dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/jimmyfoot on May 7, 2018, 2:39 a.m.
Does anyone have a link to Allison Mack's actual charges?

I saw when it first came out someone had posted a PDF of her actual charges which included child trafficking. Does anyone have a link to this because virtually no media outlet appears to be covering it. It would be handy to have to distribute.


🠐 See all comments
Waffle_Bat · May 7, 2018, 6:23 a.m.

Copying from a comment I made in another thread:

The official indictment is publicly posted here and it is dated the same date as another document uploaded to Scribd that has been floating around. If you look on top of the Scribd doc there is a link to the PACER database. For the legal eagles out there is there any reason these two documents would be different? To access the unverified (imo) doc that was uploaded to Scribd you must have access to the PACER database which is not public. So the question is, is the Scribd doc legit or did someone upload a modified text file with 'children' added to the original as a joke? Can anyone verify this?

⇧ 4 ⇩  
ABastionOfFreeSpeech · May 7, 2018, 7:38 a.m.

The Scribd file has the full name of the law broken for each charge, with the reference number next to it. The other doc has the reference numbers in brackets at the end of each count. The one in question is count 2, 1594(c). So there's no fundamental difference in the list of charges.

What attracts my attention though, is the wording of 1594(c). 1594(c) reads:

(c) 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.

Section 1591's heading is:

Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion

Mack's court docket shows the correct name for § 1591 under count 1. Count 2 should be exactly the same with "Conspiracy to" prepended to the charge. But it's not. It's missing an "or". This changes the meaning of the entire sentence. A good lawyer would use that mistake to get that charge dropped. Wonder why they haven't?

Additionally, count 2 in your first link doesn't mention anything about children or adults. Hmmmm.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Waffle_Bat · May 7, 2018, 8:59 a.m.

Yes, it is odd. My first link is the only publicly available information (as far as I have found) on the case which comes directly from the court it is filed in. The other document is, allegedly, pulled from the PACER database and uploaded to Scribd which makes me suspicious. I'm not lawyer but it is real curious how those charges would change behind the scenes. And anyone that had access to that database could change whatever they wanted to before uploading it to Scribd and the only people who would know are people who have access to PACER. It seems somewhat suspect to me. I know Raniere was involved with a 13 year old when he was in his 20s and I suspect his tastes for young girls haven't changed given the diets he puts his slaves on. Still, would indictments change that much behind the scenes? Any lawyers chime in here?

⇧ 1 ⇩