Child trafficking through intercountry adoption

The Podesta emails published by Wikileaks shed some light on the darkest secrets of the elites. Through them we’ve discovered a pedophile code, which allowed us to decrypt their messages. That led us to believe there’s a global network trafficking children to elite pedophile rings, in which top politicians are involved. To this day Pizzagate is widely ridiculed in the mainstream media as a „conspiracy theory”, as if there’s no merit to it. Most of the Pizzagate investigation was focused on the pedophile rings, but so far very little research was done as to how the trafficking networks operate. We know that thousands of children are abducted every year, and that at least some of them end up in the hands of the worst criminals. It’s the puzzle piece in between that we’re clearly missing.

One of the strongest arguments for Pizzagate being real is the case of Laura Silsby and her close ties to the Clintons.

Laura Silsby was caught red-handed trying to smuggle 33 children from Haiti in order to give them into international adoption. It was later revealed that none of the children were orphans, nor did they have the papers required by law to proceed with the adoption process. Nevertheless, had Laura Silsby succeeded with her plan, these 33 children, not eligible for adoption according to law, would end up abroad through intercountry adoption.

It goes to show that even though all adoptions are established in the courtroom, not all of them are legal:

„Illegal adoption practices are a pervasive problem in countries that have ratified the Hague Adoption Convention, as well as in those that have not. (…) The problems range from fraudulent practices designed to trick parents and guardians into giving up their children for adoption, practices that involve the forging of documents to increase the chances of children being adopted, and, in some cases, outright kidnapping of children for the sole purpose of adopting them out.” – Jessica Alexander, „Why the United States should define illegal adoption practices as human trafficking„.

„The term ‘child laundering’ expresses the claim that the current intercountry adoption system frequently takes children illegally from birth parents, obtains children illicitly through force, fraud, or funds (financial inducement), creates falsified paperwork to hide the child’s history and origins and identifies the child as a legitimately abandoned or relinquished ‘orphan’ eligible for adoption, and then uses the official processes of the adoption and legal systems to ‘launder’ them as ‘legally’ adopted children” – David Smolin, „Child Laundering: How the Intercountry Adoption System Legitimizes and Incentivizes the Practices of Buying, Trafficking, Kidnapping, and Stealing Children”

„Lack of regulation and oversight, particularly in the countries of origin, coupled with the potential for financial gain, has spurred the growth of an industry around adoption, where profit, rather than the best interests of children, takes centre stage. Abuses include the sale and abduction of children, coercion of parents, and bribery”Unicef report.

What I’ve found in my research is that the case of Laura Silsby is not an isolated incident – international adoption is a front for child trafficking and it takes place on a global scale.

Buy a child from China

First, let me give you an example of how it’s done. I found a chain of emails in Sony Archives published by Wikileaks, between Amy Pascal, who at the time was the chairperson of the company, and Bruno Wu – Chinese media mogul, married to a famous tv personality – Lan Yang . They were put in touch by their mutual friend-  Avi Arad – chairman, CEO and founder of Marvel Studios.

Even though this particular adoption process was not finalized, the above presented emails prove that intercountry adoption is just a front to hide the real channels of how children are obtained and then transferred from one country to another, without any control or supervision. The rules of law were waived, the official time-frame was abandoned, and nobody even bothered with the vetting to see if the prospective parents were at all suitable to take care of a child – they didn’t even know their names. The chain of messages also gives us a glimpse into the vastness of a trafficking network operating under the guise of international adoption. Top officials, adoption chiefs, and the financial elites in the sending country (China) and adoption agencies and social workers in the receiving country (USA) are all involved in the process, which allows these networks to operate outside the law. They have „their people” set on all key positions – from orphanage workers, adoption chiefs, through judges and attorneys, to businessmen and top politicians.

And it’s not a marginal issue, as even the most reputable agencies are involved.

Bal Jagat Children’s World Inc. is a fully Hague accredited agency that has operated in the U.S. since 1983. In 2016 its founder and Executive Director – Hemlata Momaya (the same person that was exchaging emails with Amy Pascal) was recognized by the Congress as an Angel of Adoptions. All these titles and awards clearly don’t mean anything, as the emails show  – the agency prides itself on having arrangements with social workers and  a „great relationship with the government of China so everything goes smoothly”. They don’t require adoptive parents to prove anything they state in the legal documents, not even to fill out the paperwork by themselves, as an assistant can do it for them. According to the law there can be no more than 45 years age difference between the adoptive parents and the child, but still Hemlata Momaya encouraged the prospective parents – both over 55, to state the preferred age of the child between 0-3 in their application.

