0
10

[–] Oh_Well_ian 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

In fact, they are hyping the word SEX and insinuating NXIVM was some sort of 'Sex Club' where members were recruited and maybe, just perhaps, some against their will.

Examples >>

CBS Reporting: 'NXIVM leader Keith Raniere arrested, cult-like sex club'

NYTimes: Women branded with actress' initials in secret sex-slave club'

NYPost: 'Allison Mack Allegedly a Ranking Member of Sex Cult'

And of course, FOX had to throw in the Movie Star LESBIAN ANGLE: 'Allison Mack seemingly tried to recruit Emma Watson for alleged sex cult'

0
4

[–] Enigmatic_Continuum 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

This dude sounds so much like Warren Jeffs. Not exactly, but very similar. Very interesting that the media was all over him, but not Raniere. https://www.biography.com/people/warren-jeffs-20771031

0
9

[–] Oh_Well_ian 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Jeffs wasn't tied to the Clinton Foundation and the Bronfman Family ( tied to the Rothschild Family )

Jeffs was the typical 'Only Mormon's are perverts' story

Just like how Family Guy uses a geriatric in a walker as a stereotypical pedophile

0
2

[–] carmencita 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. When, I said to my husband, are they going to talk about the kids? When? They never did and they still have not. Also, they are not talking about the Rainbow Connection. Rainbow Cultural Garden. Again, Children. Also, they have not come out with any of the Really Big Names. TPTB.

0
7

[–] ESOTERICshade 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

I bet those two Yiddish Bronfman sisters skate and never face charges. They should go down the hardest because they bank rolled the whole deal.

0
2

[–] Food_Stamp 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

That would be anti-semitic though...

6
-5

0
6

[–] Pizzalawyer 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Thanks @13Buddha for taking the time and trouble to look up the indictment and statutes. How can anyone make sense of the laws without a PhD in English! Or do these laws even follow the rules of constructing a sentence. Ambiguity invites appeals.

But I have to agree with @Exposethecriminals and @AreWeSure that Sec. 1591 does not apply exclusively to children. Sec 1581 thru 1596 is a comprehensive law covering all kinds of human trafficking, including slavery, identured servitude, etc not just sexual trafficking and applies to children and adults. Sec. 1591 sets forth the punishment for these crimes.

My interpretation is where force, threats, coersion or fraud is used (as opposed to enticement ) OR if the victim is a child not yet 14, the minimum sentence is 15 years and if the child is over 14 the minimum sentence is 10 years. Where children are involved there is no need to.establish force, threats, fraud or conversion. This subsection was poorly drafted in my opinion. What is the minimum sentence for trafficking an adult without force, threats, fraud or coercion?

The prosecutor alleges that force was used which triggers the 15 year minimum sentence.

0
3

[–] 13Buddha [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Thanks, @Pizzalawyer, for this info. Guess we can only hope that justice will be served and that Raniere, especially, is behind bars forever.

0
4

[–] Pizzalawyer 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Sentences for each offence and/or each victim can run concurrently or consecutively. Let's hope for the consecutive outcome of 15 years per victim. The act of branding these women constitutes force which should negate any defense that these women came to him willingly.

0
3

[–] 12842500 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I don't have a law background, but while in my opinion Raniere and Mack surely trafficked children, I don't know if they have been charged with that, in this case. Just to mention, this DOJ article states 1591 applies to children and adults:

 

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-prostitution-children

18 U.S.C § 1591- Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion

When the victim is a minor, Section 1591 does not require proof that the defendant used force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion, or any combination of those means, to cause the minor to engage in a commercial sex act.

 

Yet in the Raniere Mack indictment, the federal prosecutor states force was used.

@pizzalawyer are you able to shed light on this?

0
2

[–] vYuNvmRUk8yn 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is what I thought as well, but it is incorrect.

The key here is the word in bold:

"sex trafficking of children OR by force, fraud or coercion."

As you will see, the indictment details the "force, fraud or coercion" part, not the "children" part.

This is not to say that the "child" part will not become a part of this later. The prosecutors did say they plan to file additional charges.

We do know that Raniere raped underage girls, originally from articles in the Albany Times Union. Those have been wiped from the net, but are detailed in early posts on FrankReport.com

If anyone has access to Lexis Nexis and can pull down the Albany Times Union articles by Odato, that will be epic. He interviewed dozens of members and victims.

0
1

[–] Cadster 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

what is the debunked tag about?

0
0

[–] 13Buddha [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

@Cadster, read comments for explanation.

0
0

[–] DeathToMasonsASAP 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Raniere is not being charged with traficking chilrden. That part is being covered up just as I said would happen when you virgins were popping the champaign. Cough, cough, Vindicator.

1
-1

[–] 13Buddha [S] 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

It's all about "legalese" and the ambiguity that is always present and the effective arguments that opposing counsel can present about the statute with a yes, no, maybe so result.

0
1

[–] Vindicator [M] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

13Buddha, I'm giving this the "Share!" flair. Anyone got memes for this?

@Srayzie, maybe one of your gifs? We need to beat the drum on this.

0
2

[–] Pizzalawyer 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

No, 13buddha was in error. A very confusing statute was misinterpreted. There are no children involved, at least not in the present indictments.

0
2

[–] Vindicator [M] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Ah! Thanks for that, Pizzalawyer. In that case, the headline and body of the post is inaccurate and we need to remove or flair it "Debunked". I will do the latter, so that folks see it and realize the nuance.

This seems to be happening more frequently, lately. Do you think you could ping all of us mods whenever you see this, so we avoid misflairing (as I have done twice, now, LOL)?

Cc: @think- @ben_matlock @EricKaliberhall @Honeybee_

0
0

[–] srayzie 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Like pizzagate gifs?

0
0

[–] albatrosv15 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

How did you find this?

0
1

[–] 13Buddha [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

@albatrosv15, please elaborate.

1
-1

[–] albatrosv15 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

How did you find this document? If the news are silent about this, how did YOU heard about it? DId you crawl through every document or something?

0
1

[–] 13Buddha [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Meaning?

1
-1

[–] albatrosv15 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

How did YOU find this document?

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)