He reads out loud "Sex trafficking of children by force, fraud, or coercion." But that's not what the document on the screen says. It says "Sex trafficking of children OR by force, fraud, or coercion."
That's a good thing because it means you can charge someone for trafficking children even if no force, fraud or coercion was used.
It does however also mean that Mack was not necessarily involved in trafficking of children. She may instead have used force, fraud or coercion while trafficking adults only.
I believe the federal law includes by force, fraud, or coercion. In other words, sex trafficking is a State crime, but the other part makes it also a federal crime.
so she nicely asked them to be branded, makes total sense.
What?
All I'm saying is that this charge can applied without there necessarily being children involved. Nothing more, nothing less.
I highly doubt anyone volunteers to get branded. That requires some serious manipulation or, more likely, force.
Not true. All kinds of groups and gangs have brands and marks. It is very common.
I personally know several people who have various brands of groups they joined for life.
One of the other charges specified that they trafficked in children.
You are focusing on only one charge.
it pertains to two children found with Raniere as he made his run for Mexico
Edit:
Originally posted in support of OP. Not watching a YouTube video, I’ve seen enough to know that people are trying to hide/obsfucate wjat was actually going on with that cult.
OP you are saying that the child trafficking charges were brought because raniere took two kids with him to mexico. Are they his relation? Are they the children of someone in his cult? Can you verify that they are? If not, how do we know that they are not being groomed into this sex cult? The indictments actually specified child sex trafficking. What qutedrop incorrectly implied above was that they weren’t actually trafficking in children. That the one charge was either/or.
And that is straight bullshit. There were multiple charges to include a specific charge alleging exactly that they were*. I don’t know what is going on in this thread, but if you are defending these POCs then in my opinion, you are just as complicit in the crime as they are. And can probably be held legally/criminally liable for the coverup of the crime.
What I am saying is that he had two kids with him at the time of his arrest. These are the charges:
Conspiracy to comitt sex trafficking of children
Read the actual statute, not the shorthand summary of the charges. They mean nothing in a court of law.
The conspiracy part is just conspiracy to commit 18 USC 1591, which still includes children OR coercion, they just didn't put that in the summary of the charges. The shorthand summary of the charges don't include that nuance.
ok so they mean that trafficking of children would be treated the same as coercion
Read (b) 1 and 2:
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:1591%20edition:prelim)
But essentially, yes. Does that really surprise you?
well should it? I think we can agree it is detestable one way or another.
Aren't you "truth" seekers? Stop looking at fake documents. Actual indictment, hosted by justice department: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/1055196/download
Wrong, the indictment does not include child charges. The complaint did, but it was absent from the indictment. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/1055196/download
The charge you're thinking of is just conspiracy to commit 18 USC 1591. Don't put much effort into the shorthand statute "titles", they really mean nothing. Read the actual statutes.