Thank you, attempting to reformat now

I doubt it's shills. It's probably pissed off researchers who think this is another alt of EsotericShade.

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2809501/14656874

Perhaps, But the truth always comes out

Shaping Greek Adoptions through Private Interests Its national loyalty, along with the large number of Greek children going to U.S. relatives gave AHEPA an early foothold in Greek adoptions. AHEPA officials, including a Minnesota state representative, lobbied heavily for the 1950 amendment to the DPA, arguing that the “Greek-American community of the United States would see that these displaced persons and orphans would be properly taken care of” in order “to make democracy live.’ In late 1950, AHEPA became a voluntary agency accredited by the Department of State’s Voluntary Foreign Aid Committee based on its partnership with USCOM. an umbrella agency with existing accreditation. This meant that AHEPA could officially place children for adoption in U.S. homes based on USCOM’s record. Through this arrangement, families contributed Sioo to the agencies on a voluntary basis to support administrative costs, which were fairly low because AHEPA’S staff was not paid.’ AHEPA’S role as an adoption intermediary, and the significant role of the U.S. Committee for the Care of European Children (USCOM), signaled the influence of voluntarism on the structure of international adoption. USCOM, a private association, licensed AHEPA, another private agency, to work on placing Greek orphans in U.S. homes.” AHEPA had no background in child welfare work, no trained social workers on staff, and no professional accreditations or associations with other child welfare agencies. The fraternal order’s representatives revealed this inexperience in their initial proposal to the Advisory Committee on Voluntary Aid. When suggesting how to process tiles for named orphans—those children intended for relatives or specific sponsors—AHEPA volunteers assumed that “in these cases there would be little or no need for screening by our organization unless your Committee or the other official bodies deem that it is necessary’” Since officials mandated the routine screening of named children to confirm their identities, verify, their social histories, and assure that their parents or guardians had properly relinquished them, comments like these highlighted AHEPA’s limited exposure to child welfare standards. This inattention to screening children suggested that AHEPA leaders were principally concerned with expedient resettlement of Greek children into Greek American families. On the surface, it seemed curious that officials knowingly approved AHEPA since the European program functioned under child welfare paradigm practices. Evelyn Rausch, director of the Displaced Persons Orphan Program, assured Elliott Shirk, the director of resettlement, that those responsible for child placement were required to make comprehensive home studies, maintain compliance with state Departments of Welfare, and conduct thorough background checks on orphans. Rausch even recruited U.S. adoption specialists to staff the commission’s European headquarters in Frankfurt to ensure that the agency handled all cases meticulously.”’ Yet, three months after Rausch’s letter, the two DPC social workers stationed in Greece, Lena Cochran and Helen McKay, informed Robert Corkery, European coordinator for the DPC. that matters looked rather different in Greece. Because of insufficient transportation, no local authority with extant records, overwhelmed staff and inexperienced volunteers. children were routinely sent to the States without completed social histories. Working in a country with deplorable conditions and few resources certainly caused sonic of the mishaps, but other difficulties came from AHEPA’S direct management of cases. While the original arrangement intended that Cochran and McKay should supervise all of the casework, there were too many children to make this feasible. This not only meant that hundreds of orphans arrived in U.S. ports without being screened, but also meant that the operations in Greece were slipshod and rudimentary. This inattention to proper casework infuriated the two professional social workers in command, Both Cochran and McKay insisted. ‘In many people’s minds we are identified more with AHEPA at this point than the DP. Commission. We question seriously whether this is a desirable position for a government agency to be placed in,” particularly since “we are...in the position of defending the AHEPA-U.S. Committee plan when in fact we disagree in many cases.”’ Cochran and McKay were not the only naysayers; the U.S. Consul in Athens and Greek travel agents responsible for arranging children’s transportation also complained about AHEPA’s inflated fees and unprofessional services. Once these concerns came to light, officials tried to remove the fraternal order Irons the program. Less than a year after accrediting AHEPA, USCOM director Ingeborg Olsen questioned her agency’s decision to approve AHEPA and took her concerns to a higher authority. In a meeting with State Department officials from the Voluntary Foreign Aid division under the Bureau of Economic Affairs, Olsen explained that while her relations with AHEPA’S leadership were cordial, she was dissatisfied with their lack of training. Her efforts, for instance. “to convince Ahepa [sic] of the fact that named children going to relatives or friends sometimes need special care when their placements were unsuccessful,” went nowhere. When Olsen suggested that AHEPA fund a USCOM child welfare worker in Greece, the organization refused, instead focusing their resources on setting up a new orphan program.”’ Three weeks later, Voluntary Foreign Aid staff reported additional AHEPA problems to the Office of Greek. Turkish, and Iranian Affair, another State Department agency. Despite officials’ attempts to have AHEPA work collaboratively with a child welfare agency knowledgeable in immigration and resettlement, the organization insisted on handling orphan services themselves. AHEPA leaders’ persistence in processing adoptions colored the organization’s actions as inherently political. Indeed, after “considerable criticism,” Chairman of the AHEPA DP Committee George Polos flew to Greece to try to improve the program himself, insinuating that AHEPA’s mismanagement compromised its national reputation as a bulwark against communism.’ Polos’s visit did little good and USCOM proceeded with the derecognition of AHEPA in early 1952. In their efforts to limit AHEPA’s influence, social welfare experts butted up against the same barriers they faced when trying to regulate domestic “gray market” adoptions. Once the Children’s Bureau heard that USCOM planned to derecognize the fraternal order, Director Mildred Arnold sent a memo to her staff, informing them that AHEPA was no longer considered a voluntary organization accredited by the Stale Department to conduct adoptions and that they should notify all state Departments of Welfare at once. This was especially urgent. in Arnold’s opinion, because it appeared that AHEPA planned to continue placing children without consulting professional child welfare agencies.’° But there was little that Arnold could do besides inform stale officials since many state laws allowed independent operations like AHEPA to place children. Although Children’s Bureau representatives labored to convince State Department officials that “state departments of public welfare feel obliged to work only with accredited agencies.” the federal government could do little. The state-based system was set up to legally permit both public and private, both accredited and unaccredited. DPC officials also considered how they might force AHEPA to become accredited separate from USCOM. The Orphan Section Supervisor explained in a letter to her superior that state laws would offer the best way to convince the order that it needed to be licensed since it violated state law to process adoptions without a proper license) This was not completely accurate, however. It was not illegal for unlicensed entities to process adoptions unless a state explicitly prohibited it. Some slates, Minnesota and New York for example, had laws prohibiting the interstate transfer of children without the approval of a licensed agency. But just as many stales didn’t, This seemed more like a case of wishful thinking on behalf of Children’s Bureau officials who immediately recognized the danger in a well-respected, and politically well-connected, organization like AHEPA being permitted to make placements without professional ties.