Good Trouble: Paperslip warned Korean Adoptees about DKRG for years. Now U.S. Adoptees are starting to see why.
The TRC stands for “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”. I’ve told the truth about DKRG for years, and have been punished for it. Others are finally waking up to reality, and beginning to talk about it. Viva la Revolución.
There is such a thing as "Good Trouble."
For years, I've been criticized and marginalized for speaking openly about my experiences — and those of many others, particularly Danish Adoptees — with DKRG (Danish Korean Rights Group). Only now are many U.S. Korean Adoptees beginning to recognize the concerns that have been raised on Paperslip for years.
When the Republic of Korea’s Second Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC 2) began investigating Overseas Adoption in 2022, most U.S. Korean Adoptees had limited direct involvement — not due to lack of interest, but because they were brought into the process very late. In August 2022, DKRG first contacted me out of the blue to help raise awareness of TRC 2 among U.S. Adoptees, which I happily agreed to do. However, this left only a short window of time before the September 11th, 2022 deadline for the first round of TRC 2 submissions, giving little time for me to effectively inform and support U.S. Adoptees in submitting their cases. Nevertheless, I helped significantly by recording a Zoom instructional guide with Peter Møller about how U.S. Adoptees could submit their cases to TRC 2, which I then posted to Korean Adoptee forums.
I submitted my own case to TRC 2 through DKRG by the September 11th, 2022 deadline. Despite this, on December 7th, 2022 — the same day TRC 2 officially began its Overseas Adoption investigation — DKRG blocked and ghosted me out of the blue without explanation. This occurred after they had already collected my sensitive, private adoption documents and after I had signed a Power of Attorney form authorizing DKRG’s Peter Møller, whom I was led to believe was a lawyer (though I later learned he lied, and that is NOT one — see the section below), to act on my behalf. Despite multiple attempts to reach DKRG since then, I have never received any response. However, I was further shocked when DKRG later not only attempted to take false credit for my work, but also resorted to spreading malicious and false rumors about me to their minions — reportedly for hours on end during their Zoom meetings with TRC 2 participants. I could never have anticipated nor been prepared for this kind of behavior.
Before DKRG blocked and ghosted me, we had never had a single prior argument.
I did not know at the time that Boonyoung Han had a long-standing reputation in Korea for taking credit for other activists’ work.
Because I was so naive, and had never dealt with these kinds of people before, it took me a long time to figure out exactly what had happened to me, and why.
In early 2023, after repeated unwarranted abuses by DKRG, I withdrew my TRC 2 case, despite my case being one of the first 34 accepted for investigation by TRC 2. This cost me the chance at justice for myself and for my deceased twin sister.
Prior to this first ugly encounter with DKRG, which led to a three year nightmare of dealing with the fallout from their continued abuses, I had been building relationships within the KSS Adoptee community since 2018. One of DKRG's (remaining) leaders — Boonyoung Han, herself a KSS Adoptee who had directly witnessed my work with the KSS Adoptee community for years — had been aware of those efforts from the beginning. Notably, DKRG itself was not established until around April or May 2022. There were several more Danish founding members (around 7 in total) at the time who were all eventually pushed out by Peter Møller and Boonyoung Han. When Peter Møller first approached me in 2022 to help spread the word about TRC 2 to U.S. Adoptees, I could have no idea that DKRG would soon seek to take credit in the press for my years of work and research, and would ruthlessly cut me out of the movement.
Since its founding in 2020, Paperslip was effectively the primary U.S. hub for Right to Origin advocacy, specifically with respect to KSS Adoptees. That's part of why DKRG initially approached me to help with TRC 2. However, once they sidelined me on December 7th, 2022 — mere months after first approaching me to help them — they had few other meaningful connections within the U.S. Adoptee community, so they hastily assembled the awkward hybrid group called AUSKRG (Australian / US Korean Rights Group) for TRC 2 submissions.
TRC 2 concluded at the end of 2025. By the time TRC 3 began on February 26th, 2026, AUSKRG’s direct involvement had largely faded, while a new U.S. based “Korean Rights” group emerged to (wittingly or unwittingly) help advance DKRG's seeming real agenda — collecting Adoptees' private adoption documents without informing them of DKRG's (now notorious) transgressions, amassing "power" and media attention, taking credit for other activists’ work, and profiting from Adoptees' desperation.
It is becoming increasingly well known among U.S. Korean Adoptees that many individuals who filed TRC 2 or TRC 3 cases through DKRG — and who signed over Power of Attorney authorizing DKRG to act on their behalf — have reported being blocked or ghosted by Peter Møller and Boonyoung Han, whom some describe as the brains of the operation.
Though I don’t see much of their highly abusive behavior toward Korean Adoptees as originating from any sort of “intelligence”.
