The Open Secret: How DC and Hollywood Elites Built a Taxpayer-Funded Child Trafficking Machine

Using Angelina Jolie as its public face, Microsoft-backed Kids In Need of Defense (KIND) facilitates the system, while Michael Flynn’s America’s Future acts as controlled opposition. Opinion.

America’s immigration system harbors a grim reality: a statutorily engineered pipeline for unaccompanied alien children (UACs) that funnels vulnerable minors into the hands of federally-funded NGOs. These organizations hire lawyers to handle the paperwork in a process without adequate safeguards that has often placed vulnerable minors into trafficking situations—and, in many cases, they vanish.

Under the pretense of “family reunification,” since FY 2021, more than a half million unaccompanied children have been admitted to the United States. In numerous documented cases, these children have ended up exploited by gang and cartel trafficking rings. Once children leave federal custody, they can become nearly impossible to trace.

This is not the stuff of wild conspiracy theories. The system’s existence cannot be ping-ponged away with deflections of “tinfoil-hat paranoia”—it’s embedded directly in federal law. The law functions to lure vulnerable children under cartel control and, in many cases, make them disappear—whether that was the original intent, or not.

But the corruption hides within the very statute crafted to prevent trafficking.

This is the story of how the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008 created a path to “asylum” in Section 235 that diverts children from safe and rapid return. And how that path has enabled the endangerment of children while elite-backed NGOs coordinate the resulting chaos.

At the heart of this web are Kids In Need of Defense (KIND) and America’s Future—organizations that fundraise on pledges to protect children but, in my analysis, perpetuate the very system they claim to fight.

Let me stress at the outset: I do not believe Angelina Jolie is a villain here. I suspect she has been coerced and exploited for a long time and deserves grace. The same is likely true of the Flynn family and others involved in this terrible catastrophe.

The Statutory Pipeline: How TVPRA Enables Child Trafficking

Section 235 of the TVPRA treats children differently based on their country of origin. Children from “contiguous countries” (Mexico or Canada) are screened quickly and repatriated—unless they are determined to be trafficking victims or facing persecution.

Mexican minors found not to be under cartel debt bondage are returned to their home country without legal consequences. But those found to be bound to cartels enter the U.S. sponsorship-and-asylum track. The “family reunification” pretense enables parents to pay cartels to smuggle their children, and federal law enshrined this process. This glitch in the law is why, amidst Trump’s mass deportation project, children continue to arrive and are admitted into the United States without pushback—even while the adults they’re fictitiously “reuniting” with are supposed to be headed back home.

While Mexican children can be returned expeditiously, Central American and other minors must be transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for placement with sponsors—often distant relatives or unrelated adults—while their immigration cases drag on for years.

The law requires, “to the greatest extent practicable,” that HHS ensure legal counsel for these children to represent them in the asylum process and protect them from mistreatment, exploitation, and trafficking. Yet this framework has become a magnet for abuse, as lax vetting and prolonged limbo expose children to significant risks. In essence, Section 235 creates a de facto exemption from rapid repatriation, turning the border into a gateway for child smuggling under color of law.

In tandem with the 2008 amendment, Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) was founded by Microsoft and Angelina Jolie, who served at the time as a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Goodwill Ambassador (appointed in 2001). She was later promoted to Special Envoy in April 2012. KIND provides legal representation to smuggled children, funded by a mix of federal grants and private sources, while actively lobbying to preserve and expand these “protections”—including bills like the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act.

KIND’s advocacy aligns closely with the TVPRA’s requirements: Their attorneys navigate paperwork, secure placements, and fight deportations. However, this work sustains the influx of minors and perpetuates debt bondage, as the promise of legal aid and sponsorship incentivizes dangerous journeys, creating a steady supply of vulnerable children for exploitation.

Reports of children vanishing from placements and being forced into labor or sexual exploitation surface repeatedly. In 2015, DHS counter-smuggling expert Jason Piccolo blew the whistle to Congress and authored a book, Out of the Shadows, exposing evidence that DHS was releasing children to known MS-13 affiliates and, Piccolo disclosed, rather than address the problem, the agency opted to cover it up.