There are only two things Hemlata Momaya and Bal Jagat Children’s Wold agency are concerned about – signed papers and a check for $7.000 as an entry fee („All of the other fees will be charged during the homestudy process”). If that’s what one has to pay just to fill out the application form, then how much does the whole process cost? How much do you have to pay to buy a child?

Bruno Wu and Yang Lan are public figures in China – everyone there knows about their media empire and international investments, but I bet not many people know that they are also involved in providing Chinese children to rich people in the western countries against Chinese law. Same can be said about the Chinese officials, members of the cabinet and ministers that Bruno Wu was alleging to. But that’s not where the analogy between Bruno Wu and the case of Laura Silsby ends – in 2005 Bruno Wu and Yang Lan opened the Sun Culture Foundation:

„Sun Culture Foundation works with government, market and non-governmental organizations to help build a free, open, diverse and lively society. Its activities are focused on children. The foundation is committed to offering equal opportunities to education for underprivileged children, so that they may become citizens of the world who are capable of discovering themselves, tolerating others, caring for the society and full of imagination and creativity. It works with academic institutions, non-governmental organizations, teachers, parents, and government offices to build various learning platforms for sound physical and mental development of children.”

Shouldn’t it raise concerns, that people that have constant access to the the most underprivileged children through their charity work, are also involved in finding children for foreigners and sending them out into adoption? Every year in China anywhere from 20.000 to 200.000 children are abducted and then trafficked mostly through international adoption. Was that 4 year old girl from Hunan obtained legally? Or was she among the thousands that had been abducted?

But there’s more to this than meets the eye. Over the years, the Sun Culture Foundation has cooperated with many well known entities, such as The Prince’s Charities Foundation, The Ford Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The Carter Center and UBS Optimus Foundation.

In 2015 Yang Lan, as a chairwoman of Sun Culture Foundation was among the guests of the Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting to Explore “The Future of Impact”. One of the parts of the program was „investing in children„. At this point one is left but to wonder if the phrase was used figuratively.

It’s global

In 1999 a Dutch whistleblower – Roelie Post, while working for the European Commission, was assigned the “Romanian Children Dossier” – a file of documents regarding the situation of children and minorities in Romania. She then uncovered that under the guise of intercountry adoption the agencies, financial entities and high level officials and politicians were trafficking children. Together with European Commissioner – Günter Verheugen they decided to put an end to it:

„I very quickly discovered that there was in fact a legalized child trafficking. In practice the Romanians have introduced kind of a bonus system. The organizations that sought [children] to adoption, or at least aroused the impression they do this for humanitarian reasons, got points according to the donations they were able to prove. And so obviously a market was created and I saw with my own eyes catalogs in which you could chose a child. My attitude was right from the start: a country that legalized child trafficking or condones child trafficking cannot meet the criteria to join the EU” – Günter Verheugen – European Commissioner for Enlargement from 1999 to 2004.

Upon Roelie Post’s discovery, EU Commission intervened demanding Romania to withhold international adoptions. That’s when it became obvious who they were up against: top politicians from Italy, Spain, Israel and USA demanded a wide range of exceptions to the ban. They all tried to use at the time negotiated business and political deals as a leverage to lift the Romanian ban on adoptions. The Mayor of Bucharest even made a „lobby list” public, which revealed, that to each child given into adoption, a top politician is assigned as a sponsor. Among the names listed were senators Edward Kennedy, John Kerry and EU Commission President Romano Prodi.

The pressure on Romania to reopen its borders for international adoption didn’t lessen with time. In 2001 US Secretary of State Colin Powell went as far, as to „draw a political link between the clearance of children for adoption and Romania’s accession to NATO„. In 2004 Vice President of the Commission of Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament – Emma Nicholson revealed that after Silvio Berlusconi’s visit to Romania, he received as a gift from Romanian officials 105 children sent from Romania to Italy through adoption. In 2009 Hillary Clinton as a Secretary of State urged Romanian Foreign Minister again to lift the ban on international adoptions. That same year, Marco Griffini from italian organization Amici Dei Bambini petitioned before the European Parliament to force Romania to „comply with international conventions on children’s rights” by sending their children away through adoption. The petition was met with strong opposition from Romanian politician – Victor Bostinaru:

„In my country, senior politicians were implicated in child trafficking, including the judiciary and the adoption authorities. To demand now here in the EU Parliament that my country is to allow international adoption again – is not only dangerous but also morally and politically unacceptable! „

Hemlata Momaya’s Bal Jagat was one of the many agencies involved in international adoptions from Romania – they completed nearly one hundred cases before the ban. As was stated on their website – „Romania was one of their most successful programs”.

