At this point the judge said that he will consider the pretrial service report provided by the U.S. Probation Office, now what we would like to point out is the co-defendants of Mr. Malachi Z York had never been arrested for any violations or no bad history what so ever this report should have showed these facts ,so this would have been a plus for the defense Attorneys to point out to the court, and the honorable, should have at least awarded the co-defendants a bond at this time when he knew that the alleged juvenile victims was in the custody of child protective services.

The judge at this time said he would like to proceed with the arraignment, which is when the defense enters their plea of Guilty or Not Guilty an at this time the defense entered a plea of NOT GUILTY.

The Court asked for the Prosecution to state the allegations and the maximum penalty that these allegations impose for the record in the event that a conviction or a plea of guilty was enter.

Mr. MOULTRIE: states the case # 02-CR-27  And Names Dwight D. York ( Misnomer) and Kathy Johnson. Question: Where is the other co-defendants in this case why only these two defendants? The other defendants was still in custody, why wasn't the other co-defendants at this hearing, is it because the Government only wanted Mr. Malachi  Z York? Lets continue with the charges at this time in the case.

• Count 1 Both are charged with transporting and causing to be transported children under the age of 16 in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in criminal sexual activity in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). in addition that count also charges Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. That is the Federal Aiding and Abetting statue.

• Count 2 and 4  Mr. York alone is charged with transporting in interstate commerce or causing to be transported children under the age of 16 in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in criminal sexual activity in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a).

• Count 3  Mr. York alone is charged for the offense of traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in a sexual act with a juvenile in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b)  All of those offense carry a maximum sentence of 15 years, a fined of $250,000 or both, a period of supervised release of three years, and a mandatory assessment fee of $100 as to each count.

NOTE: THAT THESE ARE THE (4) ORIGINAL CHARGES, THIS IS WHY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  GOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE INTERSTATE COMMERCE NOT CHILD MOLESTATION, BUT WHEN YOU READ THE NEWS ARTICLES FROM THE MEDIA THAT WAS ALLOWED IN THE TRIAL COURTROOM YOU WILL SEE THAT THE GOVERNMENT TRIED A CHILD MOLESTATION CASE AND NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE CASE AND WHEN THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS BECOME AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC THEY WILL PROVE THESE FACTS, (AN A REMINDER THAT NO CHILDREN TESTIFIED AGAINST MR. YORK AND MS. KATHY JOHNSON,)  IS THIS WHY THE COURT WAS CLOSED AND THE TRANSCRIPTS SEALED? DID THE GOVERNMENT HAVE PROOF THAT MR. YORK AND KATHY JOHNSON TRAVELED WITH ANY OF THESE ALLEGED VICTIMS ACROSS STATE LINES OTHER THAN HEAR-SAY?

UNSEAL THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS SO THE WORLD CAN VIEW THIS CASE, NO CHILDREN TESTIFIED AGAINST MR. YORK AT THE TRIAL.

                                         SO WE IS THE GOVERNMENT STILL HIDING THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS?

Now the Honorable Judge HICKS proceeded to give instruction on the U.S. Probation Office Federal guidelines for sentencing in the event of a conviction, that the judge is required to go by. on Pg.6 line-8 through 16 the judge set in motion an open range for the prosecution to ADD new information ( Charges ) an as we continue we will show that is what happened in this case. Now on Pg. 7 Honorable HICKS has his clerk pass out this form from the Probation Office, then he explains that by signing this form is to acknowledge that all parties received a copy of these guidelines, defendants, councils and the court clerk, then all parties will receive a photocopy from the court clerk.

On Pg. 8 the estimated sentencing time was laid out, for Ms. Kathy Johnson in the event of a conviction or a plea of guilty, would be 70 to 87 months and for Mr. Malachi Z York 135 to 168 months to be served in prison in case of a conviction, OK lets do the math for Ms. K, Johnson 5 yrs.10 months minimum an 7 yrs. 3 months maximum and for Mr. York 11 yrs. 3 months minimum and 14 yrs. maximum Notice the minimum number of months for Mr. York 135 where did they get 135 yrs from ?

Now at this time All the Defendants entered a plea of NOT GUILTY, this is the day after the arrest very clear from all parties. Keep in mind that there is only 4 counts at this time for the federal governments case against these defendants.

Honorable HICKS continues to say instructions to all councils by saying that the defense have a time to file his motions and that if the defense wish to obtain all information pertaining to the order that the prosecution is required to do so. Why do the defense have a right to have access to everything pertaining to the order an not the affidavit and search warrant, when the law requires that the government provide all evidence against the defendants. What is wrong with this picture?

Make note that the Honorable HICKS is instructing the court on every procedure in the order of the court proceedings, we will show that this isn't the case when the trial judge is presiding (C, ASHLEY ROYAL) in other court proceedings before the trial.

On Pg. 11 Honorable HICKS is setting the temple for a speedy trial and addressing the closing of the court for this arraignment, the judge made a note about joint representation, It raises an issue on Rule 44(c) that by having two clients can have some pitfalls, the judge said this would be addressed on Monday 13, 2002.

