http://entertainment.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4459,8299356%5E10431%
5E%5Enbv,00.html

Jolie faces adoption scandal
January 01, 2004


OSCAR-winner Angelina Jolie is facing a huge legal battle to remain the mother
of her son Maddox, reports IMDB.com.

Jolie and adopted son Maddox.

The Tomb Raider beauty, 28, was shocked to hear that her two-year-old child
might not be an orphan and could have been sold by his birth mother in a
desperate attempt to escape a poverty-stricken life.

The FBI has already closed down Seattle International Adoptions Inc., used by
Jolie to adopt Maddox, after its former owner Lynn Devin pleaded guilty to
false claims that some children the agency handled were orphans.

"I will never give my little boy back," Jolie has told a friend.

"I've given him a home, I've given him love and he's mine."

Ironically, Jolie's ex-husband Billy Bob Thornton voiced concerns about
Maddox's parentage before they separated in July 2002.

"Billy Bob voiced strong fears that poor Cambodian women were being taken
advantage of," said a source.

"His serious doubts about the whole adoptions process contributed heavily to
the breakup of their marriage. Now his words have come back to haunt Angelina."




-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

On 02 Jan 2004 14:41:34 GMT, lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)
wrote:
http://entertainment.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4459,8299356%5E10431%5E%5Enbv,00.htmlJolie faces adoption scandalJanuary 01, 2004OSCAR-winner Angelina Jolie is facing a huge legal battle to remain the motherof her son Maddox, reports IMDB.com.Jolie and adopted son Maddox.The Tomb Raider beauty, 28, was shocked to hear that her two-year-old childmight not be an orphan and could have been sold by his birth mother in adesperate attempt to escape a poverty-stricken life.The FBI has already closed down Seattle International Adoptions Inc., used byJolie to adopt Maddox, after its former owner Lynn Devin pleaded guilty tofalse claims that some children the agency handled were orphans."I will never give my little boy back," Jolie has told a friend."I've given him a home, I've given him love and he's mine."Ironically, Jolie's ex-husband Billy Bob Thornton voiced concerns aboutMaddox's parentage before they separated in July 2002."Billy Bob voiced strong fears that poor Cambodian women were being takenadvantage of," said a source."His serious doubts about the whole adoptions process contributed heavily tothe breakup of their marriage. Now his words have come back to haunt Angelina."

Billy Bob is a good man.. if this is true..

I have a feeling it is..


Jackie

>On 02 Jan 2004 14:41:34 GMT, lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)wrote:http://entertainment.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4459,8299356%5E10431%5E%5Enbv,00.htmlJolie faces adoption scandalJanuary 01, 2004OSCAR-winner Angelina Jolie is facing a huge legal battle to remain themotherof her son Maddox, reports IMDB.com.Jolie and adopted son Maddox.The Tomb Raider beauty, 28, was shocked to hear that her two-year-old childmight not be an orphan and could have been sold by his birth mother in adesperate attempt to escape a poverty-stricken life.The FBI has already closed down Seattle International Adoptions Inc., usedbyJolie to adopt Maddox, after its former owner Lynn Devin pleaded guilty tofalse claims that some children the agency handled were orphans."I will never give my little boy back," Jolie has told a friend."I've given him a home, I've given him love and he's mine."Ironically, Jolie's ex-husband Billy Bob Thornton voiced concerns aboutMaddox's parentage before they separated in July 2002."Billy Bob voiced strong fears that poor Cambodian women were being takenadvantage of," said a source."His serious doubts about the whole adoptions process contributed heavily tothe breakup of their marriage. Now his words have come back to hauntAngelina."Billy Bob is a good man.. if this is true..I have a feeling it is..Jackie


Ask your friend GR about Billy Bob.


Roberta
mom to Juliette, 7, adopted from China

In article <strevvo2rcq0k7umtp1v6ja40055b264i8@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 02 Jan 2004 14:41:34 GMT, lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)wrote:http://entertainment.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4459,8299356%5E10431%5E%5Enbv,00.htmlJolie faces adoption scandalJanuary 01, 2004OSCAR-winner Angelina Jolie is facing a huge legal battle to remain the motherof her son Maddox, reports IMDB.com.Jolie and adopted son Maddox.The Tomb Raider beauty, 28, was shocked to hear that her two-year-old childmight not be an orphan and could have been sold by his birth mother in adesperate attempt to escape a poverty-stricken life.The FBI has already closed down Seattle International Adoptions Inc., used byJolie to adopt Maddox, after its former owner Lynn Devin pleaded guilty tofalse claims that some children the agency handled were orphans."I will never give my little boy back," Jolie has told a friend."I've given him a home, I've given him love and he's mine."Ironically, Jolie's ex-husband Billy Bob Thornton voiced concerns aboutMaddox's parentage before they separated in July 2002."Billy Bob voiced strong fears that poor Cambodian women were being takenadvantage of," said a source."His serious doubts about the whole adoptions process contributed heavily tothe breakup of their marriage. Now his words have come back to haunt Angelina."Billy Bob is a good man.. if this is true..I have a feeling it is..

He's a good man for dumping his wife?!?

Wow - That says a lot about you, doesn't it.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

> >Billy Bob is a good man.. if this is true..I have a feeling it is.. He's a good man for dumping his wife?!? Wow - That says a lot about you, doesn't it. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

Maybe he just had morals that wouldn't let him steal someone's child.
I had read in an article somewhere, when the whole adoption was taking
place, that He wouldn't go through with it, and so Angelina adopted as
a single parent, though she was still married to him, because he
didn't want to adopt the little boy. It led to their divorce, but my
God, any decent human being, whose spouse was about to kidnap a child,
would, and should resist, even to the point of divorce. Just because
your spouse wants to kill someone or rob a bank, does not obligate you
to participate, just because you are married. There's got to be a
limit to spousal loyalty somewhere.

Melinda Walmsley wrote: Maybe he just had morals that wouldn't let him steal someone's child.

Or maybe he is of the childfree mentality.

"SuperEeyore" <monkeylove@lanset.com> wrote in message
news:btamq0$51hmn$1@ID-125723.news.uni-berlin.de... Melinda Walmsley wrote: Maybe he just had morals that wouldn't let him steal someone's child. Or maybe he is of the childfree mentality.

I think that's more like it. Why would he want to share his wife with
Maddox? When babies arrive marriage ends.

Marley

Marley Greiner wrote: "SuperEeyore" <monkeylove@lanset.com> wrote in message news:btamq0$51hmn$1@ID-125723.news.uni-berlin.de... Melinda Walmsley wrote: Maybe he just had morals that wouldn't let him steal someone's child. Or maybe he is of the childfree mentality. I think that's more like it. Why would he want to share his wife with Maddox? When babies arrive marriage ends.

Well it's a pretty definate deal breaker for those who really live the
childfree life.

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: mhjtw@hotmail.com (Melinda Walmsley)Date: 1/4/04 10:29 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <eb5515c9.0401041929.654a8e07@posting.google.com>

< snip >
It led to their divorce, but my God, any decent human being,whose spouse was about to kidnap a child,

Or relinquish one. Didn't you hold your husband partially responsible for
the relinquishment of your granddaughter?
would, and should resist, even to the point of divorce.

Calling adoption agencies without your daughter's knowledge doesn't sound
like resistance to me.
Just because your spouse wants to kill someone or rob abank, does not obligate you to participate, just because youare married. There's got to be a limit to spousal loyaltysomewhere.

< chuckle >

Dad

"Melinda Walmsley" <mhjtw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb5515c9.0401041929.654a8e07@posting.google.c om...Billy Bob is a good man.. if this is true..I have a feeling it is.. He's a good man for dumping his wife?!? Wow - That says a lot about you, doesn't it. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557 Maybe he just had morals that wouldn't let him steal someone's child. I had read in an article somewhere, when the whole adoption was taking place, that He wouldn't go through with it, and so Angelina adopted as a single parent, though she was still married to him, because he didn't want to adopt the little boy. It led to their divorce, but my God, any decent human being, whose spouse was about to kidnap a child, would, and should resist, even to the point of divorce. Just because your spouse wants to kill someone or rob a bank, does not obligate you to participate, just because you are married. There's got to be a limit to spousal loyalty somewhere.

