I am done trying to warn parents about questionable agencies. It’s just not worth it! All one gets in return are threats, anger and pettiness.

—– Original Message —–
From charlenemc
To: : KellnSuz@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: agency

Hi Suzanne. Thanks for sending this research. I remember doing similar research years ago before I adopted my daughter!

On a separate note, I just noticed that you are using Little Pearls as your agency. I know there has been some reshuffling at that agency; however, it appears the relationships for the most part remain at least with regard to Ric Feinberg,and others. Unlike other instances where allegations are sometimes dismissed as rumours, this is an unsual instance where, because of Feinberg’s decision to prosecute a civil action (which he did not win) on behalf of Maily Latrace (with whom he went into business, apparently knowing her visa was revoked by the Vietnamese Government for child trafficking) there is a big file filled with legal proof, depositions and affidavits. Assuming you will want to read it, the file is under Case No. 04-4547-CI-13 (Latrace v. Judith Mosley, et. al), Counsel for Latrace: Richard Feinberg, Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Pinellas County, Florida, Civil Division. You can call the clerk of records there at 727-464-3267.

Should you proceed through Little Pearls, I sincerely wish you the best of luck and hope you are home with your child very soon!

Charlene

—– Original Message —–
From: KellnSuz@aol.com
To: charlenemc
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: agency

Ahhh….Charlene….yet another of the ‘well-meaning’ folks who wants to “make sure” we don’t make a mistake.

Someone should tell me WHAT unethical or illegal activity Little Pearls carried out or has carried out since the reopening.

Hiring someone who had a revoked visa doesn’t mean he hired a criminal. And, if there was never intentions of her traveling to Vietnam, accusations based solely on a visa denial do NOT mean that the agency is involved in some illegal or immoral activity.

Debbie Fischer, the new president/ceo, took on Little Pearls with full knowledge of all the legal and rumor weed documents and has set out to create an agency that removes the ‘black mark’ they have so received.

I think it’s sad that so many people…and many of them who call themselves ‘christians’ are so unforgiving and so unwilling to allow someone to redeem themselves. I am so grateful that Jesus didn’t do this to me, the worst of sinners.

Now, if Little Pearls ever ever ever carried out ANY illegal activity, the agency should be closed. It’s not and, though I’m grateful for your well-meaning warning, I’m using them.

I promise you that if things go ‘right’ and there’s no ‘trace’ of LaTrace (and I don’t think there will be), I will go absolutely nuts with an unbelievable backlash to all the well-meaners who have the goal of taking down an agency. Trust me, I will because I hate to see such ugliness.

Suzanne

PS – if Ric Feinberg “acknowledged” anything to you about Mai Ly Latrace, he sung a much different tune when asked on the official record (of his and Latrace’s own lawsuit) and to the Florida licensing authorities. I think the blogger for this piece did a fine job uncovering the pieces and while it’s nice you once got a gift from Mr. Feinberg, this thread of factual information (not gossip) has nothing to do with you or the adoption of your daughter. The author of this blog (and commenters like me) take good care to uncover and detail factual information and lay it out for those interested. If you are not interested, just move along and spare us the “stop bashing Ric” stuff. The man has made a complete buffoon of himself all over the internet (and in real life) and has now gotten himself into some serious hot water in court.

You found my blog, and I have no idea how. You then figured out how to find my name on my blog (which is Suzanne, and which is nowhere else but on a link on my blog and which is how you referred to me on my friend’s daughter’s blog). Then, you found out how to link to my friend’s daughter’s blog (yes, to me she’s a kid…she’s 17 years younger than me). Then, you knew how to comment to her blog post.

Yes, she’s a married person, but she’s just a kid. She is barely ‘in the know’ on having kids no less getting dragged into the kindness in the Vietnam adoption “community.” That was just not fair at all for you to do.

I’m not sure how you didn’t find the TWO email addresses (again…I’ll post it here, because I have nothing to hide from…kellnsuz@gmail.com) I have linked on my blog. I’m not sure why you couldn’t post that comment to my blog. My friend’s daughter’s blog is through google, just like mine, and it shouldn’t have been so impossible for you to do all of the above through mine. Especially, the fact that BOTH of my email addresses are on there.

But, you say you had no other way to contact me, so you dragged my friend’s kid into it.

