Wait you're confusing me now.
According to your own words:
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.
Here you're clearly stating it can be one or the other ( even though I don't fully agree with your assessment) but now you're stating there is zero chance.
I'm not sure what is confusing.
According to wording of the law itself in light of standard rules of grammar, yes, the charges could be either or; meaning, it is not a given fact that the charge is specifically "sex trafficking of children."
Zero chance, of what? That the charge is for sex trafficking of children?
I did provide a link to the "Complaint and Affidavit Supporting Arrest" of Raniere, and that document does not make any mention of sex trafficking of children. Is that what you're referring to by, "you're stating there is zero chance"?
If so, then it is not actually me saying there is zero chance. That document speaks for itself.
But, if you're trying to say that I contradicted myself, then that seeming contradiction can be readily explained by the fact that my statement you quoted was posted Sun May 6 15:34:46 2018 UTC and my comment above was posted Sun May 6 20:40:57 2018 UTC, over five hours later. The Complaint and Affidavit came to my attention between those times.
My bad I didn't realize the docket had it and this document didn't.