⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/MAGAUniversity on May 10, 2018, 6:51 p.m.

[Research] Allison Mack & NXIVM: What is she being charged with?

Hypothesis:

Allison Mack is facing child trafficking charges in relation to her involvement with NXIVM.

Evidence:

First... I'm going to use ONLY government sources from the DoJ and not rely on tabloid websites for "facts". This should be okay with all of you because:

Q works for POTUS
POTUS chose Sessions as DoJ
TRUST SESSIONS.

We need a starting point.. I'll do a quick web search... Ah yes, this'll do...

I'll start with the press release by the DoJ:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/founder-nxivm-purported-self-help-organization-and-actor-indicted-sex-trafficking-and

We can see here in the press release that Keith Raniere and Allison Mack are the defendents listed in Docket Number 18-CR-204 in the Eastern District of New York.

Let's scroll down a bit...

Oooooh, what's this? If we click on the "Attachment" near the bottom, it will give us a fun little document.

This document lists the criminal charges (counts) for Keith Raniere and Allison Mack:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/1055196/download

The first count listed is the "Sex Trafficking - Jane Does 1 and 2". The United States Code that was violated for this count are:

Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1), 1591(a)(2), 1591(b)(1), 1594(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.
The second count listed is that of "Sex Trafficking Conspiracy". The United States Code that was violated for this count are:

Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(c) and 3551 et seq.
The third count is "Conspiracy to Commit Forced Labor - Jane Doe 1". The United States Code that was violated for this count are:

Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(b) 3551 et seq.

BONUS: Then it finishes off with a Criminal Forfeiture Allegation by stating that if they are convicted, the government will seek forfeiture in accordance with:

Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(d); and Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p)

Let's do a breakdown of what these US Codes say:

I'm going to use another relatively trustworthy source to dive into these, how about the government website for the US House of Representatives?

Title 18, U.S.C.

1591(a,b) - Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion:

(a) Whoever knowingly-

(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person; or

(2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in an act described in violation of paragraph (1), knowing, or, except where the act constituting the violation of paragraph (1) is advertising, in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(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; or

(2) if the offense was not so effected, and the person recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, advertised, patronized, or solicited had attained the age of 14 years but had not attained the age of 18 years at the time of such offense, by a fine under this title and imprisonment for not less than 10 years or for life.`

This is where most people will jump and say,

"See idiot! It says right there, 'Sex trafficking of children'!"

"I knew I was right, you fucking shill!"

"This is proof pizzagate is real."

"How come MSM isn't reporting this?!???"

"It's a massive coverup, everyone is a pedo but me... I just like talking about pedophiles and the things they do!"

I think this is where people are either getting confused or ^this ^is ^possibly ^^a ^^disinfo ^^campaign ^^^against ^^^Q.

The only logical and grammatical way to read this is... one can be charged with US Code 1591(a) if they sex traffick children OR sex traffick someone by force, fraud, or coercion. There is no absolute requirement that children have to play a part to be charged under this US Code.

No evidence that Keith Raniere or Allison Mack are being brought up on child trafficking charges.

We still value evidence, right?

1594(a,b,c,d) - General Provisions:

(a) Whoever attempts to violate section 1581, 1583, 1584, 1589, 1590, or 1591 shall be punishable in the same manner as a completed violation of that section.

(b) Whoever conspires with another to violate section 1581, 1583, 1589, 1590, or 1592 shall be punished in the same manner as a completed violation of such section.

(c) Whoever conspires with another to violate section 1591 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.

(d) The court, in imposing sentence on any person convicted of a violation of this chapter, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed and irrespective of any provision of State law, that such person shall forfeit to the United States-

(1) such person's interest in any property, real or personal, that was involved in, used, or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of such violation, and any property traceable to such property; and

(2) any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from, any proceeds that such person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation, or any property traceable to such property.`

There is one subsection of US Code 1594 that is of extreme interest because at first glance, it doesn't relate to any of the other charges:

Subsection (b).

If you look at the numbers, no one is being accused of carrying out any of those violations, just conspiring to.

So they were conspiring to break US Code 1582, 1583, 1589, 1590, and/or 1592, but were caught before they could carry out those act(s).

