Question: Ask The Nuwaupians, Did You Know Habiybah Washington Cleared Up This So-called Recantment?

Answer: They'll be shocked.

"...everyone deserves a second chance, even when they do something wrong..."

 This is an update regarding the 2004 so-called recantment video.  When members of the Nuwaupian cult decided to re-push the old video from 2004, Habiybah Washington wrote the following to Set The Records Straight".

Since Nuwaupians ignore the facts that she refused to go all the way with a recantment, so she maintained her original statements, now she makes it clear in no uncertain terms.

Habiybah Washington is seen on video making statements to Nuwaupians that what she said in court was all lies. That video was originally intended for Nuwaupian, however when the court became aware of her video and statements AFTER York's sentencing, this set the stage for a possible new trial because one of the star witnesses gave a possible recant.  When a herring convened, Ms. Washington maintained her original testimonies of York's molestation her beginning at age 13 as well as the vivid details of what happened to the other victims at the hands of York which she witnessed.  

Meanwhile, Nuwaupian cult members took the video, posted it on Youtube and a pro-Nuwaupian website and Youtube, promoting the fallacy that Habiybah recanted. Unfortunately this distortion of reality and the facts does not work in the Nuwaupian cult's favor.  In this post you'll see from unsealed court transcripts, the words of Habiybah Washington during the herring after York's conviction.  When given the chance to recant, she stands firm and with much courage, does NOT recant, thus York is denied a new trial. 

Watch the video and listen close to what she says, then read what she stated in court as to why she lied to NUWAUPIANS in the video, this would include the lie about a Jacob York conspiracy theory. 

On August 14, 2004 Ms. Washington gave her reasons for making the video and signing an affidavit.  

 York Attorney: J. Marks- Before you made these affidavits, you went up to New York and you made a video tape?

 Habiybah Washington: Yes.

York Attorney: J. Marks- Did anyone coerce you to make the videotape?

Habiybah Washington: No.

York Attorney: J. Marks- Whose idea was it to make the videotape?

Habiybah Washington: My Lawyer told me that that's what you wanted.

York Attorney: J. Marks- Okay. And that was after you told your lawyer, in substance, that you lied at the trial?

Habiybah Washington: Yes

York Attorney: J. Marks- And he suggested to you that you make a videotape documenting the fact that you lied?

Habiybah Washington: Yes.

York Attorney: J. Marks- And you did that voluntarily?

Habiybah Washington:Yes.

York Attorney: J. Marks- Was the videotape true or false?

Habiybah Washington: NO

York Attorney: J. Marks- Did you tell Jacob that nothing was happening to the kids on the land

Habiybah Washington: Yes.

York Attorney: J. Marks- And was that true?

Habiybah Washington: No.

York Attorney: J. Marks- So you're saying you lied to Jacob?

Habiybah Washington: Yes.

York Attorney: J. Marks- Now, tell us what your thought processes were, if you wouldn't mind.  Why was it that you made these false affidavits?

Habiybah Washington: I couldn't handle his sentence.  I mean, I don't know.  I didn't think that I could live with myself with him being in jail.  I didn't think that testifying against him in trial would have a big effect on me like it did.  I didn't think that it was fare for me to judge him, you know, I think everybody deserves a second chance, even if they do something wrong, and I don't know.  I thought that, you know, the only way that I can feel good is, you know, if I try to take it back.  I didn't think he deserved it.

Habiybah stated why she did the videotape and lied on the affidavit, because...

"...everybody deserves a second chance, even if they do something wrong..."

 So when given the chance to recant, in court, even after signing an affidavit she maintains her original testimony that York did molest the children in the case including herself.

Habiybah says York is guilty AFTER her own video

Husna Evans says York is guilty AFTER her video

Hasna Evans says York is guilty AFTER her video

Sakina Black says York is guilty AFTER her video

Hanaan Merrit says York is guilty AFTER Habiybah's video

Issa Johnson says York is guilty AFTER Habiybah's video

Below is how the Associated Press presented it in the News.