The inconsistencies are glaring…..

I really don’t know what the problem is here. You posted on here and when I heard about the most recent summary judgment against your agency director (and the attempt by another one of your agency director’s to stop that from happening) I posted it on here because you said you were eagerly awaiting the result of that litigation. But you were no longer on here so I went to your blog. Seeing no email for you, I simply gave a link to this site on one of the sites you linked to a site of a married couple, not a child or “kid”. No commentary. Just a link and a note saying there’s an update on the lawsuit Kellnsuz was wondering about and if she hasn’t read it please tell her the info is here (on this blog). How that translates into “lying” to your “friend’s kid” is beyond me.

Like I said, you’ve made your decision and don’t seem much interested in your agency’s situation and the “evidence” you originally posted asking for. I’m through trying to help you find “evidence.” Good luck. Hopefully, your adoption will proceed under the new rules wherein a child is determined to be an orphan or not BEFORE a parent goes and adopts him/her in Viet Nam. That should protect you from having to be stuck in Viet Nam like other families are right now.

Next time, admit you are using an agency that has all the issues already noted here because they have a child you want to adopt, period. Or do it in secret. Because your attempts to distinguish this or that are not effective. The facts stand as they are and your own agency director (director of the board of directors) started an agency with the infamous Maily Latrace, fibbed about his involvement with her (as indicated by the Florida DCF among other sources) and prosecuted a case for her which he lost (and may even end up paying attorneys fees for). Still director of your agency. And even another director of your agency is still trying to represent Maily Latrace. Not at all the “clean break” you posted about.

Don’t shoot the messenger.

Please ask Little Pearls for the names of their facilitators. They have nothing to hide from you.

Whoever is hiding behind a mask, using and lying to my friends’ children who are completely unrelated to my adoption, should show their face. You can email me, since you say that posting to my blog does not work, it is kellnsuz@gmail.com and I would love to have a conversation with you and find out why you are dragging my friends’ children into this.

I do not know where else the person would be coming from other than a reader here, because I no longer post to any Yahoo Group nor did I name our agency on my blog.

This is sad and wrong. This is very divisive. I hoped to get some help. You people attack me and judge me saying I ask and then I don’t listen. That is wrong. I’m actually also having long, detailed conversations with our agency at the same time. I am seeking to find out what I feel is necessary to find out.

I know that by the time my Vietnamese child is old enough to read the internet and look up the agency or any other information, we will all have more knowledge than we do now. You do not scare by saying what you said. I am completely open with my Chinese daughter as I am with my bio children. I will be completely open with her. If there is some fault to be placed, I’m sure that by that time it will be known and all will be in the light.

I am finally checking out and off…..this has saddened me and taken enough of my energy.

(and so nobody can judge and slam me further, yes, I have read the documents. Yes, I plan to read the current documents. Yes, I have already asked about the facilitators in VN and I know their names and when I go, I will have eyes wide open and ears to hear for anything behind the scenes. IF I find anything that falls in line with unethical or illegal activity, please know that I will not ignore it. I never have. That’s why I’ve been here asking questions.

Face it…you want whatever child is being referred to you and are prepared to use an agency with all these players and with your full knowledge about these players (and refuse to find out more damning things by refusing to read the case file — the exact legal stuff you asked for in the first place.” Instead of saying “Oh well, I hope I don’t get a NOID and it works out” you post all over the internet, first asking for facts and then when you get them, you either ignore them (you have not read the case file, try the deposition of Ric Feinberg) or you try to dispute them which you cannot since they are facts. If you really must get on this woman’s blog and try to make facts go away (they don’t) why don’t you instead tell us who the facilitators in Viet Nam who will actually arrange your G&R? If you’d read the case file, you’d see Ric Feinberg still had plans to use the services of Agnes Latrace (Mai Ly’s mother).

Once again, stop lashing out at people who are giving you all this information you asked for. And…don’t forget, your own child will be reading this stuff when he/she Googles her adoption agency, which will happen.

Ric Feinberg is the Director OF THE BOARD for Little Pearls
Liz Morrill is the Director of the Agency

So, using the word “director” with Ric Feinberg would not be incorrect, but it would be incomplete as he’s NOT the agency director as we’d all presume an agency director to be. That would be Liz’s job.

He holds a position on the board.