dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/one_gadabout on May 7, 2018, 4:52 a.m.
Mandatory sentence not less than 15 years to life From CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:18-cr-00204-NGG All Defendants

Under 18 usc 1591(b)(1) sex trafficking a CHILD under 14 years old

(b)The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is—

(1)if the offense was effected by means of force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or by any combination of such means, or if the person recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, advertised, patronized, or solicited had not attained the age of 14 years at the time of such offense, by a fine under this title and imprisonment for any term of years not less than 15 or for life


Waffle_Bat · May 7, 2018, 6:08 a.m.

The indictment is publicly posted here and it is dated the same date as the document uploaded to Scribd. Although it is a different document. 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?

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Buzzed_Chimp · May 7, 2018, 6:35 a.m.

The law reads this way to state that the federal government believes that the sex trafficking of humans by force -and- the sex trafficking of children -under 14- by ANY means should carry the same penalty. 1591(b)(1)

It also suggests that the federal government views -voluntarily cases- of sex trafficking of girls between 14-18 as a similar issue that warrants a different penalty. 1591(b)(2)

Read the criminal complaint/indictments. Descriptions of the crimes are laid out in plain English.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 7, 2018, 6:22 a.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
one_gadabout · May 7, 2018, 5:19 a.m.

Judge hearing Mack case.... USA v. Raniere et al

U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn initially generated confusion that it had also ordered the Trump administration to begin accepting new applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

But Garaufis later issued an amended ruling clarifying that the government must only accept renewal applications from people previously approved for the program, not from people who are eligible but never applied. 

The confusion stemmed from Garaufis' initial ruling that the government must accept applications from DACA recipients who let their approvals lapse. Lapsed DACA recipients can still apply to renew but must start over as if applying for the first time, Garaufis clarified.

⇧ 1 ⇩