Still got those bees in your bonnet, Melinda? LOL

Helen

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: mhjtw@hotmail.com (Melinda Walmsley)Date: 1/4/04 8:29 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <eb5515c9.0401041929.654a8e07@posting.google.com>Billy Bob is a good man.. if this is true..I have a feeling it is.. He's a good man for dumping his wife?!? Wow - That says a lot about you, doesn't it. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557Maybe he just had morals that wouldn't let him steal someone's child.

Or maybe he's just a shmuck that doesn't give a crap about kids. He has
several with different women and that never stopped him from f*cking around and
moving on to the next.


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040105082823.11386.00002355@mb-m11.aol.com...Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: mhjtw@hotmail.com (Melinda Walmsley)Date: 1/4/04 8:29 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <eb5515c9.0401041929.654a8e07@posting.google.com> > >Billy Bob is a good man.. if this is true.. > >I have a feeling it is.. He's a good man for dumping his wife?!? Wow - That says a lot about you, doesn't it. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557Maybe he just had morals that wouldn't let him steal someone's child. Or maybe he's just a shmuck that doesn't give a crap about kids. He has several with different women and that never stopped him from f*cking
around and moving on to the next. ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend
will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

Shortly after the breakup of his marriage he was seen here in Cowtown
groping (and later presumably boinking) a waitress. An account of this
escape showed up in one of the alternapapers at the same time he was
reportedly trying to make up with Jolie. The article got back to her and
she kicked him to the curb again.. I love Billy Bob for is black heart and
I doubt he'd have much thought to the morality of the adoption.

Marley

On 04 Jan 2004 02:22:47 GMT, robyf@aol.comnojunk (Roberta) wrote:
Billy Bob is a good man.. if this is true..I have a feeling it is..JackieAsk your friend GR about Billy Bob.


My husband knows him personally..

He has worked on a few movies with him..



Jackie

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 03:06:11 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <strevvo2rcq0k7umtp1v6ja40055b264i8@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 02 Jan 2004 14:41:34 GMT, lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)wrote:http://entertainment.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4459,8299356%5E10431%5E%5Enbv,00.htmlJolie faces adoption scandalJanuary 01, 2004OSCAR-winner Angelina Jolie is facing a huge legal battle to remain the motherof her son Maddox, reports IMDB.com.Jolie and adopted son Maddox.The Tomb Raider beauty, 28, was shocked to hear that her two-year-old childmight not be an orphan and could have been sold by his birth mother in adesperate attempt to escape a poverty-stricken life.The FBI has already closed down Seattle International Adoptions Inc., used byJolie to adopt Maddox, after its former owner Lynn Devin pleaded guilty tofalse claims that some children the agency handled were orphans."I will never give my little boy back," Jolie has told a friend."I've given him a home, I've given him love and he's mine."Ironically, Jolie's ex-husband Billy Bob Thornton voiced concerns aboutMaddox's parentage before they separated in July 2002."Billy Bob voiced strong fears that poor Cambodian women were being takenadvantage of," said a source."His serious doubts about the whole adoptions process contributed heavily tothe breakup of their marriage. Now his words have come back to haunt Angelina."Billy Bob is a good man.. if this is true..I have a feeling it is..He's a good man for dumping his wife?!?Wow - That says a lot about you, doesn't it.

He has the morals to not engage in the purchase of a baby..

According to this news article he left her because she did purchase a
baby..


Jackie

On 4 Jan 2004 19:29:05 -0800, mhjtw@hotmail.com (Melinda Walmsley)
wrote:
Billy Bob is a good man.. if this is true..I have a feeling it is.. He's a good man for dumping his wife?!? Wow - That says a lot about you, doesn't it. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557Maybe he just had morals that wouldn't let him steal someone's child.I had read in an article somewhere, when the whole adoption was takingplace, that He wouldn't go through with it, and so Angelina adopted asa single parent, though she was still married to him, because hedidn't want to adopt the little boy. It led to their divorce, but myGod, any decent human being, whose spouse was about to kidnap a child,would, and should resist, even to the point of divorce. Just becauseyour spouse wants to kill someone or rob a bank, does not obligate youto participate, just because you are married. There's got to be alimit to spousal loyalty somewhere.


Isn't it telling that some do not get this very important fact
Melinda.

It sort of explains the reaction you got when you told your story
here..


Jackie

In article <ah3jvv8p0v58ed312ssj37aucn39obdrf0@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 4 Jan 2004 19:29:05 -0800, mhjtw@hotmail.com (Melinda Walmsley)wrote: > >Billy Bob is a good man.. if this is true.. > >I have a feeling it is.. He's a good man for dumping his wife?!? Wow - That says a lot about you, doesn't it. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557Maybe he just had morals that wouldn't let him steal someone's child.I had read in an article somewhere, when the whole adoption was takingplace, that He wouldn't go through with it, and so Angelina adopted asa single parent, though she was still married to him, because hedidn't want to adopt the little boy. It led to their divorce, but myGod, any decent human being, whose spouse was about to kidnap a child,would, and should resist, even to the point of divorce. Just becauseyour spouse wants to kill someone or rob a bank, does not obligate youto participate, just because you are married. There's got to be alimit to spousal loyalty somewhere.Isn't it telling that some do not get this very important factMelinda.

What's the "very important fact", Jackie? Melinda's obviously misguided view of
Billy Bob's "morals?
It sort of explains the reaction you got when you told your storyhere..

Thank goodness I wasn't here yet.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <gd3jvv4u3f5ase48a4k8pao9u0tcql8rl4@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 03:06:11 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:In article <strevvo2rcq0k7umtp1v6ja40055b264i8@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 02 Jan 2004 14:41:34 GMT, lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)wrote:>http://entertainment.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4459,8299356%5E10431%>5E%5Enbv,00.html>>Jolie faces adoption scandal>January 01, 2004>>>OSCAR-winner Angelina Jolie is facing a huge legal battle to remain the mother>of her son Maddox, reports IMDB.com.>>Jolie and adopted son Maddox.>>The Tomb Raider beauty, 28, was shocked to hear that her two-year-old child>might not be an orphan and could have been sold by his birth mother in a>desperate attempt to escape a poverty-stricken life.>>The FBI has already closed down Seattle International Adoptions Inc., used by>Jolie to adopt Maddox, after its former owner Lynn Devin pleaded guilty to>false claims that some children the agency handled were orphans.>>"I will never give my little boy back," Jolie has told a friend.>>"I've given him a home, I've given him love and he's mine.">>Ironically, Jolie's ex-husband Billy Bob Thornton voiced concerns about>Maddox's parentage before they separated in July 2002.>>"Billy Bob voiced strong fears that poor Cambodian women were being taken>advantage of," said a source.>>"His serious doubts about the whole adoptions process contributed heavily to>the breakup of their marriage. Now his words have come back to haunt Angelina."Billy Bob is a good man.. if this is true..I have a feeling it is..He's a good man for dumping his wife?!?Wow - That says a lot about you, doesn't it.He has the morals to not engage in the purchase of a baby..

LOL! But not the morals to try to keep a marriage going - How many times has he
been married? Five? Six? Seven? Sounds like he really tries to make marriage
work, doesn't it? SNERK!
According to this news article he left her because she did purchase ababy..

And according to numerous articles prior to this one, he dumped Angelina because
having a baby cramped his style. Ask his multiple ex-wives about what a great
dad he is. Wasn't he accused of beating one of his ex-wives?

Yeah, he's a real peach.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: mhjtw@hotmail.com (Melinda Walmsley)Date: 1/4/04 7:29 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <eb5515c9.0401041929.654a8e07@posting.google.com>Billy Bob is a good man.. if this is true..I have a feeling it is.. He's a good man for dumping his wife?!? Wow - That says a lot about you, doesn't it. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557Maybe he just had morals that wouldn't let him steal someone's child.

And maybe he is making it all up against his former wife to get even with her
because he's an asshole. Btw, how do you know that Angelina Jolie stole
someone's child?

You haven't the ability to know the difference between an adoption and a
kidnapping.....







Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/5/04 8:20 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <gd3jvv4u3f5ase48a4k8pao9u0tcql8rl4@4ax.com>On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 03:06:11 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:In article <strevvo2rcq0k7umtp1v6ja40055b264i8@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 02 Jan 2004 14:41:34 GMT, lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)wrote:>http://entertainment.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4459,8299356%5E10431%>5E%5Enbv,00.html>>Jolie faces adoption scandal>January 01, 2004>>>OSCAR-winner Angelina Jolie is facing a huge legal battle to remain themother>of her son Maddox, reports IMDB.com.>>Jolie and adopted son Maddox.>>The Tomb Raider beauty, 28, was shocked to hear that her two-year-oldchild>might not be an orphan and could have been sold by his birth mother in a>desperate attempt to escape a poverty-stricken life.>>The FBI has already closed down Seattle International Adoptions Inc., usedby>Jolie to adopt Maddox, after its former owner Lynn Devin pleaded guilty to>false claims that some children the agency handled were orphans.>>"I will never give my little boy back," Jolie has told a friend.>>"I've given him a home, I've given him love and he's mine.">>Ironically, Jolie's ex-husband Billy Bob Thornton voiced concerns about>Maddox's parentage before they separated in July 2002.>>"Billy Bob voiced strong fears that poor Cambodian women were being taken>advantage of," said a source.>>"His serious doubts about the whole adoptions process contributed heavilyto>the breakup of their marriage. Now his words have come back to hauntAngelina."Billy Bob is a good man.. if this is true..I have a feeling it is..He's a good man for dumping his wife?!?Wow - That says a lot about you, doesn't it.He has the morals to not engage in the purchase of a baby..According to this news article he left her because she did purchase ababy..Jackie

Oh really...I didn't know Angelina Jolie is a convicted felon....
Where'd you get your facts, Jackie?
The National Enquirer?



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>You haven't the ability to know the difference between an adoption and akidnapping.....

If the price tag of $350,000 is true, smells an awful lot like child
trafficking to me. No sane person would think otherwise, particularly the one
writing the checks. Sorry. No sympathy for Jolie here.


P2P

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 1/5/04 4:10 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040105191041.11177.00002151@mb-m11.aol.com>You haven't the ability to know the difference between an adoption and akidnapping.....If the price tag of $350,000 is true, smells an awful lot like childtrafficking to me. No sane person would think otherwise, particularly theonewriting the checks. Sorry. No sympathy for Jolie here.P2P

Was the $350,000. fee listed as such in this thread? I can't seem to find it.





Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

In article <20040105193739.26263.00002474@mb-m06.aol.com>,
meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) writes:
Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 1/5/04 4:10 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040105191041.11177.00002151@mb-m11.aol.com>You haven't the ability to know the difference between an adoption and akidnapping.....If the price tag of $350,000 is true, smells an awful lot like childtrafficking to me. No sane person would think otherwise, particularly theonewriting the checks. Sorry. No sympathy for Jolie here.P2PWas the $350,000. fee listed as such in this thread? I can't seem to find it.

"It has been reported that the actress paid Seattle International Adoptions up
to $350,000 to arrange the paperwork and deliver the baby to her when she was
working on a film about refugees in March 2002 in Namibia.

Last month, Lynn Devin, the agency's founder, pleaded guilty to conspiracy
charges for falsely claiming that adopted children were orphans and allowed the
FBI to dismantle her organization. Exactly who among her clients received
"black market babies" remains locked in confidential court documents.

Police have refused to say whether Maddox is a legal or illegal adoption,
adding: "We are looking at all cases."

The adoption of Maddox was "facilitated" by a relative of Devin, a colourful
Hawaiian named Lauryn Galindo, 52, who is also facing conspiracy charges.
Galindo is famous in Phnom Penh on at least two counts: her ability to ease
bureaucratic difficulties with "tips," which she said consumed most of her
fees, and occasional displays of her hula dancing skills for visiting
dignitaries and diplomats.

While refusing to discuss Jolie directly, Galindo denied doing anything wrong.

"The Americans and the Cambodians have different definitions of the 50,000
children in orphanages. American officials say both parents have to be dead to
count as orphans, but in Cambodia it is enough to say they have given up or
disappeared and in that poor country, that is all too common," she told a local
newspaper."

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/story.asp?id=8FE767DF-2445-4D1
D-B8DD-7461650CABA7






Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.)Date: 1/5/04 5:36 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com>

Top Posting

Thanks, J.

I saw that she paid $350,000. fee in another article just recently posted, but
not on this thread.

Wow, this is truly scandalous. That poor little boy. I wonder how many more are
out there facing a similar fate like Maddox.




"It has been reported that the actress paid Seattle International Adoptionsupto $350,000 to arrange the paperwork and deliver the baby to her when she wasworking on a film about refugees in March 2002 in Namibia.
Last month, Lynn Devin, the agency's founder, pleaded guilty to conspiracycharges for falsely claiming that adopted children were orphans and allowedtheFBI to dismantle her organization. Exactly who among her clients received"black market babies" remains
locked in confidential court documents.Police have refused to say whether Maddox is a legal or illegal adoption,adding: "We are looking at all cases."
The adoption of Maddox was "facilitated" by a relative of Devin, a colourfulHawaiian named Lauryn Galindo, 52, who is also facing conspiracy charges.Galindo is famous in Phnom Penh on at least two counts: her ability to ease
bureaucratic difficulties with "tips," which she said consumed most of herfees, and occasional displays of her hula dancing skills for visitingdignitaries and diplomats.
While refusing to discuss Jolie directly, Galindo denied doing anythingwrong."The Americans and the Cambodians have different definitions of the 50,000children in orphanages. American officials say both parents have to be
dead tocount as orphans, but in Cambodia it is enough to say they have given up ordisappeared and in that poor country, that is all too common," she told alocalnewspaper."
http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/story.asp?id=8FE767DF-2445-4D1D-B8DD-7461650CABA7
Reply to jmhjmd at aol.



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

In article <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com>,
jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote:

"It has been reported that the actress paid Seattle International Adoptions up to $350,000 to arrange the paperwork and deliver the baby to her when she was working on a film about refugees in March 2002 in Namibia. Last month, Lynn Devin, the agency's founder, pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges for falsely claiming that adopted children were orphans and allowed the FBI to dismantle her organization. Exactly who among her clients received "black market babies" remains locked in confidential court documents. Police have refused to say whether Maddox is a legal or illegal adoption, adding: "We are looking at all cases."


Sounds like a felony to me.

The adoption of Maddox was "facilitated" by a relative of Devin, a colourful Hawaiian named Lauryn Galindo, 52, who is also facing conspiracy charges. Galindo is famous in Phnom Penh on at least two counts: her ability to ease bureaucratic difficulties with "tips," which she said consumed most of her fees, and occasional displays of her hula dancing skills for visiting dignitaries and diplomats. While refusing to discuss Jolie directly, Galindo denied doing anything wrong. "The Americans and the Cambodians have different definitions of the 50,000 children in orphanages. American officials say both parents have to be dead to count as orphans, but in Cambodia it is enough to say they have given up or disappeared and in that poor country, that is all too common," she told a local newspaper."


Why, another felony! And a facilitator to boot!

Gosh, sounds like a REAL conspiracy. Where's Marcy when you need her?




steve

Steve White wrote:
In article <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com>, jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote: "It has been reported that the actress paid Seattle International Adoptions up to $350,000 to arrange the paperwork and deliver the baby to her when she was working on a film about refugees in March 2002 in Namibia. Last month, Lynn Devin, the agency's founder, pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges for falsely claiming that adopted children were orphans and allowed the FBI to dismantle her organization. Exactly who among her clients received "black market babies" remains locked in confidential court documents. Police have refused to say whether Maddox is a legal or illegal adoption, adding: "We are looking at all cases." Sounds like a felony to me. The adoption of Maddox was "facilitated" by a relative of Devin, a colourful Hawaiian named Lauryn Galindo, 52, who is also facing conspiracy charges. Galindo is famous in Phnom Penh on at least two counts: her ability to ease bureaucratic difficulties with "tips," which she said consumed most of her fees, and occasional displays of her hula dancing skills for visiting dignitaries and diplomats. While refusing to discuss Jolie directly, Galindo denied doing anything wrong. "The Americans and the Cambodians have different definitions of the 50,000 children in orphanages. American officials say both parents have to be dead to count as orphans, but in Cambodia it is enough to say they have given up or disappeared and in that poor country, that is all too common," she told a local newspaper." Why, another felony! And a facilitator to boot! Gosh, sounds like a REAL conspiracy. Where's Marcy when you need her?

