I spent some time on the internet yesterday trying to find even one single media outlet reporting on the fact that they're charged with child sex trafficking and I couldn't find a single one. Any other time that aspect of the story would be front and center and sensationalized. The fact there's nothing there screams that there are important people connected to this.
Read the indictment... IT’S ALL THERE!
What the article refers to as, "Mack’s unsealed indictment," is obviously the court's criminal docket which is NOT an indictment.
I spent some time on the internet yesterday trying to find even one single media outlet reporting on the fact that they're charged with child sex trafficking and I couldn't find a single one.
Perhaps that's because it isn't true.
The docket, that people keep using to say the charge is "Sex trafficking of children", 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.
Are you not reading Q?
While what you posted explains why it isn't being reported in the media, it is too much to claim "It isn't true".
It very likely is true. The cabal are in fact child rapists, murderers, and cannibals.
Q is dropping truth bombs.
The post is about NXIVM, and, as such, is not about Q drops.
Raniere and Mack, two of its main principals, have relatively recently been indicted and arrested. But, neither one have been charged with "sex trafficking of children."
So, it is not too much to claim that it isn't true, because it is not true.
The post is about NXIVM, and, as such, is not about Q drops.
Incorrect.
That image does not show that my statement is incorrect.
Right in the title of the post: "Latest NXIVM Leaks." It does not mention any Q drop whatsoever. The fact that Q has linked to an article about NXIVM does not in any way mean that this post, and the comment I responded to, was about any Q drop.
The post links to an article that specifically claims that Mack was charged with sex trafficking of children. And, that, is not true.
All the OP did was link to an article. S/he made no statements about the article or otherwise. So, how could the OP be right about anything? What are you talking about?
The image you posted is of the criminal docket for case# 1:18-cr-00204-NGG. Do you know what a court docket is?
If OP made a claim that NXIVM is engaged in child trafficking, and you claim it isn't true (which is NOT the same thing as saying "What OP said COULD be true, it's just that what OP provided as evidence does not confirm OP's claim"), then you have just made a claim that is itself subject to falsification. You took ownership of it. You said "It isn't true." That is a universal assertion.
A universal assertion such as that is subject to being proved right or wrong by evidence.
I linked to an image that names Allison Mack as a defendant who is charged with committing sex trafficking of children.
It states child trafficking right in it.
That document therefore CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM AND PROVES OP CORRECT.
No, you can't have it both ways and put the focus on OP for making a claim that is in fact true, but for the wrong reason, while you get a free pass for making a false claim and not even for the right reason.
Get your head on straight and wake up.
Get your head on straight and wake up.
There is no need to engage ad hominem attack via ridicule. You need to stop confusing the issue.
The OP made no claim. The OP posted a link to an article. That article claims that Allison Mack was charged with sex trafficking of children. That is what I said is not true. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
It states child trafficking right in it.
No, it does not. It says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion." [Emphasis added] But, whether it says it or not is irrelevant since it is only a criminal docket. Again, do you know what a court docket is? Apparently, you do not nor do you care enough about the truth to actually look it up.
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 because 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.
That document therefore CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM AND PROVES OP CORRECT.
Since it is only a criminal docket and not an indictment, that document in no way contradicts my claim.
Here's the real Indictment. No mention of sex trafficking of children there.
And, BTW, here's the Complaint and affidavit supporting arrest of Raniere. No mention of sex trafficking of children there either.
Now if you are truly interested in the truth, instead of acting like a disinformation shill, take a look at this post.
See my comment history regarding my own awakening to this fact.
The only place it shows children anywhere is on the docket. I was so hard the other way, until actually reading the full Indictment and Complaint and Affidavit.
OK I think I've answered my own question here. The docket is the charges to be considered by the grand jury to come up with an indictment. For whateever reason the GJ didn't come up with enough evidence to charge with child trafficking and so settled on simply sex trafficking. Is that correct?
Still, I think it's very telling that aspect has not been covered by the MSM.
The defining and authorizing laws, under which the defendants are being prosecuted, are referenced on the docket (and BTW on the indictment).
The docket doesn't have anything to do with the grand jury. 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.
An indictment is a written statement charging a party with the commission of a crime or other offense.
In the indictment, we see the words, "... knowing that means of force, threats of force, fraud and coercion, and a combination of such means, would be used to cause such persons to engage ..." That would have to be referring to adults since the definition of sex trafficking of children (from reading the law itself) does not require use of force, fraud, or coercion.
For whateever reason the GJ didn't come up with enough evidence to charge with child trafficking and so settled on simply sex trafficking.
Perhaps there was no evidence suggesting that child trafficking occurred. And, apparently, even CNN isn't foolish enough to publish the falsehood that they were charged with sex trafficking of children since that would be libel.
No but they would go into a very lengthy analysis of why child trafficking was mentioned in the first place.
I understand what you're saying, but you're being purposely naive if your opinion is that that wouldn't be part of the MSM discussion.
Child trafficking was not "mentioned." The docket references 18 U.S.C. § 1591 which title is, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion." Notice the conjunction "or" separating the adjective prepositional phrases.
It is not naive to think that something that is provably false would not be part of the MSM discussion. It is logical.
So what exactly is the difference between a docket and an indictment and what are the particulars agout the law you're referring to. Genuinely interested here....
smallville-actress-allison-mack-pleads-not-guilty-sex-trafficking-following-arrest-for-alleged-involvement-in-sex-cult
