US OKs Child Theft
Plus The Franklin Cover-Up
& Other Government Protected Kidnaps

"Adoption is a form of domestic terrorism."
-Reverend Ruth Peterson

Sponsored by Americans For Open Records (AmFOR),
Member of Amnesty International

INTRODUCTION. Following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the American government acknowleged that terrorist factions of Islamic countries do not represent the peace-loving Islamic people, beliefs, policies and practices. Countries which follow Islamic law -- such as Afghanistan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, ALSO DO NOT PERMIT ADOPTIONS. Other countries, such as Israel, strictly control adoptions and few children are available for adoption by Americans or other foreigners. It's no wonder why. The American government not only aggressively promotes adoption, but also APPROVES KIDNAPPING of foreign children to enhance its multi-billion dollar adoption industry, as follows:

Status:  December, 1992


U.S. Federal Implementing Legislation -- Issues


"DeHart has suggested that there may be only two legitimate grounds for
non-recognition [by Congress ratifying the Intercountry Adoption Convention &
Treaty]:  (1) that the child was abducted from its biological parent(s); and
(2) the consent of the biological parent(s) was false or obtained by fraud.  
Neither would nullify an adoption made either abroad or in the United States

as receiving State as contrary to public policy under the present wording of
convention Article 22 unless recognition would also be contrary to the
child's best interest."


Preservation of Information Concerning the Child's Origin

"Article 25, as presently worded, requires States parties to the convention
to preserve "information concerning the child's origin" until the laws of
both countries involved in international adoption to have access to that
information.  Such access may only become possible years or decades after an
adoption takes place.  Many U.S. states have different provisions concerning
preservation of such information.  Such information is likely to be gathered
mainly by countries of origin from which a child is adopted.  In order for the United States to be able to comply with its obligations to other countries party to the convention under Article 25 to preserve such information, the federal legislation may need to impose a uniform preservation obligation throughout the United States.  Federal legislation would presumably not impose any requirements for access, which would be left for the individual states of the United States to set."

--Peter Pfund, Assistant Legal Adviser
                           for Private International Law,
                           U.S. Department of State (12//92 Memo)

HR 2909, signed by President Clinton, 10/6/00, includes the following:
TITLE V - GENRAL PROVISIONS. Sec. 502 Special Rules for Certain cases.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, to the extent consistent with the Convention, the Secretary may, on a case by case basis, waive applicable requirements of this Act or regulations under this Act, in the interests of justice or to prevent grave physical harm to the child.

Background regarding the December 1992 "Pfund Memo" above:

The verbatim December 1992  Memo, above, is our U.S. State Department's legal
opinion regarding legalizing adoptions of children illegally procured or
kidnapped. Pfund sent it to the U.S. Delegation (adoption agencies) to the
Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention -- and to Lori Carangelo, Americans
For Open Records (AmFOR).  In 1992, because the U.S. State Dept. would not
approve "adoptee" and parent groups as Delegates, though the White
House later appointed 2 adopters, the Hague's First Secretary, J.H.A. Van
Loon, permitted Carangelo/AmFOR to be a data source, reporting directly to
Van Loon.  AmFOR provided a Proposal and a great deal of "Exhibits"
supporting the need for open adoption records worldwide and also provided Van
Loon with a copy of the Pfund Memo, above.  

For the past five decades, children illegally procured or kidnapped in the
United States have also been legally adopted under state adoption secrecy

To verify the Memo, above, contact it's originator, Peter H. Pfund, US State Dept. Legal Adviser at (202) 776-8420--the number listed for him on the State Dept.'s website (The State Dept. does not release its staff's e-mails).....Or try emailing the State Dept. at
The current e-mail for the First Secretary is For further information on the Hague Intercountry Adoption Treaty Conference and the U.S. procrastination at ratifying it, go to:

"INTERNET TWINS" case - (Note: The court decided that neither of the U.S. nor British couple could keep adopt the twins because Internet transactions do not satisfy the residency requirement of state adoption law. The court did not address the arrest of the American male adopter on two counts of child molestation. Adoption agencies continue to "showcase" adoptable children in online baby catalogs and "facilitators" continue to "locate" pregnant women and people wishing to expedite adoptions of newborns via Internet" while some states have begun requiring licensing of "facilitators" such as Rosie O'Donnell who is currently listed on Crittenton's Adoption agency's website)....

FBI Launches Adoption Probe in L.A.

