Letter from the Yamassee Tribe

[Master-9]

To: All Concerned Civil Rights Advocates, Religious Leaders
and True Defenders of Justice for All


Dear Concerned Persons,


Firstly I’d like to thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I am writing this letter to inform you of an ongoing situation that is threatening the very foundation of American Society. We the people of the Yamassee Native American Moors of the Creek Nation who are recognized in United States History as indigenous people of America are facing a critical situation. The United States, which has been founded on principals of Liberty, Freedom and Justice for All is becoming the enemy of All peace loving people. The threat to freedom is no longer confined to so-called Terrorist backed Nations. The threat to freedom is raising its ugly head in the Heart of America. People of all walks of life are being falsely accused of crimes whenever one turns on the television. The recent plight of the Yamassee Native American Moors of the Creek Nation in Georgia, USA is a modern example of how racism, prejudice and the unfair administration of injustice by persons with governmental authority is being used to prevent minority people from uplifting themselves. The current racism that we are experiencing although disguised as justice, is nothing short of judicial lynching. Having been a witness to many of these injustices, and now facing a near complete loss of respect for the current Justice System, It is clear that the time to bring our plight into the forefront is now! .....read more...




In May of 2002, the combined forces of Georgia Law Enforcement and the Federal Government staged a massive invasion of our normally peaceful village in Putnam County, Georgia. The invasion stemmed from allegations of child molestation directed at our Tribal Chief Black Thunderbird “Eagle” also known as Dr. Malachi Z. York. During the serving of the so-called warrant, nearly 300 Law Enforcement Officials forcibly entered the small village. Young children had fully automatic weapons pointed at them, homes were broken into and at least 5 teenagers were forcibly removed from their homes without preexisting evidence of any molestation having occurred. Dr. York was taken into custody after being arrested at a location outside of the village. Subsequent to the invasion, I was asked to review medical information from the case in support of Dr. York. On the Martin Luther King Day Federal Holiday 1/19/2004, I testified in Federal Court on behalf of the defendant about findings in my review of the case. The description of my testimony in a brief article by the Atlanta Journal Constitution was woefully deficient in the description of my 2 hour testimony. As they did properly state, the entire medical evidence collection was indeed sloppy. Nevertheless they failed to mention the details of my testimony which prompted my characterization of the majority of the government’s investigation as sloppy. Additionally the fact that the details in this case have been almost completely hidden from the scrutiny of the public by judicial orders, makes it clear that a cover-up is being perpetuated by government officials.

[Master-9]

Continued....

As an individual who has always tried to strive for the American Dream, I feel it is time to reveal the atrocities taking place to my extended family so that others may avoid a repeat of these incidents in their lives. At this time I will merely focus on medical evidence irregularities in the case as other details are to date being summarized for the appeal which will be filed soon.


In cases of sexual molestation or assault, alleged victims usually undergo examinations within 72 hours of an alleged assault. This examination window of 72 hours enables forensic evidence to be obtained that can ascertain whether an accused has had body fluid exchange with an alleged victim. Additionally in most assault cases, victims can identify a specific time when the assaults took place. When a medical examiner evaluates an alleged victim, the history of the events is critical in determining the extent of evaluation that is necessary. In my review of the evidence in the Malachi York case it became clear that either the government examiners had no interest in accurately recording any of their findings or the alleged victims were giving unreliable statements. The details that stood out as abnormal were the following:



1. There were no recorded interviews or statements (written, audio or video) from alleged
victims that could be independently evaluated by defendant’s experts. This deficiency allows the government officials to make any statements necessary to bring charges against an accused. They can make statements without having to prove they actually obtained the information accurately. The absence of recorded victim interviews prevents scrutiny of the official’s statements. In the event that contradictory information is identified, the contradictions can easily be dismissed or explained away by the government.


