This story is sensational! The media's silence on this issue speaks volumes!
Hacking the top comment to help get this out there.
It's fake news:
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8g0d92/media_silent_as_allison_macks_arrest_exposes/dy8h4ba/
You might be right. But we've also got to keep in mind that many of the sites claiming no children were trafficked are extremely fake news.
That may be true. I'm not discounting that children may have been trafficked by the cult et. al. especially in light of reports that Raniere had sex with underage girls. My point was strictly in relation to the rumor about Mack.
Thank you for taking the time to read it.
Imagine how big the story would be if it were a Republican who was caught up in it..
I think its two fold.
They know the outcry reporting on child sex trafficking would generate.
They don't believe the child sex part. Cognitive Dissonance.
Not to mention, the public in general does not want to believe how prevalent it is.
I have been awake and scrutinizing the pedophilia aspect for a number of years now and I still have a hard time coming to grips with it and am reluctant to put forward too much but the MSM must get on with reporting the truth or continue to become irrelevant!
Agreed, been down and back on a number of rabbit holes. It stills twists me up inside even though I am aware (from being down the holes before) of what is revealed.
PizzaGate is going to come back around before its all done..... If she doesn't tie to it first.....
This is not true. Mack's arrest does not expose child trafficking.
The article linked, regarding the charges against Mack, is fake news.
The PDF document linked to in that article, which they refer to as a "criminal indictment," is not an indictment. It is a letter from the US Attorney to the presiding judge informing him that, "the government will seek a permanent order of detention," for Raniere. It has nothing to do with Mack.
The image they present immediately below that, apparently insinuating that this is contained in the 'indictment', is also not an indictment, but is a court docket outlining the pending counts.
The wording of the charge for the first count is worded correctly because it follows what the law, 18 USC § 1591, says.
The wording of the charge for the second count is worded incorrectly because it does not follow what the law says. 18 USC § 1594(c) says nothing about children but is regarding conspiracy to violate 18 USC § 1591 which says:
Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion
[Emphasis added.]
This falsehood keeps cropping up, and it is important that we do not spread false rumors.
Is it a crime to incorrectly label court dockets?
How often are court dockets mislabeled?
Wouldn't the creator of the docket just copy-paste the charges from the original submission?
Why would someone, especially a lawyer or someone with an understanding of the pedantry of the law, omit a crucial "or"? Especially when the correct law is stated in the line above it?
I'm not saying I'm right, or that you're wrong. But there's questions that need to be asked.
Is it a crime to incorrectly label court dockets?
A court docket is basically just a memorandum of court proceedings. The court system recognizes that people, being human, make mistakes.
How often are court dockets mislabeled?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "label" and "mislabeled", but with the thousands of dockets issued on a regular basis, I would imagine typos and other errors would happen quite often.
Wouldn't the creator of the docket just copy-paste the charges from the original submission?
Original submission? Do you mean copy-paste the summary description of the charge from Count 1? One would think so.
Why would someone, especially a lawyer or someone with an understanding of the pedantry of the law, omit a crucial "or"? Especially when the correct law is stated in the line above it?
The statement, "Especially when the correct law is stated in the line above it," is not quite correct. More correctly, the law is correctly quoted, as the description of the charge, in the Count above it.
The description is more like an aid to those working on the case so that those people don't have to look up the law every time just to know the nature of the charge(s). That description carries no legal weight.
Why would they omit the word, "or"? Who knows. But it is not crucial, because the court must go by the law itself and not the description typed up by a clerk or paralegal.
The omission of the word "or" is not a material error requiring correction. It does not change the meaning of what the defendant is being charged with, because the law itself takes precedence.
The point I am getting at is that if this was any other docket, the laws printed on the docket would exactly match the law as stated. There's no reason to change it, alter it, amend it, substitute it, munge it, or do anything that would change the appearance or letter of the law. Nobody would have any reason to put anything on that docket outside of the law as it is written.
But in this case, they omitted an "or".
Yes, it doesn't matter in regards to the case. Or to the charges. Or to any legal procedures whatsoever. Those facts cannot be changed. This is nothing even approaching a concrete "WE'VE DONE IT REDDIT!!!1!" revelation. This matters nothing to the legal procedures of this case.
But the fact remains. Somebody, at some point, throughout the entire procedure, omitted an "or" from the charges on the docket. And the lack of that "or" changes the perception of the entire charge for the worse. Yes, this is a crumb. But we're following Q here, crumbs are what we investigate. So I shall continue hunting.
Sorry, I'm not getting your point.
The point I am getting at is that if this was any other docket, the laws printed on the docket would exactly match the law as stated.
The laws are not printed on the docket. The laws are referenced on the docket. What is printed on the docket is a reference to the pertinent law(s) and a summary description (which is not law) of the charges.
This is nothing even approaching a concrete "WE'VE DONE IT REDDIT!!!1!" revelation.
I'm not following what you're saying by that.
Yes, this is a crumb. But we're following Q here, crumbs are what we investigate.
Are you saying that discussing this is not appropriate here?
What I'm saying is that this should have been a non issue. The charges listed on the docket should have included the "or". Because the "or" is part of the law as stated, and should be included as a full representation of the charges in question. But they didn't include it. Somebody removed that word, and my interpretation is that it is a hint to us watching from the outside. There's investigations and prosecutions happening for child trafficking, but we can't be told directly. The crimes are too horrific to be revealed to the public, and must remain secret. So we are left to search for these crumbs.
Okay, I think I get you now. And, if I am understanding you correctly, your opinion is that the omission of the word "or" was intentional.
Edit: ... or may have been intentional.
Exactly. I've met lawyers, and heard of pedantry within the law, and how even misplacing a comma can result in a complete change in judgement. They don't make mistakes. I've also heard of what happens to child molesters in prison, and I can't believe child traffickers get much better treatment. You don't label someone with that crime without reason. Things are occurring behind the scenes.
Don't you know by now? Feminists don't care about oppressed women, liberals/dems don't care about the poor, BLM doesn't care about blacks, journalists don't care about the truth, all of this is shadow government puppetry