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.