In this video the prosecution names the witness list, what we would like to point out is the naming order

A video surfaced on YouTube where Dr. Malachi Z. York excepted a plea bar-gain.

Ques: Where did this video originate from? Who shot this footage?

Ques: Who allowed this footage to appear on www.YouTube.com? and Why was it allowed?

Games the government played in this illegal case against Chief Black Eagle of the Yamassee Native American Moors, the tactics used and the out come of this case shows the evils this government will do and have been doing to INNOCENT PEOPLE for ages, we will keep fighting and exposing the lies that the U.S. Government have been telling the public like, Dwight D York this is not the name of our Chief and never was his name

 What's interesting is, if you have ever been inside the Putnam County courthouse, located in Eatonton, Georgia, the video footage was being shot at right side of the Judge. this would be your witness box or your jury box. The way it was shot and where it was shot had to have official clearance. Ask yourself, is this a modern day lynching for Putnam County? Putnam County is known for having the most black hangings in the state of Georgia. Listen to this term, The Tar Baby Race. It was mentioned in the book by David Moreland "Chicken come home to roost, that they would hot tar black people and throw feathers on them. This is what this term represents. 

The Judge closed the courtroom and transcript to protect the so called victims.  But in this video they revealed all of the government witnesses first and last name.  This video is a contradiction to their so called intention to closed the courtroom to protect the alleged victims. 

Why is the State Judge Calling Mr. York in this court proceeding Malachi Z York,

 if his name is Dwight D, York

Because that's Mr. York's REAL Name ( Malachi York )

IN THIS VIDEO YOU WILL HEAR THE STATE JUDGE EXCEPT THE PLEA AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PROSECUTION AND MALACHI Z YORK SO FOR ALL THE PEOPLE THAT IS LYING TO THE WORLD ABOUT MALACHI YORK'S NAME IT IS (MALACHI YORK).

WHY IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LYING TO THE WORLD ABOUT MALACHI YORK'S LEGAL NAME, THEY CALL MALACHI YORK (DWIGHT D YORK) ?

THE FBI AND THE JUDGES IN THIS CASE IS VIOLATING THE LAW RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE WORLD AND NOBODY IS PAYING FOR IT BUT MALACHI YORK THE CHIEF OF THE YAMASSEE MOORS OF THE CREEK NATION.

Everyone knows when a plea is offered to you the attorneys and the government agree on the charges and the amount of time given, so when Mr. York excepted this plea and said no one promised him anything is what the attorneys tell you to say in front of the judge ASK anyone that ever took a plea agreement this was discussed in the meeting before Mr. York faced the judge.  

What we all should be asking is, why did the government offer Mr. Malachi York a plea, when the government said through the media that they had a open and shut case with all kinds of proof that is Pictures, Video's and more. to reach an agreement of 15 years is not a indication that the government had an open and shut case, the government had so- called evidence taken in the raid from the properties for 9 months from May 8, 2002 to Jan. 23, 2003 you do the math. the government was faced with lying disgruntle Ex- Members that according the Abigail Washington the governments lead witness that they was threaten and coerce into making these allegations. Watch the video she tell all about the conspiracy. Free Dr. Malachi York that's what Judge Wingfield calls him 9 months after the arrest not Dwight York.

Why did the prosecution reach an agreement of 15 years if Dr. Malachi Z York was this horrible man that the government and the media plastered all around the world, according to 33.3 (A) the prosecution reaches this agreement with all the charges and nature of the case at hand ? 

Come on, the video tape of Dr. York pleading guilty was one of the tactics that the government needed to help paint a negative picture of Dr. York, so the public would forget all the wonderful achievements Dr. Malachi Z York also known as (Maku) Chief of the Yamassee Native American Moors have accomplished. 

York getting a lot of jail mail
The Macon Telegraph March 2, 2003
By Rob Peecher 

Gray -- Cult leader Malachi York remains popular among at least some of his followers a month after pleading guilty to 75 counts of child molestation.

York, who pleaded guilty to state and federal charges but has not yet been sentenced by a federal judge, is waiting in the Jones County jail to be sentenced and taken to a federal prison. In jail, he is receiving significantly more mail than other inmates.

"He does get a lot of mail," said Jones County Sheriff's Maj. Barbara Burnette. "He gets a pile where the average inmate gets one or two letters a day."

Burnette said York is receiving as many as 20 or 30 letters a day, and some of the envelopes contain money.

"He gets books and stuff people send him - books, cards, letters and money," Burnette said.

Burnette did not release the amount of money York has received since entering the jail Jan. 24, the day he pleaded guilty, but she did say it is far more than any other inmate.

Before pleading guilty, York was in custody at the Putnam County Sheriff's Office where he received fewer letters but still more than average, according to administrative assistant Teresa Slade.

York was in the Putnam County jail Jan. 6-24 when he pleaded guilty and was transferred to Jones County.

In those 18 days, York received money from three or four visitors totaling $230. The money went into an account managed by the sheriff's office through which York could buy a variety of personal items once a week ranging from toothpaste to shaving lotion to candies and snacks.

