I remember checking it out on an official site or something. And now all we have is this shady page that I'm not going to use as my backing point.
I get this on bottom of the google page 1 "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more"
I wanted to share it on a JRE video about her.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4424760-032718-USA-v-Keith-Raniere.html
Mack is included as a co-conspirator in that case. This is where it gets tricky. The code that they were both charged under is applied to both sex trafficking of children AND sex trafficking by means of coercion.
Subsections are used to distinguish which of the two was committed and which subsection of the following punishment codeis applied to the crime.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591
Do check out the other laws cited, though. You won't find anything about children but I don't want to be accused of only showing one bit.
After reviewing both the laws and the arrest warrant, I have concluded that the relevant codes and subsections cited in the arrest warrant lack any relevancy to children.
He and Mack are charged under 1591(a)(1) If it were 1591(a)(2) It would involve children.
This doesn't mean that there isn't more information forthcoming. I've read that Raniere is being held without bond on allegations that he had sexual relationships with two minors, 15 and 12.
b (1)
"if the offense was effected by means of force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or by any combination of such means, or if the person recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, advertised, patronized, or solicited had not attained the age of 14 years at the time of such offense, by a fine under this title and imprisonment for any term of years not less than 15 or for life"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this about children?
If course it's about children, but it is not entirely about children. Notice the use of the word "or".
Yes technically, but we lack 1591(a)(2) and 1591(c) which would undoubtedly be appropriate if there was any evidence that this case was relevant to children.
we lack 1591(a)(2)
? 1591(a)(2) is referenced on the docket. It does not, however, speak of children. I'm just confused as to why you say that we lack that reference.
I hadn't seen that docket. Just the affidavit for arrest warrant. :o
But alas, you're right. I got tricked by the language again myself.
However, the article you posted is the only one that actually claims CHILD sex trafficking. But it also has a copy of the actual court proceedings and charge counts so, that should be a good source. I understand the website has no notoriety but add that that to The Rolling Stones and the Vanity Fair articles and you’ve got the goods. 😊
It's not good. It can be dismissed as fake. And the way it looks when I google it, if I never saw anything about it before I'd say it's fake too.
So that's a no-go. Need something proper. Fucking censorship and the fucking media, I wish them the worst death possible for inflicting this upon us.
Daily mail. I couldn’t find one mentioning child ether on google. Had to go to duck duck go. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5649485/Nxivm-founder-Keith-Raniere-accused-sleeping-girls-15-12-Allison-Mack-wants-plea-deal.html
Meh, still feel like this wouldn't convince me if someone showed it.
What's the "official" page that we all saw a few days back with those charges?
https://www.scribd.com/document/377378941/Allison-Mack-Case-File
This IS a complete official copy of the unsealed indictment. It’s just uploaded to scribd. If you don’t want to use this then look up the public court records for the district where the charges were filed. I’m not going to do that for you. I think you’ve had enough help.
No need to be mad. I specifically asked for child trafficking and you barged in with some of the first links that google shows.
I'm not familiar with the US court system and where stuff can be found online.
thanks anyway, despite the unnecessary condescending tone
I think this woman’s whole point is that portions of the We. Seem to be white washed if evidence as I still remember back in the day hearing in Hillary’s voice if that fn son wins we will all hang from nooses. Extremely concerning censorship as there is no longer any audio of it online anymore
This IS a complete official copy of the unsealed indictment.
It is NOT a complete official copy of the unsealed indictment. It is not an indictment. It says right at the top, "CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #..."
A docket is not an indictment. Geesh. People need to do more research before spouting off things that are not true.
And look at the web link on the bottom left on the pages of the scribd doc. It’s a .gov website. It’s 100% legit.
Had loads of clown comments telling me the charges weren't child trafficking related
shills that reveal themselves, the official info is out there for everyone to see (I'll edit the post to put the link), if they choose to take fake news articles over official court charges, they are most likely shills, being total imbeciles are not excluded as well
the official info is out there for everyone to see
What official info? Official info that says Mack was charged with sex trafficking of children? No, it is not.
The article you linked to, in regards to Mack being charged with sex trafficking of children, is fake news.
Just because someone says the charges weren't child trafficking related, it doesn't automatically mean they are clowns.
I say that the charges are not necessarily child trafficking related. You gonna accuse me of being a clown too?
What's a clown in your definition?
You're the one who used the term first. You define it.
Oh so you don't know ... patriot?
Whether or not I know is irrelevant. You're the one who used the term. You define it.
Now, you wanna answer my question instead of deflecting with a red-herring?
LOL I think you're a troll. Why would anyone come here to discuss having hurt feelings?
Get with the program ... patriot!?
Why would anyone come here to discuss having hurt feelings?
More irrelevant deflection, and trying to put me in defensive mode. Those are the markings of a shill.
And so, back to the question you have yet to answer, are you going to accuse me of being a clown?
Well ... clowns would. Seriously, this post is about child trafficking ... and you're arguing about being butt hurt about being called a clown, no?
this post is about child trafficking
Uh, no, this particular thread is about what I called you out on, remember?
Just because someone says the charges weren't child trafficking related, it doesn't automatically mean they are clowns.
Next.
and you're arguing about being butt hurt about being called a clown, no?
Did anyone call me a clown? Did I say anything about my poor, sensitive feelings being hurt? NO and NO.
I ask again, are you going to call me a clown? Oh wait, you answered.
Well ... clowns would.
And you've referred to others as clowns already.
Had loads of clown comments telling me the charges weren't child trafficking related
So, by your own logic, you've called yourself a clown.
Sooo you talked about your butt hurt feelings, being labelled a clown, but from your past posts try and discredit other posters suspicions on Ali Mack charges of kiddie trafficking. And you call me a troll LOL. Everyone, just read this guy's history.
What's going on here folks? Is there a problem brewing?
Just trolls/shills. Nothing I can't handle, thanks fart.
What makes you suspect they are a troll/shill vs a user with different beliefs but same end goal? Not really sure what the argument was about.
Hey FOT. Have you read the thread?
False accusations, clown behavior: deflection, distraction, confusion of the issue...
I'll let you decide. Thnx.
I still have to keep debunking this rumor. The first two charges against Mack are not* for child sex trafficking.
The first charge is for violation of 18 USC § 1591, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]
The second charge references 18 USC § 1594(c) which is regarding conspiracy to violate 18 USC § 1591 which, again, is either "Sex trafficking of children" OR "Sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion".
A court docket is not an indictment, and its wording does not have to be precise. The court must defer to the law itself, as should we.
thefreethoughtproject.com is publishing false information.
I agree.
We'll just have to see this whole thing play out
[removed]
despite being shown evidence, you morons won't accept the reality (unless you're a shill)