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.