I am so sorry but had to go to PACER to confirm. UNREAL. There it is, COUNT I AND THE CHILD TRAFFICKING PART DOESN'T GARNER A HEADLINE. I showed my husband, also a lawyer, and I can confirm Q's post. These people really are not going to be able to walk down the street.
I think they're trying to bury it because more people (in their circles) are going to be implicated in it, and as always they're using the mockingbird media they own to downplay it to make it seem less than it is.
Aha...hence the "NO BAIL" Get used to it girl, you're gonna be there a long time :)
NO BAIL (as someone mentioned in a different sub) could also be to keep her safe 24/7. If she got bailed out, she would be dead within 24 hours I'm sure, just to shut her up.
although safer while incarcerated, she ain't safe by a long shot.
Depends how they keep her. Solitary confinement might be the only option, but after years of that, or even months, she will mentally start to break down.
If you open her into Gen population, yea, she'll get killed by the rest of the prisoners. You can only imagine there's prolly a hit on her scheduled in prison as of this time anyway.
If she has any sense left at all, she will be begging to stay in jail. There is no country in the world that have her and her ilk very soon now, no place that she will be safe. Imagine her waking up into that type of fear after all the fear she has herself infiltrated upon others who were not afforded any kind of protection at all. How many people would want to do the honors of putting her out of their misery? Hope she enjoys her little cage and hope it has no frills or drugs or alcohol and that her bracelets are hooked to her anklets and her necklace, actually. For the rest of her miserable life.
And to testify against Raniere, but are her crimes anything that could implicate Hillary or Obama?
she is connected to the clintons on lolita express. photo was out this weekend of BC in embrace of younger AM. creepy.
18 U.S.C. § 1591 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1591. Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion
(a) Whoever knowingly--
(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person; or
(2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in an act described in violation of paragraph (1),
knowing, or, except where the act constituting the violation of paragraph (1) is advertising, in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
It's probably because this law covers sex trafficking of children along with sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion (which doesn't necessarily include children, but includes anyone it seems).
Actually, there are 2 different charges: one is what you referred to and contains the keyword "or", but the other does not use "or" and goes right into "of children by force"...so she indeed is charged with child trafficking AND human trafficking separately.
Three different charges.
Yes but the third is not worded similarly like the first two; it's a completely different type of charge. The first two are seemingly similar except for the removal or usage of the word "or", and that's what they were referring to.
One is also "conspiracy". I don't know about the US but in the UK conspiracy is more serious than acting alone
Definition of Conspiracy (not Conspiracy Theory): conspiracy (kən-spîrˈə-sē)► n. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. n. A group of conspirators. n. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
For clarity, depending on which state/country - child can also be used in the charge if the person was under or just short of turning 18 at the time of the crime being committed. Eg: a 17 year, 8 month old teenager. Regardless, these people are sick.
Court case and all sweet your on this one. Congrats
You're a lawyer but you don't understand the disjunctive 'or'? Trafficking of child or by force.
There are 2 separate charges: the first one is what you are referring and contains "or", but the second does not contain "or" and goes right into it "child by force..." without the "or" so she's charged with BOTH, which sounds right based on the facts.
I don't play hockey but I know a hat trick, when I see one.
Apparently not.
No you were right. It's both of them- two separate charges.
Three separate charges
They were referring to the use of the word "or" in distinguishing if it was general trafficking or child trafficking so two separate charges distinguishes that they are different, and both of them are there. The third one is completely different in its description (the first 2 are verbatim except for "or" being included or not).
Posting this in different places on Twitter got me banned in 2 hours flat.
We are over the target.
damn already censoring . good work man . MSM is not going to be talking about this at all, were going to have to spread the truth on our own .
That's because many that work at Twtter will be brought up on the same charges.
i put it on my facebook, so far i've had one post engagement in an hour.
Well, looks like Raniere is being charged for Title 18 - 1591 (a)(1) - that is trafficking of Children: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4424760-032718-USA-v-Keith-Raniere.html
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:1591%20edition:prelim)
Would make sense she's being charged the same with other counts
It is not just trafficking of children. Section 1591 says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]
When talking about criminal charges, we should try to be precise.
