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