Witness in York case maintains original testimony was true

Associated Press August 14, 2004

Macon, Ga. -- A key government witness in the case of a leader of a quasi-religious sect convicted of child molestation and racketeering said she tried to recant her testimony because she felt sorry for him.

Attorneys for Malachi York, head of the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors, had sought a new trial because one of the witnesses had made sworn statements in contradiction to trial testimony that said she had not been molested by York.

But witness Habiybah Washington said on the witness stand on Friday that her trial testimony against York was true. During the trial, she said York molested her beginning when she was 13 and that York molested other children as well.

She said she later recanted her testimony because she felt sorry for York and that "everyone deserves a second chance, even when they do something wrong."

York's defense attorney Jonathan Marks told Judge Ashley Royal that because Washington stuck to her original testimony, he wanted to withdraw his motion for a new trial. But York instructed Marks to leave the motion in place.

Royal did not rule on the motion on Friday.

York was sentenced to 135 years in federal prison in April. His January conviction was based on the testimony of cult members who said he regularly molested children and manipulated the sect's finances from 1998 to 2002, when federal agents raided their compound.

Habiybah NEVER recanted that,

- York started the sexual touches (fondling) at age 13

- York started anal and oral sex with her when she was 14

- York began vaginal sex with her at age 15, ejaculating (outside) of her vagina.

- York had anal and oral sex with other children that Habiybah herself helped recruited for him.

What people who claim that she recanted are missing is this, her statements are also corroborated by other victims and witnesses.  These are witnesses and victims who never attended the Florida trip with Jacob York, which debunks the Nuwaupian's conspiracy theories. No witness could listen or watch the testimony of other witnesses on the stand.  All witnesses in court trials are sequestered from each others testimony. This is done so that each witness gives a more accurate account and can't repeat what other witnesses testified to.  It wasn't until AFTER testifying that witnesses could watch the trial. Only after they were excused from the witness stand could they be allowed to watch the trial and NOT before.  That's way even the people who testified for York, still don't know much about the entire case, because they didn't see or hear anything from other victims. Because the testimonies corroborates with each others, is proof positive that they were telling the truth.

 

The following are portions of the court transcripts from that August 14, 2004 testimony of Habiybah Washington.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upon reading all of the above information, Nuwaupians will continue to deny what happened AFTER the video.  Nuwaupians can sign up for a PACER account at http://www.pacer.gov/ which is the online Electronic Federal Court System. You can download the public documents filed in York's cases, unfortunately however, some Nuwaupians believe the site to be a Government Conspiracy website, so they would rather dwell in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance rather than seek out the actual facts regarding the case, motions, herrings and the trial.  

 

Many have forgotten that Habiybah gave interviews about York's sex with children even before the trial. Here's Habiybah in an interview discussing community life and Dr. York's activities.

 

 

 

 Apparently Nuwaupians forgot or are ignoring her words in this intereview.  When the Nuwaupians are total frustrated and have completely run out of options, they pull out the last line of defense for York by claiming that in New York the age of consent is 17, which is a backdoor admission that they believe York to be guilty. One cult member wrote in the Nuwaupian Debate Forum group on Facebook,

"don't you realize that in NY the legal age to have sex is 17 "

This shows that Nuwaupians have not taken the time to investigate the age of consent laws.  Here's the actual facts, (no pun)

"New York has allowances for minors who are below the age of consent (but older than 13) and close to the same age. These provisions exist because age of consent laws are meant to prevent minors from being sexually exploited by adults, where there is almost always a significant power imbalance. It is not meant to punish individuals who are close to the same age for engaging in consensual, non-exploitative sexual conduct "

In New York, a person who is under age 16 but older than 13 years old can consent to sex with a person who is no more than 4 years older.

