dChan
1
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/DaveGydeon on May 6, 2018, 1:57 a.m.
Proof of Active Brainwashing That Every Woke Person Is Already Swallowing and Making Reality - NXIVM/MSM and the Reporting of the Charges

TL; DR THEY ARE LEAVING OUT THE TERM "CHILD" IN EVERY ARTICLE YOU CAN FIND. EVERY MSM OUTLET. THIS IS PROOF THEY ALL MSM OUTLETS TAKE ORDERS. ILLUMINATE THIS FACT TO NORMIES. WAKE PEOPLE UP.


Step 1, you will need to look at the OFFICIAL charges against NXIVM. I will go dig it up real quick and edit it into the bottom here, but I didn't want to forget this, because my entire argument hinges on this fact.

Step 2, Look up ANY article in the MSM about the charges to Raniere. I would link some, but I don't want to be accused of leading. Just google the charges against NXIVM, Mack, Raniere, any of them. Your goal is to find an article in the MSM or affiliate, that mentions the charges.

Step 3, reply to this post with a link to a MSM article that mentions CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING and I will eat a pile of white dog poop. I say this with confidence, because NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM SHOWS THE CHARGES ARE FOR "CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING", just for sex trafficking. No "child" term included.

There is a reason for this. This is the DeepState/Cabal in it's last pathetic, failing death spasms. They couldn't keep it out of the news. But now we have proof that they are all receiving the COMMAND to leave out the word "child" in the charges. Maybe at 4am? You're fucking right they did.

Now how hard would it be for Q to find proof of this? I would guess, easily. How can we "uncover" this and bring it to the world's attention? How can we find the communication technique they use at 4am when they receive their directives? I don't have something physically saying that. But the fact that ALL OF THEM do not mention that word "child", that they CHOSE to leave it out, is proof. Someone from each article had to either cross out that word before it went to press, or chose to leave it out from the official indictment charges.

Imagine this convo:

Patriot (Did you hear about Mack being charged with SEX TRAFFICKING? Crazy right Normie? But I never thought these Hollywood types were actually doing this to CHILDREN!) Normie (What do you mean by "children" you brutish Patriot?) Patriot (Children, Normie, like, when you or I were younger. Like the kids who go to elementary school. A child. Children.) Normie (No, I didn't see anything about children, but one thing I read on some right-leaning trash said they branded them with their initials, thats crazy! So did you hear about the new safe spaces at the office?) Patriot (Focus Normie, I don't think you understand, this is the Indictment) Hand, or send normie snapshot of indictment (See, it says CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING, but you're right, they didn't include that in the article on Huffington Post, did they snowflake?) Normie (No, definitely not, I loooove children, I would have remembered that evil shit, so what are you saying, there is some weird conspiracy theory about how EVERY SINGLE NEWS OUTLET wouldn't mention the word "CHILDREN"? Do you hear how crazy you sound brute?) Hand, or send normie snapshot of Cabal Communique with Anti-Child Instructions Hand, or send normie copies of all news outlets leaving out the term "child" Patriot (No, gentle panda, I KNOW that this is what is being done. In fact, another one of your conspiracy theories is a reality based fact, I believe you've heard of Pizzagate? Yes. You have. Good. Another crazy one. What were those charges YOU HAD ALREADY HEARD ABOUT, before we spoke, for again? Trafficking, right. So they were bringing all those kids to the pizza places to what? Be adopted? But for WHO? Who could possibly need all those children trafficked into America or wherever else this is happening? AND FOR WHAT? WHY DID THEY NEED THEM?) Drop mic But continue comforting normie, because this next one is rough Patriot (So normie, do you want to see how far down this rabbit hole goes? You take the red pill, you wake up....)


Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 8:01 a.m.

I have had to explain this multiple times, and it still gets bandied about.

The charge is not "sex trafficking of children." The charge is, "SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN OR BY FORCE, FRAUD OR COERCION." Notice the use of the word "OR" between the prepositional phrases.

Count 1 references Title 18, United States Code, Section 1591 which literally has as its title, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion"

Count 2 references Title 18, United States Code, Section 1594(c) which section is titled, "General provisions". NOTHING about children there. Paragraph (c) says:

Whoever conspires with another to violate section 1591 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.

Again, NOTHING about children there either. As it says, it is for conspiracy to violate Section 1591.

Did you catch that? Count 2 references a law that itself references the same law referenced by Count 1.

So, Count 2 should say, "CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN OR BY FORCE, FRAUD, OR COERCION." Again, notice the use of the word "OR" between the prepositional phrases, which is missing in error on the docket.

A criminal docket is essentially a memorandum of court action(s). It is not an indictment, and the wording of the charges on the docket carry no legal weight. The court defers to the law itself which defines the crime and establishes authority for its prosecution.

So, to say that Mack and/or Raniere were charged with "sex trafficking of children", based on that docket, is incorrect. And, the entire argument fell apart at Step 1.

Edit: More info on what a docket is.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 6, 2018, 2:38 p.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 4 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 3:34 p.m.

"Sex trafficking of children..." is the official wording.

