Should Dr. Malachi Z. York Have Been Found Guilty
And Sentence To 135 Years In Prison?
TRUTH BE TOLD IS A SERIES OF PAMPHLETS DETAILING THE
TRUTH, CONSPIRACY, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND PROSECUTORIAL
VINDICTIVENESS INVOLVED IN THE CASE AGAINST AN INNOCENT
MAN, DR. MALACHI Z. YORK.
On May 2, 2002 the federal government brought an
indictment on Dr. Malachi York under the name of Dwight D.
York, which was not his legal name. The grand jury that
brought the indictment came from a tainted jury pool in
Macon, Georgia. Dr. Malachi York was originally indicted on four
counts of interstate transport of minors for unlawful
sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(a) ( Mann
Act Violation ) .
On January 23, 2003 ,
the government, re-focusing the allegations on Mann Act
violations added a criminal forfeiture claim, which fell beyond
the statutes of limitations. This information was returned in
anticipation of a plea agreement; however, the plea agreement
dissolved due to no fault of Dr. Malachi York.
Subsequently, On November 21, 2003 , a grand jury selected from
this condemned jury pool , returned the re-indictment disguised
as a superseding indictment against York. (Doc. 158, Superseding
Indictment). Macon's jury pool was deemed tainted by Judge C.
Ashley Royal who stated in pretrial hearings that Rev. Dr. York could not receive a fair
trial in this County. “...the court is satisfied that
without change of venue for the trial of this case
Defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trail in the
Macon Division of the Middle District of Georgia…” This
final indictment again attempted to address the
government's challenge of charging York with old,
outdated, and stale allegations of Mann Act violations (18
U.S.C. 2253) by creating a hazy aggregation of Mann Act
claims, claims of improperly structuring legal cash
deposits in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a) (3),
conspiracy claims, and racketeering claims based upon the
belief that a State of Georgia recognized church ministry
and Native American tribe constitutes an enterprise for
illegal racketeering akin to a drug cartel or an organized
On January 5, 2004, when Dr. York stepped into a
courtroom, filled with a callous judge prosecution and
jury, in the city of Brunswick, Georgia, and denied any
family support, he knew the stage was set for a
lynching. He had been through
blindfolded and hoodwinked, detained in deplorable
conditions, chained to cement beds, beaten, and stressed by
nonsensical psychiatric evaluations. He'd gone through
numerous prejudicial pretrial hearings, and was bamboozled
by his very own legal counsel. So what would make his
chances in this courtroom any different? The only thing he
had on his side was the truth, to reveal the truth. This
was the objective of his new attorney, Adrian L. Patrick.
However, in the course of the trial, in a malicious
attempt to hide the truth, Adrian Patrick was precluded
from properly defending his client by the judicial
misconduct of the court. The following are arguments and
objections posed by the Attorney Adrian Patrick's to the
unconstitutional treatment that Dr. York received
resulting in his unjustifiable conviction and sentence of
135 years in prison.
1). First Defense Attorney Adrian Patrick Argued That The
District Court Erred By Denying Dr. York's Motion For
Mistrial After The Government Exceeded
The Scope Of The Court Ordered Limitation Of The Rebuttal
The court allowed the re-opening of the government's case,
but with a strict limitation that M.F. the government
rebuttal witness could only state that the witness was
molested, with no details. The government violated this by
soliciting details. witness list
The following excerpt is a continuation of the
aforementioned discussion concerning “M.F.'s” alleged
The Court: And that's why I'm restricting that so much.
Mr. Patrick: But, it's still coming in. They should have
presented that “M.F.” during their main case. Your Honor,
they're reopening their case. That's not the purpose of
Ms. Thacker: We are rebutting your two witnesses, “S.W.”
and “S.T.”, and your legion of witnesses who said it
simply didn't happen and – .
Ms. Thacker: And I understand the Court's ruling that we
are going to be limited in that regard . . .
The Court: No. I'm just going to restrict you to the
fact that she was molested by him..
