|
 |
Racketeering (RICO)
Dr. Malachi Z. York
|
The United States Of America vs. Malachi Z York and Kathy Johnson
these names are the actual names of the defendants, misnomer
Dwight D. York, now this is the
May 9, 2002 proceedings for
Arraignment and Detention Hearing 5: 02-CR-27 (HL)
Judge Presiding
Honorable CLAUDE W. HICKS
Keep in Mind that
this is the Judge that issued the Search Warrant pg.21 line 20-22
[read]
In this Hearing you
have for the Prosecution RICHARD MOULTRIE and STEPHANIE THACKER and
for the Defense you Have LEROY R. JOHNSON and MS. HINES
The Time is 2:45
P.M. May 9, 2002
The Court Rules was being laid out by the judge,
that the pretrial detention hearing was scheduled for Monday 13, 2002
The Government has the burden of proof to show that the
defendants would not return to court or would be a threat to the
community if they receive a BOND which
the government didn't prove and the court still rewarded the
prosecution their motion to detain all of the defendants without
reasonable cause this is what the Pretrial Transcripts will reveal,
we ask that all who are interested in this case please read the Federal
pretrial transcripts.
|
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.
More coming
|