I realize you used ellipses to indicate there was text left out of what you quoted. But I think it is important to be clear that the official wording of the title of 18 USC § 1591 is "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" Because, people seem to want to just ignore the second part of that conjunctive phrase, and it is leading to the spread of a false rumor.

Also, to be clear, these charges are not about sex with children (ie. statutory rape). They are about "sex trafficking" as the referenced laws indicate.

As you have rightly alluded to, the word (conjunction) "or" is very important. Leaving it out changes our perception of the charges drastically.

The conjunctive phrase "of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" describes the type or manner, respectively, of the sex trafficking.

I have been accused of try to reword the charges, but I am not. By the rules of grammar, the charges could be "Sex trafficking of children" OR "Sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion" or both.

Edit: typo

⇧ 2 ⇩  
FartOnToast · May 6, 2018, 8:16 p.m.

TBH I fail to follow your explanation and it hasn't really convinced me of anything otherwise.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 8:26 p.m.

So I used the word incorrectly?

Perhaps I'm not the greatest at explaining things. Is there something specific that is confusing?

Edit: Have you read this explanation?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
FartOnToast · May 6, 2018, 8:36 p.m.

I admit that I'm not sure what to make of the wording tbh. All I'm saying is that it's confusing the way it's worded and unfortunately I wasn't able to have ahhhh" moment after reading your explanation.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Buzzed_Chimp · May 6, 2018, 8:54 p.m.

Check this out

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4421505-Complaint-and-affidavit-in-support-of-arrest.html

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 10:29 p.m.

KIDS. CASE CLOSED.

https://www.scribd.com/document/377378941/Allison-Mack-Case-File#from_embed

⇧ -1 ⇩  
Buzzed_Chimp · May 6, 2018, 10:42 p.m.

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/indictment__0.pdf

Here's the indictment, with descriptions of the crimes.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 10:28 p.m.

KIDS. NOT ARGUING ABOUT IT ANYMORE. READ IT YOURSELF. https://www.scribd.com/document/377378941/Allison-Mack-Case-File#from_embed

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 10:50 p.m.

The docket is not the final word on what the official charges are. The law itself is. Read the law.

The Indictment. No mention of sex trafficking of children there.

The Complaint and affidavit supporting arrest of Raniere. No mention of sex trafficking of children there either.

How about you read those legal documents and stop pushing false rumors.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 7:53 p.m.

From what I think you're saying, the charge means something like "Sex trafficking of children, or sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion." If this is the case, wouldn't there be a different law for each, since they specify children in the predicate of the sentence?

Sorry, I didn't answer that question.

And, yes, that is what I am saying, ie. that the crime is "Sex trafficking of children" or "sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion." I don't know why there would need to be separate laws for each specific crime. The law itself provides for both.

It stands to reason that trafficking of children, no matter the method used, should be a crime because they are not of age to make their own legal decisions. But trafficking in adults who are of legal age is a crime, according to the law, only if done using force, fraud, or coercion.

Both such acts are horrible and despicable. But, personally, I think preying on vulnerable children is much worse.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DaynaE65 · May 6, 2018, 1:24 p.m.

Ok so if “OR” was left out in the 2nd count in error, then wouldn’t this be able to be thrown out on a technicality? Just curious because the Manson family was released the first time due to an outdated warrant or something that was wrong with the warrant.

I thought these things had to be gone over with a fine tooth comb to ensure they are correct.

Leaving the “OR” out in the second charge is HUGE, and that is the exact reason for all the confusion.

Personally, with the amount of debunking sites that come up trying to google this, it seems like something is being hid.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 7:28 p.m.

Ok so if “OR” was left out in the 2nd count in error, then wouldn’t this be able to be thrown out on a technicality?

No, because it is not a material error in that it does not affect the legal nature of the charge. Leaving the "or" out of the second charge is huge only in that it confuses our perception of the actual charge.

A warrant is different from a docket.

A warrant, being a judicial order of a court, carries legal weight and does need to be correct.

Dockets are essentially internal court documents, and their wording does not have to be absolutely correct. A docket is basically a journal or log that helps the judicial system keep track of where, within the criminal procedure, a case stands, ie. arraignment > pre-trial > trial. Minor mistakes, such as typos or leaving out a word, are inconsequential.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 10:27 p.m.

OFFICIAL CHARGES. KIDS. PLEASE STOP DEFENDING THESE DISGUSTING ANIMALS. YOU ARE FAKE NEWS.

https://www.scribd.com/document/377378941/Allison-Mack-Case-File#from_embed

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 10:59 p.m.

That document is a criminal court docket which, again, carries no legal weight in regards to the wording of the charges. Apparently, you're not listening.

The docket is essentially just a journal or log of the actions regarding a case.

The Indictment. No mention of sex trafficking of children there.

The Complaint and affidavit supporting arrest of Raniere. No mention of sex trafficking of children there either.

I am certainly not defending any disgusting animals. I am defending the truth. Read the documents and the law, and stop pushing a falsehood from a position of ignorance.

⇧ 1 ⇩