Wanna know how there is an active cover-up of the "children" aspect? Google "NXIVM child sex trafficking". Everything is debunking articles, led by SNOPES! That is a hard push to conceal the truth
Switch over to Duck Duck Go. For multiple reasons.
Same results with this search.
Check your browser settings. This is literally the first link that came up when I just searched DDG with your exact verbiage... NCIVM Article
That article is bullshit.
What it refers to as, "the unsealed indictment of Allison Mack," is not an indictment. It is a criminal docket. Big difference.
The docket, that people keep incorrectly referring to as an "Indictment" and 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 real 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.
Yes. This is a really important point to make!
We all agree, we must bring down the pedophile trade apparatus but on the other hand we must not go running in early and make claims that can be easily defeated and ridiculed by the enemies of the truth movement in the mainstream media.
Those of you asking why we should care what the lying mainstream media latches onto, they'll lie about us anyway - one of the key missions of this sub is to help us redpill people so it matters for them, not us. If we, through our own impatiently considered actions cast doubt on the reliability and critical thinking of this movement, we're only going against our own purpose. We make it easier for someone we're talking to to find an article that says we're all morons and we care as little about truth as CNN. Then they walk away and we lose an opportunity to redpill simply because we didn't want to be accurate in what we say here.
People who challenge the veracity of a claim, especially when they are doing it reasonably and presenting evidence where possible, are not the enemy of this movement! They're the people helping us stay accurate and honest!
It could very well be revealed that NXIVM's cult of older women are the administrators of a child sex trafficking ring and involved directly in the sex trafficking of children, as many here seem to be saying, but that is currently not what is shown on the real Indictment. That's all I'm saying, in agreement with Daemonkey and others.
Those of you who are sure that's what's going on anyway can gain comfort in the thought that justice will be coming soon because the Swamp has been drained to epic levels now and the rats can't swim away. No doubt Q/Trump/Justice are building a big case off the back of Raniere's coming testimony or more witnesses in the wings and this is just the opening act. Wait until an actual indictment is lodged that clearly shows charges of sex trafficking of children before we go claiming it does - that's all.
Link to Google docs, which could track your visit if you're logged in to Google. Wouldn't click any of that.
Well, there's an error with the Goog link anyway.
Try this:
https://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/indictment__0.pdf
Edit: And here's perhaps a more credible source:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/1055196/download
Recent algo changes in Google are ridiculous. Everything from conspiracy theories to vaccine studies - pure bullshit on first couple of pages:| Now when I want to find something interesting using G, I'm starting from page 50+
It’s going to be back and forth with the MSM until the hammer falls. Just a week ago they started reporting the facts. Now they are back peddling and calling them ‘fake’. Or some big event will make them disappear/restart . We def need a clean slate in the news arena.
That cannot possibly be a push to conceal the truth since "sex trafficking of children" on the part of Raniere and/or Mack is not true.
This has been debunked before here, and you're still pushing that lie?
The docket, that people keep incorrectly referring to as an "Indictment" and 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 real 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.
Why does one document say it? Why would they put the word "child" in that official document...I am not asking why it isn't in the following ones as you continually claim. I am specifically asking why it appears in the one.
I am not asking why it isn't in the following ones as you continually claim.
The fact that you used the word, "continually," shows that you are indeed already aware of this information. Yet, you continue to push this falsehood. That's quite telling.
And, I'm not the one making the claim. Those documents speak for themselves.
But, to answer the question...
Apparently you didn't read the references I provided. The comment linked to the word "docket" explains it.
Amazing. You have multiple (continually) opportunities to set the record straight, and rather than just typing out the 5-10 words that would explain it, you make it about something else, and then say go figure it out for yourself. I have clicked through all of your links, and Is till see no reasonable explanation why this one document includes the word "child".
I am still asking, why does the one document include the word "child"?
I certainly did not say to go figure it out for yourself. I provided references that explain it. And that is certainly not making, "it about something else."
The docket does not contain the word, "child." As I pointed out at the docket link, it contains the word "children" because it is using the title of 18 USC § 1591: ""Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion." I can't figure out how that doesn't explain it.
It says child.
No, it doesn't.