Yet reforms aimed at tighter vetting or expedited returns face strong resistance from NGOs like KIND, which benefit from the status quo. These organizations demand expanded legal “due process,” rather than closed borders, because their business model isn’t about ending child trafficking—it’s to make it happen smoothly and efficiently.

Chain-of-custody documentation ends precisely at the sponsor handoff, with no mandatory long-term tracking. Without whistleblowers willing to breach attorney-client privilege, or further revelations from DOJ sources like the Epstein files, these cases are quietly closed when children miss asylum hearings—ensuring that opportunities for disappearance are baked into the process. Legislative history and the persistent lack of reform suggest this is the system’s point.

This legal pathway for non-Mexican minors has made the southern border a magnet for cartels, which smuggle kids from Central America knowing they won’t be turned back. The Biden administration’s open-border policies spiked admissions and led to exposure of planeloads of children being transported quietly at night, prompting demands for a statewide grand jury investigation in Florida and Congressional hearings on the matter. But despite recent Trump DHS rhetoric about border closure, kids continue to enter and are drawn into the system—because the law allows it.

Tuning up the Tractor Beam: The Central American Minors Program

Compounding this, the Central American Minors (CAM) program—established in 2014 under the Obama administration in response to a surge of unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—rationalized the influx as a humanitarian necessity. Framed as a “safe, legal, and orderly alternative” to irregular migration, CAM allowed certain at-risk minors (and family members) to apply for refugee status or parole from their home countries, enabling reunification with parents lawfully in the U.S. without the perilous journey.

Terminated in 2017 under Trump, CAM was restarted and expanded under Biden in 2021–2023 to process backlog cases and accept new applications. While reuniting about 3,000–4,000 children through a vetted in-country process, CAM has contributed to attracting more minors to the southern border by signaling expanded U.S. pathways for Central Americans, incentivizing families and cartels to exploit the system—either through formal applications that often fail vetting or as a pretext for smuggling kids who then enter the TVPRA pipeline upon arrival. The CAM program was halted again in 2025 under a Trump administration suspension of refugee admissions.

We cannot take UNHCR’s praise for CAM’s purported “safety” at face value, given their Orwellian rhetoric that frames exposure to risk as protection. Sponsor vetting processes proved so ineffective—allowing thousands of children to be lost or placed with unvetted sponsors under prior administrations—that Trump’s DHS in 2025 undertook a complete overhaul of vetting procedures for all UACs. This included enhanced sponsor background checks with mandatory fingerprinting for all household adults, DNA testing for biological family claims, stricter identification and income proofs, and increased coordination with ICE and law enforcement to locate missing minors, reportedly recovering over 145,000 such children through operations led by Border Czar Tom Homan.

Yet this approach absurdly bolsters “processing” within the flawed system rather than calling on Congress to reform the TVPRA and close the loophole completely. In the end, Trump’s approach mirrors Biden’s: Both parties protect the underlying system, ensuring the pipeline persists under a veneer of incremental fixes.

Engineered by Design: The Loophole’s Legislative Origins

Section 235 was not accidental. Its legislative history, seamless coordination with NGOs, end effects, and lack of meaningful reform all suggest it was engineered. Probing the origins reveals that the loophole was originally drafted in 2000 for the office of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) by Kristen Jackson, fresh from Yale Law School.

As a fellow in Feinstein’s office, Jackson played a key role in drawing up the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act (UACPA), which introduced the discriminatory provisions for non-contiguous minors—mandating special handling, access to counsel, and prolonged placements in lieu of rapid return to their home countries. These measures sound protective on paper, but in reality, they delay repatriation and enable exploitation.

The problem legislation was co-sponsored by Feinstein and Senator Bob Graham (R-FL) and was pushed by a coalition of more than 60 organizations led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), including religious groups: the American Jewish Committee, B’nai B’rith International, Catholic Charities USA, Church World Service, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Jesuit Refugee Services, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, Presbyterian Church U.S.A., the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and others.

The UACPA didn’t pass on its own, but was later retrofitted into the TVPA reauthorization in 2008 as Section 235.