Angelina was on E! Hollywood Extra tonight, in Cambodia dropping a
million and a half in private foreign aid. The piece mentioned Maddox,
but not the "confusion" surrounding his orphanhood, since it was
hagiography-lite, not reporting...

Ron
steve

In article <steve-A734E4.22084605012004@netnews.attbi.com>, Steve White
<steve@spam.me.never> writes:
In article <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com>, jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote: "It has been reported that the actress paid Seattle International Adoptions up to $350,000 to arrange the paperwork and deliver the baby to her when she was working on a film about refugees in March 2002 in Namibia. Last month, Lynn Devin, the agency's founder, pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges for falsely claiming that adopted children were orphans and allowed the FBI to dismantle her organization. Exactly who among her clients received "black market babies" remains locked in confidential court documents. Police have refused to say whether Maddox is a legal or illegal adoption, adding: "We are looking at all cases."Sounds like a felony to me. The adoption of Maddox was "facilitated" by a relative of Devin, a colourful Hawaiian named Lauryn Galindo, 52, who is also facing conspiracy charges. Galindo is famous in Phnom Penh on at least two counts: her ability to ease bureaucratic difficulties with "tips," which she said consumed most of her fees, and occasional displays of her hula dancing skills for visiting dignitaries and diplomats. While refusing to discuss Jolie directly, Galindo denied doing anything wrong. "The Americans and the Cambodians have different definitions of the 50,000 children in orphanages. American officials say both parents have to be dead to count as orphans, but in Cambodia it is enough to say they have given up or disappeared and in that poor country, that is all too common," she told a local newspaper."Why, another felony! And a facilitator to boot!

U.S. law apparently is just too hard for a small businesswoman to understand,
Steve. It doesn't require that both parents be dead,. Here's the entire
process in a nutshell:

An Orphan. If an adopted child has not resided with the adoptive parent for two
years (or if the child has not yet even been adopted) the child must qualify
under section 101(b)(1)(F) of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act in order
to apply for an immigrant visa. The main requirements of this section are as
follows:


The adoptive or prospective adoptive parent must be an American citizen;

The child must be under the age of 16 at the time an I-600 Petition is filed
with the BCIS on his or her behalf;

If the adoptive or prospective adoptive parent is married, his or her spouse
must also be a party to the adoption;

If the adoptive or prospective adoptive parent is single, he or she must be at
least 25 years of age;

The child must be an orphan, as defined by U.S. regulations. Although the
definition of an orphan found in many dictionaries is "A child whose parents
are dead," U.S. immigration law and regulations provide for a somewhat broader
definition. Children who do not qualify under this definition, however, may not
immigrate to the U.S. as an orphan even if legally adopted by an American
Citizen. The Department of State encourages Americans to determine if a
particular child is an orphan according to U.S. immigration law and regulations
before proceeding with an adoption. A detailed description of the orphan
definition used by BCIS can be found on BCIS's web site at
http://www.uscis.gov.

http://travel.state.gov/adoption_honduras.html


What is an Orphan?

Under U.S. immigration law, an orphan is a foreign child who does not have any
parents because of the death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by,
or separation or loss from, both parents. An orphan can also be a foreign-born
child with a sole or surviving parent who is unable to provide for the
child’s basic needs, consistent with the local standards of the foreign
sending country, and has, in writing, irrevocably released the child for
emigration and adoption.

For such a child to gain immigration benefits, an orphan petition must be filed
before his or her 16th birthday. The only exception to this is when a child is
adopted with or after a sibling who is considered a "child" under the Act who
has been or will be adopted by the same adoptive or prospective adoptive
parent(s). In this type of case, the petition must be filed before the child
reaches age 18.

http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/eligib.htm

If this is a conspiracy, it's one of dunces.

J.
Gosh, sounds like a REAL conspiracy. Where's Marcy when you need her?steve





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

In article <20040106092734.22081.00003175@mb-m17.aol.com>,
jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote:

Why, another felony! And a facilitator to boot! U.S. law apparently is just too hard for a small businesswoman to understand, Steve. It doesn't require that both parents be dead,. Here's the entire process in a nutshell:

[ snip the law ]
If this is a conspiracy, it's one of dunces.



I figured that went without saying after hearing that Angelica and Billy
Bob were involved.




steve

In article <steve-B274DB.23573306012004@netnews.comcast.net>, Steve White
<steve@spam.me.never> writes:
In article <20040106092734.22081.00003175@mb-m17.aol.com>, jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote:Why, another felony! And a facilitator to boot! U.S. law apparently is just too hard for a small businesswoman to understand, Steve. It doesn't require that both parents be dead,. Here's the entire process in a nutshell:[ snip the law ] If this is a conspiracy, it's one of dunces.I figured that went without saying after hearing that Angelica and BillyBob were involved.steve


Angelica? What's a young Rug Rat doing with Billy Bob?

J.






Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040105210902.15365.00002573@mb-m03.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.)Date: 1/5/04 5:36 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com> Top Posting Thanks, J. I saw that she paid $350,000. fee in another article just recently posted, but not on this thread. Wow, this is truly scandalous. That poor little boy. I wonder how many more are out there facing a similar fate like Maddox.
Plonk!! Did I hear a penny finally drop?


Di"It has been reported that the actress paid Seattle International Adoptionsupto $350,000 to arrange the paperwork and deliver the baby to her when she wasworking on a film about refugees in March 2002 in Namibia.Last month, Lynn Devin, the agency's founder, pleaded guilty to conspiracycharges for falsely claiming that adopted children were orphans and allowedtheFBI to dismantle her organization. Exactly who among her clients received"black market babies" remainslocked in confidential court documents.Police have refused to say whether Maddox is a legal or illegal adoption,adding: "We are looking at all cases."The adoption of Maddox was "facilitated" by a relative of Devin, a colourfulHawaiian named Lauryn Galindo, 52, who is also facing conspiracy charges.Galindo is famous in Phnom Penh on at least two counts: her ability to easebureaucratic difficulties with "tips," which she said consumed most of herfees, and occasional displays of her hula dancing skills for visitingdignitaries and diplomats.While refusing to discuss Jolie directly, Galindo denied doing anythingwrong."The Americans and the Cambodians have different definitions of the 50,000children in orphanages. American officials say both parents have to bedead tocount as orphans, but in Cambodia it is enough to say they have given up ordisappeared and in that poor country, that is all too common," she told alocalnewspaper."http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/story.asp?id=8FE767DF-2445-4D1D-B8DD-7461650CABA7Reply to jmhjmd at aol. Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

"J." <jmdjmh@aol.compostible> wrote in message
news:20040107092534.12501.00005317@mb-m04.aol.com... In article <steve-B274DB.23573306012004@netnews.comcast.net>, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> writes:In article <20040106092734.22081.00003175@mb-m17.aol.com>, jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote: >Why, another felony! And a facilitator to boot! U.S. law apparently is just too hard for a small businesswoman to understand, Steve. It doesn't require that both parents be dead,. Here's the entire process in a nutshell:[ snip the law ] If this is a conspiracy, it's one of dunces.I figured that went without saying after hearing that Angelica and BillyBob were involved.steve Angelica? What's a young Rug Rat doing with Billy Bob?

And what' he doing with a nun?

Marley J. Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/7/04 6:29 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401070629.58e1027e@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040105210902.15365.00002573@mb-m03.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.)Date: 1/5/04 5:36 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com> Top Posting Thanks, J. I saw that she paid $350,000. fee in another article just recently posted,but not on this thread. Wow, this is truly scandalous. That poor little boy. I wonder how many moreare out there facing a similar fate like Maddox.Plonk!! Did I hear a penny finally drop?Di

Your point? Show me one post where I ever supported trafficking of children?

Pssst. You can't.








Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

meagan asserts:
Your point? Show me one post where I ever supported trafficking of children?Pssst. You can't.

Nor I nor anyone on ths ng. Let's not lose sight of the issue at hand.
Opposing child trafficking is unrelated to views concerning real live
adoptions.


P2P

>Your point? Show me one post where I ever supported trafficking of children?Pssst. You can't. Nor I nor anyone on ths ng. Let's not lose sight of the issue at hand. Opposing child trafficking is unrelated to views concerning real live adoptions. P2P

Except that there wouldn't be many "real live adoptions" without the
child trafficking. And all those poor childless adopters would remain
childless.

