|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Jan 6, 2004 21:34:26 GMT -5
You have a point, they used a sound bite which may have been taken out of the contxt since we aint get to hear the whole talk. Peace. They cut off his statement, Child molestation is not a serious charge compared to national security. They act like bin Ladin or saddam is on tril  They did this to intimedate the jury and townsfolk That brother(Fred johnson/Anubu) you jokeing on is my ace, you fuck with him, you fuck with me. |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Jan 6, 2004 21:38:44 GMT -5
But SatiyaH you gotta have an impartial mind here. I know you know some of the alleged victims and all but put your mind in that of a jury, some of the kids got STDs. Now I am assuming they tested York for this. And from the rumours I hear (read) he aint got none of those STDs. WOuldnt that work against the prosecution ? Child molestation differs in rape in this instance--testimony directly from the child is often all that is needed. It is common knowledge, expert wittnesses will vouch that children themselves will often keep their abuse secret--thus no DNA, or trauma signs. The victims to take the stand will range from age 5 up to this 19 year old who spoke today. These children will give detailed accounts. Several of the children tested positive for sexually transmitted disease. Whether or not they caught it from York is not going to be the issue--this is: 1. kids have STD 2. they say York molested, raped, sodomized them 3. not heresay--these victims are taking the stand |
|
|
|
Post by Master-9 on Jan 6, 2004 21:41:52 GMT -5
:clap:
|
|
|
|
Post by SatiyaH on Jan 6, 2004 22:24:08 GMT -5
But SatiyaH you gotta have an impartial mind here. I know you know some of the alleged victims and all but put your mind in that of a jury, some of the kids got STDs. Now I am assuming they tested York for this. And from the rumours I hear (read) he aint got none of those STDs. WOuldnt that work against the prosecution ? No. There are treatments for STD's such as chlamydia, gonorhhea. As far as the herpes, if one does not have an outbreak it is not always obvious they have herpes. Blood tests can be used when a person has no visible symptoms but has concerns about having herpes. There are many uncertainties about the test and its results are often difficult to interpret. Taking a swab test from a genital sore is the only way to accurately diagnose genital herpes. Also, antibodies may disappear with time, especially if the person has infrequent recurrences of herpes or has had it many years. Ask any ob/gyn or family physician who sees alot of cases of herpes. They will tell you that with time, the viral count becomes so low the only way to truly detect the herpes is thru a sore. However, it is still in the seminal fluid during shedding of the virus or in the vaginal fluid---you are still contagious. Anyone who knows me, knows my passion has always been in the medical field, and oddly my favorite virus is HERPES--it's the grandpappy of all viruses! It is responsible for many 'common' ailments such as when you think you have the flu, you may have actually come in contact with 1 of the herpes types  Coming in contact does not mean you have genital herpes. See, there is herpetic whitlow, Epstein-Barr (mononuecleosis), varicella, zoster and Simplex 1 and 2 (actually, there are more, but doctors don't like to talk about that). When you go to your doctor because you've had symptoms of illness, yet no cough, diarrhea etc...they'll say, oh you probably got a viral syndrome--ya probably came in contact with one of the herpes  It's not as scary as it sounds. They say 1 in 5 has it...truth is it is more like 4 out of 5. These rumors of York having herpes go back to the 70's. If that is true, then a herpes serology test probably would not detect the virus, and if he did not have an outbreak at the time of the test then yes, he would test negative. I am not saying it is fact the man does have it, I am pointing out all the sides of the situation. Negative don't mean negative in medical field, it means they just didn't detect it. Happens all the time with cancer. |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Jan 6, 2004 22:29:43 GMT -5
Okay i am now more informed bout the std and whether or not it will impact the case. Thnx. No. There are treatments for STD's such as chlamydia, gonorhhea. As far as the herpes, if one does not have an outbreak it is not always obvious they have herpes. Blood tests can be used when a person has no visible symptoms but has concerns about having herpes. There are many uncertainties about the test and its results are often difficult to interpret. Taking a swab test from a genital sore is the only way to accurately diagnose genital herpes. Also, antibodies may disappear with time, especially if the person has infrequent recurrences of herpes or has had it many years. Ask any ob/gyn or family physician who sees alot of cases of herpes. They will tell you that with time, the viral count becomes so low the only way to truly detect the herpes is thru a sore. However, it is still in the seminal fluid during shedding of the virus or in the vaginal fluid---you are still contagious. Anyone who knows me, knows my passion has always been in the medical field, and oddly my favorite virus is HERPES--it's the grandpappy of all viruses! It is responsible for many 'common' ailments such as when you think you have the flu, you may have actually come in contact with 1 of the herpes types Coming in contact does not mean you have genital herpes. See, there is herpetic whitlow, Epstein-Barr (mononuecleosis), varicella, zoster and Simplex 1 and 2 (actually, there are more, but doctors don't like to talk about that). When you go to your doctor because you've had symptoms of illness, yet no cough, diarrhea etc...they'll say, oh you probably got a viral syndrome--ya probably came in contact with one of the herpes It's not as scary as it sounds. They say 1 in 5 has it...truth is it is more like 4 out of 5. These rumors of York having herpes go back to the 70's. If that is true, then a herpes serology test probably would not detect the virus, and if he did not have an outbreak at the time of the test then yes, he would test negative. I am not saying it is fact the man does have it, I am pointing out all the sides of the situation. Negative don't mean negative in medical field, it means they just didn't detect it. Happens all the time with cancer. |
|
|
|