Notably, in 2017, a UN list of stakeholder organizations was prepared and “approved to attend and participate in the preparatory process of the global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.” Of the more than 240 organizations on the UN list, one stands out for appearing on both lists: the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Jackson’s subsequent career in public interest law at the immigration-oriented nonprofit Public Counsel, in tight alignment with the ACLU, further advanced policies expanding Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) and litigated for government-funded counsel, entrenching this framework and turning her brainchild into a statutory shield for the influx.

Kristen Jackson

Jackson’s mentor at Yale Law, Professor Jean Koh Peters, shaped this worldview through fervent advocacy for expansive immigration rights, “child protection,” and asylum. Peters, who pioneered clinical education in these areas, viewed borders as barriers to humanity, pushing for “child-sensitive” asylum processes that prioritize cultural competence over swift enforcement.

In my view, Peters’ attitudes frame the unthinkable phenomenon of solo child migrants—whose transit is almost always under cartel control—not as an absurdity, but as the inevitable product of being “forced to flee” some unidentified phantom menace. The presumption is that such victims deserve indefinite U.S. stays, rejecting traditional assumptions that favor deportation for the sake of deterrence and safety. Peters’ progressive stance echoing the ACLU, lauded in academia, ignores how such leniency attracts enterprising traffickers, aligning directly with the TVPRA’s outcomes.

In her scholarship Peters employs methods reminiscent of Professor Jacques Derrida’s linguistic deconstruction, subtly but subversively unsettling legal assumptions to erode fixed meanings of words. While she never cites Derrida directly, her emphasis on destabilizing hierarchies mirrors deconstructive techniques, which in legal contexts can erode clear statutory meanings. A major red flag of deconstruction is the use of Orwellian irony: think of Biden DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas absurdly insisting before Congress that “the border is secure,” while all evidence starkly contradicted him. (In my advanced study of deconstruction, I learned that Derrida’s linguistic method seeks to divorce language from its meaning and ultimately to unravel human reason; the motive behind it is nihilism.)

Jean Koh Peters

In works like her “Five Habits for Cross-Cultural Lawyering” (a text used in law clinic curricula), Peters destabilizes binaries and erodes hard boundaries—such as lawyer/client or citizen/migrant—inventing contradictions in narratives to create arguments intended to exploit power imbalances and defer punishment. For instance, she urges lawyers to question “client” vs. “advocate” power dynamics—exuding empathy on the surface, but potentially deferring firm enforcement when applied to borders, inverting empathy and eroding public safety. This Orwellian tactic divorces words like “protection” from their dictionary-defined plain meaning, framing statutes and black letter law as unstable texts open to reinterpretation.

In immigration law, deconstruction manifests as subversion disguised as sophistication. It dismantles civilization’s anchors—secure borders, defined justice, clear delineation of good and evil—opening doors for corruption.

KIND: Compassion as Cover for the System

Enacted under the guise of child protection, the TVPRA’s differential treatment has created a steady pipeline of vulnerable minors into the United States—ripe for abuse by those with connections. Right on cue in the same year—2008—Microsoft Vice Chair and President Brad Smith recruited Angelina Jolie to team up with Microsoft, a company tied to DC power player Bill Gates through his long-standing influence. Smith and Jolie co-founded KIND, and Smith served as the organization’s Board Chair till 2024. Emerging evidence from the Epstein files reveals Gates’ direct relationship with Epstein dates to 2011, and communications have been disclosed between Epstein and Microsoft executives, including Smith.

KIND’s advocacy centers on ensuring legal representation for UACs, lobbying for policies that guarantee counsel and humane treatment rather than rapid repatriation. For instance, they actively support the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act, which would mandate government-funded lawyers for all unaccompanied children in immigration proceedings, arguing it protects vulnerable minors from being deported back into danger. Their position papers and congressional testimonies emphasize that without counsel, children cannot navigate complex asylum processes, framing legal representation and “defense against removal” as human rights imperatives.

