An independent voice for ethical adoption
“The End does not Justify the Means”
Judge Thomas Zilly of the United States District Court in Seattle declared, “the end does not justify the means” in sentencing Lauryn Galindo to prison today for conspiracy to commit visa fraud, conspiracy to launder money and structuring offenses associated with Cambodian adoptions.
Judge Zilly declared that when he first read the statements from victims, he wondered why he shouldn’t increase the sentence rather than lowering it as the defense requested. Stating that harm done to the victims through Galindo’s involvement in improperly removing children from their birth families far outweighed the good work done by her, Judge Zilly sentenced Ms. Galindo to 18 months in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release. The sentence also included a prohibition against her employment or involvement in adoption. A detailed summary follows.
During the sentencing hearing, Galindo’s attorney Jay Stansell requested the court to consider decreasing the expected sentence for three reasons: the large amount of humanitarian work Ms. Galindo had performed; diminished capacity to understand the wrongfulness of her actions because of lifelong trauma and mental illness; and that the offenses were outside the “heartland” of the crimes for which she was being sentenced.
Lengthy testimony was provided by Dr. Terry Hastings, who interviewed Galindo for 10+ hours about her childhood and personal and family history and reviewed psychological tests performed on Galindo. Dr. Hastings concluded that Ms. Galindo suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder. She testified that as a result of these mental illnesses Ms. Galindo attempted to correct her own traumatic experiences by helping to save other children. Dr. Hastings reported that when Galindo’s identity as a “savior” of children was challenged, she could be rude or insensitive to adoptive parents and that she felt her work served a “higher purpose”.
Under questioning about whether or not Ms. Galindo understood the wrongfulness of filing false visa paperwork, Dr. Hastings replied, “Her identity and higher moral purpose were more important than the trivialities of paperwork…Lying was a means to the end of saving children.”
Dr. Hastings concluded that Galindo was severely impaired in her ability to understand the wrongfulness of her actions in the worldview that she held because of her life experiences.
Upon cross-examination, U.S. attorney Michael Barr inquired as to whether the defendant met the definition of a “malingerer” based upon her test scores. A defendant said to “malinger” is one who exaggerates psychological symptoms to evade prosecution. Dr. Hastings concurred that Ms. Galindo’s scores fell into the range where malingering should be considered, but that she discounted those results on the basis of her interviews with Galindo. It was noted that the defense had not included copies of the psychological exams in the court record, and the judge entered them into the record.
The court then addressed Dr. Hastings and asked if her evaluation of Ms. Galindo had occurred after her arrest and current legal issues and whether some of the symptoms she had shown could be contributable to stress related to the criminal investigation. Dr. Hastings agreed that they could. The court asked Dr. Hastings if she felt that Galindo understood that it was wrong for her to take children away from existing parents through false means. She replied that Galindo understood it intellectually but did not have the emotional or psychological ability to determine the tragedy of being ripped away from the biological family. She further stated that Galindo knew the behavior was wrong but rationalized it and pushed the wrong behavior out of her mind. The judge said, “So, the end justified the means?” Dr. Hastings replied, “Yes.”
Issues concerning the large amounts of money made by Galindo and her associates (estimated by the government at 9.2 million dollars) and the agreed upon forfeiture of assets including a house in Hawaii, an expensive car and cash were discussed at length. The government said that the structured transactions in Hawaiian banks were used to deposit money without record so that Ms. Galindo could purchase Tahitian pearls, and that while Ms. Galindo may have begun placing children for adoption for altruistic purposes, in 1997 with the creation of Seattle International Adoptions, she became motivated by the large amounts of money she could make.
Adoptive parents were asked to give a donation of $3500 in cash for support of the orphanages. Photos of the orphanages were entered into the record by the government showing dilapidated conditions, torn window screens, and children lying in feces and urine. The government argued that the over 2 million dollars which was to have supported orphanages was obviously not given to those orphanages. Details of offshore accounts, financial transactions, and a company named after the Hindu Goddess of Wealth were offered.
Judge Zilly noted that the defense offered only a generalized accounting of where the 9.2 million dollars was spent and that it was impossible for the court to determine whether it was accurate or not, but the photos produced by the government testimony clearly indicated the money had not gone to the orphanages.
In closing, the defense argued that Galindo had already paid enough for her admitted crimes by ”falling from on high” or the loss of her respected reputation as a savior of children in Cambodia. Mr. Stansell argued that Ms. Galindo had not tried to hide money in unnamed accounts, and that the name of the Hindu Goddess was also a sign of “abundance” in other things besides wealth. He argued that people often said that Galindo operated in “the world according to Lauryn” and that world was one of “generosity, kindness and love” and that her world did not slow down for the regulating of bank transactions.
Galindo’s attorney pointed out that the number of victim statements received paled in comparison to the 800 adoptions she had performed over the years. He pointed out that this was true even though some, most notably Judi Mosley, were “all over the internet encouraging victims to come forward”. He said they were arguing not “that there was no harm done” but that the court needed to look at what the purpose would be in sending her to jail, pointing out that punishing Galindo would not rectify all the problems in Cambodia and thus would not serve as an effective deterrent. The defense asked that Ms. Galindo be placed on probation.