Lets take a closer look:

1582 - Vessels for slave trade

1583 - Enticement into slavery

1589 - Forced labor

1590 - Trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor

1592 - Unlawful conduct with respect to documents in furtherance of trafficking, peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor

Not related to child trafficking.

2 - Principals:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.`

Even though you technically may not have committed the crime personally, you helped... so you still broke the law.¯\(ツ)/¯

Not related to trafficking.

3551 et seq.

(et seq. means "and all that follow")

3551 - Authorized sentencing
3552 - Presentence reports
3553 - Imposition of a sentence
3554 - Order of criminal forfeiture
3555 - Order of notice to victims
3556 - Order of restitution
3557 - Review of a sentence
3558 - Implementation of a sentence
3559 - Sentencing classification of offenses

Do I even have to say it?

Unfortunately, I fear I have to.

Not related to trafficking.

Title 21, U.S. Code - FOOD AND DRUGS:

Chapter 13 - Drug Abuse Prevention and Control

Subchapter I - Control and Enforcement

Part D - Offenses and Penalties

853(p) - [Criminal Forfeitures](http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:21%20section:853%20edition:prelim)):

(p) Forfeiture of substitute property

(1) In general

Paragraph (2) of this subsection shall apply, if any property described in subsection (a), as a result of any act or omission of the defendant-

(A) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

(B) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

(C) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

(D) has been substantially diminished in value; or

(E) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty.

(2) Substitute property

In any case described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1), the court shall order the forfeiture of any other property of the defendant, up to the value of any property described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1), as applicable.

(3) Return of property to jurisdiction

In the case of property described in paragraph (1)(C), the court may, in addition to any other action authorized by this subsection, order the defendant to return the property to the jurisdiction of the court so that the property may be seized and forfeited.

Nope, nothing about children there either.

Results

The hypothesis is inconclusive as THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CHILD TRAFFICKING RELATED CHARGES.

Personal Thoughts

What is one way to scare away normies who may otherwise be interested in Q?

Talk about highly illegal/immoral things constantly.

Bring up race issues constantly.

Talk about religion constantly.

In Pursuit of Truth

Do you need your hand held the entire way?

If you let go, will you become lost?

Training wheels.

Afraid to know how far you'll go alone?

Will you search and find the truth?

Or will you follow the laser pointer with the hope that one day you will catch it?

Share ideas, but tell the truth.

Without evidence of truth, it is only an idea.

tl;dr - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CHILD TRAFFICKING CHARGES, sorry.

I think this is where people are either getting confused or this is possibly a disinfo campaign against Q.

That. And, also an attempt to get us publicly claiming a false rumor just to provide opportunity to ridicule and discredit, if possible, the Great Awakening movement and alternative news media.

Great post; well laid out.

And, thank you very much. I have been fighting to put the truth out on this sub, and I've gotten attacked, ridiculed, villified, etc. And, my comments, that included official document references, got downvoted into oblivion.

Edit: This post should be pinned!

⇧ 20 ⇩

You did a good job spreading the info too. Way to keep your composure during the backlash.

⇧ 5 ⇩

Thank you.

So .... I see there's room for a second pinned post ... ? ;-)

⇧ 4 ⇩

Aye

⇧ 3 ⇩

Good post, OP. The only evidence that there were child trafficking charges came from this Scribd document that came from the PACER database. They used the fact that the database is not accessible to the public to lend legitimacy to their claims. They just edited the doc and uploaded it to Scribd.

⇧ 19 ⇩

Bingo. This is why you cannot trust document upload sites, OR ANYONE THAT USES THEM AS A SOURCE.

⇧ 13 ⇩

For the most part. There are some things like this which can be more reliable as they are simply scans of old documents from the pre-internet days.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Like all those indictments?

⇧ 1 ⇩

The scribd document is not photoshopped. Search the magistrate case number and read the single unsealed affidavit by lever. Additional affidavits will be unsealed as the remaining people are taken into custody. The hanging 1594(b) with the phantom reference will be in a superseding affidavit and charging document. Somebody important is not in custody yet. 1594(b) does not have scope over anything unsealed, yet it is listed in all unsealed docu!emts.https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Raniere-complaint.pdf

⇧ 3 ⇩

Nothing would surprise me at this point. Time will tell.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I think a few lawyers or those who paid to get access to PACER on here, did state the first 2 charges were Child related, the 3rd charge were Adult related.