Post by SatiyaH on Jan 7, 2004 0:21:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Jan 7, 2004 10:44:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Jan 7, 2004 10:50:39 GMT -5
i agree with ralph i feel after having gone through the "post grad"work in york's school of deception, i am moor fit ta fight this beast(york's benifactor and employer) now i see.....but unlike ralph i refuse to be apart of an org that divides, hoodwinks, misleads, and mind-controls its initiates..."free"-masonry www.freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/york got raped as a child?  ? www.trance-formation.org/Freemasonry does not controls one mind like many think. What I have found being a member for the last 17 years is a rich history of people who are responsible for the lifestyles that we ALL enjoy today. If one does his geneology, he (or she) will see a Prince Hall Mason(or OES) within their family. As I have stated on another list, look at www.africana.com/research/blackfacts/bl_fact_71.aspTell me if these people fall under the catagory that you stated above. |
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Jan 7, 2004 10:53:40 GMT -5
Ralph(ex-ansaar) still doing your reserch? As a matter of fact, I am finishing reviewing the book that York wrote calling PH masons clandestine. I have done stringent research on his references, and am looking over some other books that he has written. Any reason why my research should stop? |
|
|
|
Post by SatiyaH on Jan 7, 2004 11:29:42 GMT -5
Prince Hall declared itself sovereign from United Grand Lodge of England who issued the first charter to an African American. Charter having lapsed the remaining members severed ties, created them a charter, open a grand lodge and installed officers, forming what is known as Prince Hall Freemasonry. There is nothing wrong with it, when it's exactly what the british did when they formed Grand Lodge of England.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Jan 7, 2004 11:32:21 GMT -5
Prince Hall declared itself sovereign from United Grand Lodge of England who issued the first charter to an African American. Charter having lapsed the remaining members severed ties, created them a charter, open a grand lodge and installed officers, forming what is known as Prince Hall Freemasonry. There is nothing wrong with it, when it's exactly what the british did when they formed Grand Lodge of England. It is what many of the GLs of the United States did when they severed ties from the UGLE after the merger between the Antients and Moderns in 1813. Thanks for the info! |
|
|
|
Post by SatiyaH on Jan 7, 2004 14:40:29 GMT -5
Ok---this thread wasn't intended for Freemasonic talk  Update on trial-- www.macon.com/mld/macon/7649191.htmIn his opening statement, defense attorney Adrian Patrick said the evidence would show that the allegations were coming from members of four families that had fallen out of favor with York and were out to get him. "One of the primary witnesses ran the organization for many years and was ousted in February 2001 because she was out of control," Patrick said. -------Ok, York's attorney is talking about Abigail Washington, Habiba. Funny, why are Nuwaubians as a whole just now being informed that for "many years" Abigail was running the organization. "At least three of the government's witnesses, he said, are testifying to avoid child molestation charges themselves." ------------Ok-- First off, a kid and a kid fondling each other isn't child molestation. It is molestation on the part of the adult if he/she watches which is what this victim stated had occured. That she would have group sex with other kids while York watched. I've been in the chatrooms where HaruHotep (who left by the way) and other Nuwaubians claimed to have a video tape of these girls performing group and lesbian sex with each other---they said they were going to give it to the defense would enter that into evidence. point no. 1---that is child pornography and if it had not be confiscated by the Feds when they raided that meant someone else had it not on the land because they flipped that place upside down! Sooo, who had this alleged tape and why? point no. 2---if this tape really exists--who taped it? HaruHotep and others claimed it shows the character of these girls making accusations. What character? That they belonged to a sex cult and someone videotaped them?--that is how the jury will see it. Now, if another adult or adults were molesting kids---then York must have known because he is saying they are testifying in order to avoid charges. And if he knew, why didn't he do shit about it? |
|
|
|
Post by Nubian Ninjah on Jan 7, 2004 18:18:50 GMT -5
/7/2004 6:10:29 PM
012303 york
E-mail This Article
Printable Version
It was the defense's turn to question one of Malachi York's accusers Wednesday. In his federal trial in Brunswick.
York is in on trial for child molestation and racketeering. He is the leader of a religious and cultural group who call themselves the Nuwaubians whose compound is in Central Georgia.
According to the Associated Press defense attorneys spent today questioning a young woman who said York used his power as a self-proclaimed messiah to force her into sex.
The 18-year-old witness described York as a vicious manipulator who coerced children into having sex with him and rewarded them with jewelry and candy.
Defense Attorney Adrian Patrick contends the case is about government oppression.
The trial which is expected to last three weeks was moved 225 miles from Macon to Brunswick because of pretrial publicity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Master-9 on Jan 7, 2004 19:21:11 GMT -5
As a matter of fact, I am finishing reviewing the book that York wrote calling PH masons clandestine. I have done stringent research on his references, and am looking over some other books that he has written. Any reason why my research should stop? That was just a small portion of the real book  |
|
|
|
Post by Zandor on Jan 8, 2004 6:41:21 GMT -5
www.onlineathens.com/stories/010804/new_20040108036.shtml"The attorney, Adrian Patrick, asked her about inconsistencies between what she told the FBI and what she said in court. She had previously said she first had sex with York in his trailer, although under oath Wednesday she said the incident happened at his home.
''I wasn't lying intentionally. They were asking me a lot of questions ... it was a mistake,'' she said. She said Wednesday she was sure that the incident happened in the home."
|
|
