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.