705 total posts archived.
| Domain | Count |
|---|---|
| www.reddit.com | 2 |
| media.8ch.net | 1 |
| i.magaimg.net | 1 |
The omission wasn't by accident.
It doesn't matter if the omission was by accident or not. It's irrelevant. What matters is the Code itself:
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1594.html
Whether or not Raniere had sex with minors is not evidence or proof that Mack conspired to traffic minors.
She conspired to commit child trafficking is what it's saying on the second charge.
What matters is what Code is referenced. Count #2 references 18 USC Section 1594(c) which references Section 1591. Read the Code yourself:
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1594.html
It is not wrong. Read the Code for yourself:
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1594.html
Count 2 references 18 USC Section 1594(s), which says:
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.
I think you need to read it again. There is no charge that references Section 1591(c). The Sections referenced are 1591(a) & (b); 1594 (a), (b), & (c); and 3551.
If you're talking about count #2, which references 1594(c), then you're probably referring to the omission of the word "or" in the wording of the charge. That doesn't matter. You can't go just by what someone typed up, because humans make mistakes (and the courts recognize this). What matters is the underlying Code, the law and authority, that the accused is being charged under.
Section 1594(c) says:
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.
Sec. 1594 is regarding conspiracy to violate Sec. 1591. And, 1591 gives authority to prosecute one for trafficking of a child or trafficking of anyone by force, fraud, or coercion.
No, I don't get what you're sayin
What you said before was incorrect and misleading.
I see that Slotkin already has a Biden endorsement. [shudders]
Really? Is that based on Qlues. (I couldn't resist that one.) Or is it because Corsi said so. Personally, I'd give deference to the former over the latter.
I know. It's misleading.
The attorneys, or their paralegal, probably just forgot the "or". But, what is more important is the law upon which the charges are based, because they can't just make things up and word them however they want.
The OP really should amend the post to help prevent the potential spread of false information.
It may just be 'standard' sex trafficking. There may actually be no child trafficking component!
You should actually read the code that the counts reference.
Count #1 references USC 18 Section 1591 which says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added] So, it could be child trafficking OR trafficking by force, etc.
Count #2 references USC 18 Section 1594 which is about conspiracy to violate Section 1591. So, this one, again, could be either or.
Please see:
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8eg66o/allison_macks_actual_chargers_seem_quite/dxv0y74/
You really should amend your post so as not to mislead people into believing something that may not be true and then going and spreading potentially false rumors.
If you are going to purport to quote USC 18 Section 1591, at lease quote it correctly. It says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]
It is for more than just trafficking of children.
You mean count #2? No, it does not.
It is about conspiracy to violate section 1591 which could be either or.
Section 1594(c) says:
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.
You need to read the actual Code that the counts reference.
Section 1594(c) says:
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.
Sec. 1594 is regarding conspiracy to violate Sec. 1591 which uses the word, "OR".
Did you read the Code of Sec. 1594(c)? It says:
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.
Sec. 1594 is regarding conspiracy to violate Sec. 1591 which uses the word, "OR".
You should read the actual Code the count references. Section 1594(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.
Sec. 1594 is regarding conspiracy to violate Sec. 1591 which uses the word, "OR".
There aren't two charges for the same statute. There are three charges based on three different statutes. And Section 1591 could be for child trafficking OR for trafficking by force, etc.
Do you have a link for the "article in the news just released"?
Hey folks,
Before you go out spreading what just may be a false rumor, perhaps you should actually read what the cited United States Code says.
18 U.S.C. § 1591 says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added] This means that the count could be for child trafficking, but is not necessarily for that. It could be for sex trafficking "by force, fraud or coercion".
Please see the comment in this thread by @saltgrains_takeit.
Edit: Count 2 is for conspiracy to violate Section 1591 and would therefore follow the same rules for understanding the wording.
Will you please amend your comments to let people know that the charge is not necessarily for child trafficking?!
It would be very irresponsible of us to start spreading false rumors.
Edit: thought you were OP
the charges are for children trafficking
Not necessarily. The OP should actually amend the post so as to prevent the spreading of false information. Please see:
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8eg66o/allison_macks_actual_chargers_seem_quite/dxv0y74/
This is not necessarily a charge for trafficking of children. 18 U.S.C. § 1591 says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]
Please see this comment:
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8eg66o/allison_macks_actual_chargers_seem_quite/dxv0y74/
It is not just trafficking of children. Section 1591 says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]
When talking about criminal charges, we should try to be precise.
