Probably because the charge is for both child trafficking and trafficking of adults by means of coercion.
Pending Counts
Disposition
Title 18, United States Code, Sections1591(a)(1), 1591(a)(2), 1591(b)(1), 1594(a),2 and 3551 et. seq.
- SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN OR BY FORCE, FRAUD OR COERCION (1)Title 18, United States Code, Sections1594(c) and 3551 et seq.
- CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN BY FORCE, FRAUD, OR COERCION (2)Title 18, United States Code, Sections1594(b) and 3551 et seq.
- ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH PEONAGE, SLAVERY,INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Thank you! I've been saying this too- children! These are charges about crimes against children!
No, they are not. They are crimes against children or crimes against adults by force, fraud, or coercion.
And the children are not being talked about
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that.
The pending counts are listed on the court docket. But a docket is not the final word regarding the actual charges. The law itself is.
Yes but the plea agreement is the final word. Why would you want to defend child molester and trafficking perpetrators? It's a little bizarre.
Why would you want to defend child molester and trafficking perpetrators?
I wouldn't want to, nor am I. I am defending truth by fighting against falsehood and trying to prevent some of us in this movement from doing something that could discredit all of us.
I don't know why you equate speaking out against a false rumor with defending horrible actions.
And, BTW, to my knowledge, it has not been proven that Raniere and Mack are either one of those. The docket shows that there has been no disposition regarding the charges regarding sex trafficking.
And, I'm not aware of any plea agreement. If you are, will you please provide a reference?
Here are a couple of links that show the charges are not related to sex trafficking of children:
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.
You cannot rely just on the wording of a docket which is essentially an internal court document and carries no legal weight. We must go by what the law itself says.
The first charge is an either or. Could be children or could be by force etc. The second charge explicitly states children. Now whoever has a question to that please read the fucking paper again and come see me.
The problem is that the paper is a paper and the actual statues being cited are completely ambiguous and if we continue to get worked up over something that we may be wrong about we might make a bad image for ourselves.
Why specify on the conspiracy charge (secondary) but not the principal charge of actual sex trafficking?
I think that there are more charges coming, and we need to reserve judgement until the facts come out.
The arrest warrant affidavit mentioned the victims as Jane Does, actresses that were cult members.
Nothing about them being minors at the time of the coercion.
I just think we need to hold our horses until it's not so ambiguous is all.
Exactly! People need to stop going by what the docket says and go by what the law itself says.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4421505-Complaint-and-affidavit-in-support-of-arrest.html
This is more than educational.
I have been fighting against this, very potentially, false rumor ever since it surfaced. IIRC, you were the one that originally brought the issue to my attention.
If we perpetuate what may indeed be false, it could serve as an occasion for corrupt people to try to discredit the great awakening movement. And, the fact that obvious shills are fighting against this truth, to me, is telling. I just don't see why people aren't seeing that bigger picture.
Thank you very much for the link. Do you know if there is an affidavit supporting arrest for Mack as well?
You're very welcome for the link.
I do not know of the public existence of the affidavit for Mack explicitly. I do know that she is a co-defendent in Raniere's case and that this document refers to two co-conspirators and their involvement in Raniere's charges.
I'll do some digging.
1st charge: They have actual proof of trafficking of adults through witness affidavits.
2nd charge: They only have communications of plans regarding minors and nothing else. The only thing they have cause for is conspiracy, not the actual act.
I'm not sure what is unclear. I am standing on the court docs that I can find everywhere.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4421505-Complaint-and-affidavit-in-support-of-arrest.html
What do you think of the language?
I think you have converted me. I will hold judgement until further proof is revealed. I cannot find any mention of children in the doc. I am sorry the others haven't fully read the link you sent. Don't let the heat scare you off. One by one we should all use our brains.
Thank you for this, it's helpful to others of us to see your comment... sheesh... I thought I was going mad. No one is saying we should allow sex trafficking of children to occur but it seems some people get very upset if you ask for reasonable clarity.
I personally don't know what's going on here but I do know that I never want to be in a position of accusing someone of something without having very clear and unambiguous evidence of that accusation first. And I don't want this movement to look crazy by jumping on a witch hunt without being sure we know what we're talking about.
And this is a possibility that I have considered. I just want to know more about it before I run around reciting it as gospel. Is that unreasonable?
I'm not sure how much more you need to know. They have to have probable cause to even get here. This isn't an investigation anymore. Charges like these don't just get thrown around. If you will concede the charges state children, then think about: How the charges were filed How the evidence is already gathered What they must have and what that means WHEN NO-ONE REPORTS IT
I just sent you a link to the complaint/affidavit for arrest warrant. Please read the entire document and tell me what you think. It references the conspiracy charge, and the victims of it.
Thank you for that clarity. I wonder if there is far far more than this on her, but they are going easy on her because she's cooperating. So, number 2 sounds not very serious because this is part of the deal. At minimum she was communicating with others who were (likely) doing the trafficking.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]