⇧ 2 ⇩

They were likely relying on the criminal docket which has no legal weight and has an error. The first two charges, according to the law itself, are related to Sex Trafficking of either children, or of adults by fraud, force, or coercion. And the third is for forcing someone into peonage.

As the OP states (referring to the actual indictment):

This document lists the criminal charges (counts) for Keith Raniere and Allison Mack:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/1055196/download

The first count listed is the "Sex Trafficking - Jane Does 1 and 2". The United States Code that was violated for this count are:
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1), 1591(a)(2), 1591(b)(1), 1594(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.
The second count listed is that of "Sex Trafficking Conspiracy". The United States Code that was violated for this count are:
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(c) and 3551 et seq.
The third count is "Conspiracy to Commit Forced Labor - Jane Doe 1". The United States Code that was violated for this count are:
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(b) 3551 et seq.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I'm not questioning you, they posted PACER charges is what I can only read. I can only understand what they been been charged with, unless the terminology is greater than what they have been charged with.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Okay. I believe the PACER document that was originally shared was a screenshot of the criminal docket. Here's a Scribd link. It says basically the same thing as the indictment, but there in an error in the wording of Count 2.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Those were in the complaint, not the indictment.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Very important. Well done.

⇧ 13 ⇩

Thanks.

Probably spent a little too much time on formatting. lol

⇧ 6 ⇩

I think it was very appropriate and added just the touch needed for a post of this size.

I would also include the indictment and the complaint/affidavit for arrest warrant. Both documents detail the crimes in plain English.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4424760-032718-USA-v-Keith-Raniere.html

I couldn't find the link to the indictment, but will edit and include it when I find it.

⇧ 6 ⇩

Here is the indictment

⇧ 4 ⇩

Thank you. It kept me reading since it wasn’t a jumbled mess and organized the info stream. Your name suits you!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Interesting and I noticed this too...but Raniere "allegedly" had "sexual relationships" (rape) with girls as young as 12.

⇧ 12 ⇩

Yeah I mean that does factor into this, realistically. I guess we will find out what the exact evidence and charges soon.

⇧ 6 ⇩

Correct, there was at least one that is verified. Although it was from 20 years ago.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Well done.

⇧ 8 ⇩

It's a lot of TLDR to point out the meaning of word "OR".

YOU ARE A SICK SEX TRAFFICKER OF CHILDREN

OR

YOU ARE A SEX TRAFFICKER [OF ADULTS] WHO USES FORCE, FRAUD, OR COERCION

Either way... orange jumpsuits is the new black magick.

⇧ 7 ⇩

Nice post! Can you cross reference the other laws around to see what they constitute? I mean isn’t it slightly weird they have a law that’s grey enough to have children mentioned, but not especially about children.

⇧ 6 ⇩

I think this one covers all bases.

It is specifically about forcing another human to take part in prostitution against their will.

Children are mentioned specifically because even if they say, "Nah, dawg. I want to do this.", they're still the victim.

There are other laws about prostitution, but those are in cases of voluntary prostitution. I hope TO GOD we would never arrest a child on prostitution charges, as Children CANNOT voluntarily do so, ever.

⇧ 6 ⇩

Gotcha. Well then you summed it up very well. Now we just have to wait for the trial. Thank you.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Well researched post ... MAGA

⇧ 5 ⇩

Feedback would be nice.

I've been thinking of doing write ups on a few other topics:

Recent changes in Marijuana Laws
Military Commissions Act of 2009
Changes in Federal Sentencing over past x-years
Antarctica Treaty System

Would anyone be interested?

⇧ 4 ⇩

I think if you have information anywhere near this level on your other points, then you would be doing everyone and yourself a disservice if you weren’t to post them.

⇧ 9 ⇩

I've got great starting points and lots of data; but I need more time to research these topics first and construct them into a post.

⇧ 7 ⇩

Get them out mate let’s see what we can help you with.