For years, Peter Møller has been described in media reports as a "lawyer” or “attorney” — because this is what he has inexplicably told them he was. This was no mere “translation error”. He has told Danish press that he was a “lawyer”, as well as multiple other international news outlets. His wife Boonyoung Han has never contradicted this claim, though certainly she knows that he is not a lawyer. Thus, the lie continues to be perpetuated by both of them to this day. As far as I can determine, media reports never independently verified that claim. For years, I have been unable to find evidence that he is licensed as a lawyer or attorney in Denmark or South Korea, or publicly available evidence that he had any legal training whatsoever. (He doesn’t speak Korean, so it would be basically impossible for him to be licensed in Korea). Despite extensive searching, I have not found ANY records supporting Peter Møller’s claims that he is a “lawyer”. (See the section below for more specific links regarding this topic).
Notably, despite my having raised this issue on Paperslip for years, Peter Møller has NEVER ONCE provided me with evidence that he is a lawyer. No one connected to DKRG has ever done so either. One might expect that someone who has been publicly challenged for years on their credentials would quickly offer documentation to clarify the matter, yet that has never happened since 2023 when I first began to publicly call DKRG out on Paperslip. It’s now 2026 and there’s never been a peep from DKRG providing a shred of evidence that anyone connected to DKRG is a lawyer.
Instead, for years, DKRG resorted to spreading negative rumors about me to its minions in an effort to undermine my credibility, rather than addressing my concerns directly. If Peter Møller were able to substantiate his claims or credentials as a “lawyer”, I would have expected him to provide evidence or to respond either directly or publicly. Instead, I have received NO explanation or documentation — there has only been resounding SILENCE from DKRG.
Please see related:
Media Literacy for the MEDIA: Please learn the difference between a Danish “Jurist” and an “Advokat”. A “Jurist” is NOT a lawyer.
I have previously shared on Paperslip that Peter Møller's previous involvement with the START! and Vesterbro music festivals in Denmark was the subject of multiple critical articles in the respected Danish newspaper Politiken, as well as in other publications such as Gaffa, dating back to 2011. These articles stringently WARNED musicians multiple times not to play at the festivals run by Peter Møller and his business partner — as many of the festivals’ bands had been mistreated, ghosted, and had gone unpaid.
One could be forgiven for concluding that Peter Møller first built his reputation by exploiting aspiring and financially vulnerable musicians in Denmark and, after attracting increasing negative publicity, simply shifted his focus to vulnerable Korean Adoptees — moving continents in the process.
The Danish articles describe disputes over the festivals' management and finances that predated Peter Møller's move to South Korea in 2022 or 2023. What I find striking is that many of the behaviors described in those articles — including communication breakdowns and disputes over financial management — closely resemble concerns that many Adoptees have since reported in their dealings with DKRG. Hmm, it’s almost as if someone has a clear modus operandi that goes back almost two decades…
The Danish articles are listed below, though some articles require a Politiken login. I am admittedly weary of repeatedly sharing them, but it is sufficient to note that the behavior attributed to Peter Møller in connection with his involvement in Danish music festivals closely mirrors patterns of abusive conduct he has also displayed toward many Korean Adoptees who submitted cases to DKRG for TRC 2 and TRC 3:
https://gaffa.dk/nyheder/2013/maj/vesterbro-festival-under-massiv-kritik/?fbclid=IwAR0mkR7isoGA0RwKVFXdw45aB6ybOojaTTMFb-61xUhCpa7vhp2kifbVzvI
https://politiken.dk/kultur/musik/art5443640/Advarsel-til-bands-Spil-ikke-p%C3%A5-Start-Festival
https://politiken.dk/kultur/musik/art5465273/Borgmester-truer-med-at-tr%C3%A6kke-st%C3%B8tten-til-stor-festival
I now better understand why so many articles have been published criticizing Peter Møller's business practices. Based on my own experience, I have found him to have zero hesitation in repeatedly lying, which is deeply concerning for someone entrusted with collecting the sensitive, private adoption records of hundreds of Korean Adoptees from around the world.
If you knew that someone could not help themselves but repeatedly lie about things, would you entrust them with your sensitive, private adoption documents, and sign over to them Power of Attorney?
The U.S. “Korean Rights” organization currently heavily promoting DKRG — including at Korean Adoptee conferences which typically attract a lot of vulnerable, newly “out of the fog” U.S. Adoptees — is FULLY aware that Peter Møller is NOT a lawyer. They have withheld this information from their members, which is an egregious and unethical breach of trust. Luring naive Adoptees to hand over their private, sensitive adoption documents to people like Peter Møller and Boonyoung Han without revealing that Peter Møller is not a lawyer is beyond unethical.