Ms. Galindo then made a statement to the court stating that she had read the letters from victims and was distressed that anyone had suffered from her actions.
Arguing for the prosecution, U.S. Attorney Jim Lord stated that because Ms. Galindo had pleaded guilty, there were only two questions that the court needed to answer: Was there any basis for reducing the sentence and What sentence would the court give.
Mr. Lord argued that Ms. Galindo should serve 18 months in prison for her crimes; that she had admitted to being the ringleader and organizer of the visa fraud scheme and thus held responsibility for the actions.
Mr. Lord argued that although Ms. Galindo may have started her work for altruistic purposes, that later changed and that rather than being forthcoming, as the defense claimed, the government was still looking for one million dollars that had been transferred to an account to which the government could not gain access. He also noted that the 2 million dollars that should have gone to support the orphanages obviously hadn’t and that in fact the government could only account for about 1 million dollars which had been invested in her house and car.
Mr. Lord read excerpts from a moving statement by Camryn Mosley, now 14 years old, adopted from Cambodia at age 9, in which she stated that a man had approached her and asked her to ask her family if she could go to America. Camryn wrote:
“I may not have had a big, fancy house in Cambodia, but I did have a home.
I may not have had a big, soft bed in Cambodia, but I had a place where I slept safely and peacefully each night.
I may not have had a big car in Cambodia, but I had an ox and a cart.
I may not have had parents in Cambodia who could give me all the fine things in life but I had a family who loved me.
I may not have had a private education in Cambodia, but I went to school and studied very hard.”
Mr. Lord noted that Camryn was but one of the many children affected by the actions of Ms. Galindo and that there were hundreds of children who had their identities erased by the conspiracy.
Mr. Lord’s testimony was followed by a statement by Deborah Ware, who traveled to Cambodia to adopt a child and was instructed by Galindo to commit visa fraud.
On rebuttal, Galindo’s attorney acknowledged the pain of the victims but noted that Galindo needed counseling and not jail time.
After the testimony by both sides, Judge Zilly noted that Ms. Galindo had pled guilty to the charges. He agreed that the case was complex and he noted for the record the immigration definition of an orphan. Judge Zilly noted that there were three forms that adoptive parents had to file at the U.S. Embassy in connection with a case, all of which contained questions about birth families or statements indicating that the parents understood the orphan definition and that the actions of Ms. Galindo caused parents to falsify those statements. He stated that in her plea, Galindo acknowledged that she had “actual knowledge” or “acted in deliberate ignorance of the truth” when committing her crimes.
The judge noted that the court had received many letters from both supporters of Galindo and from victims. He read excerpts from some of the supporter’s letters and acknowledged that she had done much good work. He then read excerpts from letters of several families victimized by the actions, highlighting the trauma of children being “ripped from their families”. He made special note to reread Camryn Mosley’s statement because he felt it spoke on behalf of the children.
Judge Zilly noted that these children and many others were affected by the false visa forms filled out by the defendant and that they had been robbed of their identity and suffered emotional and psychological trauma which may not be fully evident for a long time but that was “immeasurable in this court’s opinion”. The judge noted that “today we have heard a lot about the emotional trauma of the defendant” but that no one had stood to detail the emotional trauma of the children involved but that Camryn’s statement was indicative of the trauma experienced by many.
Judge Zilly noted that the defense had argued for a reduced sentence on three grounds. He acknowledged the substantial good work of Ms. Galindo but said the court was not going to allow a departure from the sentence because “her charitable work allowed the crimes to be committed” and that the charitable work did not overcome the record of visa fraud, bribery and continued association with known child traffickers. He also noted that the defendant had suggested she had made large substantial contributions to charitable works but that no real accounting had been provided to the court. Judge Zilly noted that it was the opinion of the court that “the end does not justify the means”.
On the subject of diminished capacity Judge Zilly noted that while Dr. Hastings diagnoses may have been correct, Ms. Galindo conducted her business very successfully, and that it was clear to the court that she “full well understood the wrongfulness of her behavior”.
On the third issue, Judge Zilly noted that the actions fell fully within the “heartland” of the sentencing range and that Ms. Galindo had known the immigration laws, as witnessed by correspondence between her and the former INS in regards to the orphan definition. He granted no downward departure on this issue either.
Judge Zilly concluded by telling Ms. Galindo that when he first read the victim’s statements he wondered why he should ever agree to the lower end of the accepted range and whether he should instead raise the sentence asked for by the prosecution. He said, “your conduct in taking children improperly from their families far outweighs all your good work”. He then sentenced Ms. Galindo to 18 months in federal prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release, 300 hours of community service and a prohibition on her engaging in adoption activities for the time period of her sentence and supervision. The judge ordered restitution to several victims. The defense asked that Ms. Galindo serve her time at the federal prison in Dublin, California and it was agreed.
The defense asked that Ms. Galindo be free pending appeal if the prosecution had no objection and the Judge stated that he objected and denied the request.
Follow Us
