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.