Yeah I was thinking the same before I watched the video too. The lawsuit did not charge some crimes they could have, and instead focused on visa fraud and what the government calls human trafficking -- which in this case essentially meant people got in without the right visas.

Getting people into your country is actually based, so I don't give much credibility to what the government considers to be trafficking in this instance.

However, from the video, it seems King and his cohorts used threats to keep the people working for them, and made them pay absurd amounts of money for the visas and such. I know US visas are expensive, but BadEmpenada looked it up and such a work visa costs around 200$ and not the 1500 they were charging the workers.

[–] Tachanka@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The lawsuit did not charge some crimes they could have

because they planned on using him as a fake activist snitch

[–] CriticalResist8@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This happened afterwards, e.g. they seized his properties and then gave them back to him for no reason while he was in prison, which happened after sentencing.

Possibly the prosecution was in on it but I think what's more likely is they wanted to stick to the charges they could easily prove in court. This is common in the US from what I understand, and when he was facing 60 years already and is white, they probably didn't care to try and add a smaller charge on top of that.

[–] Tachanka@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago

no. watch the video. when a convict has their confiscated properties given back to them, the court usually documents the reason for doing so. Not only is it unusual, but the court kept their reasons for doing so confidential. Making the whole thing far more suspicious than usual.

65 years dialed down to 3.4 years + confiscated property returned for deliberately classified reasons + immediately become a left wing "activist" with opinions suspiciously in line with US foreign policy immediately upon leaving prison = SUPER SUSPICIOUS

[–] boboblaw@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yeah the US's definition of human trafficking is...not good. Like if this was on a much larger scale, it wouldn't even be illegal. JP Morgan Chase hiring thousands of visa workers and paying each one $10k/year less than comparable American-born employees? That's just the system working.

And that $10k reduction in pay is essentially the result of them holding deportation over your head. If the threats are made via boilerplate contracts then it's good and legal.

[–] CriticalResist8@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

I think to most people human trafficking implies something like the slave trade. But in legal parlance it's literally as small as getting someone into the country with the wrong visa.

If you hire someone and request say a tourist visa for them instead of a work visa, you could be guilty of human trafficking and visa fraud. And I'm no fed or snitch, what do I care about visa types.

Marrying someone so they can get a passport for example, if both people consent to it, is based.