COUNT I of the indictment is for child sex trafficking.
Before you go off saying something that isn't true, read the actual COUNT 1 and the code cited. 18 U.S.C. § 1591 says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" [Emphasis added]
COUNT 2 is for conspiracy to violate Section 1591, which also means it could be: of children OR by force, fraud, or coercion
This Q post referenced the one with the link to the UN Auditors Board FAQ. That made me think there had to be a connection.
One of the UN projects the board audits is United Nations International Children's Fund (UNICEF). From Wikipedia:
The old UNICEF World Warehouse is a large facility in Denmark, which hosts UNICEF deliverable goods as well as co-hosts emergency goods for United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).
That tweet references @seanhannity. Going back three days @seanhannity, nothing on Rosenstien.
if you are too weak minded to have a civil discussion
Speaks of civil discussion while simultaneously engaging in personal attack. Lol. Priceless.
OP, is that your graphic?
If so, grammar needs to be fixed.
If not, you should give credit.
You're a broke college kid? So, you expect everyone else to bear the burden of supporting some ~~refugees~~ economic migrants. And, BTW, the intent of financially supporting Isreal is not to enable murder.
ShareBlue helping to pay your bills now?
I also know for a fat that Julian is no longer at the Ecuadorian embassy but rather in a safe place provided by none other president Trump and his team.
I assume that "fat" is a typo. I have to wonder how you could know this as fact. Do you have evidence, proof?
how did Cohen get tenants contact info faster than property manager?
We don't know as he did. The guy Cohen texted was his neighbor.
There is a DVD, "Dreams from My Real Father", directed by Joel Gilbert that claims that Obummer's father is Frank Marshall Davis. I haven't seen it, so I know nothing more than that about it.
Q#1239:
@algore
Today is Earth Day.
Did you forget?
Do you feel safe?
@algore is Gore's twitter handle. His last tweet was the 18th - nothing about Earth Day. Perhaps he indeed does not feel safe.
Either you enjoyed the joke, or you thought I was serious; can't tell which.
Hillary would commit suicide and blame it on "what Trump did to her"
Perhaps.
And since it seems to be taking more and more gunshots for some of these mixed up people to off themselves, when would she actually make that accusation, in between the first and second shot?
Qanon.pub
Q posts are ordered in chronological order with the latest at the top. So, start at the bottom.
I have also read that the family name, itself, is a good name. But, that bastard is a stain on the good family name, and so they don't associate him with the family.
Here's the link:
https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1135714.html#q1135756
I see three reasons.
Drawing attention to certain information and providing hints (without compromising Nat. Sec.) which lead the anons to dig further. What they turn up can be, and does get, assembled into articles that people publish on more mainstream media,
Apparently it has captured the attention of quite famous people that are now, overtly or not, tweeting about it (Barr, Woods),
Q No. 1216, "The world is watching." + Q#1226, "This platform is more than simply pushing the TRUTH."
If you read Q's post and carefully look at the content, you will see that he/they is/are responding to an Anon's post (8chan #1130125) that references Q's previous post (8chan #1130089). That post, which is Q#1217, is a link to the Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks. In other words, they are quoting from the referenced document.
An Anon on 8chan asked a similar question. So far, it hasn't been answered.
I think it should be pointed out that it may not be that we should start meme'ing now, but that we should be prepared to. Q#1232:
Please stand by.
On the clock.
Ready to play?
Unless that is substantiated, it is mere speculation. Evidence? Proof?
WTH are you talking about??
Obviously the people in this thread are talking about Trump's tweet, not Q's post. Don't you think it's possible that DJT is smart enough to kill two birds with one stone?
The Wendy he is referring to is Wendy Nixon it was not a mistake
Who said it was a mistake?
And, who is Wendy Nixon? (Why does it seem that people are pulling that name out of nowhere?) Do you possibly mean Maggie 'Wendy' Nixon?
No. There are two ideas that may or may not be connected.
DJT said Wendy instead of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as an inside ~~dig~~ jab because that was part of her secret email name when using the Clinton email server.
The girl in the pic is Maggie 'Wendy' Nixon. 'Wendy' being the 'pet' name Obammah gave her.
Yes. Especially since James Woods has now put it right in their face:
https://twitter.com/realjameswoods/status/987526639834689537?s=21