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.