In New York, the crime of 3rd degree rape is committed when a person over the age of 21 has sex with a person under the age of 17.

So the law is specific on the age limits, Habiybah Washington, Amala Noel, Salaam Laroche and other children said in court that they were between ages, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17.  York was 30 years older than Habiybah Washington, thus this constitutes child rape.

Habiybah and others stated that they were in their pre-teens or early teens when he started a sexual relationship with those children.

Q. Ms. Washington, at what age or should I say did Mr. York at some time begin a sexual relationship with you?

Habiybah Washington: I was 13.

Q. And when you were 13 and Mr. York began to do sex acts on you and where were you living then?

Habiybah Washington: I was living in New York.

Q. Do you recall how old Mr. York would have been when you were 13?

Habiybah Washington: He's 30 years older than me, so I think he was 43.

York violated the child predator laws of the United States.

 

 

 Find the Right Lawyer Now

My Account Mobile Version En Español 
About Us Attorneys - Market Your Practice

• Find Lawyers
• Law Library
  • Business Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Employment Law
  • Family Law
  • Finance Law
  • Government Law
  • Immigration Law
  • Injury Law
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Products & Services Law
  • Real Estate Law
• Legal Center
• Law Blog
• Legal Forums
•  

Legal Topics > Criminal Law and Police > Personal Crimes > Sexual Abuse - Criminal

New York Age of Consent Lawyers

Authored by Ken LaMance, LegalMatch Law Library Managing Editor and Attorney at Law

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is the Age of Consent for Sex in New York?

In New York, the age of consent for sex is seventeen. This applies to men and women, and applies to both heterosexual and homosexual conduct.

However, as in many other states, New York has allowances for minors who are below the age of consent (but older than 13) and close to the same age. These provisions exist because age of consent laws are meant to prevent minors from being sexually exploited by adults, where there is almost always a significant power imbalance. It is not meant to punish individuals who are close to the same age for engaging in consensual, non-exploitative sexual conduct.

In New York, a person who is under age 16 but older than 13 years old can consent to sex with a person who is no more than 4 years older.

In New York, the crime of 3rd degree rape is committed when a person over the age of 21 has sex with a person under the age of 17. It can be punished by 4 years in prison. The punishments are far more severe when the victim is younger. If the victim is under 15, the punishment is up to 7 years in prison. A qualified New York lawyer can provide you more information if there is a legal basis for a case involving non-consensual sexual contact.

 

For he Benefit Of The Readers:

 In the Facebook group USA vs. YORK there's an important dialogue regarding the belief that Habiybah Washington recanted, it's a conversation between a York supporter and a former Nuwaupian and York legal adviser. It's posted here because it's nessaray and beneficial to the issue of this topic. 

 

USA VS. YORK - First lets look at the (faulty) logic Nuwaupians are using:

 

Nuwaupian to this very day, still use Habiybah Washington's video and attempt to recant as if its credible. So you as a Nuwaupian or any Nuwaupian is in fact contradicting the very logic being used by the organization. If she is not credible, then why use her statement at all? You can't pick and choose. If she is not credible, then take her out of the equation altogether of any propaganda.

 

 

Paa Anukh Ptah: this is not the video it is a signed affidavit. i used her statement not in his defense i used it to support MY claim. if u take her out the equation the case would have turned out different seeing that she was a KEY witness on the Gov Behalf.

 

 

USA VS. YORK: Next, lets take the same logic and apply it to Dr. York:

 

Dr. York was sworn under oath and pleaded guilty in the Federal court and on a separate day he pleaded guilty while sworn under oath in the State court which is the one that was video taped. In his sworn testimony under oath, Dr. York stated that he was not forced or coerced by anyone and was properly represented by attorneys during which time he pleaded guilty in both venues. Dr. York was also told of the penalties and consequences of pleading guilty and Dr. York accepted it while sworn under oath.

 

Dr. York changes his story later and says he was under duress and tortured without demonstrating any evidence of torture or being under duress other than statements.

