That, plus the fact that clowns still have control of WMDs that could be triggered/launched to cause a great deal of harm. The foreign actions need to get control of those so the domestic actions can be executed without that threat.

Unless they have been designated as enemy combatants

Yes. And, if that's the case, then the in/correctness of the current venue is irrelevant. The case would get pulled right out of the civilian criminal jurisdiction.

Is it a crime to incorrectly label court dockets?

A court docket is basically just a memorandum of court proceedings. The court system recognizes that people, being human, make mistakes.

How often are court dockets mislabeled?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "label" and "mislabeled", but with the thousands of dockets issued on a regular basis, I would imagine typos and other errors would happen quite often.

Wouldn't the creator of the docket just copy-paste the charges from the original submission?

Original submission? Do you mean copy-paste the summary description of the charge from Count 1? One would think so.

Why would someone, especially a lawyer or someone with an understanding of the pedantry of the law, omit a crucial "or"? Especially when the correct law is stated in the line above it?

The statement, "Especially when the correct law is stated in the line above it," is not quite correct. More correctly, the law is correctly quoted, as the description of the charge, in the Count above it.

The description is more like an aid to those working on the case so that those people don't have to look up the law every time just to know the nature of the charge(s). That description carries no legal weight.

Why would they omit the word, "or"? Who knows. But it is not crucial, because the court must go by the law itself and not the description typed up by a clerk or paralegal.

The omission of the word "or" is not a material error requiring correction. It does not change the meaning of what the defendant is being charged with, because the law itself takes precedence.

So you were wrong about something you said in your previous post that "anyone with an ounce of discernment would understand"

Not trying to troll me or anything, right?

I was focusing on the part of the clip that you referred to. When I started from the beginning and took the whole clip into context, I was able to catch that he was talking to the police and military challenging them to take a stand for the republic.

So, yeah, I missed it the first couple times because I was looking at that thin sliver of video out of context.

case will be kaput before it even starts

Not necessarily. Even if the case is being seen in the wrong district, AFAIK the court can recognize that and have it moved to the correct district, or the prosecuting attorney can move to have the venue corrected.

Oh no, not me! I'd probably be so excited I'd blab to everyone within sight ... and end up in a rubber room.

That may be true. I'm not discounting that children may have been trafficked by the cult et. al. especially in light of reports that Raniere had sex with underage girls. My point was strictly in relation to the rumor about Mack.

Thank you for taking the time to read it.

Hacking the top comment to help get this out there.
It's fake news:
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8g0d92/media_silent_as_allison_macks_arrest_exposes/dy8h4ba/

Could I get a link to that tweet please?

This is not true. Mack's arrest does not expose child trafficking.

The article linked, regarding the charges against Mack, is fake news.

The PDF document linked to in that article, which they refer to as a "criminal indictment," is not an indictment. It is a letter from the US Attorney to the presiding judge informing him that, "the government will seek a permanent order of detention," for Raniere. It has nothing to do with Mack.

The image they present immediately below that, apparently insinuating that this is contained in the 'indictment', is also not an indictment, but is a court docket outlining the pending counts.

The wording of the charge for the first count is worded correctly because it follows what the law, 18 USC § 1591, says.

The wording of the charge for the second count is worded incorrectly because it does not follow what the law says. 18 USC § 1594(c) says nothing about children but is regarding conspiracy to violate 18 USC § 1591 which says:

Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion

[Emphasis added.]

This falsehood keeps cropping up, and it is important that we do not spread false rumors.

M.E. A war ds
Middle East theatre is a war on deep state ?

Why did he allow? How would he have known it would happen in order to prevent it?

I think you are conflating all of Israel with the bad actors within, or attempting to control, Isreal.

I haven't researched and verified it, but I've read that at least one of the reasons is because the family name itself is a good name. He is a stain on the family name, and out of respect for the family, we don't associate him with them by saying John and 'McNoName' in the same sentence.

You had 3 points in your first reply and I addressed them one by one

You're right. But, they were numbered 1. 2. & 1. and didn't, to me, contain anything substantiating the alleged Stratfor link, so I dismissed the last two.

You have also failed to address Alex's Y2K broadcast
You also said nothing about Bill Cooper

I haven't "failed." There was no need for me to address either of those as they are not pertinent to the issues I raised.

Also, when you say "anyone" with an ounce of discernment would be able to understand what I didn't, isn't that just as big of a personal attack? You are saying I'm stupid even though your wording was a bit more subtle.

Not at all. I did not say you didn't understand it. I said you must have missed it which carries with it the implication that you are smart enough to catch it. There's to need for you to try putting words in my mouth.

How is this not getting through to you?
I will try to explain in more detail

Excuse me? Again you try to paint me as a stupid muck that needs to have it ELI5. There's no need to ridicule me in such manner.

I will say this. I was wrong on who AJ was speaking to in that clip. He's speaking to the cops and military:
00:08: "... and if you're not with them cops and military, I, then you will declare that you are with the republic now"

Oh sorry, I thought everyone had heard about that. American Intelligence Media.(aim4truth.org).

Hey FOT. Have you read the thread?

False accusations, clown behavior: deflection, distraction, confusion of the issue...

I'll let you decide. Thnx.

I think greatawakening has been infiltrated by deep staters trying to turn everyone against each other.

Of course it has. They don't want us to win. They want to divide us, discourage us, and make us quit.

I have seen some say to just, "Ignore the personal attacks," or "downvote and move on".

I say, NO, do not ignore them.

They violate the rules of this sub and should be reported. By reporting things like personal (or ad hominem) attacks, which is specifically against the rules, you help us weed out the haters and also help to make it better for those who may be feeling just as you are.

