|
Lack of Jurisdiction
Our
Constitution
COINTELPRO
[read this]
Government Key
Witness Recants Her Testimony
Ques: Why is the government still holding
Dr. Malachi Z York-EL with these FACTS from there lead witness?
Ans: Because, Abigail recantment proves the
government targeted Dr. Malachi Z York-EL and the pretrial transcripts
backs her testimony, No EVIDENCE, Agents didn't audio tape or video tape
the alleged victims statements and more. (Government Conspiracy)
Dr. Malachi Z York-El caring ways
Below Rubino shows court records that Dr. Malachi Z. York is
an Indigenous Native American. This is the only issue that Maku (Chief Black Thunderbird Eagle) wanted the courts to
address
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.
Ques: Do your attorneys suppose to make
their client look like he is CRAZY or out of his MIND?
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
|