The Court: –
of rebutting the testimony of “S.W.” or others, I'm going
to allow that, but this is not a victim type testimony. You're
being restricted by that.
Mr. Patrick: When you allow them to get into the fact that
there was an act of molestation, she is a victim-witness,
and that's outside of the rebuttal, and we object to that
because they're just re-opening their case, and this is
not rebuttal testimony. They should have called her during
their case. But I'll rest on my objection.
Stephanie Thacker is asking the Questions and “M.F.” is
Thacker: Now, during that time period, did Dwight York
ever molest you?
MF: Yes, Ma'am.
Thacker: What happened after that?
MF: She took me to his house, and he began to fondle me.
He took my pants
off, and he began to fondle me.
Thacker: Anything else?
MF: No. He just began to fondle me and touching me.
Thacker: Did you touch him?
MF: Yes, his private parts.
Thacker: Did you tell anybody about this?
MF: He said not to tell nobody, so no.
Thacker: Was “S.W.” present when this happened?
MF: Yes, ma'am.
Thacker: Was this the first incident of sexual molestation
by Mr. York?
MF: Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Patrick: Your honor, I think the Court has ruled, and
counsel is going beyond what the Court has ruled counsel
could go into.
The Court: Well, I –
Mr. Patrick: And, Your Honor, we need to approach on an
The Court: Okay.
Your Honor you clearly informed the
government that the only thing the government could go
into was that she was molested and nothing else. She
clearly went beyond that, to get into details. I want to
make a Motion for a Mistrial at this point based upon
that, because the Court was clear as to what counsel could
get into, and she continued.
She even started talking
about another incident. The Court was clear your Honor and
I think this is grounds for a mistrial. It was already
tenuous because it was getting outside of the scope, and
the Court was clear to the government about this, and
what the Court stated.
The Court: Well, let me just tell you that I told her she
could give the testimony, the facts testimony related to
“S.W.”, and that's all she's done here. So your motion is
– Mr. Patrick: But, your Honor, she's talking about her –
The Court: . . . So your motion is overruled . . .
The court allowed the government to go beyond the scope of
questioning instructed by the court and even went so far
as to quantify the incident as the 1st time. This is the kind of
the court continued to display during the
entire trial. (see Judicial Bias and Misconduct).
Based on the fact that the government violated the strict
limitation that the Court put on this testimony, by prompting
the witness to testify to evidence that was in direct violation
of the judge's restrictive order,
Dr. York made a timely motion for mistrial which the judge
denied. Per the rule established in United States v.
Abdi,744 F.2d 1500 (11 th Circuit 1984) it was a manifest
necessity to declare a mistrial,
because once the new act of child molestation was in the minds
of the jury there was irreparable harm. The court did not allow Dr.
York to put “S.W.” on the stand to rebut what the
government's rebuttal witness, “M.F.” In the case of
United States v. Peay 972 F.2d 71, (4th Circuit 1992), the
court held as follows: “An important criterion for
properly reopening a case is taking care that reopening
does not “preclude an adversary from having an adequate
opportunity to meet the additional evidence offered.”
Thetford, 676 F.2d at 182. The court's reopening of the
government's case while at the same time denying
opportunity to impeach Seager's with Rainer's testimony
sustains Peay's assignment of error.
The judgment must be
vacated and the case remanded for retrial.”
The court's denial of the defense attorney's request to
call S.W. to impeach the government's rebuttal witness was
clearly erroneous and warrants that this conviction be
vacated and the case should be reversed or in the
alternative, the case should be remanded for retrial.
Attorney Adrian Patrick Also Posed The Argument That The
Evidence Was Insufficient To Prove Beyond A Reasonable
Doubt That Dr. Malachi York Committed The Acts Alleged In
Count 1 (1), Count 1 (2), Count 2 (B) (1) Racketeering Act
1, Count 2 (B) (2) Racketeering Act 2, Count 2 (B) (3)
Racketeering Act 3, Count 2 (B) (4) Racketeering Act 4;
Count 3 (A) And Count 3 (B) Conspiracy, Count 4, Count 5,
Count 6, Count 7, Count 8 - Transporting Minors In
Interstate Commerce To Engage In Unlawful Sexual Activity.