Publicity materials reinforce KIND’s image as a frontline defender against child exploitation. In client stories shared on their website and in annual reports, they highlight successes like securing asylum for a Guatemalan teen fleeing gang violence, stating: “KIND gave me the support I needed to keep moving forward.” Their anti-trafficking programs, such as their project for Ukrainian children displaced by war, position KIND as combating exploitation through legal aid and psychosocial support, claiming to have aided thousands of unaccompanied and separated children globally.

supportkind.org

Fundraising is integral to KIND’s operations, with donor appeals that emphasize transformative impact. Their donation pages urge supporters: “Your support means the difference between a child being sent back to a life of danger and fear ... and the chance to live a life of safety and freedom.” Annual reports boast of efficiency, noting: “For every $1 of donor support, KIND leverages $10 in pro bono services,” amplifying contributions through partnerships with law firms, universities and corporations. This model not only sustains their legal work but also fuels lobbying efforts to preserve TVPRA protections, presenting it as essential for child safety.

KIND relies heavily on a combination of corporate donations and grants to fuel its growth. According to IRS Form 990 filings for FY2023, the organization reported revenue of approximately $78.97 million, with expenses totaling $79.56 million. Program services account for 93% of spending, focused predominantly on legal representation for UACs in immigration proceedings. They also report leveraging an additional $137.5 million in pro bono legal services in 2023 alone, underscoring how donor funds are multiplied to expand their reach. While other NGOs provide functions similar to KIND, such as legal representation, advocacy, training, pro bono coordination, and support services for kids navigating the system, none has a budget that comes close to KIND’s.

But a major source of KIND’s revenue, till recently, has been the U.S. government.

KIND previously received substantial federal funding through government contracts and awards, primarily from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to provide legal and social services for unaccompanied immigrant children. For example, in fiscal year 2024, this amounted to over $62 million, representing a key portion of their revenue. However, in March 2025, the Trump administration terminated the federal contract for these legal services, halting funding for representation and leading KIND to make significant operational adjustments, such as staff reductions and office closures. As of early 2026, advocacy efforts continue to urge reinstatement of this funding, but KIND does not currently receive it. The organization now relies more heavily on private donations, foundations, corporate support, and pro bono contributions to sustain its work.

KIND “Partners” are a long list of powerful law firms, corporate legal departments, law schools and bar associations “which agree to represent unaccompanied children referred to KIND.” Corporate legal departments include AT&T, Amazon, Netflix, Microsoft, Verizon, Thompson Reuters, Yahoo!, Raytheon, Pfizer and many others. The full list of firms and organizations that “partner” with KIND is long and jaw-dropping (see Appendix).

Presented as a noble effort to provide legal aid to unaccompanied children, KIND’s real effect, in practice, is to sustain the trafficking pipeline: paying lawyers (and leveraging pro bono hours) to manage paperwork while lobbying Congress for funding to pay those lawyers and to keep the loophole open whenever it comes up for reauthorization. In this way, KIND preserves the status quo. KIND advocates for “fair and humane treatment,” rather than rapid repatriation (the most humane treatment of all, of course), which in practice means opposing any reforms that would close the loophole and allow swift repatriation for all unaccompanied children.

With federal funding flowing in, KIND ensures these kids get placed with sponsors—often undocumented themselves—without rigorous vetting, effectively laundering the trafficking process under the banner of compassion. Jolie, the glamorous face of Hollywood philanthropy, and Microsoft, the tech titan with deep DC ties, represent the perfect fusion of entertainment elite and political muscle, turning child trafficking—under the malevolently ironic banner of “compassion”—into a billion-dollar industry.

America’s Future: Hypocrisy in Anti-Trafficking Activism

But the corruption isn’t limited to one side of the aisle.

Enter America’s Future, the Flynn family NGO chaired by retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, with his sister Mary Flynn O’Neill as executive director. Founded in 1946, America’s Future was a conservative nonprofit previously led by Phyllis Schlafly and John Singlaub that had become largely dormant. Singlaub handed the reins to Flynn in April 2021.

On the surface, this conservative outfit positions itself as anti-trafficking heroes through its Project Defend & Protect Our Children (PDPC), which hosts fundraisers, publishes reports, and amplifies whistleblower stories about missing kids. They file amicus briefs and policy papers, and they present themselves as warriors against the very evil they help sustain. Indeed, the America’s Future documentary exposé on border trafficking, Where Did the Children Go? (2023), demonstrates organizational competence when it comes to understanding the problem—clearly they do.