 

So by this same logic, Dr. York is not credible. By this same logic Dr. York also expects to be believed from statements as evidence and nothing else, but at the same time speaks against basing things on statements without other evidence. In other words, the listed victims testified in court and gave statements against Dr. York and Nuwaupians do not want to accept those statements because they are just statements, but at the same time, Nuwaupians expect people to believe Dr. York's statements about the case, including duress and torture for the guilty pleas without providing any other evidence to support it. So again, we see a double standard.

 

Paa Anukh Ptah: yes applying that logic i can overstand and agree. but that is not the issue at hand. I only wanted to point out that by her own words she commited perjury. she being the key witness and not being a Credible witness raise a red flag.

 

 

USA VS. YORK: My above 2 comments address the faulty logic of this topic thread and that which Nuwaupian use. Now let's address the facts of the issues brought up in the topic post:

 

<< In this SWORN AFFIDAVIT She STATED 1) She understood that she was facing Perjury for the Affidavit >>

 

Singling out this affidavit when there are other sworn statements made by her before and after is analogous to Christians picking and choosing verses out of the Bible out of context. This is what is going on here.

 

Yes Habiybah was told about perjury. She was also told the punishment for perjury and the likelihood and/or lack of likelihood that she would be indicted for perjury by the same prosecution that she testified for in court.

 

<< NOW I DO OVERSTAND that Many Disgruntled Ex Members will say that she later explained that she LIED to help him out.. >>

 

This is not coming from disgruntled Nuwaupians. Habiybah's statements are recorded in the TRANSCRIPTS of the New Trial Hearing of August 13th 2004 where her Affidavit (that is focused on in this thread) was being addressed. In those transcripts Habiybah said that the only reason she did the video and affidavit was to help Dr. York out. Again, these are not the words of disgruntled Nuwaupians as is being implied.

 

<< She COMMITED PERJURY :Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, . >>

 

Habiybah did not perjure herself. The fact that she took back her affidavit relieved her of perjury violations and of any recantations. This is the reason why Habiybah did not legally recant or perjure herself. This is why it was referred to as an "attempted recantation."

 

<< SHe is NOT A CREDIBLE WITNESS and has proven that she has a difficult time telling the TRUTH... BEFORE you attack me please read the document below. Thank you for your time. >>

 

There is no need to be insecure to think that you will be attacked. What is addressed in this group are the arguments made not the people. The argument made here is based on a hypocritical premise as well as faulty logic and ignorance of legal procedures governing these issues. This argument also neglect the full context of Habiynah Washington's involvement in the case and ignores the very court hearing that addressed the Affidavit. You can not talk about the Affidavit in a vacuum like that as if it was not addressed in court under oath and cross examined. These mistakes is why this issue keeps coming up to no benefit at all.

 

<< yes applying that logic i can overstand and agree. but that is not the issue at hand. I only wanted to point out that by her own words she commited perjury. she being the key witness and not being a Credible witness raise a red flag .. >>

 

Again, as I have explained... to focus on the affidavit in isolation is of no benefit at all and it leads to faulty conclusions as yours.  Also, the issue of credibility itself is inherent in the argument for Dr. York as well because if she is not credible then neither is Dr. York as outlined above. You can't pick and choose based on how you feel. Doing so will only keep people chitchatting in circles. It will fade over time.

 

USA VS. YORK: Another note,

 

One thing that this group is to focus on is the facts. Its not about propaganda. This issue was addressed many times even in this group. It only keeps coming up because people like yourself and others refuse to do all of the homework and accept information from other websites that do the same.

 

The point of posting this topic is to convince readers here that Habiybah is not a credible witness. If everyone here concedes to that, then they would also have to concede that Dr. York is not credible and has no integrity either. Then what? So its best to deal with all of the facts and not pick and choose things out of context to advance an agenda based on ignorance.