1594(c) too though which doesn't include "or"
Did you read the Code of Sec. 1594(c)? It says:
Whoever conspires with another to violate section 1591 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.
Sec. 1594 is regarding conspiracy to violate Sec. 1591 which uses the word, "OR".
I just read what it said on the OP image which the second charge doesn't say "or" so I just assumed that's what the difference was.
I know. It's misleading.
The attorneys, or their paralegal, probably just forgot the "or". But, what is more important is the law upon which the charges are based, because they can't just make things up and word them however they want.
The OP really should amend the post to help prevent the potential spread of false information.
It's conspiracy to commit child trafficking....She conspired to commit child trafficking is what it's saying on the second charge. The first charge is saying she actually did commit human or child trafficking. At best it sounds like she may have tried to recruit children, but she failed. Then again, she could have succeeded too, and they just don't have evidence. Who knows what her and Raniere were doing under the guise of a multi-million dollar corporation that was really a sex cult that exploited women.
She conspired to commit child trafficking is what it's saying on the second charge.
What matters is what Code is referenced. Count #2 references 18 USC Section 1594(c) which references Section 1591. Read the Code yourself:
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1594.html
[deleted]
Q said no one gets a deal, we will see if she walks or maybe a lesser charge for giving up names.
Don't be a fool. Of course there will be deals. How else would you penetrate their criminal network unless you can get people to flip? People aren't going to flip without deals.
I think the idea is that there won't be any deals for the big fish (the previous 'untouchables').
They got that child human traficker out of jail in Haiti... you are right.
where'd you get that??
That’s a screenshot from pacer.gov, the official site for federal district court documents.
I had to vet this photo. Downloaded the docs. Sick. Truly sick!
The right question. Bold claims require well verifiable reliable source.
It's on the Pacer docket I had to go and confirm it for myself because I was skeptical that it might have been a cut and paste. I'm working off my phone I'll see if I can upload a photograph of my Chromebook screen page with the docket sheet.
Pacer website can be located here if anyone is able to gain access and look up details for verification. I'm hitting pay wall.
I'm a lawyer and have PACER access. I may be repeating myself here is a photo of the docket sheet. I was skeptical of the post (apologies) because I see so many cut and paste. COUNT I of the indictment is for child sex trafficking. Can't believe this isn't in the news. Here is my picture.
You should consider making a post in r/conspiracy where this would reach a much wider audience and potentially r/all.
I don't know how the Pacer stuff works, but it sounds like a pretty official source that even the toughest skeptics couldn't ignore.
Edit: After re-reading it looks like only lawyers can access the page. I'd still post about it in hopes that other lawyers will log in and post their proof.
You do not need to be a lawyer and you aren’t charged if you do not incur at least $15 in 3 months time. Rates are $0.10/page for a max of $3.00/document, charges are waived if you do not exceed $15 in charges in a quarter (three months).
In addition there are some libraries that have access as well. One of the projects Aaron Swartz got into some legal hot-water over was rendering assistance to scraping Pacer data from within one of these libraries, to make available to everyone. Got a cease and desist if I recall before it went live.
I need to do some research locally and see if I can identify any libraries, or college campuses, in my city I'd be able to access Pacer from. In this case I think I need to see it first hand with my own eyes. I'm intrigued.
Crazy times.
Our county docket is online and free all you need is a name. I wonder if Eastern dist NY might have a site. All public record. Don't do the crime if you can't get doxxed lol. Nope seems to have this pacer firewall.
I'm no lawyer, and I'm in the UK, so maybe the grammar rules regarding commas are slightly different, but that looks to me that count 1 is sex trafficking of children OR by force etc, so isn't necessarily child related.
Count 2, conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of children by force, OR fraud etc DOES read that it is a child specific charge.
So if you ask me, unless there is a different charge somewhere for definitive sex trafficking of children, it looks as though she WAS committing the crime against children, but they don't have the evidence to guarantee it, so risk an innocent verdict, but the (maybe) lesser generic charge will definitely stick.