Why adoption?

The fundamental reason why international adoption is a perfect cover for child trafficking is the secrecy rule under which all adoption proceedings are closed to the public and the documents are sealed – child’s name and identity number are permanently changed in the process and his or her origin is practically erased from the records.  That’s the loophole in the system, that makes all the shady operations and trafficking completely invisible to authorities that are outside of the network. The whole rationale for the secrecy rule is to protect a child from the psychological damage of knowing that he or she was adopted – in reality it only protects those, that abuse the system for criminal activity. Once a child is thrown into the process of international adoption, be it legally or not, there’s no way of tracing them back. What’s more, that same rule of secrecy provides a perfect way for the traffickers to make children disappear completely – multiple children are given the exact same name and identity number, but only one of them actually ends up with an adoptive family. Even if anyone ever manages to open the files in a given case that might be raising concerns, they’ll be directed to that one child. All the other children become legal ghosts that no one will ever ask about – it’s a perfect crime. That’s why so many times international adoption proved to be the channel through which children were delivered to pedophiles, child pornography makers, organ traffickers and ritual killers. That’s why even the fully legal intercountry adoptions might be part of the problem – they’re a facade behind which all these horrific crimes are hidden.

The story repeats itself

Over a year ago I discovered that the same things are taking place in Poland. I read a post on Voat about FBI raiding European Adoption Consultants agency in Ohio, then found out that the biggest polish agency dealing with international adoptions had just lost its accreditation, I joined the dots.

According to the document released by the State Department, the violations of European Adoption Consultants include:

22 CFR 96.44(a) & 96.46(a). EAC failed to adequately supervise its providers in foreign countries to ensure that they complied with the laws of the country in which they operated, and that they did not engage in practices inconsistent with the principles of furthering the best interests of the child and preventing the sale, abduction, exploitation, or trafficking of children. The failure to provide adequate supervision contributed to many of the violations described above.

22 CFR 96.52(e) EAC failed to perform tasks identified by the Secretary of State as required to comply with the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the “Convention”) , the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (the “IAA”), and the Intercountry Adoption Universal Accreditation Act of 2012 (“UAA”), and implementing regulations, including the conduct described above and the following violations: Solicitation of bribes; Fraudulently obtaining birth parent consent, and misrepresentation to birth parents of the effect and significance of their consents; Use of false documents and misrepresentations to influence or affect the decisions and actions of the U.S. and foreign governments with respect to a determination of a child’s eligibility for intercountry adoption, or to affect the decisions of an accrediting entity with respect to accreditation.

I wrote an article on the adoption case that was the basis for government intervention in both countries, as a result of which a 5 year old girl from Poland ended up with John and Georgina Tufts, who severely abused her. Less than a year after arriving to America the girl was rushed to the hospital bleeding from her private parts. She required immediate surgical intervention and a colostomy bag but still, as doctors say, some of the damage done to her is irreversible and she will require more surgeries in the future.

Since then, together with two other activists – Roman Poturalski and Paweł Bednarz, we appealed numerous times to the polish government to investigate other adoption cases and agencies, and to withhold intercountry adoption. We got support from one polish deputy – Piotr Liroy Marzec, who wrote an official interpellation to the Minister of Family, Labor and Social Policies, and in response to that, in August 2017 a decision was made to ban intercountry adoption almost entirely.

The problem was that despite Government’s official statement, nothing changed. Not only were children still given into intercountry adoption, but also it was very clear the law was being broken. The judges insisted they were not bound by the decision of the Government and they continued sending polish children abroad.