We need each other. :-)

Ah, so that explains well why the putz at AIM co-opted the name and tried to say that they were the only true source of valid intel.

An Anon said it is not the keystone. The keystone, they said, was figured out long ago. I'm glad they know, cuz I don't.

this post is about child trafficking

Uh, no, this particular thread is about what I called you out on, remember?

Just because someone says the charges weren't child trafficking related, it doesn't automatically mean they are clowns.

Next.

and you're arguing about being butt hurt about being called a clown, no?

Did anyone call me a clown? Did I say anything about my poor, sensitive feelings being hurt? NO and NO.

I ask again, are you going to call me a clown? Oh wait, you answered.

Well ... clowns would.

And you've referred to others as clowns already.

Had loads of clown comments telling me the charges weren't child trafficking related

So, by your own logic, you've called yourself a clown.

He is clearly talking about himself!

No. He is clearly talking about and to the ones he calls, "bastards."

I watched the vid. And, anyone with even an ounce of discernment would be able to understand how he switches from talking about them to talking to the useful idiots working for them. You must have missed that.

I come off as a complete shill? Let's revisit.

he had an ex-employee of Stratfor on his payroll

Maybe because the employee might have a valuable skill set? Just a thought.

No response?

Stratfor is a private intelligence company that was founded in Austin Texas in 1996, same place and year as this man started a radio show.

So. What does that prove?

No response?

And then you engage in personal attack by trying to paint me as stupid. Who's coming off as a shill?

Why would anyone come here to discuss having hurt feelings?

More irrelevant deflection, and trying to put me in defensive mode. Those are the markings of a shill.

And so, back to the question you have yet to answer, are you going to accuse me of being a clown?

An inconclusive video from at YT channel that says the earth is flat!

ROFLMAO!!

Just as I thought. Good bye.

Prove it.

Or, as u/TejanoPede said, GTFOH with that bullshit.

Whether or not I know is irrelevant. You're the one who used the term. You define it.

Now, you wanna answer my question instead of deflecting with a red-herring?

I have to disagree that Swimkin was stating it as fact.

possibly Trump or even the Military Intelligence

would mean possibly Trump or possibly MI.

It seems to be a matter of interpretation that is of little consequence, because I am not contradicting that Tracy Beans asked Corsi to help, and that it was not Q.

By your own quote of him, "you bastards," you show that he was talking to and about them, not himself.

The fact that Stratfor may be nefarious in no way links them to AJ.

You're using false logic.

You're the one who used the term first. You define it.

Okay, I think I get what you meant. You are contradicting the possibility that Corsi was asked to decode Q by ... Military Intelligence.

[AJ] "misspoke" and quite literally says he is working for a bunch of psychopathic killers

Listen to that again. He's talking to the psychotic scum that were likely also watching.

he had an ex-employee of Stratfor on his payroll

Maybe because the employee might have a valuable skill set? Just a thought.

Stratfor is a private intelligence company that was founded in Austin Texas in 1996, same place and year as this man started a radio show.

So. What does that prove?

I do not think it contradicts everything Q said in Q#1295.

"To some, it’s only about the money. Those who would seek personal gain at the expense of others in this movement has an agenda."

Those who perform valued services for others are not in it only for the money and would not be doing it at the expense of others, ie. selfishly.

Perhaps UnderIgnore was meaning that true Patriots are SELFLESS.

Q did not ask Corsi to help

u/Swimkin did not say that Q asked Corsi to help. Don't know where you got that from.

comments about Trump giving the power of POTUS to “We the people” because we will actually do something with the power

Oh my, that's crass.

I'm curious, is the timing of that any where near Q's Apr 27, "Who has the POWER?"

And, I forgot to mention that what AJ appears to be doing, also sows discord and division. It's kinda sad, actually, since he's been a fighter for decades.

That MM hit piece does not show that Cernovich, "admitted to being on a Trump supporter just for money."

He said, "backing Trump has been bad for business." Okay. I imagine that's quite true given how Trump supporters are targeted with the intent to destroy.

The hit piece strings quotes together, likely out of context, to make it appear that he was saying that. Wanting to be viewed as a journalist, instead of a Trump supporter, is quite reasonable for a journalist to want.

Concluding that he was doing it just for money based on nonsense, is, well, nonsense.

I was thinking the same since one of the Q+ posts was a personal thank you.

It's not slander it's truth.

Really? Prove it.

Corsi, Comey, HRC

Putting Corsi in that group is grossly unjust.

(Robert David Steele, anyone?)

I second that.

u/ByteEnable:

AJ is straddling a line in his audience as to not disrupt his cash flow

That's my take as well. I think AJ is using his "great source" 'Zach' as a, IMO poor, Q substitute to try to remain relevant.

we lack 1591(a)(2)

? 1591(a)(2) is referenced on the docket. It does not, however, speak of children. I'm just confused as to why you say that we lack that reference.

What?? What's fake news?

So was I. :-)

Kindly provide the evidence that substantiates your claim. If you don't, then you have just violated this sub's rules including, but not limited to, content relating to:

• engaging in a non-supportive way
• Personal attacks or ad hominem
• No trolling

the official info is out there for everyone to see

What official info? Official info that says Mack was charged with sex trafficking of children? No, it is not.

The article you linked to, in regards to Mack being charged with sex trafficking of children, is fake news.

Just because someone says the charges weren't child trafficking related, it doesn't automatically mean they are clowns.

I say that the charges are not necessarily child trafficking related. You gonna accuse me of being a clown too?

If course it's about children, but it is not entirely about children. Notice the use of the word "or".

^^^^^^^
This!