In his three weeks at the Putnam County jail, York spent a total of $254 in two separate "store-call" purchases.

York is the founder of the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors, a quasi-religious organization he began in Brooklyn, N.Y., in the early 1970s as an Islamic sect. The group moved to a 476-acre farm in 1993, and York began claiming to be an alien from the planet Rizq.

In recent years the Nuwaubians have adopted ancient Egyptian themes, building pyramids and other Egyptian-style structures on its compound.

York was arrested on federal warrants in May and was subsequently indicted by a Putnam County grand jury in a 208-count indictment. In January, York pleaded guilty to two federal charges - one of financial fraud and another of transporting children across state lines for sexual purposes. He also pleaded guilty to 77 state counts involving child sexual molestation and two counts of influencing a witness.

York is expected to be sentenced to serve 13 years in a federal prison with his state sentence to run concurrent. He will be 71-years-old when he is eligible for parole.

Four women who were among his followers also face state charges of participating in the child molestation with York.

When he pleaded guilty, he implicated each of the four women in the counts he pleaded guilty to, but the four women remain free on bond and have not been tried yet.


 

Rule 33. Pleading by defendant.  

Rule 33.1. Alternatives.

Rule 33.2. Aid of counsel Time for deliberation.

Rule 33.3. Propriety of plea discussions and plea agreements.

Rule 33.4. Relationship between defense counsel and client.

Rule 33.5. Responsibilities of the trial judge.

Rule 33.6. Consideration of plea in final disposition.

Rule 33.7. Determining voluntariness of plea.

Rule 33.8. Defendant to be informed.

Rule 33.9. Determining accuracy of plea.

Rule 33.10. Stating intention to reject the plea agreement.

Rule 33.11. Record of proceedings.

Rule 33.12. Plea withdrawal.  

Rule 33.1. Alternatives.  

(A) A defendant may plead guilty not guilty, or in the discretion of the judge, nolo contendere. A plea of guilty or nolo contendere should be received only from the defendant personally in open court, except when the defendant is a corporation, in which case the plea may be entered by counsel or a corporate officer.  

(B) A defendant may plead nolo contendere only with the consent of the judge. Such a plea should be accepted by the judge only after due consideration of the views of the parties and the interest of the public in the effective administration of justice. Procedurally, a plea of nolo contendere should be handled under these rules in a manner similar to a plea of guilty. [In state court, see State Court Rule 33.1.]  

Rule 33.2. Aid of counsel Time for deliberation.  

(A) A defendant shall not be called upon to plead before having an opportunity to retain counsel, or if defendant is eligible for appointment of counsel, until counsel has been appointed or right to counsel waived. A defendant with counsel shall not be required to enter a plea if counsel makes a reasonable request for additional time to represent the defendants interest, or if the defendant has not had a reasonable time to consult with counsel.  

(B) A defendant without counsel should not be called upon to plead to any offense without having had a reasonable time to consider his decision. When a defendant without counsel tenders a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to an offense, the court should not accept the plea unless it is reaffirmed by the defendant after a reasonable time for deliberation, following the advice from the court required in section 33.8.  

Rule 33.3. Propriety of plea discussions and plea agreements.  

(A) In cases in which it appears that the interests of the public in the effective administration of criminal justice (as stated in section 33.6) would thereby be served, the prosecuting attorney may engage in plea discussions for the purpose of reaching a plea agreement. The prosecuting attorney should engage in plea discussions or reach a plea agreement with the defendant only through defense counsel, except when the defendant is not eligible for or does not desire appointment of counsel and has not retained counsel.  

(B) The prosecuting attorney, in reaching a plea agreement, may agree to one or more of the following, as dictated by the circumstances of the individual case:  

(1) to make or not to oppose favorable recommendations as to the sentence which should be imposed if the defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere;  

(2) to seek or not to oppose dismissal of the offense charged if the defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to another offense reasonably related to defendants conduct; or,  

(3) to seek or not to oppose dismissal of other charges or potential charges against the defendant if the defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.  

Rule 33.4. Relationship between defense counsel and client.  

(A) Defense counsel should conclude a plea agreement only with the consent of the defendant, and should ensure that the decision to enter or not enter a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is ultimately made by the defendant.  

(B) To aid the defendant in reaching a decision, defense counsel, after appropriate investigation, should advise the defendant of the alternatives available and of considerations deemed important by him in reaching a decision.

 Rule 33.5. Responsibilities of the trial judge.  

(A) The trial judge should not participate in plea discussions.  

(B) If a tentative plea agreement has been reached, upon request of the parties, the trial judge may permit the parties to disclose the tentative agreement and the reasons therefor in advance of the time for the tendering of the plea. The judge may then indicate to the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel whether the judge will likely concur in the proposed disposition if the information developed in the plea hearing or presented in the presentence report is consistent with the representations made by the parties. If the trial judge concurs but the final disposition differs from that contemplated by the plea agreement, then the judge shall state for the record what information in the presentence report or hearing contributed to the decision not to sentence in accordance with the plea agreement.  