The government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of
the necessary elements of these crimes: specifically the
unlawful sexual activity and the purpose elements. There was
absolutely no evidence presented to prove that the travel in
interstate commerce was unlawful, NO State law was put into evidence during the State's
presentation of their case and there was insufficient or
no evidence or witness testimony that the purpose of the
interstate travel was for sex with minors. Jalaine Ward,
an agent for the FBI and lead officer in the raid of 404
Shadydale Road and the arrest of Dr. Malachi York, testified
in pretrial hearings that none of the victims testified
that they were transported for the purpose of illegal
sexual acts. Attorney Adrian Patrick questioned Jalaine
Ward about her detention hearing testimony on May 9 2002
Patrick: Read from "all right" down for us. Okay?
Ward: "Now in connection with the travel for the purpose
of having sex with a minor, do you have any witness who
says that the purpose in the travel was to have the
children have sex? The witness – my answer is, "The
witness that says that?"
Notes From Trial
Ward: And my Answer is, "No."
"You have no witness that says that?"
"Not that says that, NO."
And you didn't say anything about "H.W." at that time,
No . . .
Notes From Trial
Ward: She would be the witness that comes to mind.
And this is
At this point Jalaine Ward, the Federal Agent has
indicated that it is her belief that “H.W.” may fill this evidentiary void of providing a witness or any evidence
that the purpose of the travel from New York to Georgia
was for the purpose of unlawful sex; however, contrary to
this agent's belief, upon review of “H.W.'s” entire
testimony. There is no evidence that she provides
indicating that the purpose of the travel was for unlawful
sex with minors. Thus, there is no evidence that would
sufficiently support the federal jurisdiction over the
state acts of alleged child molestation. H.W. later
recanted her statement in a video taped session with her
attorney where she states that no molestation occurred and
did two written affidavits supporting this recantment. Threatened by the government with the loss of her children
H.W. was then forced to withdraw her recanted statement.
The government presented no witnesses that testified that
the purpose of the travel was to engage in unlawful sexual
activity. There was no proof that Dr. York actually
drove anyone of the alleged victims. There was no evidence
that Dr. York directed or caused anyone specifically
to travel for that purpose. In a
criminal case, the government must prove each and
every element of a charged offense beyond a reasonable
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). The Eleventh
Circuit has characterized this right as one of the most
fundamental guarantees in a criminal trial.
White, 39 F.3d 1154 (11th Circuit 1994).
Specifically, the Government failed to put into evidence
and prove the Georgia Law - Georgia Code 16-6-4 and 16-6-5
, any State Law, nor any law that was going to be or that
would show that the alleged sexual acts were unlawful.
Once again, the government put the Georgia Code Sections
in the superseding indictment [Doc. 158 pp. 2, 24, 25, 26,
29, 32, 34]. See United States v. Zemater 501 F.2d 540
(7th Circuit 1974), this court held as follows : “. . .
But even if the activity in Saigon violated Illinois
statue, it did not violate the Travel Act. Subsection (b)
of the federal statute requires the acts committed after
the travel to be in violation of the laws of the state “in
which they are committed.” Since Congress could have
punished travel merely . . .” “That Congress did not
intend to exercise its full constitutional powers in the
area of local law enforcement is demonstrated by the
wording of the Act and specifically by use of the word
“thereafter” As the Senate Report on S.1653 states: . .
.to come within the provisions of the bill some activity
in furtherance of a racketeering enterprise, subsequent to the
performance of the travel must take place . .