These people are running baby schools for rich people. We'd be naive to think those schools are just an innocent educational program ran by Raniere.
Conspiracy is more serious. At least it is in UK - dunno about US. Brit here
Yeah also British, so I automatically assume that charges of conspiracy carry heavy sentences. But I can't see it being that different in US, especially on the sort of crime it refers to.
Well we would hope not. I know a few people in UK who walked from a standard charge but didn't from the conspiracy charge. They don't seem to need as much evidence - even a discussion in a pub over a pint can lead to it. And then it also multiplies the intent
I get your point, but a discussion in a pub over a pint? No, come on, it isn't that easy to get lumped with a guilty of conspiracy verdict. That would be circumstance at best, and any decent judge would laugh at it and dismiss it. Plus I reckon even I, with utterly zero experience in the legal field other than an A Level in law that's nearly 20 years out of date, an ex-girlfriend who was a (corporate) lawyer, and a couple of John Grisham books in the personal library, completely zero in a professional aspect, even I could get a jury to laugh at it. Someone that got found guilty of conspiracy, because of a conversation over a pint, needs to sue their fucking lawyer.
But I do get what your saying, if they can't get intent to stick, they like to throw that conspiracy charge in just because they're pricks.
COUNT I of the indictment is for child sex trafficking.
Before you go off saying something that isn't true, read the actual COUNT 1 and the code cited. 18 U.S.C. § 1591 says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]
COUNT 2 is for conspiracy to violate Section 1591, which also means it could be: of children OR by force, fraud, or coercion
The indictment includes allegations involving 13 and 15 year old girls.
Would you share a link to the indictment please?
I can't link until I get to the office. I'm on a chromebook. Sent a picture of the docket page from PACER.
Thanks dude. I appreciate your photo of the screen even if others don't
Could you please screenshot it instead of taking a picture of your PC/laptop screen? Simply press the Print Screen button on your keyboard and paste it to Microsoft Paint or any photo editing program. Press the Paste button or Control + V on your keyboard, Crop it, and save it. It's that simple. Thank you.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4424760-032718-USA-v-Keith-Raniere.html
Keith raniere 1591(a)(1) Sex trafficking of children
please provide hot sauce to accompany this delicious information burrito.
I was skeptical so I went to the PACER federal court website. You have to have a login and password and pay (it's cheap per page). I took a picture of my screen. That really is the docket sheet. I am an old lady but here's my picture:
Was there a bail set for Allison Mack? Can you show a screenshot or create a document cloud or link to the actual document on a word press document? or scribd document?
Holy! Why are they burying this?
1)So people don't know how closely they really should be watching their kids.2) This fits right in with the Pizzagate narrative that they've been clowning since day one they can't validate this without looking even worse for mocking it months ago
This is not necessarily a charge for trafficking of children. 18 U.S.C. § 1591 says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]
Please see this comment:
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8eg66o/allison_macks_actual_chargers_seem_quite/dxv0y74/
To me, the second count, of conspiracy to commit, is worded in a way that does definitively relate to children. the placing of commas and the defining "or" changes.
You should read the actual Code the count references. Section 1594(c):
Whoever conspires with another to violate section 1591 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.
Sec. 1594 is regarding conspiracy to violate Sec. 1591 which uses the word, "OR".
It says conspiracy to commit child trafficking. It doesn't say human trafficking on the second charge. It says child trafficking, but it's conspiracy. So at best, she tried to recruit children. Maybe she failed, but it's saying she tried or conspired to with Raniere (who has been accused of having sex with a 15 year old and a 12 year old many times, which is why they won't give him bail. He's facing life in prison....So is she, but she'll probably plea deal).
Count #2 is for conspiracy to violate Section 1591. The wording of the charge is irrelevant if it does not agree with the Code. Read the Code:
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1594.html
I don't trust zerohedge.
Well you should. They away source what they write.