DKRG continues to collect the sensitive, private adoption documents from Adoptees pursuing TRC 3 cases. Given the reports over the years from a large number of Adoptees with active TRC 2 and TRC 3 cases who say they have later been blocked or ghosted by DKRG, I believe prospective TRC 3 applicants should carefully research DKRG and verify the credentials of its “leaders” before deciding whether to entrust them with their sensitive, private adoption documents.
I should note that DKRG still possesses my adoption documents, despite their having blocked and ghosted me on December 7th, 2022, for no reason except to attempt to take credit for my work — which they subsequently tried to do on January 1st, 2023. I later withdrew my TRC 2 case after repeated abuses by DKRG — including their blocking a trip I paid for to Korea in order to meet with TRC 2 investigators. It was a very difficult and painful decision to make, but I knew that I had made a huge mistake in entrusting my case to DKRG.
Among Danish Adoptees, concerns about DKRG's conduct have circulated for years. However, many chose not to speak publicly because they feared it could undermine the broader TRC movement. Those who did raise concerns were often blocked or ghosted by DKRG, despite having active TRC cases. It’s important to understand that DKRG set out to make itself the SOLE mouthpiece of TRC 2. They did not inform Adoptees that they could have submitted their cases independently.
It's also worth noting that many Danish Korean Adoptees genuinely fear Peter Møller himself. That might seem absurd if you were to meet this narcissistic pipsqueak in person, were it not for the fact that the fear — and the circumstances that created it — are so deeply disturbing.
I suspected, correctly, that U.S. Adoptees would be far less willing to remain silent in the face of DKRG’s abuses than their Danish counterparts. Increasingly, U.S. Adoptees are speaking out publicly about their own experiences. For that reason, I do not believe DKRG can sustain its claim to be an organization dedicated to "Korean Adoptees' Rights" for much longer.
Frankly, a TRC 4 appears highly unlikely, which even DKRG itself has admitted. Several Danish Adoptees have privately expressed deep concerns about DKRG’s behavior, while also noting that their primary motivation for continuing to work with DKRG was to use them to navigate the TRC process. Once the TRC 3 investigations are concluded, myself and others can only hope that DKRG’s grip over the Korean Adoptee community will be greatly diminished.
A word to the wise:
The turnaround of DKRG on its minions is often remarkably swift. After TRC 2 ended in late 2025, DKRG quickly discarded the U.S. representative they had hastily turned to after they inexplicably blocked and ghosted me in late 2022. Ironically, this U.S. Korean Adoptee had previously blocked me for openly criticizing DKRG’s troubling behavior. In the end, this U.S. Adoptee unfortunately experienced firsthand how readily DKRG discards even its most committed supporters.
Inevitably the same will happen to the U.S. “Korean Rights” group currently shilling for DKRG once their usefulness for TRC 3 has run its course.
+
Meanwhile, in the U.S…
Historically, many U.S. Korean Adoptee organizations have focused on community building, which has great value. At the same time, many U.S. organizations have devoted significantly less attention to the more difficult Right to Origin issues, and in some instances have actively sidelined them, and the Adoptees like me who have tried to raise them. It was a years long uphill battle for me to convince the U.S. Adoptee or non-Adoptee "leaders" that these issues deserved sustained attention. Very few Adoptee leaders in the United States (with a few notable exceptions) supported my efforts. Much of my closest collaboration instead came through individual KSS Adoptees in Denmark, with whom I quietly worked together since 2018 to bring these concerns to the international stage. Had I not succeeded in bringing my story — and those of others — to the media in Korea in 2022 (via SBS) and the U.S. in 2024 (via FRONTLINE / AP), the mainstream conversation about Korean Adoption would not have reached the level of visibility and depth it has today.
Unfortunately, because Right to Origin has received relatively little attention in the United States, Korean Adoptees concerned with this issue have few alternatives to DKRG for pursuing their cases. It is difficult to watch Adoptees feel compelled to endure what is, in effect, an abusive situation simply because they believe it offers their only realistic chance of finding answers or achieving some measure of resolution in their often complicated adoption cases.
+
When it first became apparent to me how DKRG really treated Adoptees behind the scenes, I found myself thinking that the last thing Adoptees needed was yet another abusive layer imposed on top of the many other obstacles they already face in their struggle to reclaim their pasts.
Only after the FRONTLINE/Associated Press (AP) documentary “South Korea’s Adoption Reckoning” aired in late 2024 did Korean Adoptee Right to Origin issues receive widespread mainstream attention, for the first time in history. That coverage was built, to a huge degree, on four years of conversations I had with the AP reporter whom I had first approached in 2021, as well as introductions I made to many of the documentary's eventual participants. While I appear for a mere one second in the documentary, and do NOT appear anywhere in the documentary's credits, I know and have documented precisely the role I played in helping others’ stories reach a wider audience. This role was also completely known to the documentary's Director, who while privately acknowledging that my "handprints were all over the documentary", patently refused to give me the public credit I deserved.