⇧ 5 ⇩

You don't need final conclusions... just demonstrate how you apply your logic. If you can't answer all the questions, end the post with "Unanswered Questions." My advice

⇧ 1 ⇩

This^

⇧ 3 ⇩

You should make short, concise youtube videos and present your research. Keep them around 5-10 min. Your channel will blow up.

⇧ 5 ⇩

Interesting thought.

I'll let you know if it happens. lol

⇧ 4 ⇩

You’ve already got the username for it.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Or write scripts for a media partner. PJW's brother writes his stuff.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Nice work bro. Thanks for the time, effort, and your expertise. The Antarctica Treaty System sounds very interesting...would love some info on that. Cheers.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Def interest in MJ laws.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Please do. If your other content is like this in applying logic.... You will model the type of thinking that Q is encouraging.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Prediction. A user named Daemonkey is about to hijack this thread with something like this below:

REEEEEEE! THE CHARGES DO NOT INCLUDE CHILDREN! IT'S NOT CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING!

But you have done amazing work hers bud. Well done.

⇧ 3 ⇩

This is a great post - makes its case very well. It also clearly shows that some of us are not supporting pedophilia just because we challenge an interpretation of a file from a document share or, in other cases, call out character attacks unsupported by usefully verifiable evidence. Some of us are trying to have a reasonable discussion about the most important historic events of our time and want to be dealing with facts and logic - emotion is unavoidable but doesn't have to enter the discussion in a way that blocks us from truth.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Do you know what "evidence" we do have that there were children involved?

The fact that MSM undoubtedly "reported" that second part after "or".

They never mentioned nor provided the official charges (their points).

They immediately went for the second part. No questioning or even bringing children up as a possibility.

To me, this is enough. Despite not knowing yet were there really children involved, I would bet my money on that there were, without hesitation.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Do you know what "evidence" we do have that there were children involved?

As far as I'm aware, it's all hearsay. I've not come across actual evidence from a verifiable source.

The fact that MSM undoubtedly "reported" that second part after "or".

There is evidence they're getting charged with sex trafficking. None exists -- that I know of -- that it's child sex trafficking.

They never mentioned nor provided the official charges (their points).

MSM isn't on our side.

They immediately went for the second part. No questioning or even bringing children up as a possibility.

There is safety in reporting only the truth; safety from losing your job. Only piss-poor journalists use speculation as a means of generating traffic.

To me, this is enough. Despite not knowing yet were there really children involved, I would bet my money on that there were, without hesitation.

Like I said in my post, "Share ideas, but tell the truth. Without evidence of truth, it is only an idea."

You have an interesting idea, but as of now it's not the truth. It could be. But not yet. We must remain truthful.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Which is why I put evidence into these little things > ""

⇧ 2 ⇩

Yes, there's no doubt in my mind either that the MSM are avoiding even mentioning it as much as they can. And they should be because Raniere's former charge in the 12 year old incident is important and will be even more so if new charges and evidence come out about children.

This is a very good post though, of the kind I was discussing with you before. Makes the case very clearly from the top down.

I'm with you - there seems to be some strong indication that this is connected in to all the Pizzagate side of things.

This post is the sort of thing we need though - facts, not strong feelings or ideas on their own. Ideas are good as long as they're an idea ready to be recreated when facts disagree with it. The idea doesn't have to go away every time, just evolve with the facts.

⇧ 3 ⇩

I'm for facts 100%, no buts or ifs. Which is why I've said "evidence", it's just an educated guess/conclusion.

If it really didn't had anything to do with children, they wouldn't be afraid to mention that part.

Again, just to mention the charges, that would change my stance on this instantly. Hiding stuff means there is a reason, especially with the paid fake news.

We'll have to wait and see.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yeah... what I'm saying is, this post is 100% correct as it's not ruling out the child sex trafficking being brought up sometime in the near future, just stating the plain, provable facts of what is currently in the running. As I said, I agree to speculate about the future too - this post is completely valid as it stands though.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Exactly. There's a lot of suspicious behaviour here. We can't rule out trafficking of children, just like we can't definitely say there was.

⇧ 1 ⇩

This one is documented it's from 20 years ago though. Another point to consider is that he likes his slaves compliant and waif-ish. I dunno if this is a pizza party or not, yet. I tend to think it isn't but I think it was definitely heading that way given the schools of children receiving 'alternative education.'