Except that there wouldn't be many "real live adoptions" without thechild trafficking. And all those poor childless adopters would remainchildless.>>

I know many who have adopted. I know of no one whose child was traffficked.
Here is the definition of traffic, compliments of dictionary.com:

The commercial exchange of goods; trade.
Illegal or improper commercial activity: as in "drug traffic on city streets."

You can thank me now.



P2P

In article <20040107092534.12501.00005317@mb-m04.aol.com>,
jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote:
In article <steve-B274DB.23573306012004@netnews.comcast.net>, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> writes:In article <20040106092734.22081.00003175@mb-m17.aol.com>, jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote: >Why, another felony! And a facilitator to boot! U.S. law apparently is just too hard for a small businesswoman to understand, Steve. It doesn't require that both parents be dead,. Here's the entire process in a nutshell:[ snip the law ] If this is a conspiracy, it's one of dunces.I figured that went without saying after hearing that Angelica and BillyBob were involved.steve Angelica? What's a young Rug Rat doing with Billy Bob?



Okay, okay, I got it wrong. Damn you're quick!



steve

>Except that there wouldn't be many "real live adoptions" without thechild trafficking. And all those poor childless adopters would remainchildless.

And all those poor motherless children would remain without families.

Roberta
mom to Juliette, 7, adopted from China

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: mhjtw@hotmail.com (Melinda Walmsley)Date: 1/7/04 7:38 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <eb5515c9.0401071938.f77aa1b@posting.google.com>Your point? Show me one post where I ever supported trafficking ofchildren?Pssst. You can't. Nor I nor anyone on ths ng. Let's not lose sight of the issue at hand. Opposing child trafficking is unrelated to views concerning real live adoptions. P2PExcept that there wouldn't be many "real live adoptions" without thechild trafficking.

I can think of one real live adoption there wouldn't be if it were not for
someone's actions. Mirror?







Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040107130032.21935.00001398@mb-m26.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/7/04 6:29 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401070629.58e1027e@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040105210902.15365.00002573@mb-m03.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal >From: jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) >Date: 1/5/04 5:36 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com> Top Posting Thanks, J. I saw that she paid $350,000. fee in another article just recently posted, but not on this thread. Wow, this is truly scandalous. That poor little boy. I wonder how many more are out there facing a similar fate like Maddox.Plonk!! Did I hear a penny finally drop?Di Your point? Show me one post where I ever supported trafficking of children? Pssst. You can't.
Kathy, you've poopooed me for years re my allegations AND proof of
illegal adoption practices and 'finally' you're willing to admit that
child trafficking occurs. But only in other countries of course. You
simply refuse to believe
that adoption agencies would even dream of any illegal behaviour. Now
you tell me why those same US Adoption Agencies wouldn't have pulled,
or be pulling,
those same scams on young white women whose babies fetch an even
greater financial bounty.

Di Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

robyf@aol.comnojunk (Roberta) wrote in message news:<20040108010013.11235.00002345@mb-m11.aol.com>...Except that there wouldn't be many "real live adoptions" without thechild trafficking. And all those poor childless adopters would remainchildless. And all those poor motherless children would remain without families. Roberta mom to Juliette, 7, adopted from China


If these adoption agencies stopped touting for infants who already
have families (to meet the infant demand) perhaps those poor older
children in orphanages wouldn't get so overlooked.

Di

Di writes:
Kathy, you've poopooed me for years re my allegations AND proof ofillegal adoption practices and 'finally' you're willing to admit thatchild trafficking occurs. >>

Oh, pooh-pooh. No one has ever denied the buying-selling of children does occur
in this world, AFAIK. The difference of opinion lies in the degree of
frequency.


P2P

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/8/04 9:43 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401080943.5cb0e359@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040107130032.21935.00001398@mb-m26.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/7/04 6:29 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401070629.58e1027e@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040105210902.15365.00002573@mb-m03.aol.com>...> >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal> >From: jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.)> >Date: 1/5/04 5:36 PM Pacific Standard Time> >Message-id: <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com>>> Top Posting>> Thanks, J.>> I saw that she paid $350,000. fee in another article just recentlyposted, but> not on this thread.>> Wow, this is truly scandalous. That poor little boy. I wonder how manymore are> out there facing a similar fate like Maddox.>>Plonk!! Did I hear a penny finally drop?Di Your point? Show me one post where I ever supported trafficking ofchildren? Pssst. You can't.Kathy, you've poopooed me for years re my allegations AND proof ofillegal adoption practices and 'finally' you're willing to admit thatchild trafficking occurs. But only in other countries of course. Yousimply refuse to believethat adoption agencies would even dream of any illegal behaviour. Nowyou tell me why those same US Adoption Agencies wouldn't have pulled,or be pulling,those same scams on young white women whose babies fetch an evengreater financial bounty.Di

Oh BS. Bring on any of my posts that support what you are saying above. I've
never denied that there are no illegal adoptions in any part of the world.

And while we're on the subject of baby trafficking, did you really say to an
Aussie reporter that the US market is a
"$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking"?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040108173318.19959.00001926@mb-m01.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/8/04 9:43 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401080943.5cb0e359@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040107130032.21935.00001398@mb-m26.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >Date: 1/7/04 6:29 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <c599139c.0401070629.58e1027e@posting.google.com> > >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message >news:<20040105210902.15365.00002573@mb-m03.aol.com>... >> >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal >> >From: jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) >> >Date: 1/5/04 5:36 PM Pacific Standard Time >> >Message-id: <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com> >> >> Top Posting >> >> Thanks, J. >> >> I saw that she paid $350,000. fee in another article just recently posted, but >> not on this thread. >> >> Wow, this is truly scandalous. That poor little boy. I wonder how many more are >> out there facing a similar fate like Maddox. >> >> >Plonk!! Did I hear a penny finally drop? > > >Di Your point? Show me one post where I ever supported trafficking of children? Pssst. You can't.Kathy, you've poopooed me for years re my allegations AND proof ofillegal adoption practices and 'finally' you're willing to admit thatchild trafficking occurs. But only in other countries of course. Yousimply refuse to believethat adoption agencies would even dream of any illegal behaviour. Nowyou tell me why those same US Adoption Agencies wouldn't have pulled,or be pulling,those same scams on young white women whose babies fetch an evengreater financial bounty.Di Oh BS. Bring on any of my posts that support what you are saying above. I've never denied that there are no illegal adoptions in any part of the world. And while we're on the subject of baby trafficking, did you really say to an Aussie reporter that the US market is a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking"? http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html


Bwahahaha!
Kathy states: "I've never denied that there are no illegal adoptions
in any part of the world."
Some things never change.

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040108173318.19959.00001926@mb-m01.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/8/04 9:43 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401080943.5cb0e359@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040107130032.21935.00001398@mb-m26.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >Date: 1/7/04 6:29 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <c599139c.0401070629.58e1027e@posting.google.com> > >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message >news:<20040105210902.15365.00002573@mb-m03.aol.com>... >> >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal >> >From: jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) >> >Date: 1/5/04 5:36 PM Pacific Standard Time >> >Message-id: <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com> >> >> Top Posting >> >> Thanks, J. >> >> I saw that she paid $350,000. fee in another article just recently posted, but >> not on this thread. >> >> Wow, this is truly scandalous. That poor little boy. I wonder how many more are >> out there facing a similar fate like Maddox. >> >> >Plonk!! Did I hear a penny finally drop? > > >Di Your point? Show me one post where I ever supported trafficking of children? Pssst. You can't.Kathy, you've poopooed me for years re my allegations AND proof ofillegal adoption practices and 'finally' you're willing to admit thatchild trafficking occurs. But only in other countries of course. Yousimply refuse to believethat adoption agencies would even dream of any illegal behaviour. Nowyou tell me why those same US Adoption Agencies wouldn't have pulled,or be pulling,those same scams on young white women whose babies fetch an evengreater financial bounty.Di Oh BS. Bring on any of my posts that support what you are saying above. I've never denied that there are no illegal adoptions in any part of the world.
I don't need to prove it, Kathy. Read your own miserable posts over th
epast 5 years. You've continually shat on every mother who ever
ventured onto this forum if she declared her child to be stolen or
that her child was coerced from her just because you couldn't identify
with them. Your crocodile tears for stolen children are a bit late in
coming I'm afraid. Your feigned empathy for
O/S children won't wash when you had none for our white stolen
children. And justified their adoptions.

