legal.brief.d.d.york.9

8/3/2019 Legal.brief.d.d.york.9

1/3

1

USA (plaintiff) v. YORK (defendant)

UNITED STATES COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT GEORGIA

(2004)

On January 23rd, 2003 Dwight D. York (henceforth referred to as York)

waived his indictment (legal document #79) thereby giving the U.S. Attorney the

added option of prosecuting by information (USAM Title 9 #209/#206). From this

point York began plea negotiations with U.S. Prosecutors and his Defense

Counsel. After entering a plea agreement of 15 years, Yorks plea was rejected by

Judge Hugh Lawson. On May 28th, 2003 Judge Lawson broke rule 11(c) (1) of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (F.R.C.P.) by indicating that a 20 year

sentence might be acceptable. As a result of blatant disregard for the F.R.C.P. and

unwillingness to approve government request for dismissal of charges (all but

count one), Judge Lawson was recused/replaced by current Chief Judge Charles

Ashley Royal. Prior to Judge Lawsons recusal he gave York a deadline of June 30th

,

2003 to withdraw his guilty plea or York could face a heavier sentence than

proposed by the original plea agreement (legal document #107). As of October

24th, 2003 York had not withdrawn the guilty plea so on that day (in court)Attorney Frank A. Rubino asked that Yorks plea be withdrawn and changed to a

guilty plea. The court found the plea withdrawn on October 24th, 2003 and

Attorney Edward T.M. Garland argued in favor of a new indictment that same day

(in court). The U.S. Attorney, Grand Jury, and Judge made a gross error by

creating a superseding indictment (legal document #158) on November 21st,

2003 because a superseding indictment only occurs as the result of a legal defect

or grand jury irregularity causing dismissal of the previous indictment (USAM Title

9 #655) . From May 2nd, 2002 (date of original indictment) to January 22nd, 2003Yorks Indictment was never dismissed by the U.S. Judge or Attorney and he

waived the indictment on January 23rd, 2003 (legal document #79). Once the

court found Yorks plea withdrawn the legal course of action was to prosecute by

the indictment (USAM Title 9 #211) of May 2nd, 2002 or by the superseding

information (legal document #78) of January 23rd, 2003. Also, keep in mind that a


2/3

2

Regular Grand Jurys tenure is only 18 months unless a 6 month extension is

granted (in court) according to F.R.C.P. rule 6(g). The original indictment was

returned on May 2nd, 2002 and the so called superseding indictment was

returned on November 21st, 2003 which is more than 18 months between

indictments. Even a Special Grand Jury must have the U.S. Attorney request and

be granted (in court) an extension beyond 18 months. Examining the legal

documents in the case ofUSA () v. YORK () does not reveal the requesting or

granting of a Grand Jury Extension albeit several documents are sealed. An

indictment returned by a grand jury whose tenure has expired is illegal, void, and

defective on its face. Despite all of the facts stated thus far, York was convicted of

multiple charges on January 23rd, 2004.

Is York (Florence ADMAX Inmate #17911-054) being held without chargesaccording to the United States Attorney Criminal Resource Manual (USAM Title 9)

and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (F.R.C.P.)? Yes! An indictment is a

formal accusation that a person has committed a crime(s). It is impossible for the

supposed superseding indictment (legal document #158) against York to be

legal because of the aforementioned, factual definition of a superseding

indictment (USAM Title 9 #655). Since the superseding indictment is illegal and

the only way to prosecute against York is indictment according to the F.R.C.P. rule

7(a) (1) (B), he is being held without charges. The F.R.C.P. rule 7(b) makes it legal

to prosecute York using the superseding information of January 23rd, 2003 but

that option was not exercised. The only legal and procedurally correct means of

prosecution other than the superseding information was by the original (and only

legal/legitimate) indictment (legal document #1). Since November 21st, 2003

there has been no legal reason for York to be jailed or imprisoned because he has

not been accused of committing any crimes according to the F.R.C.P., USAM Title

#9, and the legal definition of an indictment. An indictment returned by displaying

total disrespect/disregard for the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the

United States Attorney Criminal Resource Manual makes every action in the case

from the false indictment forward-legally void!

I conclude that Yorks 5th and 14th amendment rights have been

figuratively urinated and defecated upon by denial of due process of law, liberty,


3/3

3

property, and life (projected release date of 2119). His situation exemplifies false

imprisonment because it is indisputable that he is being held without authority of

law (false indictment), without consent (plead not guilty, appealed, filed writ of

certiorari, etc.), and is victimized by willful detention (F.B.I., Prosecutors, Judges,

B.O.P.). The only honorable course of action to take in this case is releasing York

while overturning all convictions, announcing a global apology via President

Obama, and returning all property/assets York has lost as a result of the illegal

proceedings.

legal.brief.d.d.york.9

Documents