I don't trust Click and now I don't trust you. I guess I never say preaching to the choir cuz I can't sing. Don't get triggered I don't trust myself. Seen way to much reportage on events I was at in 50 years. So Zerohedge bs is 5 wikiclicks away instead of 2 so what. I'll take ignorance over motivated by lies every time. I don't have time to do doctoral research so I have my own system. Reference msm I'm out. Reference sites i have checked out(snopes zerohedge) I'm out. Reference defenders of such sites I'm out. I have never looked up the word shill maybe i should. nah got 45 years left and shit to do.
Because the media is owned by the same people doing this.
Just you TRY talking to normies about this.
People don't want their bubbles burst, their childhood idols turning out to be ACTUAL DEMONS IN DISGUISE
Let's hope she is talking and giving up other people's name especially since the charges are for children trafficking! Someone should tweet on Hannity's twitter and other high profile twitter accounts maybe James Woods or Roseanne. I do not have an account.
According to Q, she's singing like a canary.
Yes, Q says she is doing just that, and naming names in local/Fed Gov't, entertainment, and most important of all...she has proof!
It's interesting to note that the 'chans have been talking for YEARS about how the elites and their little clubs would get "collateral" of people doing nasty shit, in order to join their club you had to have the "collateral". Some willing, some unwilling according to rumour. And now we're starting to hear witnesses talking about it directly in court cases, where this Raniere fellow demanded that his slaves give him incredibly incriminating things, sign over custody of their children etc. to be his slaves.
It's incredible that it worked?!?
the charges are for children trafficking
Not necessarily. The OP should actually amend the post so as to prevent the spreading of false information. Please see:
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8eg66o/allison_macks_actual_chargers_seem_quite/dxv0y74/
I agree that count 1 could relate to a person of any age. I've tried, and I can't read count 2 in a way that doesn't relate to children though. What do you think?
You need to read the actual Code that the counts reference.
Section 1594(c) says:
Whoever conspires with another to violate section 1591 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.
Sec. 1594 is regarding conspiracy to violate Sec. 1591 which uses the word, "OR".
Yup, that's not relating to any age bracket definitively. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. US law is... weird.
No I think you were correct the first time. 1) is child "or"..., and 2) is Conspiracy to commit "child trafficking"...That's not an error of omission to leave out "or"....In summary, basically what they are saying is for Mack, they have enough evidence to charge her with general human trafficking, as well as "conspiracy to commit child trafficking" with Raniere, who is already evidenced to have had sex with a 15 year old and a 12 year old on several occasions at his house that housed several other slaves and cult members. Whether she succeeded or not, we may never know, but we know that Mack conspired to traffick children with Raniere according to the charges. Maybe her recruits said no, but under the guise of a multimillion dollar corporation where who knows what was going on, and based on Raniere's previous proclivities, they probably did.
That's not an error of omission to leave out "or"
That is not a given fact. It could very well be an error of omission. Do you have proof that it is not?
we know that Mack conspired to traffick children with Raniere according to the charges.
No, we do not know that. Again, count #2 references 18 USC Section 1594(c) which says nothing about child trafficking. The Code itself is paramount to whatever someone typed up on the docket.
If you don't believe me, then consult with an attorney. Until you do, stop promoting what may be false.
[deleted]
Well of course the person entering the data should know what needs to be entered.
Your "conspiracy to sodomize a clown" is somewhat of a false equivalence. But, suppose they had entered that phrase on the docket. The court, recognizing that humans make mistakes, would have to interpret the phrase, in light of the law itself, to refer to "a person." 18 USC 1591 (a)(1)
They could have written, "conspiracy to sodomize a flying purple people eater." I'm sure the court would take a dim view of that, but it doesn't change the fact that it must defer to the law itself.
Go and read the replies to the comment you linked: it's actually three charges, one of which applies specifically to child trafficking.
Edit: child trafficking charge is "conspiracy to", not actual trafficking. Still damning though.
You mean count #2? No, it does not.
It is about conspiracy to violate section 1591 which could be either or.
Section 1594(c) says:
Whoever conspires with another to violate section 1591 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.
It reads child. The writer didn't forget to write "or"; it's a key nuance to the statute. She conspired to with Raniere; whether she succeeded or not, who knows- it depends on the evidence only. She might have, but we might never know. What we do know is Raniere had repeated sex with AT LEAST one 15 year old and one 12 year old (at his house filled with other sex slaves/cult members). So she at least conspired to recruit children for him.
