubt a disciplinary council would create any of them.

I don't know what better term to use, but surely you can see that a well-intending leader might try to mediate between victim and perpetrator in a way that pressures them to not report a crime.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't know what better term to use, but surely you can see that a well-intending leader might try to mediate between victim and perpetrator in a way that pressures them to not report a crime.

That is not how church discipline works. 99% of the time the victim would not attend.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

If the church tries to mediate a sin that is also a criminal act, before due process, and a leader declares a matter reconciled.

I think it can vary from state to state, countries, etc..., but our bishop criticised us for filing as police report on a Sunday because my husband was assaulted on a Sunday. It is my understanding that the church trying to pressure us to not file a report of a crime could be obstruction of justice. 

Anyways, that's a minor example which made it clear enough to me that less sensible parties could really neglect the duty to report crimes or pressure victims to not report crimes.

Probably not obstruction unless he threatened you.

This is also not really part of the disciplinary process so delaying it would not prevent it.

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is not how church discipline works. 99% of the time the victim would not attend.

That's a factor, because when something is going through a judicial or (criminal or civil) process, the victim isn't always known.

And church discipline can, on the whole, be with a bishop working separately with both parties, trying to mediate a conflict through individual processes of repentance for them both. 

So if the bishop were to say to one to drop the charges and forgive the other, even if the bishop genuinely believes this is correct for the situation, he could be interfering in a victim's application to law enforcement.l

Like I said, this is I would guess, a reason why sometimes church judgments are delayed, to avoid such hazards.

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Probably not obstruction unless he threatened you.

This is also not really part of the disciplinary process so delaying it would not prevent it.

It got very hairy there for a while, and the bishop and stake president did act inappropriately going against the protocol I'm talking about. Before the assault they wanted to withhold our temple recommends because we had filed a civil case against the other ward members. But eventually, both leaders apologized, to our great relief. 

It was a mess.

 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's a factor, because when something is going through a judicial or (criminal or civil) process, the victim isn't always known.

And church discipline can, on the whole, be with a bishop working separately with both parties, trying to mediate a conflict through individual processes of repentance for them both. 

So if the bishop were to say to one to drop the charges and forgive the other, even if the bishop genuinely believes this is correct for the situation, he could be interfering in a victim's application to law enforcement.l

Like I said, this is I would guess, a reason why sometimes church judgments are delayed, to avoid such hazards.

That could happen but again, interviewing the victim or the perpetrator is not tied to church discipline and the former will probably happen anyways. Advising someone on whether or not to report something is not obstruction unless MAYBE if it is done by intimidation or threats.

The hazards delaying the council gives is that there is no confession before a group, no discussion of ramifications, no collection of witnesses or evidence and no official ecclesiastical judgement made.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It got very hairy there for a while, and the bishop and stake president did act inappropriately going against the protocol I'm talking about. Before the assault they wanted to withhold our temple recommends because we had filed a civil case against the other ward members. But eventually, both leaders apologized, to our great relief. 

It was a mess.

 

I obviously cannot speak to that specifically but delaying a disciplinary hearing until after a criminal judgement would not have prevented what happened in your case either.

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That could happen but again, interviewing the victim or the perpetrator is not tied to church discipline and the former will probably happen anyways. Advising someone on whether or not to report something is not obstruction unless MAYBE if it is done by intimidation or threats.

The hazards delaying the council gives is that there is no confession before a group, no discussion of ramifications, no collection of witnesses or evidence and no official ecclesiastical judgement made.

I initially said that disciplinary councils might be delayed (in part for the reason of potentially obstructing (interfering with, whatever term is best) the judicial process. Obviously in serious, prolonged situations, interviews can precede and then follow disciplinary councils. 

[Meadowchik]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I obviously cannot speak to that specifically but delaying a disciplinary hearing until after a criminal judgement would not have prevented what happened in your case either.

Criminal or civil judgment, not just criminal.

The stake president decided my worthiness based of the mere fact that we had filed a civil case, and denied my recommend on that basis, without meeting with me. 

Had we been different people believing God really operated like that, we might have dropped the case for fear for our souls. Or, later, we might have dropped assault charges for the same reason.

I feel bad for both leaders, the other party was very, very unreasonable and effectively harassed both consistently to try to get them to punish us.  So, apparently in their frustration, they essentially threw up their hands and denied/withdrew all four of our recommends.

Bishops can't be fairly expected to adjudicate stuff like this.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Meadowchik

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Criminal or civil judgment, not just criminal.

The stake president decided my worthiness based of the mere fact that we had filed a civil case, and denied my recommend on that basis, without meeting with me. 

Had we been different people believing God really operated like that, we might have dropped the case for fear for our souls. Or, later, we might have dropped assault charges for the same reason.

I feel bad for both leaders, the other party was very, very unreasonable and effectively harassed both consistently to try to get them to punish us.  So, apparently in their frustration, they essentially threw up their hands and denied/withdrew all four of our recommends.

Bishops can't be fairly expected to adjudicate stuff like this.

I am not going to pass any judgement on anyone based on a very vague one-sided account.

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I initially said that disciplinary councils might be delayed (in part for the reason of potentially obstructing (interfering with, whatever term is best) the judicial process. Obviously in serious, prolonged situations, interviews can precede and then follow disciplinary councils. 

Interviews almost always precede disciplinary councils. The only exceptions I know of are councils involving people who have no active involvement with the church and would ignore or reject an invitation to an interview and are not expected to come to the council either.

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not going to pass any judgement on anyone based on a very vague one-sided account.

Interviews almost always precede disciplinary councils. The only exceptions I know of are councils involving people who have no active involvement with the church and would ignore or reject an invitation to an interview and are not expected to come to the council either.

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.