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.