Wednesday, January 17, 2001

                   By PAUL CHAVEZ
                   Associated Press Writer
                     LOS ANGELES (AP) - A California couple claims twin girls they
                   adopted through the Internet were taken from them and sold to a
                   British couple who whisked the children to England.
                     Richard and Vickie Allen say they adopted the 6-month-old girls
                   in October through Tina Johnson, an Internet adoption broker.
                     Two months later, the children were taken back and given to a
                   British couple who paid about $12,000 in adoption fees, double the
                   sum paid by the American couple, according to The Sun, a British
                     The FBI has launched a preliminary investigation of the case,
                   according to Matthew McLaughlin, a bureau spokesman in Los Angeles.
                     Johnson could not be located for comment and her Web site
                   appeared to have been taken off-line.
                     British attorney Alan Kilshaw and his wife, Judith, 47, defended
                   the adoption.
                     ``We haven't done anything either immoral or unethical,'' Alan
                   Kilshaw, 45, said Tuesday in northern Wales. ``We have given two
                   children, who would not have a home, a good home. There's a lot we
                   can offer them. They are much better off with us than in America.''
                     The Kilshaws denied paying for the babies, originally named
                   Kiara and Keyara but renamed Belinda and Kimberley by the couple.
                   Rather, they said the money they handed over was a fee for the
                   broker, who runs an online business called Caring Heart Adoption
                   from her home in San Diego.
                     The Sun reported that the Allens gave the twins to their birth
                   mother - a St. Louis woman in her 20s - after she requested a final
                   visit with them in California in December.
                     Instead, she and the Kilshaws took the infants to Arkansas,
                   where the adoption was arranged, the newspaper said.
                     The Kilshaws said they did not know the twins had been promised
                   to the Allens until they arrived in California and after they had
                   paid the $12,000.
                     According to the Sun, Alan Kilshaw said on a British TV show
                   that the mother ``was adamant we were her first choice. She wanted
                   the children to come with us to Britain.''
                     The Allens, who also have a 2-year-old adopted son, maintain the
                   Arkansas adoption was illegal because the birth mother had not been
                   a resident of the state for 30 days, as is required.
                     ``This case demonstrates why private adoption is illegal in
                   Britain,'' said Felicity Collier, chief executive of British
                   Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. ``We often hear criticisms by
                   prospective adopters about the checks which are carried out before
                   adoptive parents are considered suitable and comparisons are made
                   far too often with the ease with which people can adopt in the
                     The Allens, who took the twins into their San Bernardino home as
                   the adoption was being finalized, say they are heartbroken.
                     ``I feel like I've failed my wife and my family,'' Richard Allen
                   told KNBC-TV in Los Angeles on Tuesday. ``It's been like a death.
                   But the last 24 hours have given us some hope about reuniting our
                     Kilshaw said he and his wife turned to America for adoption as a
                   last resort after trying fertilization treatments and looking to
                   other countries.
                     He said they did not try to adopt in Britain because they felt
                   they would be turned down despite recent efforts to make the
                   process easier in their native country.
                     The Kilshaws already have two boys of their own, ages 4 and 7,
                   and an 18-year-old daughter from a previous relationship of Mrs.
                   Kilshaw's. They are applying for British citizenship for the girls,
                   who have six-month tourist visas.
                     Home Secretary Jack Straw, Britain's top law-enforcement
                   official, said he was concerned about the circumstances that led to
                   the girls entering Britain.
                     ``It is illegal, completely illegal, in this country for people
                   to buy and sell babies or children, and that is entirely as it
                   should be, because it is frankly a revolting idea,'' Straw told
                   Britain's Channel 4 News.
                     David H. Baum, president of the Academy of California Adoption
                   Lawyers, noted that adoption facilitators, unlike adoption
                   agencies, are not licensed by the state.
                     ``What (facilitators) are offering to adoptive couples causes
                   them to leave their good judgment at the door,'' Baum said. ``When
                   you've been through years of infertility treatments and an
                   unlicensed person comes up and says they can get you a baby in 30
                   days, it's very hard to turn down that pitch.''


This one takes the prize for adoption industry scam of the week:
Lifetime Foundation has a website at -
which appears to offer a free college scholarship to teenagers who relinquish their babies for adoption.

Bartering babies for an education is bad enough, but read the fine print.
The "hitch" is that the college scholarship is merely given "in your name," not to you, the teen mother, directly.   That's a lot like Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes "contest" junk mail that says "You Have Just Won $1-Million Dollars" until you read the fine print which reads "You won an entry with a 1-in-200-million-chance-of-winning $1-million dollars."

And where in the Constitution does it say that anyone has the "right to an education" but not the right to their own children?  To the contrary, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens opined, in the landmark case known in media as "Baby Jessica":  "Neither Iowa Law, Michigan law, nor federal law authorizes unrelated persons to retain custody of a child whose natural parents have not been found to be unfit, simply because they may be better able to provide for her future and her education."  (Jessica DeBoer aka Baby Girl Clausen By Her Best Friend Peter Darrow v. Robert and Jan DeBoer et al, AD #64; Roberta and Jan DeBoer v. Daniel Schmidt, AD #65; US Supreme Court)

Ted Gunderson
Franklin Coverup


TED L. GUNDERSON, former FBI agent, has investigated several high profile cases, including that of Jeffrey R. MacDonald, The Franklin Cover-up, McMartin PreSchool, Art Bell & CIA operations inncluding The Oklahoma City Bombing. See

by Ken Adachi at
Adachi's email is

Here's a link to a video that will shock you -- about how our government covered up kidnapping and abuse of children -


Gordon Thomas


While researching "Enslaved," now hard to find on U.S. library shelves, the award wining investigative journalist, filmmaker (including "Voyage of the Damned") and author of 31 books that sold more than 40-million copies in 36 countries, Gordon Thomas, gained access to sensitive files in the U.S. Customs department and a number of police departments. He interviewed many of the people who fight the forces of evil on a daily basis. "Enslaved" is their story.

Today, an estimated 200-million slaves continue to exist all over the world -- in the United States and Europe, as well as in Africa, Asia and the Middle east. Thomas focuses on "the Disappeared Children" taken by child sex rings, porn peddlers -- children bought and sold, enslaved as prostitutes and used in "snuff" movies and as unwilling organ donors. Shockingly, U.S. Immigration does not know the fate of children taken out of the U.S. nor even how many are allegedly exported for adoption abroad but end up as the aforementioned slaves.