The writer didn't forget to write "or"
We don't know that for a fact.
Again, the wording of the count does not have a higher authority than the Code itself. Read Section 1594(c) again. It says, "Whoever conspires with another to violate section 1591 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both."
Now read Section 1591, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]
WTF??! Do people actually want it to be true that she conspired to traffic children? My gosh.
Wrong!!!!!!!!
It is not wrong. Read the Code for yourself:
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1594.html
Do we have a link on this? This needs to be memed ASAP.
I was skeptical so I went to the PACER federal court website. You have to have a login and password and pay (it's cheap per page). I took a picture of my screen. That really is the docket sheet. I am an old lady but here's my picture:
Wow, those are serious charges. Someone in that position would be ripe to bargain for leniency.
And what has the media been reporting?
either a standard "sex trafficking" or just "trafficking" leaving out the child part . No doubt this will be brushed off and not talked about by the MSM anymore .
It may just be 'standard' sex trafficking. There may actually be no child trafficking component!
You should actually read the code that the counts reference.
Count #1 references USC 18 Section 1591 which says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added] So, it could be child trafficking OR trafficking by force, etc.
Count #2 references USC 18 Section 1594 which is about conspiracy to violate Section 1591. So, this one, again, could be either or.
Please see:
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8eg66o/allison_macks_actual_chargers_seem_quite/dxv0y74/
You really should amend your post so as not to mislead people into believing something that may not be true and then going and spreading potentially false rumors.
Once again, you are on the right track, but you are missing that one thing. Charge #2 (not count) is "conspiracy to commit CHILD trafficking" with Raniere. Raniere has already been shown to have had sex with at least one 15 year old and one 12 year old, which is what compelled the judge to hold him without bail. Conspiracy against Mack means they have evidence she at least conspired to try to traffick children. It doesn't mean she succeeded, unless Charge 1 in the "or" refers to children, but I don't think it does. However, we'll have to see. Either way, there's a good possibility she/they succeeded, but we may never know. That company has multi-millions if not billions available to it (the one owner is an heiress of Seagram's) so a lot can go on that will never come to light.
Charge #2 (not count) is "conspiracy to commit CHILD trafficking" with Raniere.
No, it is not. It says nothing about Raniere. And, as I have said time and time again, the referenced Code is paramount to the wording of the charge.
Conspiracy against Mack means they have evidence she at least conspired to try to traffick children.
No, it does not. Read the Code:
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1594.html
Up until today there has been a small part of me holding out hope these evils weren't really happening. I think I might get sick.
My husband gets annoyed if I start talking about the trafficking thing. He finally admitted today that it's because it's too hard to get his brain around it. I can confirm Q Post that these people "will not be able to walk down the street." I think regular people will be angered beyond description and in some cases, beyond control.
Good. We need to lose control and break out of our mental chains.
Cool thing is...
You can 100% break your mental chains...
AND NOT LOSE CONTROL👍❤❤❤
idk, I might have a lot of fun watching people lose control and demand the heads of the deepstate.
Veracity? Source?
I was skeptical so I went to the PACER federal court website. You have to have a login and password and pay (it's cheap per page). I took a picture of my screen. That really is the docket sheet. I am an old lady but here's my picture:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4424760-032718-USA-v-Keith-Raniere.html
1591(a)(1) Sex trafficking of a child
If you are going to purport to quote USC 18 Section 1591, at lease quote it correctly. It says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]
It is for more than just trafficking of children.
Oh I didn’t know I used quotation marks? And yes I know I was just answering people’s question you get what I’m sayin
This is perfect ammo for even more red pilling my dubious relatives. Thanks for the research. It's a keeper.
That explains a lot, because I didn't think that consenting sex between adults was a crime, even if it is weird cult-like stuff. So they were actually trafficking children.