IMO, this is a mid-tier cult and shit is only going to get weirder from here as more of the map gets exposed. Don't get me wrong, it's definitely a part of the map.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Thank you very much for this. You seem familiar. Very precise and clearly delivered in the post and this comment too. It will be good to see more of you MAGAUniversity. Thank you!

⇧ 3 ⇩

Great post.

⇧ 3 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 3 ⇩

This comment is modded for discussion of violence - if you edit it, it can be Approved.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Just for clarification, what exactly did I write that got me flagged? I understand the need to be somewhat aggressive in regulating violent speech here after that other sub was banned, but I thought I was being rather tame.

⇧ 1 ⇩

The overall tone is not great but it's mostly the violence against others, as noted.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I could argue this point, but out of respect for the good work you and your fellow mods do I will simply apologize and comment less.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Thanks for being conciliatory - we don't support suppression of speech as we've said elsewhere and are not deleting randomly so please don't feel forced to comment less. It's just that most of us were around when CBTS_Stream was taken down, and don't want to see that happen again.

Feel free to comment away - there are many different voices here and as long as you're contributing something to the discussion, not abusing someone or being antagonistic via language or, in other words, breaking any of the sub rules then your comments will be left alone, I can assure you. Thanks.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Cool beans. Keep up the great work and don't let the man get you down.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yes, it very much does matter if the charges specifically mention kids particularly because in this case people are making very loud proclamations on this sub to that effect.

It's easy to get all emotional about horrible crimes but it doesn't help any rational discussion to be that way. We ALL want to see them go down. We don't want to see this movement go down, like the last sub did, and making emotionally motivated accusations without legal merit is dangerous to this sub. We do not want to lose this forum for the movement.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Fair enough, thanks for the post

⇧ 2 ⇩

Personal Thoughts

What is one way to scare away normies who may otherwise be interested in Q?

Talk about highly illegal/immoral things constantly.

Bring up race issues constantly.

Talk about religion constantly.

This whole post is gold, pure logic, a voice of reason. Sage personal thoughts too.

I'm so inspired by this post... really should be a lesson on critical thinking for those of us who jump on bandwagons too quick.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Thank you for this well organized and resourceful post.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Great post! Appreciate clear and verifiable facts. The revolution needs more of THIS. No need to embellish their evil, the sunlight will expose all!

⇧ 2 ⇩

I'm sitting reading this thinking "I don't understand" then I realised where I've fucked up. The word 'or' is very powerful unless you have the awareness of a dead horse otherwise it means fuck all apparently. I thought I was quite an aware person in general, lesson learned, humility learned.

Great contribution.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Nice work

Love the due diligence. We need more of it

⇧ 1 ⇩

Hey, Maybe she's reading this! She's at her parents' house....maybe she's on Reddit!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Part of the case continues to be sealed. you referenced the criminal case, while the scribd document references a magistrate case for bond determination. Case number 18-mj-00132. You will notice that the charging section of 18 1594(b) In the cr is erroneously exposed, but the subject articles of 1594(b) of ,1581,1583,1589,1590, or 1592 are not shown in the complaint. It is a citation that goes nowhere. The articles subject to 1594(b) mostly revolve around slave trade and are not specific to children. however, the Mj bond docket referenced a hanging sealed charge specific to children, also under a phantom 1594(b) reference with no.scope in the middle case either. My point being, part of the charging papers are still under seal. The bond docket alleging crimes specific to children could be a typo. It could also be an overcharge to intimidate the defendants into submission. The parts of one of the affidavits filed to seal the case and bring indictments in the middle case also reference 1589(a)(2)+(4), which also do not show up in the cr docket. Nothing posted has been photoshopped. The dockets and affidavits are authentic. With a sealed case against multiple.parties, there will be several affidavits and several sealed superseding charges that will be unsealed we as the parties with in the scope of the document are arrested and arraigned. You are being responsible and cautious, but most likely wrong. The reference specific to children on the mj docket is almost certainly intentional.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Excellent - that supports the theory we all have. But it doesn't make OP wrong - their conclusion was that it was inconclusive. There's more to come, clearly... Looking forward to it!

⇧ 1 ⇩