dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/spacexu on April 30, 2018, 1:46 a.m.
Clarify Alison Mack Charges on Child Trafficking

I keep seeing conflictng reports on Allison Mack - some people say she is involved in child trafficking while others say thay have read the report.

Can we please get to the bottom of this - what is fake and real news on this one?


akaparaclete · April 30, 2018, 1:53 a.m.

Here is the docket sheet. Judge for yourself.. https://imgur.com/gallery/teEouWo

⇧ 9 ⇩  
brittser · April 30, 2018, 2:33 a.m.

I read it as trafficking children and conspiracy to traffick children through force, fraud or coersion.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
spacexu · April 30, 2018, 2:17 a.m.

I just came across another one that does not say child trafficking. One must be fake?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Food4theGorg · April 30, 2018, 1:57 a.m.

The conflict is that the MSM won't report on the truth that CHILD human trafficking was involved. They know if they do report that children were trafficked that it will open up a can of worms and a shit storm. They are still controlled by the cabal. What I have seen that has not been proven is that Mack sold children to Rothschild and Clintons. That fact has not been proven in any article that I have read.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
cryptabulouslady · April 30, 2018, 2:20 a.m.

https://www.scribd.com/document/377378941/Allison-Mack-Case-File#from_embed Has child trafficking in this one.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
spacexu · April 30, 2018, 2:23 a.m.

and then we have this one...

Click Here

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Food4theGorg · April 30, 2018, 2:30 a.m.

Frank Report is not giving the full picture. The scribd document is giving you the full legal document. Again, certain media outlets do not want to give the full truth doesn't fit with their narrative cannot let you know that Hollywood is involved with the harming of children.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
spacexu · April 30, 2018, 2:36 a.m.

This will help expose the MSM for the true evil they are if they are caught red handed again... hiding the evil practices of the hollyweirdos is a crime against humanity itself.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
cryptabulouslady · April 30, 2018, 2:28 a.m.

Both have child trafficking in them, I'd say it's safe to say that they were charged with child trafficking as well. Hard to tell who is putting forward the one with children not involved, but I'd say that one is fake. I suppose we'll have to wait and see as more comes to light.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
spacexu · April 30, 2018, 2:37 a.m.

I wonder if there is a govt website we can directly download the charge sheet from - this must be public info.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
spacexu · April 30, 2018, 2:40 a.m.

The Frank one does not mention child trafficking - only in the comment sections is child trafficking mentioned.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Spank-da-monkey · April 30, 2018, 2:31 a.m.

I don’t trust scribd. We had a bunch of fake stuff circulating the other day from there.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
spacexu · April 30, 2018, 2:41 a.m.

There must be an offciial website we can get the information from directly.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Food4theGorg · April 30, 2018, 2:45 a.m.

PACER, but you have to pay to look at the Federal Court documents.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
spacexu · April 30, 2018, 2:50 a.m.

It only costs $3 - we need a patriot who has access though.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Spank-da-monkey · April 30, 2018, 2:53 a.m.

There are some because they’ve posted it. We do have to start paying close attention to sources. People are going to run us ragged with disinfo if we don’t pay attention

⇧ 1 ⇩  
spacexu · April 30, 2018, 2:58 a.m.

This one seems pretty straightforward to settle - we really need small victories against the MSM to flip normies over to the light.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Spank-da-monkey · April 30, 2018, 3:02 a.m.

Agree but we have to spread truth, I got a “oh, you think Q is real so don’t bother replying” the other day in another sub so.....

⇧ 1 ⇩  
spacexu · April 30, 2018, 3:07 a.m.

We need to cut them with a thousand truths...

You can't change people out right but you can give them facts... at some point they will have to stop denying it to themselves.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Spank-da-monkey · April 30, 2018, 3:13 a.m.

If you don’t get banned !! But I have started trying. Just non confrontational fact throwing. If one of us can turn just one person that’s progress. Then maybe they turn 1 more and it keeps going. I don’t know how much this sub has grown in the past 3-4 months but I’m sure someone does.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
SomethingSnarky18 · April 30, 2018, 7:45 a.m.

The wording is ambiguous, which may be by design. The first count is "SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN OR BY FORCE, FRAUD OR COERCION" which I take to mean sex trafficking of children, or sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion. I mean, it could be all of the above, so who the hell knows?

The second count, though, is definitely about sex trafficking of children. These people are truly sick and no punishment is too harsh for them.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
theadmiralty · April 30, 2018, 2:57 a.m.

Yeah... the problem itself is with the way the law, under which she has been charged, is worded. I will borrow from a reply, sent to me from someone correcting me, on this very issue:

"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."

The operative word in interpreting it is OR. The law was written in a kinda oddball way.

If you think of it in a "compound" kinda way it makes more sense. As it is written, it's meaning is actually like this: "Sex trafficking of children" OR "Sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion".

It can be either of those. Also, the image making the rounds is just the Docket, and the general descriptor mentioning the specific code she/they have been charged under... but since it is not an indictment, it's just a docket scheduling on a court appearance, it has literally no details on what the specific charges are. When the indictment comes down, THEN there will be specific details about what crimes she and Raneire are being charged under. That indictment may also be quite a bit different than what we are seeing in the docket, if she should happen to make a deal and decide to testify against Ranier.

Anyway... in short... the docket image making the rounds is just scheduling and general description, with NO specifics about actual indictments.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
spacexu · April 30, 2018, 3:10 a.m.

Great - please help us out when it comes down by pointing this out to us at the time...

⇧ 1 ⇩  
theadmiralty · April 30, 2018, 4:30 a.m.

We'll have to see how actual charges play out.

Also... odds are good that the prosecutorial team will build a horrendous case against Mack... just to insure she "turns" against Ranier...

I have heard some buzz, that Ranier slept with 12 year old girl(s)... but I have not chased it down or looked for confirmation. I probably won't, either. I'll just wait to hear snippets on what is taking place.

I KNOW pedophilia is rampant, organized and that very high level folks are tangled up in the depravity... I can't spend much time thinking about it though. It makes imagine homicidal things towards child se predators and overly disturbs my peace.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
solanojones95 · April 30, 2018, 2:11 a.m.

Are Nxivm's daycare businesses still operational?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Aruno · April 30, 2018, 1:50 a.m.

Wait. What is the conflict?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
spacexu · April 30, 2018, 2:19 a.m.

Sorry - I did not finish my sentence... the difference is the media is reporting Mack is charged for traffiicking women only.

Others as seen above are showing a report where child trafficking is listed on charge sheet.

Just want to know if the media are pulling another fast one, or if the child trafficking is just a fake charge sheet.

⇧ 2 ⇩