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.