Although not directly on point, this case is used as support for Dr. York's contention that there must be
proof presented by the Government during its case that the
sexual activity “would be” unlawful or “is” unlawful if
committed in the destination state. The government
completely failed to do this. The government simply relied
on the court to instruct the jury on the Georgia law at
the end of the entire case; thereby, circumventing their
obligation and burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt
of each and every element of the crime. The government
essentially relied on the court to meet their burden of
proof through its jury instructions. In this entire case,
the jury instructions are the extent of the evidence of
proof that the alleged sexual acts where unlawful.
However, the jury instructions are not evidence.
First, it is necessary that the government prove what the
law “is” or what the law “was” at the time of the alleged
offenses. Next, it is necessary that the government must
prove that this law was violated or was going to be
violated in the destination state. As referenced above, 18 U.S.C. Section 2421- Transportation generally and
18 U.S.C. Section 2423 (a) - Transportation of minors, the
state law is a necessary and material element, in order to
prove the “unlawfulness” of the sexual activity. In the
case at hand, that proof would have been the Georgia and
Florida law. This element is necessary to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt. It is necessary because if there was no
crime that would be violated in the state of destination -
then there is no violation of the law. Without the
government being required to prove this necessary element
beyond a reasonable doubt, the government would have the
freedom to criminalize “any travel with a minor,”
including parents with their children, uncles with
nephews, etc. Even if you look at this case in the light
most favorable to the government, the government
completely failed to provide any evidence and completely
failed to meet its burden of proof on this issue.
indicated by Juror II when she stated that she did not
want to send an innocent man to jail.
This is why the
verdict was originally hung. Then Judge C. Ashley Royal
appeared to have instructed the juror on their decisions.
When the jurors returned, Juror II changed her decision to
3).The District Court's Denial Of New Counsel's Motion For
Extension Deprived Dr. York Of A Fair Trial And Due
Process Of Law.
On December 30, 2003 , six days before trial, the court
permitted previous lead counsel, Edward T.M. Garland and
Manubir Arora, to withdraw from the case; thereby, leaving
new counsel Adrian L. Patrick , as lead counsel with 6
days to prepare. In attempting to review the 20 months of
activity in the case, including, indictments, superseding Indictments, discovery information, motions, and court
orders; new counsel requested an extension in the trial
date so that he could adequately prepare for trial. The
district court refused and trial proceeded as planned. The
court's failure to grant an extension, given the
deprived York of his right to counsel, due
process and a fair trial.
4). Dr. York Had Received Ineffective Assistance Of
Counsel From Ed Garland And Manubir Arora From The Time
They Came On As His Defense Attorney.
They never pursued the federal court lack of jurisdiction
over Dr. York in order for them to even indict
Dr. York and send him to trial.
Note: Ed Garland did not file an appeal for Dr. Malachi York
bond hearing, Garland's words to Dr. York was you and I know they are
racist and they will not give you a bond That's why you can't find a motion for an appeal for the
detention of Dr. York in the bond hearing and goes to show you that these
attorneys were not representing our Maku Chief Black Eagle in
this unjust case.
They tortured Dr. York by subjecting him to sleepless nights of
psychiatric evaluation and interrogation. They lied to Dr. York and told him that over 35 victims
had come forth to testify that he allegedly molested him.
They dangled the threat of 1000 years imprisonment if he
did not take a plea agreement of fifteen years imprison
which he was assured would be granted. He was told by Ed
Garland and Manubir Arora that the State and Government would
release co-defendants if he took the plea agreement because they
only wanted Dr. York. Dr. York was
taunted by Ed Garland and Manubir Arora who told him that his co-defendants were also suffering the same type of
torturous treatment and deplorable conditions that he had
Acting against the best interest of their client Edward
T.M. Garland and Manubir Arora requested that Dr.
York receive psychiatric evaluation to cover up their
ineffective assistance of counsel.
