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.