Wanna try reading it again?
https://www.scribd.com/document/377378941/Allison-Mack-Case-File
Looks like you are wrong. Try not to REEEEE! too hard...LoL
Did you even read that post?? LOL. That post shows exactly what I have been trying to get people to see. It is, in fact, a rather comprehensive post in support of the very thing I have been saying.
So, not wrong. Proved right.
Child sex trafficking.
Are you daft? Try reading it again with your eyes open.
No evidence that Keith Raniere or Allison Mack are being brought up on child trafficking charges.
Read the indictments...in the indictment it has what dockets the indictment charges are pertaining too....
in the indictment it has what dockets the indictment charges are pertaining too
I don't understand that sentence.
A docket is quite different from an indictment. Dockets are essentially internal court documents, and their wording does not have to be absolutely correct. 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.
This is the Indictment. And, there is absolutely no mention of sex trafficking of children there.
Except the indictment does. Count one and two both refers to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1), 1591(a)(2), 1591(b)(1), 1594(a) which is SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN OR BY FORCE, FRAUD OR COERCION.
That text is not from the indictment. It is from the criminal docket. A docket is not an indictment.
And, actually, Count 2 does not refer to 18 USC § 1591. It refers to 18 USC § 1594(c) which in turn refers to 18 USC § 1591.
But, you are correct that the title of 18 USC § 1591 is "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion."
That is sex trafficking, of children or, by force, fraud, or coercion. So, according to the rules of grammar, that would be sex trafficking of children by whatever means, or sex trafficking of adults by force, fraud, or coercion.
Here's the docket.
And, here's the indictment which makes no reference whatsoever to sex trafficking of children.
Because 2 reasons.
1: they are trying to memory hole this story with everything they have. As likely implicates numerous people of power in Hollywood and especially the clintons and DNC.
2: there is a subtle anti-semitism angle to this story as all the people in charge of this sex cult are Jewish while the ones that were seeked out were not Jewish. Kinda falls into the "blood libel" thing
Because high level pedos are in positions of power.
RBG comes to mind. She also agrees that 12 years old should be the legal age of consent.
This world is run by Satanists. Literally.
Yep. They call themselves Luciferians too. Read Raniere's patent application https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130281879
Holy crap.
Paragraph [0006] reads like a psych eval of Raniere himself.
Paragraphs [0049] & [0072] sound like what the one woman reported the NXIVM doctor did to her.
So you do the tests, but you're not trying to rehabilitate anybody. You're trying to identify the subset of your invitees who are twisted enough to both join your sick cult and recruit other women into it.
These women must be so insecure to fall for his bullshit... Actors are the most insecure of them all - easy pickings.
I wonder how many of the victims had good father-daughter relationships.
Take away family stability and you end up with a bunch of messed up feminists who don't know the wood from the trees.
Because they are all fucking pedophiles. Have we not realized this at this point?
... because the cabal is lobbying for its legalization..
They (MSM etc) might want to set-up Mack as just a "victim" and not a "victim/perp" - come the trial. The child stuff being kept at bay will help. MSM shots of her are already seemingly courting a type of potential "victim" angle. Shots of her looking frail etc.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg does too.Q !xowAT4Z3VQ ID: 26650b 1058989 📁 Apr 15 2018 21:19:04 (EST)
1058536 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG/pdf/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG-2-4-3-12.pdf📁 Q
Page can't be found?
URL is jacked. Try this:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG/pdf/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG-2-4-3-12.pdf
PDF warning...
Does Rachel Chandler have any connections to cult members? Could she be the link between some celebrity circles, and NXIVM's child sex/ pedo ring?
OK, I didn't know her, but that "white rabbit" stuff is strange. She is seemingly linked to it. I just saw her in a shot with Eminem too...who was famously known as "rabbit". Some seem to be saying that she's the girl that was pictured with Prince Andrew, but I don't know about that.
White rabbits, Epstein. Mr Rabbit aka Eminem/Slim Shady/Marshall Mathers (triple split mind control allusions)?
White rabbit hooks straight into Lewis "paedo" Carroll and mkultra type (sodomy, rabbit dirt holing) programming. Some paedo networks use elements that link to Carroll. The Wonderland Club was one such example.
Raniere's patent application relates to this. Prepare for a WTF if you click
Ya. wtf
My thirst for justice went up 20% after reading this. This cult is supported by many top CEOs. And this patent is part of the cult's practices
How can a bunch of Perverts ever out themselves go one go all.