The Bogus Guilty Plea

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JGqKYA6rXs

The Bogus Plea Agreement

Have you ever received a phone call while you were deeply sleeping at 3:00 o'clock in the morning? And the only thin on your mind is to get off this phone and to get back to your restful sleep, and then hours later wondered just who yo were talking to? Well, our Maku: "Chief Black Eagle, experienced just this in so many words right before they gav him the pen and said, "Sign on the dotted line or else."

How, you ask? The prosecutors gave Malachi York 24 hours t make a decision to sign a plea he had not yet reviewed. They told him this was an agreement, a bargain, the best dea he would ever, get in his situation, and told him he had 24 hours to decide. They called it a "deadline." That's right, fo our Maku, it was the "dead-line," or shall I say "life-line."

You can even call it a "time-line," but the truth of the ma ter is, Doc was at his "finish-line." They gave him a choice of 15 years or 1,06#"yfeafs in prison. They told him if he wa their son, their father, their brother, or even a close friend in their situation, they would advise them to accept this so-called "plea bargain."

But if you break up the word, "bar-gain" it's simply a way for lawyers of the bar to gain some thing for themselves- simply a way out. Keep in mind this decision had to be made afjter hours upon hours of question­ing, evaluations, no food, no sleep, no water and no medication, at wee hours of tfle morning. This is simply torture coercion and abuse!

Dr. Malachi Z. York-El was forced to sign this plea UNDER DURESS! Tortured, racially dis criminated against, found guilty before you've had the right to be judged by any jury by the courts and media, and fac& with over 1000 years in prison. What other choice do you have but to plea-bargain for a lesser charge?
i
This is their tactic to force defendants into a guilty plea agreement. It is a procedure of the court to try and force a plez agreement, which would prevent them from having to pay the cost of court fees,, lawyer fees, witness provision and jurj provision fees, and in_every case, the plea agreement is discussed and arranged with the courts and both sides of coun­sel, before it is brought forth to the defendant.

It is a tactic to force the defendant into a hasty decision before the date of a trial, so that he would not have any time for second thought. In Dr. York's case, he was tortured by being placed in deplorable prison conditions in the worse prison in the country, FederafPenitentiary located in Fulton County, Georgia

Let's take a look at this so-called plea agreement. Now, for a man who is 60 years old, do you really call 15 years a bar­gain? Let's evaluate this further. In 15 years, a 60-year old man would be 75 years old. The life expectancy for a man in this day and time is 70 years old. Now would you call this a bargain, or a life sentence?

Then you say, there's good behavior, time served, medical, downward departures and all the things that could make one's time go down. Not i you're locked into 15 years! That's right, they actually stole every right imaginable that he would have to work with in this plea, and then told him otherwise. Did he have time to look over this so-called plea agreement? NO! He was in inter­viewed up till 3:00 in the morning.

This plea agreement is clearly BOGUS! They had no intentions of bargaining with Dr. York. They locked him into this bogus deal and all while they were playing their own hand. Before even deciding whether or not they were going to accept the plea, the media already plastered GUILTY before PROVEN INNOCENT.

This is a tactic to make someone incriminate himself or herself before trial, so they would have no way of receiving fair trial. They forced him to give up his own constitutional rights. There is more than one reason why this judge, Hugh V. Lawson, did not accept this plea. He knew that the plea was illegal based on the following rules: 1) Under Principles of Federal Prosecution Department of Justice, Title 9-27.430, Sentencing Plea Agreement Charges, it says, 'If a pros­ecution is to be concluded pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant should be required to plead to a charge or charges a) that is the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature, b) that has an adequate factual basis."

Question: did the prosecution follow these steps? NO! WHY? Because he pleaded guilty to a charge HE WAS NOT INDICTED FOR. The same judge who denied this plea, asked him, "Are you Mr. York, aware that you are pleading guilty to a charge you have not been indicted for?" And with a puzzled look, Dr. York looked over to the attor­neys, who then waved their hands as to rush him and said, "Just tell him you understand." So, this not only violates sec­tion (a) of this rule, because there's no proof to a charge you have not been indicted for, but also violated section (b)

Q. All right. Now, in connection with .the travel for the purpose
of,having sex with a minor, do you have a witness who says that the purpose in the travel was to have the children have sex? A. The witness that says that?
Q. *es.
^
A. No.
Q. You have no witness that says- that?
A. Not that says that, no.
Q. All right. That's all I'm going to have for this witness at this time, Your Honor.

An excerpt from the transcript of officially taped proceeding, prepared by Sally L. Gray, CCR United States Cour Reporter of the Detention Hearing held on May 9, 2002 A.D. and May 13-14 2002 A.D., of the cross examination of the governments' witness, Agent Jalaine Ward, by Defense Attorney Ed Garland in regards to the offense of transporta­tion. Agent Ward stated on the record that they did not have any witnesses to bask up their charges.

Kathy Johnson —
I pleaded guilty to a reduced charge in federal court Tuesday and left the courtroom a free woman, at least for now.

Johnson initially was accused of helping York trans­port a young victim across state lines for unlawful sexual activity. But at Tuesday's hearing, U.S. Attorney Rich­ard Moultrie said prosecutors had "scant" evidence to sup­port that charge.
because it holds NO FACTUAL BASIS.

It doesn't stop there. 2) According to Rul<>

In a court hearing on May 14, 2002 A.D., Special Agent Jalaine Ward of the Federal Bureau of Investigations1 stated on the record that they had no witnesses who said Malachi York transported anyone for sexual purposes, and on April 1, 2003 A.D., District Attorney Richard Moultire said prosecutors had "scant" evidence. What exactly does he mean by, "scant evidence"?

Let's ask Webster.

According to Webster's Dictionary. SCANT means barely sufficient. Now, you tell me can they prove- beyond a reasonable doubt that the Honourable Maku: Chief Black Eagle, did the things they are accusing him of, when they don' have any witnesses or proof or evidence. This is what we call A BOGUS PLEA AGREEMENT!

An agreement made between the judge (who's biased), the prose­cution (whose goal is to win), and scared lawyers (who are afraid of a biased judge)
Excerpt from an articlce in "The Telegraph" dated April 2, 2003 A.D. showing that D.A. Richard Moultrie admits they have 'scant" evidence.

Even after all of this, Dr. York's 6m amendment rights were also violated and he should not even be incarcerated, because within the plea agreement. Dr. Malachi Z. York was to waive his right to a speedy trial. According to the 6"1 Amendment (United States Code Service, Constitution of the U.S. of America), 74. Plea Bargains, "

Defendant does not waive his right to speedy trial by consenting to plea bargain; ... Plea of guilty entered pursuant to plea bargain acts as waiver of defen­dant's right to speedy trial; however, until plea is accepted, defendant's position before court is substantially same as it was prior to tender of plea, and defendant's interest in speedy disposition of charge continues." This is also not supported by federal case law. In U.S. v. Cummings 17 U.S.C.M.A. 376, the Supreme Court held that: "

The incorporation of this waiver as a condition of the guilty plea agreement is misleading to an accused and repugnant to the purposes of the agreement." In the first place, we have expressly pointed out a guilty plea nei­ther waives the right to speedy trial nor the right to due process in the handling of charges. United States v. Davis, 11 USCMA 410, 29 CMR 226; United States v. Schalck, 14 USCMA 371, 34 CMR 151; United States v. Tibbs, 15 USCMA 350, 35 CMR 322. So, in essence, according to the U.S. Constitution and Federal Case Law,

Dr. York should be FREE!!!