But rather than oppose the scheme, PDPC’s advocacy focuses on exposing child smuggling at the border, with campaigns like “Get In The Fight” aimed at building “an army of warriors” through resources, state summits, and a Call to Action that encourages grassroots involvement. They emphasize community-level action, providing state-by-state legal information and hotlines to combat exploitation, positioning themselves as empowering everyday Americans to join the battle.

Fundraising appeals tie directly to this mission, urging donors to “help end the war on children” and join the PDPC grassroots network for ongoing support. Events such as “Skip-A-Thon” fundraisers are promoted to benefit survivor aftercare, while general donation drives frame contributions as tax-deductible investments in educational efforts to prevent trafficking and protect vulnerable children. This creates a narrative of urgent, donor-driven heroism.

Financially, as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, America’s Future reported $3.36 million in revenue for 2024 (mostly from donations) and $3.09 million in expenses. Salaries include $173,022 to Mary Flynn O’Neill as executive director, $65,000 to Michael Flynn as chairman (for approximately 2 hours per week).

But despite their bluster about protecting children, America’s Future doesn’t push to close the TVPRA loophole—the root cause of the UAC crisis. Instead, they lobby in ways that maintain the influx, fundraising off the outrage while ignoring the statutory fix that could end it.

The status quo is profitable. As a 501(c)(3), they rake in tax-deductible donations by hyping the problem without solving it, all while associating with figures like Liz Crokin, who has defended accused traffickers Andrew and Tristan Tate under the banner of free speech. This isn’t prevention; it’s a cover-up, ensuring the system stays hidden behind a screen of “activism.”

Meanwhile, KIND’s global operations—spanning the U.S., Mexico, and Central America—facilitate placements that often evade scrutiny, with reports showing 60-79% of sponsors are themselves illegally in the country. Taxpayers foot the bill: President Trump himself requested $4.4 billion for UAC programs, money that flows to these NGOs while kids vanish into the shadows. Epstein’s disclosures have peeled back the curtain on elite networks and research funding; now, it’s time to scrutinize how the TVPRA and its enablers have supplied the victims.

Closing this loophole is simple: Amend TVPRA Section 235 to treat all UACs equally, allowing immediate repatriation — but WITHOUT the screening requirement. Border reform bill H.R. 2 proposes to end the “noncontiguous country” loophole, but doesn’t go far enough to close the path completely because it’s the screen-and-sort provision that provides the opening for children to disappear into cartel “sponsorship,” aided by NGO lawyers.

But elites on both sides resist—because the system serves them. KIND keeps the doors open for Hollywood’s “humanitarian” facade; America’s Future grifts off the right-wing fury without demanding real change. Together, they silence the truth, ensuring the child shuttle hums along quietly.

Controlled Opposition: Flynn’s Role in Silencing the Truth

Based on my investigation into the DC-Hollywood elite child-trafficking network, in my view, Flynn’s activities may be understood as controlled opposition with three operational phases:

A containment operation seeks to limit the hangout. When loose ends of organized criminal corruption emerge (such as the Podesta “Pizzagate” emails), the containment op seeks to control and neutralize the information by burying it, discrediting it, or reframing its significance and implications.

An activity trap sweeps up grassroots activists and directs them to tasks that seem useful (such as petitioning, ballot chasing, investigating Q drops, or “raising awareness”) but that are actually intended to burn energy and divert attention away from the underlying corruption.

A honeypot, like an activity trap, draws in targets but instead of directing the individual toward activities, the honeypot takes tips and information under false pretenses. Affiliations with “journalists” including Lara Logan and Liz Crokin fit the bill. Instead of investigating a hot new tip, the operation kills it.

In my view, Flynn’s ongoing controlled-opposition operation performs all three functions of containment, activity trap, and honeypot. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, a registered Democrat from a blue-collar family, rose through the ranks under President Barack Obama. By assuming the America’s Future mantle and positioning himself as a conservative MAGA ally, Flynn leverages the appearance of alliance to gather and suppress information on hot topics like insurrections and organized child trafficking.

