Can anyone confirm Allison Mack is NOT
indicted on CHILD sex trafficking but only sex trafficking BY FRAUD?
because it seems to be the same paragraphs (1591 / 1594) in the law book. maybe we jumped to conclusions here.
No, its real.
THe problem is the Paragraph lists 4 different (!) options to sue for 1591.
Either sex trafficking
a) of children
b) by force
c) by fraud
d) by coercion
so being struck with 1591 doesnt necessarily mean you are a child trafficker. could mean you trafficked sex slaves (adult) by fraud by telling them its a model job for example.
The law is easily misunderstood there. the word "OR" is the important word.
that is for 1591.
not sure if this fits to 1594 too.
we need a law person to confirm.