(C) When a plea of guilt or nolo contendere is tendered or received as a result of a plea agreement, the trial judge should give the agreement due consideration, but notwithstanding its existence, must reach an independent decision on whether to grant charge or sentence leniency under the principles set forth in section 33.6 of these rules.  

Rule 33.6. Consideration of plea in final disposition.  

(A) It is proper for the judge to grant charge and sentence leniency to defendants who enter pleas of guilty or nolo contendere when the interests of the public in the effective administration of criminal Justice are thereby served. Among the considerations which are appropriate in determining this question are:

 (1) that the defendant by entering a plea has aided in ensuring the prompt and certain application of correctional measures;

 (2) that the defendant has acknowledged guilt and shown a willingness to assume responsibility for conduct;

 (3) that the leniency will make possible alternative correctional measures which are better adapted to achieving rehabilitative, protective, deterrent or other purposes of correctional treatment, or will prevent undue harm to the defendant from the form of conviction;  

(4) that the defendant has made public trial unnecessary when there are good reasons for not having the case dealt with in a public trial;  

(5) that the defendant has given or offered cooperation when such cooperation has resulted or may result in the successful prosecution of other off engaged in equally "serious or more serious criminal conduct;  

(6) that the defendant by entering a plea has aided in avoiding delay (including delay due to crowded dockets) in the disposition of other cases and thereby has increased the probability of prompt and certain application of correctional measures to other offenders.  

(B) The judge should not impose upon a defendant any sentence in excess of that which would be justified by any of the rehabilitative, protective, deterrent or other purposes of the criminal law merely because the defendant has chosen to require the prosecution to prove the defendants guilt at trial rather than to enter a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.  

Rule 33.7. Determining voluntariness of plea.  

The judge shall not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere without first determining, on the record, that the plea is voluntary. By inquiry of the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel, the judge should determine whether the tendered plea is the result of prior plea discussions and a plea agreement, and, if it is, what agreement has been reached. If the prosecuting attorney has agreed to seek charge or sentence leniency which must be approved by the judge, the judge must advise the defendant personally that the recommendations of the prosecuting attorney are not binding on the judge. The judge should then address the defendant personally and determine whether any other promises or any force or threats were used to obtain the plea.  

Rule 33.8. Defendant to be informed.  

The judge should not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere from a defendant without first:  

(A) Determining on the record that the defendant understands the nature of the charge(s);  

(B) Informing the defendant on the record that by entering a plea of guilty or nolo contendere one waives:  

(1) the right to trial by jury;  

(2) the presumption of innocence;  

(3) the right to confront witnesses against oneself;  

(4) the right to subpoena witnesses;  

(5) the right to testify and to offer other evidence;  

(6) the right to assistance of counsel during trial;  

(7) the right not to incriminate oneself; and that by pleading not guilty or remaining silent and not entering a plea, one obtains a jury trial; and  

(C) Informing the defendant on the record:  

(1) of the terms of any negotiated plea;  

(2) that a plea of guilty may have an impact on his or her immigration status if the defendant is not a citizen of the united states:  

(3) the maximum possible sentence on the charge, including that possible from consecutive sentences and enhanced sentences where provided by law; and/or,  

(4) of the mandatory minimum sentence, if any, on the charge. This information may be developed by questions from the judge, the district attorney or the defense attorney or a combination of any of these.  

Rule 33.9. Determining accuracy of plea.  

Notwithstanding the acceptance of a plea of guilty, the judgment should not be entered upon such plea without such inquiry on the record as may satisfy the judge that there is a factual basis for the plea.  

Rule 33.10. Stating intention to reject the plea agreement.  

If the trial court intends to reject the plea agreement, the trial court shall, on the record, inform the defendant personally that (1) the trial court is not bound by any plea agreement; (2) the trial court intends to reject the plea agreement presently before it; (3) the disposition of the present case may be less favorable to the defendant than that contemplated by the plea agreement; and (4) that the defendant may then withdraw his or her guilty plea as a matter of right. If the plea is not then withdrawn, sentence may be pronounced.  

Rule 33.11. Record of proceedings.  

A verbatim record of the proceedings at which a defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere shall be made and preserved. The record should include:  

(A) the inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea (as required in section 33.7);  

(B) the advice to the defendant (as required in section 33.8);  

(C) the inquiry into the accuracy of the plea (as required in section 33.9), and, if applicable;  

(D) the notice to the defendant that the trial court intends to reject the plea agreement and the defendants right to withdraw the guilty plea before sentence is pronounced. [In state court, see State Court Rule 33.11.]

Rule 33.12. Plea withdrawal.

(A) After sentence is pronounced, the judge should allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty or nolo contendere whenever the defendant, upon a timely motion for withdrawal, proves that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.

(B) In the absence of a showing that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice, a defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere as a matter of right once sentence has been pronounced by the judge.