Dr. York was sent
to the Metropolitan Correctional Center , where he
received the worst of his torturous treatment, being
chained to cement beds, hoodwinked etc. According to Rule
11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure “...If a
prosecutor, Judge or defense attorney thinks that a
defendant may not be competent to stand trial because
he/she cannot understand or assist in his/her defense, they may
request that the court order a psychiatric evaluation of the
Dr. York had already
gone through two evaluations prior to them ordering the
third. The second was the night before he took his plea
agreement. Rev. Dr. York was questioned and interrogated
all night prevented from getting any rest and then dragged
into court to face a plea agreement.
Ed Garland never prepared for trial, never questioned or prepped
any witnesses for Dr. York's defense, yet he acted as his lead
attorney. On countless occasions Ed Garland would hold in
chamber hearings with court without the Dr. York's knowledge.
His communication with Dr. York were minimal, visiting Dr. York
less than five times over the two years of Dr. York's
detainment. And as the trial drew near, instead of
fighting for his client Ed Garland went on vacation.
5). Dr. York Also Continued To Receive Ineffective
Assistance Of Counsel.
The post-trial counsel, Jonathan Marks, was ineffective
in withdrawing Dr. York's motions,
Adrian Patrick, for judgment of acquittal and motion for new
trial without the consent of Dr. York and with no
sound legal basis. This has a negative and adverse impact on
Dr. York rights, including but not limited
to the ability of Dr. York to challenge the sufficiency of
the courts decision as well as other relevant issues.
reasonably objective lawyer would havewithdrawn the
motions because there was no rationale basis to do so.
Above is a Red Flag
6). Attorney Adrian Patrick Also Argued That Dr.
York's Sixth Amendment Right To A Jury Trial Was Denied
When Dr. York Was Sentenced Based Upon Facts Not
Reflected In The Jury Verdict.
After Dr. York's conviction at trial, the district
court improperly relied upon the United States Sentencing
Guidelines to determine Dr. York's punishment. The
use of the guidelines served to increase York's punishment
based on facts that were never submitted to a jury for
proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Dr. York was denied
his sixth amendment right to a jury trial when the
district court took these steps and increased his
punishment based on facts beyond what was reflected in the
Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531
(2004). B . The recent Supreme Court decisions in U.S. v.
Booker, Supreme Court Case No.: 04-104 and U.S. v. Fanfan,
Supreme Court Case No: 04-105 affirmed the Blakely
decision and essentially stated that the sentencing
guidelines are unconstitutional and that the invalid parts
can be excised and the remainder should be advisory, but
The court ruled that Dr. York should be sentenced
based on evidence that was never presented to the jury. According to the PSI report, Dr. York received a
specific offense level for R. H. who never testified in court
and J.E. who also never testified in court. He also received
high offense levels for alleged victims who testified that they
were never molested. Now if we are to adhere to the testimony of
those that alleged they were molested to support Dr. York's indictment then we most exercise
this same standard with those that avow they were never
molested. The testimony of those alleged victims were not
based on evidence or fact, because A.N. testified in court
that she lied to the grand jury, K.E. lied to investigating
agents and on the stand, H.W. recanted her statement and
then re-recanted. Pauline Rodgers whose anonymous letter
supposedly instigated the investigation admitted that she
wrote the letter out of anger and that it was not true.
Thus the testimony of the alleged victims were not based
on evidence or fact yet the prosecution utilized their
testimony to support an indictment against Dr. York.
Therewith the likewise standard should be utilized when
judging Dr. York's sentence. Over eight witnesses
testified that nothing happened. Dr. York sentencing,
based on evidence not presented to the jury, is thus
7). Dr. York's sentence was void because Dr. York was
sentenced under Federal Sentencing Guidelines that have
been ruled unconstitutional as applied in this case.
They use the most recent version of the Sentencing
Guidelines at Dr. York's sentencing violates the ex post
facto clause of the U.S. Constitution. Dr. York's
punishment was increased based on the use of the most
recent version of the guidelines instead of the version in
effect at the time Dr. York allegedly committed the
charged offenses. Therefore, he must receive a new
sentencing so that the court may employ the appropriate
version of the Guidelines.
Note: for legal reason the names of the alleged victims and
witness have been redacted