Oh BTW, I didn't say you supported child trafficking. The "penny
dropping" was in reference to you finally admitting that baby stealing
occurs.

And while we're on the subject of baby trafficking, did you really say to an Aussie reporter that the US market is a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking"?
You bet I did. You think I'd miss a chance to expose the level of
corruption i the US adoption market? I even gave her the name of the
National Adoption Clearing House so she could check the figures out
for herself.
Whatsmore it pricked the interest of a US journalist who contacted the
paper to get in touch with me. He's now collecting all the articles on
adoption corruption that permeate your newspapers almost every day of
the week. Imagine the story that's going to make.


Di
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/9/04 6:19 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401090619.31176e46@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040108173318.19959.00001926@mb-m01.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/8/04 9:43 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401080943.5cb0e359@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040107130032.21935.00001398@mb-m26.aol.com>...> >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal> >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)> >Date: 1/7/04 6:29 AM Pacific Standard Time> >Message-id: <c599139c.0401070629.58e1027e@posting.google.com>> >> >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message> >news:<20040105210902.15365.00002573@mb-m03.aol.com>...> >> >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal> >> >From: jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.)> >> >Date: 1/5/04 5:36 PM Pacific Standard Time> >> >Message-id: <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com>> >>> >> Top Posting> >>> >> Thanks, J.> >>> >> I saw that she paid $350,000. fee in another article just recently posted, but> >> not on this thread.> >>> >> Wow, this is truly scandalous. That poor little boy. I wonder howmany more are> >> out there facing a similar fate like Maddox.> >>> >>> >Plonk!! Did I hear a penny finally drop?> >> >> >Di>> Your point? Show me one post where I ever supported trafficking of children?>> Pssst. You can't.>>Kathy, you've poopooed me for years re my allegations AND proof ofillegal adoption practices and 'finally' you're willing to admit thatchild trafficking occurs. But only in other countries of course. Yousimply refuse to believethat adoption agencies would even dream of any illegal behaviour. Nowyou tell me why those same US Adoption Agencies wouldn't have pulled,or be pulling,those same scams on young white women whose babies fetch an evengreater financial bounty.Di Oh BS. Bring on any of my posts that support what you are saying above.I've never denied that there are no illegal adoptions in any part of the world.I don't need to prove it, Kathy. Read your own miserable posts over thepast 5 years.

Is this English?

Yes, you do need to prove it. You made the allegation....Now go fetch my posts.

Prove to the entire ng. what you accused above. Prove that I am not willing to
admit that child trafficking occurs.

Psst. You can't.

(snip your whiney self centered bunk)



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

TaylorKluck316@hotmail.com (Pez Collector) wrote in message news:<f14a0836.0401090355.4b149a44@posting.google.com>... meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040108173318.19959.00001926@mb-m01.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/8/04 9:43 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401080943.5cb0e359@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040107130032.21935.00001398@mb-m26.aol.com>...> >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal> >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)> >Date: 1/7/04 6:29 AM Pacific Standard Time> >Message-id: <c599139c.0401070629.58e1027e@posting.google.com>> >> >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message> >news:<20040105210902.15365.00002573@mb-m03.aol.com>...> >> >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal> >> >From: jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.)> >> >Date: 1/5/04 5:36 PM Pacific Standard Time> >> >Message-id: <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com>> >>> >> Top Posting> >>> >> Thanks, J.> >>> >> I saw that she paid $350,000. fee in another article just recently posted, but> >> not on this thread.> >>> >> Wow, this is truly scandalous. That poor little boy. I wonder how many more are> >> out there facing a similar fate like Maddox.> >>> >>> >Plonk!! Did I hear a penny finally drop?> >> >> >Di>> Your point? Show me one post where I ever supported trafficking of children?>> Pssst. You can't.>>Kathy, you've poopooed me for years re my allegations AND proof ofillegal adoption practices and 'finally' you're willing to admit thatchild trafficking occurs. But only in other countries of course. Yousimply refuse to believethat adoption agencies would even dream of any illegal behaviour. Nowyou tell me why those same US Adoption Agencies wouldn't have pulled,or be pulling,those same scams on young white women whose babies fetch an evengreater financial bounty.Di Oh BS. Bring on any of my posts that support what you are saying above. I've never denied that there are no illegal adoptions in any part of the world. And while we're on the subject of baby trafficking, did you really say to an Aussie reporter that the US market is a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking"? http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html Bwahahaha! Kathy states: "I've never denied that there are no illegal adoptions in any part of the world." Some things never change.

ROFLMHO!

Di

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: TaylorKluck316@hotmail.com (Pez Collector)Date: 1/9/04 3:55 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <f14a0836.0401090355.4b149a44@posting.google.com>

Pez Collector?

When you gonna' give your stolen Lil Pez
back, *adopter*? Di will be happy to help you find it's rightful owner. LOL





Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

On 9 Jan 2004 06:19:58 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040108173318.19959.00001926@mb-m01.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/8/04 9:43 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401080943.5cb0e359@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040107130032.21935.00001398@mb-m26.aol.com>...> >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal> >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)> >Date: 1/7/04 6:29 AM Pacific Standard Time> >Message-id: <c599139c.0401070629.58e1027e@posting.google.com>> >> >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message> >news:<20040105210902.15365.00002573@mb-m03.aol.com>...> >> >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal> >> >From: jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.)> >> >Date: 1/5/04 5:36 PM Pacific Standard Time> >> >Message-id: <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com>> >>> >> Top Posting> >>> >> Thanks, J.> >>> >> I saw that she paid $350,000. fee in another article just recently posted, but> >> not on this thread.> >>> >> Wow, this is truly scandalous. That poor little boy. I wonder how many more are> >> out there facing a similar fate like Maddox.> >>> >>> >Plonk!! Did I hear a penny finally drop?> >> >> >Di>> Your point? Show me one post where I ever supported trafficking of children?>> Pssst. You can't.>>Kathy, you've poopooed me for years re my allegations AND proof ofillegal adoption practices and 'finally' you're willing to admit thatchild trafficking occurs. But only in other countries of course. Yousimply refuse to believethat adoption agencies would even dream of any illegal behaviour. Nowyou tell me why those same US Adoption Agencies wouldn't have pulled,or be pulling,those same scams on young white women whose babies fetch an evengreater financial bounty.Di Oh BS. Bring on any of my posts that support what you are saying above. I've never denied that there are no illegal adoptions in any part of the world.I don't need to prove it, Kathy. Read your own miserable posts over thepast 5 years. You've continually shat on every mother who everventured onto this forum if she declared her child to be stolen orthat her child was coerced from her just because you couldn't identifywith them.

Yes..
Your crocodile tears for stolen children are a bit late incoming I'm afraid. Your feigned empathy forO/S children won't wash when you had none for our white stolenchildren. And justified their adoptions.Oh BTW, I didn't say you supported child trafficking. The "pennydropping" was in reference to you finally admitting that baby stealingoccurs.

I think she reads all the posts and then decides what she will say..
And while we're on the subject of baby trafficking, did you really say to an Aussie reporter that the US market is a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking"?You bet I did. You think I'd miss a chance to expose the level ofcorruption i the US adoption market? I even gave her the name of theNational Adoption Clearing House so she could check the figures outfor herself.Whatsmore it pricked the interest of a US journalist who contacted thepaper to get in touch with me. He's now collecting all the articles onadoption corruption that permeate your newspapers almost every day ofthe week. Imagine the story that's going to make.

Good news..


JackieDi http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040110111907.21847.00001513@mb-m19.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: TaylorKluck316@hotmail.com (Pez Collector)Date: 1/9/04 3:55 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <f14a0836.0401090355.4b149a44@posting.google.com> Pez Collector?<

You like that, eh? What kind of dispenser are you?
When you gonna' give your stolen Lil Pez back, *adopter*?

Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah! You sure *got me.
Di will be happy to help you find it's rightful owner.<

Boo-hoo. Is Di picking on you again?
LOL<

You silly goose. Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking". ~~121603 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0401100714.608baf87@posting.google.com>... TaylorKluck316@hotmail.com (Pez Collector) wrote in message news:<f14a0836.0401090355.4b149a44@posting.google.com>... meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040108173318.19959.00001926@mb-m01.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >Date: 1/8/04 9:43 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <c599139c.0401080943.5cb0e359@posting.google.com> > >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message >news:<20040107130032.21935.00001398@mb-m26.aol.com>... >> >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal >> >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >> >Date: 1/7/04 6:29 AM Pacific Standard Time >> >Message-id: <c599139c.0401070629.58e1027e@posting.google.com> >> > >> >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message >> >news:<20040105210902.15365.00002573@mb-m03.aol.com>... >> >> >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal >> >> >From: jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) >> >> >Date: 1/5/04 5:36 PM Pacific Standard Time >> >> >Message-id: <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com> >> >> >> >> Top Posting >> >> >> >> Thanks, J. >> >> >> >> I saw that she paid $350,000. fee in another article just recently posted, but >> >> not on this thread. >> >> >> >> Wow, this is truly scandalous. That poor little boy. I wonder how many more are >> >> out there facing a similar fate like Maddox. >> >> >> >> >> >Plonk!! Did I hear a penny finally drop? >> > >> > >> >Di >> >> Your point? Show me one post where I ever supported trafficking of children? >> >> Pssst. You can't. >> >> >Kathy, you've poopooed me for years re my allegations AND proof of >illegal adoption practices and 'finally' you're willing to admit that >child trafficking occurs. But only in other countries of course. You >simply refuse to believe >that adoption agencies would even dream of any illegal behaviour. Now >you tell me why those same US Adoption Agencies wouldn't have pulled, >or be pulling, >those same scams on young white women whose babies fetch an even >greater financial bounty. > >Di Oh BS. Bring on any of my posts that support what you are saying above. I've never denied that there are no illegal adoptions in any part of the world. And while we're on the subject of baby trafficking, did you really say to an Aussie reporter that the US market is a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking"? http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html Bwahahaha! Kathy states: "I've never denied that there are no illegal adoptions in any part of the world." Some things never change. ROFLMHO!

LOL. Our little Kuism dispenser.


Taylor

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040110000250.29517.00002013@mb-m02.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/9/04 6:19 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401090619.31176e46@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040108173318.19959.00001926@mb-m01.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >Date: 1/8/04 9:43 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <c599139c.0401080943.5cb0e359@posting.google.com> > >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message >news:<20040107130032.21935.00001398@mb-m26.aol.com>... >> >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal >> >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >> >Date: 1/7/04 6:29 AM Pacific Standard Time >> >Message-id: <c599139c.0401070629.58e1027e@posting.google.com> >> > >> >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message >> >news:<20040105210902.15365.00002573@mb-m03.aol.com>... >> >> >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal >> >> >From: jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) >> >> >Date: 1/5/04 5:36 PM Pacific Standard Time >> >> >Message-id: <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com> >> >> >> >> Top Posting >> >> >> >> Thanks, J. >> >> >> >> I saw that she paid $350,000. fee in another article just recently posted, but >> >> not on this thread. >> >> >> >> Wow, this is truly scandalous. That poor little boy. I wonder how many more are >> >> out there facing a similar fate like Maddox. >> >> >> >> >> >Plonk!! Did I hear a penny finally drop? >> > >> > >> >Di >> >> Your point? Show me one post where I ever supported trafficking of children? >> >> Pssst. You can't. >> >> >Kathy, you've poopooed me for years re my allegations AND proof of >illegal adoption practices and 'finally' you're willing to admit that >child trafficking occurs. But only in other countries of course. You >simply refuse to believe >that adoption agencies would even dream of any illegal behaviour. Now >you tell me why those same US Adoption Agencies wouldn't have pulled, >or be pulling, >those same scams on young white women whose babies fetch an even >greater financial bounty. > >Di Oh BS. Bring on any of my posts that support what you are saying above. I've never denied that there are no illegal adoptions in any part of the world.I don't need to prove it, Kathy. Read your own miserable posts over thepast 5 years. Is this English?

No, it's German. What did you think it was?
Yes, you do need to prove it. You made the allegation....Now go fetch my posts. Prove to the entire ng. what you accused above. Prove that I am not willing to admit that child trafficking occurs. Psst. You can't. (snip your whiney self centered bunk) Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<9kj000tmgc86b1ovgm9spr4snfrp6ddjef@4ax.com>... On 9 Jan 2004 06:19:58 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040108173318.19959.00001926@mb-m01.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >Date: 1/8/04 9:43 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <c599139c.0401080943.5cb0e359@posting.google.com> > >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message >news:<20040107130032.21935.00001398@mb-m26.aol.com>... >> >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal >> >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >> >Date: 1/7/04 6:29 AM Pacific Standard Time >> >Message-id: <c599139c.0401070629.58e1027e@posting.google.com> >> > >> >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message >> >news:<20040105210902.15365.00002573@mb-m03.aol.com>... >> >> >Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandal >> >> >From: jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) >> >> >Date: 1/5/04 5:36 PM Pacific Standard Time >> >> >Message-id: <20040105203639.25815.00005719@mb-m07.aol.com> >> >> >> >> Top Posting >> >> >> >> Thanks, J. >> >> >> >> I saw that she paid $350,000. fee in another article just recently posted, but >> >> not on this thread. >> >> >> >> Wow, this is truly scandalous. That poor little boy. I wonder how many more are >> >> out there facing a similar fate like Maddox. >> >> >> >> >> >Plonk!! Did I hear a penny finally drop? >> > >> > >> >Di >> >> Your point? Show me one post where I ever supported trafficking of children? >> >> Pssst. You can't. >> >> >Kathy, you've poopooed me for years re my allegations AND proof of >illegal adoption practices and 'finally' you're willing to admit that >child trafficking occurs. But only in other countries of course. You >simply refuse to believe >that adoption agencies would even dream of any illegal behaviour. Now >you tell me why those same US Adoption Agencies wouldn't have pulled, >or be pulling, >those same scams on young white women whose babies fetch an even >greater financial bounty. > >Di Oh BS. Bring on any of my posts that support what you are saying above. I've never denied that there are no illegal adoptions in any part of the world.I don't need to prove it, Kathy. Read your own miserable posts over thepast 5 years. You've continually shat on every mother who everventured onto this forum if she declared her child to be stolen orthat her child was coerced from her just because you couldn't identifywith them. Yes..

That's the bottom line with her. She started going after you as soon
as you began to question your own eaperience and daw it for what it
was. And she couldn't handle it. Thinking is not her forte.
Your crocodile tears for stolen children are a bit late incoming I'm afraid. Your feigned empathy forO/S children won't wash when you had none for our white stolenchildren. And justified their adoptions.Oh BTW, I didn't say you supported child trafficking. The "pennydropping" was in reference to you finally admitting that baby stealingoccurs. I think she reads all the posts and then decides what she will say..
And then she buggers her own posts up.
And while we're on the subject of baby trafficking, did you really say to an Aussie reporter that the US market is a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking"?You bet I did. You think I'd miss a chance to expose the level ofcorruption i the US adoption market? I even gave her the name of theNational Adoption Clearing House so she could check the figures outfor herself.Whatsmore it pricked the interest of a US journalist who contacted thepaper to get in touch with me. He's now collecting all the articles onadoption corruption that permeate your newspapers almost every day ofthe week. Imagine the story that's going to make. Good news..
It is good news. There seems to be quite a bit of interest and eye
opening going on in the media lately. It only takes a few convictions
and the whole industry will soon start being questioned.

Di JackieDi http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/10/04 5:52 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401101752.64a54bde@posting.google.com>

(snip the BS)
There seems to be quite a bit of interest and eyeopening going on in the media lately. It only takes a few convictionsand the whole industry will soon start being questioned.

Only a few you say?

Do those few add up to a 4.1 billion US baby trafficking greenies?

LMAO at your wishful thinking, Di.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>It is good news. There seems to be quite a bit of interest and eyeopening going on in the media lately. It only takes a few convictionsand the whole industry will soon start being questioned.Di


Oh, Di, Di, Di. Grandiose thinking. Shades of Melinda.




P2P

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: TaylorKluck316@hotmail.com (Pez Collector)Date: 1/10/04 3:49 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <f14a0836.0401101549.7be219d2@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040110111907.21847.00001513@mb-m19.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: TaylorKluck316@hotmail.com (Pez Collector)Date: 1/9/04 3:55 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <f14a0836.0401090355.4b149a44@posting.google.com> Pez Collector?<You like that, eh? What kind of dispenser are you? When you gonna' give your stolen Lil Pez back, *adopter*?Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah! You sure *got me.
Boo-hoo. Is Di picking on you again?LOL<You silly goose.