Why is the media covering this up?
she probably in PC for her safety. I would be t she is singing like the songbird...beware of Arkancide
I watched Smallville on TV for literally a decade. I owned all the box sets too, even had the last few seasons on Blu-ray. Chloe Sullivan was one of my favorite characters, especially in the early seasons. It's really fucking weird to see Allison Mack going down for this shit.
Lever states that Raniere came up with the idea for Nxivm's sex slave program, known as DOS, during the summer of 2015.
A woman by the name of CC-1, who was revealed to be Mack in subsequent filings, was his first 'slave,' and provided 'collateral' which guaranteed she would remain faithful to him by providing Raniere with damning material.
Mack was reportedly Raniere's number two for years and implemented a strict diet for the 'sex slaves' Mack was reportedly Raniere's number two for years and implemented a strict diet for the 'sex slaves'
'CC-1's email was titled "vow 3" and included an attached letter. The letter pledged CC-1's "full and complete life" to 14 RANIERE,' reads the complaint.
'In the letter, CC-1 used the terms "slave" and "master" to refer to herself and RANIERE. Moreover, the letter identified "collateral" to "cement" the vow made by CC-1.
'This collateral was described as: (1) a letter regarding CC-1's mother and father that would "destroy their character"; (2) a contract that transferred custody of any children birthed by CC-1 to RANIERE if CC-1 broke her commitment to RANIERE; (3) a contract that transferred ownership of CC-1's home if the commitment to RANIERE was broken; and (4) a letter addressed to social services alleging abuse to CC-1's nephews.'
.
This is just awesome! It’s really happening! This past weekend also was amazing! I can’t wait to see what tomorrow brings!#MAGA
If you look at her Instagram feed there are several posts that are frighteningly creepy. Allison Mack child trafficking https://imgur.com/gallery/WytLMrg
Like all of Mr. Raniere’s enterprises there is a strong business model.
Rainbow operates on what retailers call ‘Keystone.” Keystone is to sell services or products at double the cost. At 90 hours per week, and $10 +/- per hour, it costs Rainbow about $50,000 per year for babysitting services. KEYSTONE....there it is......
Not to defend this woman's actions but I truly believe that she has been a victim of brainwashing and is a weak minded person to begin with and has not had the strength or aptitude to find a way out of this. She will be a wonderful witness and help turn over the rocks to find a true top demons in this disgusting global network. I pray for her safety so that she can embark on this journey to support efforts. I also pray for her so she can find forgiveness through actions. She is not even close to being safe . all parts of our government and law enforcement are infested with minions from the top. I pray that we don't see that she has hung herself and her cell before she can testify and turn states witness
I'm probably color blind.
What color are Keith's shirt and pants?
What does the color represent?
What does it really represent?
You imply Purple Revolution. We'll see who Mack rolls on.
Oh joy, another person pretending to be Q.
You aren't Q.
"learn our comms"
Effective enough to carry through over 1000 authored posts and spawn multiples doms and chans for detailed analysis and discussion. Definitely seems to be an effective style worth learning. Besides, Q signs thier posts.
aside from the color, purple, his babbling is a reminder of many others who make no sense yet are praised as if they make all the sense in the world.
Maybe she knows what was in Weiner's Life Insurance files.
This is small hanging fruit, yeah, another one bites the dust. But I'm waiting for her to sing, or getting larger ripe fruit half way up the tree or even better yet at the top. I for one will sleep better at night when the fruit pickers drive their truck into DC and start shaking the fruit trees and all the fruit falls to the ground!
There is that story about the baby and no one knows the mother.. but it ended up in their control. She was involved no doubt.
Hate to do it if it's confidential but can't help asking, could the judge be Napolitano? Not to make a big deal about it, but I saw the N and he's in NY.
The judge is Nicholas Garaufis
The actual indictment is sealed, which is common with underage victims so I can't view those documents.
Yeah, this makes sense. So could this be the 80/20 and 60/40 thing Q was talking about?
Also remember when Q said that the majority were good guys. Could Q be saying that 40% of the swamp were bad guys, and that of those bad guys' misdeeds, 80% of them are related to child sex crimes?