 

On this page of her sworn testimony after she did the affidavit that is the focus of this topic, she was asked if she testified that she has sex with Dr. York at 13 and she said yes. She was then asked is it correct that it was false and she said no.

 

 

On this page we read Habiybah was asked about the affidavit that is the focus of this topic thread and if at that time she said it was accurate to the best of her ability and she said yes. Then she was asked if it is in fact accurate and she said no.

 

 

On this page we see that Habiybah says that she and others did not give false testimony at trial and that she did the affidavit because she thought it would help Dr. York.

 

 

 

Paa Anukh Ptah: yes i read that as well. i have that downloaded. this doc i also use to support my claim.yes using the same logic on York will provide the same argument against him. i have no intentions to cause disruption. i see where u are coming from . But the topuc here is Ms Washington as a key witness..

 

 

USA VS. YORK: We see here that Habiybah said the video tape she did was not true.

 

 

 

 

The topic here is credibility. You are focused on Washington in your argument. The issue of credibility covers all witnesses because the Jury did not just hear from Washington. So again, you and others should learn to use the full context. Otherwise, you are just having discussions about issues that were addressed many many many times before. 10 years from now, someone is going to be saying the same things all because they neglect to do all the homework and keep everything in context.

 

 Its very obvious that you and other Nuwaupians only question Washington's credibility because she took back her affidavit. Because at the time she did the video and then the later affidavit, she also had no credibility because she obviously changed her story to do the video and affidavit in the first place. So this issue is only being raised out of a dislike and not from the full context of facts within the case. If  Habiybah Washington left her affidavit intact and stood behind it, no Nuwaupian would be saying "Habiybah is not credible." They would back and support her 1000% in that case.

 

 

 

In conclusion:

 

With the logic shown in the topic statement/question, at the time Habiybah Washington did her video and later affidavit, she committed perjury according to the topic post and its definition given. YET at that time, no Nuwaupian claimed Habiybah committed perjury or questioned her credibility. Even though she now gave two different stories (1-at trial and 2-in her video/affidavit). The reason why no Nuwaupian questioned her credibility or said she committed perjury was because her actions was in favor of Dr. York. As long as her actions worked in favor of Dr. York it was all good. Nobody flinched.

 

Then when the normal process continued and it came time for Habiybah to testify and stand behind her affidavit in court under cross examination, she pulled back her affidavit and said she lied on the video and affidavit to help Dr. York. NOW suddenly, Nuwaupians scream foul and say Habiybah is not credible and she perjured herself and throw her under the bus.

 

This is what this topic post really reflects. It reflects the wayward swing of Nuwaupian emotions and not based on facts. Anything that is not in favor of York is bad evil, negative demon, devil, etc. whether its facts or not. Anything that favors York is good, angel, heavenly, welcomed, cheered, whether its facts or not. So with Nuwaupians its NOT about FACTS, its all about the EMOTIONAL ties that York's followers have for him by any means necessary. The organization is documented to be about Facts but in reality its an organization of indiscriminate loyalty to Dr. York, not facts. Facts are ignored for the most part.

 

The claim made is based on a logically contradictory premise. The question itself is rooted in dislike as explained. 1 question can show this to be the case....

 

1) At the time Habiybah did her video and affidavit which was a change from her previous trial testimony, why didn't the Nuwaupians question her credibility or make accusations of perjury?

 

The answer to this question shows that its not about her credibility or if she perjured herself. It shows that it has everything to do with whether her actions help Dr. York or hurt him. In other words, If Habiybah lied to help Dr. York - its all good and she's an angel. If she tells the truth and it hurts Dr. York, she is the devil.  So its not about accuracy/truth/facts.... its about whatever to help Dr. York.

This has been the motivation and fuel behind Dr. York's fight for freedom. Not facts, but rather, make up anything and everything that could possibly help him hence the Liberian, Ghana, Native American projects that people work on, the UCC, Moorish, etc. projects.