Thursday, June 02, 2005

10 Issues Of Malachi Z. York's Federal Case

1) Mr. York Was Denied a Fair Trial and Due Process Due to the Trial Court’s Denial of His Motion to Sever Disparate Counts.

2) The District Court Erred in Denying Mr. York's Motion to Dismiss The Rico Claims (Counts One, Two, And Twelve)

3) The District Court Erred in Denying Mr. York's Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment and Allowing the Jury Trial to go Forward on an Indictment that was Returned by a Tainted Grand Jury

4) The District Court Erred by: A. Denying Mr. York's Motion for Mistrial after the Government Exceeded the Scope of the Court Ordered Limitation of the Rebuttal Witness’ Testimony B. Not Allowing the Appellant to Call His Own Rebuttal Witness to Rebut the Government’s Rebuttal Witness

5) The Evidence was Insufficient to Prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that Mr. York Committed the Acts Alleged in Count 1 (1), Count 1 (2), Count 2 (B)(1) Racketeering Act 1, Count 2 (B) (2) Racketeering Act 2, Count 2 (B) (3)Racketeering Act 3, Count 2 (B) (4) Racketeering Act 4; Count 3 (A) and Count 3 (B) Conspiracy, Count 4, Count 5, Count 6, Count 7, Count 8 - Transporting Minors in Interstate Commerce to Engage in Unlawful Sexual Activity

6) The District Court Erred by Denying Mr. York's Motion to Dismiss Count 2 Racketeering Act 3 and Count 6 Essentially Ruling that the Government could Base a Federal Violation on a Georgia Crime which was No Crime at all at the Time of its Alleged Commission

7) Post trial Counsel, Jonathan Marks, was Ineffective for Withdrawing Mr. York's Motion for New Trial and Motion for Judgment of Acquittal without Properly Informing and Receiving the Express Permission of Mr. York

8)The District Court’s Denial of New Counsel’s Motion For Extension Deprived Mr. York of a Fair Trial And Due Process of Law

9) A. Mr. York's Sixth Amendment Right to a Jury Trial was Denied When He was Sentenced Based upon Facts Not Reflected in the Jury Verdict B. Mr. York’s Sentence is Void because Appellant was Sentenced under Federal Sentencing Guidelines that have been Ruled Unconstitutional as Applied in This Case

10) The Use of the 2002 Version of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Instead of the 1993 Guidelines Violated Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution

3 Comments:

Blogger 1Nine said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5:14 PM  
Blogger 1Nine said...

This must not be America the land of the free home of the brave!

America Stands For Freedom & Justice For All!

5:19 PM  
Blogger Ut Utah House Cleaning said...

Super blog. I web surf when I have the time for
blogs like this one.Your site was nice and will be
visited again!
I hope you had a chance to check out my ak alaska house cleaning blog.

4:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home