HOME  |  CONTACT  |  LATEST NEWS  |  LEGAL DOCUMENTS  |  DR YORK BOOKS VIDEOS  |  GALLERY  |  LINKS  |  DISCLAIMER  |  MEDIA ARCHIVE

 

 
               

 
 
 

 

Prosecutor's main witness recants her testimony.  click here to watch video
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Change of Venue

He explained that he did agree that there should be a change of venue.  Nonetheless, Judge Royal stated that he did not agree with the Defense's request to have the venue changed to the Atlanta area due to the amount of publicity this city has received.   After reviewing the motions and the minutes from the previous pre-trial hearings,  he concluded that the case should be moved out of the Middle District of Georgia completely, but did not mention exactly where.

 

Motion for Lack of Jurisdiction

There was a motion put in by Defense Attorney Frank Rubino for dismissal due to lack of Jurisdiction.  Judge Royal mentioned that he did not want to hear any argument on the motion, but he did have a few questions.  Before his questions were addressed, Prosecutor Richard Moultrie informed the court that he has not had a chance to argue the motion on jurisdiction and that he would like to have that chance.  Judge Royal reminded Moultrie that both parties argued this motion on June 30th and that he even read Dr. Malachi Z. York's statement.  Moultrie then informed the court that this particular motion had not been filed at that time.  Judge Royal said that he did not need to hear any further argument on the matter.  He then asked Rubino did this motion have any "factual basis," and Rubino says "YES", that he felt it did.  Rubino also stated that the defendant is an Indigenous Native American.  Judge Royal agreed and stated that he would rule on this motion in brief, using what he has already read. 

 

Psychological evaluation

Judge Royal then ruled on the motion for a psychological evaluation to make sure the defendant was competent to stand trial.  This motion was put in on July 7, 2003 A.D.  by Attorney Edward Garland and Attorney Manny Arora to have  their client evaluated due to Dr. Malachi Z. York's claim of sovereignty and being a secured party.  Upon Judge Royal's order, Dr. York was moved all the way to New York city to be evaluated by a Dr. William J. Ryan.  Prior to this, while Judge Lawson was still presiding, Dr. York had already been evaluated by a Dr. Sachy.  The order stated that Dr. York was only to be in New York for at least 30 days and at most 45 days.  However, Dr. York was transferred to New York on August 14, 2003 A.D. and was not returned to Jones County, Georgia until October 20, 2003 A.D.  This is way beyond 45 days; in fact it is 68 days.  It is important to point out that this is the reason Dr. York sought further representation from Attorney Frank Rubino, who upon hiring, put in motion on July 15, 2003 A.D. to withdraw the motion for psychological evaluation. 

 

The matter of how long Dr. York was held in New York was not addressed, except that the judge said that he had been there for about a month, which as we know is not the truth.  After reviewing the reports from both Dr. Sachy and Dr Ryan, Judge Royal ruled that Dr. York was definitely competent to stand trial.  He also mentioned that Dr. Ryans' report was more thorough and involved.  It was this report that was most favorable of requested to put on record that he felt his client was "alert, intelligent, competent and agreed to aid and assist us in any way." 

 

THE GUILTY PLEA - The UCC Code & Secured Party

Judge Royal then asked the Defense if they want to withdraw the guilty plea.  Rubino stated that they would like to withdraw the guilty plea and reinstate the not guilty plea. The judge inquired if Dr. York would like to withdraw the plea himself for the record.  Rubino said that he did feel that it would be in his client's best interest to speak.  Judge Royal then asked Dr. York did he want to withdraw his guilty plea, and Dr. York replied, "As a private citizen and secured party, I Accept this for value."  The judge did not quite understand and posed the question again, and Dr. York again stated "I accept this for value"  Dr. York also said,  "With all due respect your honor, I cannot answer that question because it would put me back in your system and I am a secured party.  This is why I have Rubino speak for me."  Rubino then spoke up and said "Defense believes that the UCC code has some jurisdiction over this court and I speak for him."  He reiterated that they would like to withdraw the guilty plea.  Judge Royal accepted this and the not guilty plea has now been reinstated. 

 

Motion by the Defense to Suppress Evidence

The motion by the Defense to suppress evidence was the next motion addressed.  Judge Royal asked the Defense what evidence did they want to suppress.  Attorney Arora said that it was only items 5-13.  He then asked for the opportunity to expand that due to a letter that was received from the prosecution stating that a new indictment would be filed on November 15, 2003.  The judge then asked Moultrie how much evidence was seized.  Moultrie said that quite a bit of evidence was seized, but they would only use a little of it.  It seemed that Moultrie was admitting to only having little evidence to support the prosecution's case.  It is believed by some that this is the reason for the new indictment - the Prosecution does not have enough evidence to support the current charges, so they will create more.  Judge Royal said that he would wait to rule on this matter until after the new indictment is filed. 

 

Rubino then made mention to a motion that was filed by the Prosecution that relates to the plea agreement (that Dr. York took while under duress)  that states if the defendant testifies, the prosecution will indict the Defense for perjury.  Rubino stated that this was a "veil threat," and how could they put him in a position where he has to choose between himself and his client.  Moultrie replied by saying that he was just following the law.  Judge Royal stated that he would rule on that before the next hearing.  Garland stood up and made reference again to the letter about the new indictment that he received on October 2, 2003 from Moultrie.  He handed the letter in for the judge to review and pointed out the statement "furnished with additional discovery."  Garland requested for an extended time to file motions due to they don't know what they'll be facing.  He also stated, "this is clearly new and not a superceding indictment, which changes the playing field procedurally."  Garland then mentioned that it changes the entire structure of where we are in this case, and asked for adequate time to properly prepare for new charges- "new motions, new issues, and new time needed."  Judge Royal said that they would have a conference once the indictment is issued and time will be discussed then. 

 

The last issue discussed was the Jury Questionnaire.  Judge Royal stated that a questionnaire was going out for jury pool and that he would allow Dr. York to submit questions to the questionnaire within the next two weeks.  He said that he has come up with some questions already and that he would give the defense a copy of what he came up with.  The hearing ended with Judge Royal stating that he would continue when the re-indictment occurs.

 

 

the above was an article taken from

 

We The People

Yamassee Native American Moors of the Creek Nation

Bureau of Indian Affairs Petition #208/1999

The United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors, Original Cherokee, Seminole, Creek, Shushuni, Washitaw Mound Builders

Wahee, Nuwaupia, Altamaha

www.UNNM.com  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

  Copyright 2009 Nuwaubian Facts.  All Rights Reserved.   www.nuwaubianfacts.com