Little Iza was taken away from her four loving siblings who wanted to take care of her after their mother died, and placed in foster care. Later it was revealed that some anonymous foundation wanted to sponsor her „holidays in America”. Michał was given through adoption to a family in Belgium, despite his foster and biological families opposing that. The social worker told them that nothing could be done, because he was already paid for. Even more scandalous was the adoption process of Adam who in 2015 threatened to commit suicide if his adoption was finalized. We have recordings of an agency worker – Katarzyna Błocka – Ostapiuk coercing Adam’s grandmother just to „give adoption a try„, as if it wasn’t definitive and irreversible, she also was caught organizing a meeting with prospective parents behind grandmother’s back. In December Adam was sent to Italy – his family members (parents, grandmother and siblings) were not informed about the court proceedings, the grandmother was later denied access to the files on the grounds of the „secrecy rule”.

It’s enough to study how child trafficking networks operated under the guise of intercountry adoption in other countries, where their criminal activity was uncovered, to know the same thing is happening here, in Poland – their fingerprints are all over the place. It’s the same network of politicians, adoption agencies, judges, lawyers, foundations, and even border guards – all involved in trafficking, all covering one another’s back.

Last month Italian Comission of International Adoptions CAI announced that all adoptions from Poland were withheld:

„The Ministry of Family, Labor and Social Policies recently issued a statement that the Government of the Republic of Poland has decided to restrict international adoptions, giving priority to national adoptions in the belief that they are able to give all polish children adoptive families or a replacement family environment in Poland.”

It seemed that finally things were heading in the right direction, but just as with Romania – that didn’t last long. Soon after, Marco Griffini from Amici Dei Bambini questioned the rule of law in Poland and announced his plan to introduce European Adoption to the European Parliament:

„According to the principle of subsidiarity the international adoption is the last step of the child protection system, that to be implemented only after every other road has proved impracticable. But why in Europe can we not take into account the fact that we are all European citizens? Why not think that the adoption by a family of another European country is not the same as being adopted by an extra-European citizen? It is not possible that in the field of commerce there is a Union and in the field of children’s rights no. The road will be long, I think among other things that we can not tackle this theme by presenting ourselves with ready-made solutions, which would also be easily attackable precisely because of the complexity of the material … a first step to be taken, however, is certainly that of creating a European database of adoptable children. If it is true that Europe has a unique culture, we must begin to think of Europe as a single territory and face the problems of childhood as a common goal; starting from a serious collection of data and starting to collaborate between associations and organizations, doing a network job”.

One would have to be blind not to see it as a blatant attempt to overrule Polish government’s decision at European level, and it’s no coincidence it involves the same actors that were petitioning before the European Parliament to lift the Romanian ban. Amici dei Bambini is a huge organization that was financially supported by European Union and UNICEF until their involvement in two child trafficking scandals was revealed by the press. In 2013 a pedophile ring abusing children from a Bulgarian orphanage for sex, pornography and prostitution was uncovered. The orphanage was working with Amici dei Bambini, which failed to report to Italian authorities about the crimes even though they had been informed about them by adoptive parents. Then in 2016 italian L’Espresso revealed that children that were „stolen” from their parents in Congo, were then transfered to Italy through international adoption. According to reports, not only were the managers of Amici dei Bambini fully aware of this and failed to report it to the authorities, but also they forged the documentation by reporting false information.

And now these very same people push for establishing „European Adoption” in the EU. What could possibly go wrong?

What can we do about it?

Haiti, China, Romania and Poland are no exceptions – in every single country that at any point in time has been sending their children abroad through intercountry adoption, incidents of serious negligence, abuse and trafficking have been uncovered. That’s why over the last 14 years the number of intercountry adoptions has dropped drastically worldwide. Everytime another adoption scandal breaks, the blame shifting begins in the media – in the sending country they present it as if only the receiving country was culpable, and vice versa. They say that „it’s very unfortunate that the system failed„. But does the system really fail? Or does it work exactly as intended?

If child trafficking networks were caught time and time again operating under the guise of international adoption, if so many times it was proven that there is no oversight of the adoption process, because people on all levels are involved, if the secrecy rule instead of protecting the children was enabling these illegal activities, then why hasn’t anything changed? If the system failed to protect children in every single country, then maybe it wasn’t build to protect children – maybe it was built to protect the interests of the trafficking networks.

Banning international adoptions in one country doesn’t make them stop – it only makes them move their operations temporarily somewhere else. That’s why it’s not enough to just expose certain people – the whole system has to collapse, or the story will keep repeating itself. It’s a global issue, and it deserves global attention. Pizzagate hasn’t reached the tipping point just yet. Maybe it might be time for a better day.