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, York’s 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 Lawson’s 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 As of October 24th, 2003 York had not withdrawn the guilty plea so on that day (in court) Attorney Frank A. Rubino asked that York’s plea be withdrawn and changed to a guilty plea. The court found the plea withdrawn on October 24th, 2003 and Attorney Edward T.M. Garland argued in favor of a new indictment that same day (in court).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, 2003 York’s 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 Once the court found York’s plea withdrawn the legal course of action was to prosecute by the indictment (USAM Title 9 #211) of May 2nd, 2002 or by the superseding information (legal document #78) of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 Regular Grand Jury’s 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 of USA (Π) v. YORK (Δ) 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 charges according 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 York’s 5th and 14th amendment rights have been figuratively urinated and defecated upon by denial of due process of law, liberty, 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.

Please keep in mind that U.S. Law applies to Judges, Prosecutors, and Defense Attorneys whether it applies to Pops or not. The proper paperwork is a motion to vacate, a legal brief, and a trip to the United Nations face to face (New York and the OHCHR in Switzerland). I don’t have all the information i would like to file the motion to vacate. I will communicate with the US attorney General and President. Please do all you can.

Fcrp.pops.Cr2009