Uh-huh.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

On 10 Jan 2004 17:52:04 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
I don't need to prove it, Kathy. Read your own miserable posts over thepast 5 years. You've continually shat on every mother who everventured onto this forum if she declared her child to be stolen orthat her child was coerced from her just because you couldn't identifywith them. Yes..That's the bottom line with her. She started going after you as soonas you began to question your own eaperience and daw it for what itwas. And she couldn't handle it. Thinking is not her forte.

Mommy Helen will do it for her.
Your crocodile tears for stolen children are a bit late incoming I'm afraid. Your feigned empathy forO/S children won't wash when you had none for our white stolenchildren. And justified their adoptions.Oh BTW, I didn't say you supported child trafficking. The "pennydropping" was in reference to you finally admitting that baby stealingoccurs. I think she reads all the posts and then decides what she will say..And then she buggers her own posts up.

What a silly woman.
> And while we're on the subject of baby trafficking, did you really say to an> Aussie reporter that the US market is a> "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking"?>You bet I did. You think I'd miss a chance to expose the level ofcorruption i the US adoption market? I even gave her the name of theNational Adoption Clearing House so she could check the figures outfor herself.Whatsmore it pricked the interest of a US journalist who contacted thepaper to get in touch with me. He's now collecting all the articles onadoption corruption that permeate your newspapers almost every day ofthe week. Imagine the story that's going to make. Good news..It is good news. There seems to be quite a bit of interest and eyeopening going on in the media lately. It only takes a few convictionsand the whole industry will soon start being questioned.

What a good day that would be.


Jackie

On 10 Jan 2004 15:59:34 -0800, TaylorKluck316@hotmail.com (Pez
Collector) wrote:
Kathy states: "I've never denied that there are no illegal adoptions in any part of the world." Some things never change. ROFLMHO!LOL. Our little Kuism dispenser.Taylor

Hey.. Good to see you posting..

Jackie

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<tvk200911vrq0298mp1f73qa9m6gckp1tj@4ax.com>... On 10 Jan 2004 15:59:34 -0800, TaylorKluck316@hotmail.com (Pez Collector) wrote: > Kathy states: "I've never denied that there are no illegal adoptions > in any part of the world." > Some things never change. ROFLMHO!LOL. Our little Kuism dispenser.Taylor Hey.. Good to see you posting.. Jackie

Nice to seeing you here. How's life? I've started planning our summer
trip to the jazz festival in Quebec and thinking we may make a quick
winter run up that way.

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: TaylorKluck316@hotmail.com (Pez Collector)Date: 1/11/04 11:43 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <f14a0836.0401111143.1a8920e5@posting.google.com>Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:<tvk200911vrq0298mp1f73qa9m6gckp1tj@4ax.com>... On 10 Jan 2004 15:59:34 -0800, TaylorKluck316@hotmail.com (Pez Collector) wrote:> > Kathy states: "I've never denied that there are no illegal adoptions> > in any part of the world."> > Some things never change.>> ROFLMHO!>LOL. Our little Kuism dispenser.Taylor Hey.. Good to see you posting.. JackieNice to seeing you here. How's life? I've started planning our summertrip to the jazz festival in Quebec and thinking we may make a quickwinter run up that way.

That is if you can take yourself off the cross long enough, chicken lady.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/11/04 5:46 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <gok20019cef3csunugl4gg90lkc0bdkkui@4ax.com>On 10 Jan 2004 17:52:04 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: >I don't need to prove it, Kathy. Read your own miserable posts over th >epast 5 years. You've continually shat on every mother who ever >ventured onto this forum if she declared her child to be stolen or >that her child was coerced from her just because you couldn't identify >with them. Yes..That's the bottom line with her. She started going after you as soonas you began to question your own eaperience and daw it for what itwas. And she couldn't handle it. Thinking is not her forte.Mommy Helen will do it for her. > Your crocodile tears for stolen children are a bit late in >coming I'm afraid. Your feigned empathy for >O/S children won't wash when you had none for our white stolen >children. And justified their adoptions. > >Oh BTW, I didn't say you supported child trafficking. The "penny >dropping" was in reference to you finally admitting that baby stealing >occurs. I think she reads all the posts and then decides what she will say..And then she buggers her own posts up.What a silly woman. >> And while we're on the subject of baby trafficking, did you really sayto an >> Aussie reporter that the US market is a >> "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking"? >> >You bet I did. You think I'd miss a chance to expose the level of >corruption i the US adoption market? I even gave her the name of the >National Adoption Clearing House so she could check the figures out >for herself. >Whatsmore it pricked the interest of a US journalist who contacted the >paper to get in touch with me. He's now collecting all the articles on >adoption corruption that permeate your newspapers almost every day of >the week. Imagine the story that's going to make. Good news..It is good news. There seems to be quite a bit of interest and eyeopening going on in the media lately. It only takes a few convictionsand the whole industry will soon start being questioned.What a good day that would be.Jackie

Would it make you feel all snug and warm to know that you sold your son?




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Here it is----Jolie adoption scandalFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 1/10/04 6:10 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040110211045.15210.00003178@mb-m04.aol.com>It is good news. There seems to be quite a bit of interest and eyeopening going on in the media lately. It only takes a few convictionsand the whole industry will soon start being questioned.DiOh, Di, Di, Di. Grandiose thinking. Shades of Melinda.P2P

I was thinking more like Bursts of Insanity.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040110211045.15210.00003178@mb-m04.aol.com>...It is good news. There seems to be quite a bit of interest and eyeopening going on in the media lately. It only takes a few convictionsand the whole industry will soon start being questioned.Di Oh, Di, Di, Di. Grandiose thinking. Shades of Melinda.
Maybe so but it only took one court case to bring about our inquiry.
Then again, we are talking about the US were the proverbial penny
seems to be incapable of dropping for many people at all. So you may
be right.

Di

P2P

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<gok20019cef3csunugl4gg90lkc0bdkkui@4ax.com>... On 10 Jan 2004 17:52:04 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: >I don't need to prove it, Kathy. Read your own miserable posts over th >epast 5 years. You've continually shat on every mother who ever >ventured onto this forum if she declared her child to be stolen or >that her child was coerced from her just because you couldn't identify >with them. Yes..That's the bottom line with her. She started going after you as soonas you began to question your own eaperience and daw it for what itwas. And she couldn't handle it. Thinking is not her forte. Mommy Helen will do it for her. > Your crocodile tears for stolen children are a bit late in >coming I'm afraid. Your feigned empathy for >O/S children won't wash when you had none for our white stolen >children. And justified their adoptions. > >Oh BTW, I didn't say you supported child trafficking. The "penny >dropping" was in reference to you finally admitting that baby stealing >occurs. I think she reads all the posts and then decides what she will say..And then she buggers her own posts up. What a silly woman. >> And while we're on the subject of baby trafficking, did you really say to an >> Aussie reporter that the US market is a >> "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking"? >> >You bet I did. You think I'd miss a chance to expose the level of >corruption i the US adoption market? I even gave her the name of the >National Adoption Clearing House so she could check the figures out >for herself. >Whatsmore it pricked the interest of a US journalist who contacted the >paper to get in touch with me. He's now collecting all the articles on >adoption corruption that permeate your newspapers almost every day of >the week. Imagine the story that's going to make. Good news..It is good news. There seems to be quite a bit of interest and eyeopening going on in the media lately. It only takes a few convictionsand the whole industry will soon start being questioned. What a good day that would be.
It would be an interesting one at least.

Di
Jackie

On 11 Jan 2004 11:43:49 -0800, TaylorKluck316@hotmail.com (Pez
Collector) wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<tvk200911vrq0298mp1f73qa9m6gckp1tj@4ax.com>... On 10 Jan 2004 15:59:34 -0800, TaylorKluck316@hotmail.com (Pez Collector) wrote:> > Kathy states: "I've never denied that there are no illegal adoptions> > in any part of the world."> > Some things never change.>> ROFLMHO!>LOL. Our little Kuism dispenser.Taylor Hey.. Good to see you posting.. JackieNice to seeing you here. How's life? I've started planning our summertrip to the jazz festival in Quebec and thinking we may make a quickwinter run up that way.


Life is great.. The snow is very pretty here in Ontario..

Our cat is very bored tho..

Jackie