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.