Keep in mind that the 5 alleged children victims in this case were in the custody of DFACS, these children was taken on the day of the raid and all the other alleged victims was of the legal age and didn't live on the land for at lease 2-3 years or more or at the home of Mr. York, now this shows that the government arrested Mr. York and his co-defendants on what we call HEAR-SAY, NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE, NO ONE BEING ABUSED AT THE TIME OF THE ARREST, because the children had not been examined at this time and when the medical report became available no abuse was reported, as a matter of fact the children examiner gave the children a clean health report,  so where did the government get the probable cause to RAID the property of the Nuwaubians and the home of Mr. York, which is in Athens, Georgia not Eatonton, Georgia which is about 4 to 5 Counties away? SHERIFF HOWARD R SILLS OF PUTNAM COUNTY GEORGIA RECEIVED A LETTER FROM AN ANONYMOUS PERSON IN 1997, THE ANONYMOUS PERSON WAS LATER TO BE IDENTIFIED AS (PAULINE ROGERS) SO FROM 1997 TO 2002 THE GOVERNMENT DID NO MEDICAL TESTING ON NONE OF THE ALLEGED VICTIMS AN STILL HELD A GRAND JURY HEARING TO INDICT MS. KATHY JOHNSON, MR. MALACHI YORK AND THE OTHER CO-DEFENDANTS, WHAT WAS THE PROOF THAT THE GRAND JURY HAD TO INDICTED THESE DEFENDANTS WITH?                                                  HEAR-SAY

   JUDGE SPIVEY FOUND NO REASON TO KEEP THE CHILDREN IN THE CUSTODY OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES SO THE JUDGE RELEASED THE CHILDREN TO THEIR PARENTS, ONE OF THE FIVE ALLEGED VICTIMS WAS THE SON OF MS. KATHY JOHNSON WHO TESTIFIED THAT MR. YORK NEVER MOLESTED HIM OR ANYONE HE KNOWS, HE SAID THIS AT THE TRIAL WHEN TESTIFYING FOR THE DEFENSE NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

 YES THE ATTORNEY ADRIAN PATRICK FOR MR. YORK HAD TO CALL 3/4'S OF THE GOVERNMENTS WITNESS LIST TO TESTIFY AGAINST THE GOVERNMENTS ALLEGATION AGAINST MR. YORK. WOW

New Attorneys added to the defense's side MR. EDWARD T. M. GARLAND ( GARLAND, SAMUEL, LOEB, P.C.)

On Monday 13, 2002

The judge opens the court by stating the nature of this hearing ( Provisions of the Bail Reform Act of 1984)

and to put on the record about the Rule 44(c) concerning joint representation, saying the purpose was so all parties will be informed and that all I's will be dotted and all T's will be crossed, now this sounds like an experienced judge where as judge C ASHLEY ROYAL did not display in his hearings and the pretrial transcripts will point this out, lets continue, after covering the provisions for Rule 44(c) which the judge was concerned that the defendants know their Constitutional Rights and that it was the courts duty to do so, before they proceed, an by receiveing acknowledgement from the defense councils and defendants the court will continue.

The law requires that each Defendant be judge separately with the evidence presented, the judge said he would consider all the history of the Defendants as said early the Co- Defendants had never been arrested on no violations what so ever, what was the judge holding the Co-Defendants for?  We will see!!!

Honorable HICKS, stated that it is the Governments obligation and duty to present sufficient evidence to satisfy the Court, lets see if the government upheld this requirement. Now the judge said on record that he reviewed the pretrial service report and its contents  will be consider and any objections will be addressed, the judge asked, was the government ready to proceed an Mr. MOULTRIE said yes and so did the Defense's Council.

Mr. GARLAND for the defense pointed out that Judge HICKS was the judge that issued the search warrant and at this time the defense council would like to have access to the Affidavit and Search Warrant for review so the Council for the Defense could prepare a defense on those issues, which is the LAW, so when the Honorable HICKS refused Mr. GARLAND'S request, Was this not keeping the Defense blinded to the FACTS?  Mr. GARLAND goes on to say that the indictment does not show the alleged victims in this case and the Defense have a right to face their accusers by LAW and the Honorable HICKS would be using that information to either HOLD OR RELEASE the Defendants, the Judge goes on to say that the affidavit was reviewed and that the SEARCH WARRANT was issued because of that AFFIDAVIT, so why can't the DEFENSE REVIEW this AFFIDAVIT that cause these actions against Mr. Malachi Z York and Ms. Kathy Johnson? Mr. GARLAND said, I can't imagine in America that the prosecution could take the proposition that they're going to bring a case and not let a defendant know against whom he or she has allegedly committed the crime against. WOW!!!     

The Prosecution and the Court Sealed these Documents, and this is the 5th day that the Defendants was being held and didn't know who their accusers were and their Attorneys didn't know either.

How can you prepare for your defense without all the FACTS and most of all knowing who brought these charges against you?

Mr. MOULTRIE said the reason for the documents being sealed was to protect the confidential informants in this case, that many of whom are juveniles, what the public need to know is that all the juveniles in this case testified for the Defense, saying that they were never  molested by Mr. Malachi Z York or Ms. Kathy Johnson .

The Law is, you have a Right to face your accusers regardless of what age, Mr. GARLAND continues with saying the prosecution have no right to keep the defense in the dark in a child molestation case, and Mr. Garland pointed out that it was unusual to have a parallel child molestation case in the state, an he continues to say that you have thousands of child molestation cases in the State of Georgia a year where there is no Federal Jurisdiction assumed, and that there's something we don't know obviously going on here of some significance, that the Federal government has chosen to make a federal charge out of  a state child molestation case.

Mr. GARLAND goes on to say without this information from the affidavit the defense can't determine the nature of this case and the factors relating to the charges. How can we contest these issues today? These charges can be false and how can we know without reading the formal complaints that these charges are not just made up by the government? Mr. GARLAND states that if the prosecution said a agent will testify and that agent is the affiant on the search warrant, If that is the case then we are entitled to it, meaning the search warrant under the rules of discovery, 26.2 that will be a prior statement of the witness. The judge agreed with Mr. Garland an still denied his request.

DENIED

Victims can not be shielded from the defense it is the law to know who accused you and when these allegation happened.