Such operations manage dissent by diverting it into harmless or self-defeating channels, allowing the controlling entity to dominate information. Past operations with mechanics matching this three-phase controlled-opposition model include the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), which contained scandals by discrediting leaders, trapped activists in diversions, and used infiltrators as honeypots; and Soviet KGB active measures during the Cold War, which reframed debates, directed proxies into energy-draining actions, and lured tips under false pretenses.

But if Flynn can be described as “controlled opposition,” the “opposition” being captured by the op is not left or right—the opposition Flynn controls are those grassroots Americans whose hearts are broken by the trafficking tragedy.

In my view, Flynn must have believed he could indefinitely hide the elite child-trafficking network, convinced of his absolute control over the facts.

As it turns out, he could not.

The “Pizzagate” PSYOP: Operation Ping-Pong

WikiLeaks’ 2016 dump of hacked emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, triggered an immediate media flurry. But the story that emerged, “Pizzagate,” wasn’t just organic media hustle in a flooded zone—in my view, it was a deliberate and sophisticated psychological operation engineered to contain and discredit inquiries into elite child exploitation networks.

Let’s reframe “Pizzagate” as the containment operation meant to focus attention on salacious details from the Podesta emails while obscuring the network. Let’s call it Operation Ping-Pong—a swift-moving, eye-catching distraction that bats public attention away from the actual “ball”: the systemic, statutorily enabled child-moving networks operating in plain view.

Flynn, a Trump supporter during the 2016 campaign, posted allegations on Twitter alleging Hillary Clinton and John Podesta were involved in Satanic rituals and sex crimes with minors—directly contributing to the narrative’s emphasis on exposing Democrat decadence rather than revealing a bipartisan scheme.

The “Pizzagate” child exploitation narrative circulated through anonymous boards like 4chan and Reddit, fixating on sensational claims—such as “pizza” and “hot dogs” as coded pedophilia terms tied to Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in DC. This sensationalism was meant to provoke ridicule and dismissal once the overall narrative was “debunked” by focusing attention on absurd details—like nonexistent basements.

Amplified by figures like Michael Flynn, who tweeted links to stories accusing Hillary Clinton and John Podesta of Satanic rituals involving children (practices that emerging evidence suggests may indeed reflect actual high-control rituals in elite hierarchies), and his son Michael Flynn Jr., who endorsed the “Pizzagate” narrative post-Comet Ping Pong incident as a “story” until proven false, the operation made potential investigative approaches seem ridiculous. The narrative collapsed under ridicule.

While mainstream outlets quickly labeled “Pizzagate” a debunked conspiracy theory, emerging evidence from the Epstein files now suggest a containment operation to protect the powerful. Operation Ping Pong swept grassroots activists into endless volleys of debate on peripheral details, while the statutory framework enabling trafficking remained ignored and untouched, allowing bipartisan protection of the elite apparatus to continue. In essence, Operation Ping Pong weaponized “conspiracy theorizing” as a self-sabotaging spectacle, much like historical psyops such as COINTELPRO that neutralized threats by seeding chaos and division.

In short, Operation Ping Pong weaponized the paddle of “tinfoil hat conspiracy theorizing” to protect the elite, ending valid scrutiny with a killer smash.

Conclusion

Congress must repeal the TVPRA’s “non-contiguous country” loophole during reauthorization in the current session of Congress; mandate immediate repatriation as the default to stop incentivizing illicit border-crossing; stop offering “legal defense” against the civil, non-criminal repatriation of minors back to their homes; and stop funding NGOs that perpetuate the cycle. Until then, the system thrives. All God’s children—whether native or migrant—deserve to be protected against exploitation.

From my couch I’ve watched America’s Future host multi-million-dollar galas at Mar-a-Lago, complete with red-carpet glamour and celebrity photo ops, while I sit here in the same unwashed hoodie I’ve been wearing since last fall, hair uncut since the Biden administration was still pretending the border was secure. I operate on a budget of $0.

It’s not that I’m disorganized or unmotivated. It’s just that one of us is running a 501(c)(3) that pays six-figure salaries to family members, hands awards to itself, and manages to stay very well-coiffed. The other is still asking why the statutory pipeline for child smuggling hasn’t been shut down yet.

APPENDIX:

KIND’s Partners: Corporate Legal Departments, Law Firms, Law Schools and Bar Assocations.