*It should be noted that I never intended for FRONTLINE/AP to focus primarily on Holt. My primary concern has always been KSS (Korea Social Service) Adoptees.
It's disappointing when Adoptees' and journalists' personal agendas, competition, and the pursuit of power undermine the goals that Korean Adoptees share. Until January 1, 2023, when DKRG made an egregious attempt to take credit for my years of work with KSS Adoptees, my experience with Paperslip and the KSS Adoptee community had been one of genuine collaboration. DKRG's actions fundamentally changed that, shattering my belief that we were all working toward the same objective: securing Adoptees' Right to Origin.
One form of fraud does not justify another. As Adoptees, we seek answers about our past. But we also deserve honesty, transparency, and accountability from the organizations and individuals who claim to advocate on our behalf.
+
WARNING:
There is ZERO online evidence that Peter Møller of DKRG is a “lawyer”.
There never has been any evidence that he is a “lawyer” or “attorney”, other than what he himself has told international press since 2022. This then became an echo chamber and no one in the press bothered to verify his “legal” credentials — which do not seem to exist.
I’ve been warning people about this on Paperslip since 2023. Few U.S. Adoptees paid attention since TRC 2 mostly involved Danish Korean Adoptees.
Now, the U.S. “Korean Rights” group which vigorously pushes U.S. Adoptees to file their TRC 3 cases with DKRG is WELL aware of DKRG’s transgressions. I have informed them directly. However, this U.S. group deliberately does NOT inform its members, and they have aggressively sidelined me to silence any criticism of DKRG.
This U.S. “Korean Rights” group actively leads naive, unsuspecting Adoptees to DKRG, without informing them that Peter Møller is NOT a lawyer.
It should NOT be up to them to decide whether or not DKRG is trustworthy enough to be entrusted with your sensitive, private adoption documents.
It should be up to YOU.
+
If there's one thing I know about the Korean Adoptee community, it's that Adoptees don’t like to be deceived.
A U.S. based “Korean Rights” group currently shilling for DKRG vigorously encourages Adoptees to submit sensitive, private adoption documents and sign over Power of Attorney to DKRG while, in my view, failing to disclose that Peter Møller is not listed as a licensed lawyer or attorney in Denmark or South Korea. I believe Adoptees deserve that information so they can make an informed decision for themselves.
Instead, this U.S. organization has chosen to make that decision on behalf of Korean Adoptees. It has determined that the "greater cause" outweighs its obligation to disclose a material fact to the Korean Adoptees whose personal information it seeks to collect — and whose Powers of Attorney it solicits on behalf of DKRG: namely, that the individual to whom these highly sensitive documents are being entrusted is NOT a lawyer. That omission is not a simple oversight. It is a deliberate withholding of information that individuals need to make an informed decision. It is not merely troubling — it is profoundly unethical.
Before entrusting anyone with your deeply personal adoption records, ask some basic questions:
Are the organization's leadership and credentials independently verifiable?
Are claims about professional qualifications supported by public records?
How are people treated when they ask difficult questions or raise concerns?
Every year since 2022, I've searched the Danish Bar Association directory and have never found Peter Regel Møller, Peter Min Hong Regel Møller, or similar variations of his name:
https://www.advokatnoeglen.dk/sog.aspx?s=1&t=0&name=Peter%20Regel%20Moller
ALL Danish lawyers and attorneys should be listed on the site above. Guess who’s NOT listed?
I also searched the Korean Bar Association directory and could NOT find him there either:
https://m.koreanbar.or.kr/pages/search/search.asp?parts=&searchtype=mname&searchstr=Peter+Regel+Moeller+
Despite this, recent media articles have described him as a lawyer without, as far as I can tell, independently verifying that claim. For example:
https://m.koreaherald.com/article/10462563
Over the years, I have repeatedly asked for evidence of Peter Møller’s legal credentials. To date, I have not seen any documentation establishing that he is licensed to practice law in Denmark or South Korea.
What concerns me most is that Adoptees are being pressured to make decisions about their most sensitive personal adoption documents without being given all the information they need about DKRG — the organization they are being asked to trust with those documents. Every Adoptee deserves full transparency before deciding whom to entrust with such sensitive personal information.
Do your own research. Verify credentials independently. Ask questions. And make an informed decision based on evidence, not media coverage alone.
Your privacy and sanity may depend upon it.
+
Sadly, some who have previously participated in TRC 2 can no longer speak for themselves.