2. There were no specific times ascertained for any of the alleged acts. The assaults were simply generalized to a wide time frame such as in the summer of 1999. This lack of detail allows considerable leeway for the government to mischaracterize the alleged assaults. This is especially true when it comes to sexual contact with persons on the cusp of adulthood as many of these alleged victims were.


3. None of the alleged victims were examined within 72 hours of the alleged acts. This absence of examinations near the time of any alleged acts allows a jury to only consider the alleged victims testimony in order to arrive at their verdict. It limits the ability of a defendant to be found innocent by an absence of body fluid on or within an alleged victim’s body.


4. There were no past medical reports of genital injuries to any of the alleged victims despite allegations of repeated traumatic injuries. This absence of historical injuries requiring medical care is not consistent with the extent of molestation being alleged by many of the accusers.


5. Prosecuting detective(s) stated they “knew” that certain adolescents had been molested despite denials of molestation by half of the alleged victims. In fact many of the so-called victims to this day deny they were ever molested. For an official to state they know an individual was molested would suggest that they were a witness to the act. These statements demonstrate clear bias on the part of the detectives.

[Master-9]

6. Child protection service examiners made statements that alleged victims had histories consistent with molestation. These statements were made even when the historical statement was a denial that molestation had occurred. This fact shows that the child protection services had the intent of finding the defendant guilty no matter what the evidence was. Many of the official summaries were obviously based on preconceived opinions, not based on the evidence available.


7. Child protection services made statements that the physical examination in many cases demonstrated no evidence of molestation. They went on to state that no evidence is consistent with molestion. They could not answer the question of what evidence is not consistent with molestation. In other words any findings whether present or absent will be used to draw the conclusion that an alleged victim has been molested.


8. Many of the alleged victims were mistakenly described by the wrong gender. (Females referred to as male) This fact casts doubt on the accuracy of the entire child protective services reports.


9. The Child protection services stated that video or picture evidence was obtained during their forensic evaluations. Despite requests for the government to produce this evidence, no such evidence was ever produced. This fact in and of itself suggests that evidence was either obtained and destroyed or evidence never existed but was wrongly reported to exist.


10. The government assumed that all parents who lived within the village were aware of the alleged molestations and would willfully conceal those acts. This fact was evidenced by the finding of no parental consent for examinations of alleged victims who resided in the village at the time of the invasion. In fact the guardians of alleged victims who resided in the village were completely detached from their guardianship by Georgia Law Enforcement. This is in contrast to alleged victims no longer residing in the village whose guardians were involved in the examination process. This is a form of prejudice on the part of Law Enforcement officials who assumed that every guardian residing in the village was aware of the acts or would cover up the acts. Additionally this behavior removed parental rights from some parents simply because they lived within the village.


11. The multiple allegations of sexual molestation which were described suggests that a 50+ year old man suffering from a life threatening medical condition could engage in sexual acts 4-5 times each day. He can perform in this manner without any resultant pregnancies, injuries to adolescent victims or forensic evidence ever being obtained. Additionally this total absence of forensic evidence occurred despite a 3-4 year ongoing investigation by law enforcement officials.


12. Finally in this case, the most unusual fact in evidence was that approximately half of the alleged victims denied under oath and when initially examined, that they were ever molested.







Despite the inconsistent histories about these alleged acts, and the total absence of medical evidence, the Federal government was able to secure a conviction by an anonymous jury not of the defendants peers, and prove the accused committed these acts beyond a reasonable doubt. From this case, it has become clear to many people who have followed the proceedings, that one no longer has to be proven guilty. An individual merely has to be accused in a court where any evidence (whether consistent with or not consistent with a crime) is used to prove a crime occurred. This reality is even more striking when any evidence which is beneficial in ascertaining one’s innocence can be conveniently excluded by judicial order. It is the hope of our people and myself that bringing this injustice into the light will result in increased scrutiny of government officials who for too long are able to hide their actions from public view using judicial authority.


For more information please contact
www.unnm.com