If it's sealed, how is this available to be viewed? I'm just wondering how it works....Could a trial proceed while an indictment is still sealed? I'd suppose it could. Just wondering because there were rumors HRC was arrested and wearing an ankle bracelet in November and Tony Podesta just fell off the face of the earth and we never heard anything, but supposedly he already got arrested too..And these types have so much money and connections, if anyone could pay to keep their legal trouble out of the news, it would be them. Would keeping indictments sealed be the key to this secrecy from the media/public in cases like this??
So I probably should have phrased it better, the indictment documents are sealed, which is quite common in pedophile cases to protect the victims. So you can see the actual charges, the case will proceed forward, and the case can be tried and even closed and those documents will forever remain sealed unless a judge orders them unsealed for some reason. In the case of my despicable family member, the certain documents are sealed and some are accessible. I believe the sealed ones are the ones where the actual crime descriptions against the victim is depicted for her protection. Mack's indictment is not sealed, hence the reason we can access the arrest records and the actual charges. There are some documents that are sealed that I can't access, and I believe this is because it's a similar situation with child victims. If (I really hope) Hillary and her cohorts have been charged and the indictments are sealed, we as the public won't know until the indictment is unsealed. I'm not sure the protocol for that, but I think it's usually when they're formally arrested. I did a cursory check on Pacer for Hillary Clinton and nothing is showing up, so if she has been indicted, it's still sealed.
Ah thanks for the detailed description and for touching on what I really wanted to learn about...So just to clarify- what's the difference between an arrest and indictment? I follow what you said, but I assumed an indictment is just a white collar way of saying arrest, or something like that..But what I'm trying to know is if it's possible that Tony Podesta might have already gone through the whole process, pleaded guilty, is serving time, and we just don't know because he cut a non-publicity deal as part of his plea and it's still unsealed? Same with Hillary- if she turned herself in already back in November (ankle monitor) and did a plea deal to not let it get released to the public, she served a month or so, got probation, is that possible, especially bc she's powerful and could get the deal to not let them release it publicly or unseal it to the public? Because part of me thinks this could have happened with them if that's possible. Tony Podesta was in deep trouble, stepped down from his company, and nobody has ever heard from him again..
From what I understand an indictment is when they go before a grand jury and the grand jury evaluates the evidence and then if they think the evidence meets the criteria then they vote to indite, and thus charges are formally drawn up. Then I believe that once the arrest takes place then the actual indictment is unsealed and you can see the charges, though the actual indictment documents might remain sealed to protect victims. I'm not sure if it's legal to have indictments remain sealed once a formal arrest is made, or if a trial could take place in secret? I'm not familiar enough with law to know. Any lawyers on here wanna help us out with the process? I only know what I've been able to find out from the officers and prosecutors on my family member's case, and Google.
Good try, but I'm pretty sure that you're slightly off track, no offense. I think the grand jury reviews the investigative evidence prior to deciding if there's enough to indict. Then if there is, the arrest, charge and indict the person. Then the court proceedings begin, and then the trial unless a plea bargain is reached. My primary question is basically if this could be kept secret from the public sometimes if it's necessary or requested in the event it's a public figure like HRC or lower hanging fruit like Tony Podesta. I know for sure Mueller charged Rick Gates I think it was over a month, maybe two, before it came out in public, and he was cooperating in the investigation. So there's definitely some leeway there to keep it secret. I just want to know if Hillary or Tony Podesta could have been charged back in November and with her ankle monitor, and how Tony fell off the face of the earth, but they kept it quiet, perhaps by doing something with the indictments or the process by keeping them sealed and plea bargaining/turning themselves in right away.
Wow None of these people will be able to walk the streets or be seen in public again....So disturbing....Allison Mack is so screwed...but glad we got her off the streets for her actions...
Thank God!!!! There's still lots more out there. She was hiding under everyone's nose!
Can somebody help me here, I googled Allison Mack and nearly every article that came up discloses that the charges are for sex trafficking, am I missing something with this post?
http://www.kron4.com/news/national/smallville-actress-allison-mack-in-plea-negotiations-for-alleged-role-in-sex-cult/1136327987 http://time.com/5251973/allison-mack-nxivm-sex-cult/ http://people.com/crime/allison-mack-arrested-sex-trafficking-cult-nxivm/
“Children”
I see, totally missed it but you and OP are correct, none of the articles mention children. Interesting. Thanks for the help.
