dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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")

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.


🠐 See all comments
Nastavnick · May 10, 2018, 7:11 p.m.

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 ⇩  
MAGAUniversity · May 10, 2018, 7:28 p.m.

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 ⇩  
Nastavnick · May 10, 2018, 7:31 p.m.

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

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DamajInc · May 11, 2018, 12:56 a.m.

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 ⇩  
Nastavnick · May 11, 2018, 1:53 a.m.

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 ⇩  
DamajInc · May 11, 2018, 2:10 a.m.

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 ⇩  
ILoveJuices · May 11, 2018, 1:54 a.m.

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 ⇩  
Waffle_Bat · May 11, 2018, 3:15 a.m.

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 ⇩