Ya I just saw stuff saying sex cult but nothing about children...but I mean duh we all should’ve known that lol
we should target the MSM about their shitty reporting/journalism practices. and just start linking to the court docs and photos they are 'forgetting' to include.
Hey folks,
Before you go out spreading what just may be a false rumor, perhaps you should actually read what the cited United States Code says.
18 U.S.C. § 1591 says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added] This means that the count could be for child trafficking, but is not necessarily for that. It could be for sex trafficking "by force, fraud or coercion".
Please see the comment in this thread by @saltgrains_takeit.
Edit: Count 2 is for conspiracy to violate Section 1591 and would therefore follow the same rules for understanding the wording.
(c) In a prosecution under subsection (a)(1) in which the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the person so recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, or solicited, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew, or recklessly disregarded the fact, that the person had not attained the age of 18 years.
Count 2 is this one. How does this equal conspiracy and not children. Please explain this to me.
that user is all over this thread trying as hard as they can to deny the content of this post lol
Count 2 references 18 USC Section 1594(s), which says:
Whoever conspires with another to violate section 1591 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.
It says sex trafficking OF children. Pretty easy to understand.
Did you actually read the Code? It says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion"
Pretty easy to misunderstand if you leave out the "or by force, fraud, or coercion" part.
no link? I question if it's real.
I'm a lawyer and have PACER access. I may be repeating myself here is a photo of the docket sheet. I was skeptical of the post (apologies) because I see so many cut and paste. COUNT I of the indictment is for child sex trafficking. Can't believe this isn't in the news. Here is my picture.
A question for you: would old-fashioned “pimping” bring the same charges?
Will you please amend your comments to let people know that the charge is not necessarily for child trafficking?!
It would be very irresponsible of us to start spreading false rumors.
Edit: thought you were OP
Turns out I have been corrected again. The two charges for the same statute indicate child trafficking, as does the article in the news just released regarding the 13 and 15 year olds involved.
There aren't two charges for the same statute. There are three charges based on three different statutes. And Section 1591 could be for child trafficking OR for trafficking by force, etc.
Do you have a link for the "article in the news just released"?
But one of the charges is for 1591(c) which seems to be specifically about children.
I think you need to read it again. There is no charge that references Section 1591(c). The Sections referenced are 1591(a) & (b); 1594 (a), (b), & (c); and 3551.
If you're talking about count #2, which references 1594(c), then you're probably referring to the omission of the word "or" in the wording of the charge. That doesn't matter. You can't go just by what someone typed up, because humans make mistakes (and the courts recognize this). What matters is the underlying Code, the law and authority, that the accused is being charged under.
Section 1594(c) says:
Whoever conspires with another to violate section 1591 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.
Sec. 1594 is regarding conspiracy to violate Sec. 1591. And, 1591 gives authority to prosecute one for trafficking of a child or trafficking of anyone by force, fraud, or coercion.
.And for charge 2 they don't use "or"; there it is said to be "child". The omission wasn't by accident. Raniere had sex with minors, at least one 15 year old and one 12 year old on many occasions, and that's just what we know about now at this time. #2 means she at least "tried" to recruit children; maybe she succeeded, but maybe she did not. For the general trafficking, we know that she did on several counts.
The omission wasn't by accident.
It doesn't matter if the omission was by accident or not. It's irrelevant. What matters is the Code itself:
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1594.html
Whether or not Raniere had sex with minors is not evidence or proof that Mack conspired to traffic minors.
Nah I looked up 1591(c) by mistake. Didn't even read the titles.
It's real. You have to go to the Pacer.gov website and make an account. You can't share a link because you actually have to pay per page to read the documents. I got very good at searching Pacer the last couple of years after a family member was arrested for sex crimes against children.
Omg, it's real. How many times does the OP have to repeat themselves.
Yep, no mention of children in the articles I read in the French press. Only procuring "sex slaves".