Criminal Procedure from Arrest to Appeal

Front Cover
The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.
1 Review

What people are saying - Write a review

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

Orfield is a dangerous dis-info agent.
Thanks to him (and surely a few others) the Rules of Criminal procedure were changed to emasculate the rights of Citizens to make presentments to Grand Juries
.
Never heard of him ?
Kathleen Rosenblatt says that Orfield was one of the drafters that changed Criminal Rules in 1946 which emasculated regular Citizens' rights to speak to a grand jury.
I have not found the statement, yet, which Kathleen asserts Orfield said about presentments.
(listen 6:45 into this video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptcIMroOYQg
But Orfield wrote a book which you can read at google.
Read pages 157 and 158.
Clearly the legal cabal implemented these rule changes to limit the fourth leg of govt ... the Citizen's Grand Jury.
Orfield also wrote an article for the Fordham Law Review in 1960.
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1657&context=flr
Take a look at page 19
where he asserts that 'pleas to jurisdicton' are not allowed per his 1941 amended rules.
In other words, one must (according to him) enter a plea, accept the court's jurisdiction ... and then protest against it.
Patently ludicrous.
Look at the statement by Orfield on page 24, "As "not guilty" is a plea in bar ..." hmmm, this adds credence to the assertion that once you pass thru the gate (the bar) you are assumed to have accepted the court's jurisdiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this from page 28
In passing on the sufficiency of an information, a district court in 1870
stated that "state laws do not control in criminal proceedings in the
United States courts ... in the mode or form of charging the offense....
On the contrary, the proceedings throughout are according to the course
of the common law, except so far as has been otherwise provided by
the laws of congress or by constitutional provision."33
33. United States v. Shepard, 27 Fed. Cas. 1056, 105 (No. 16273) (E.D. BEch. 170).
May I remind everyone that the judge in my criminal case for obstruction, specifically refused to acknoledge common law !!?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
page 31 ... here they say that if one enters a plea of not guilty ... it is too late to assert lack of jurisdiction.
A court has stated: "In criminal prosecutions, although a defendant
may plead to the jurisdiction of the court, there are but few instances
in which he is obliged to have recourse to such a plea. He may take advantage
of the matter under the general issue." 5 In one case the Supreme
Court saw no objection to raising the issue by motion for new trial."0
In an early case, the court, in submitting the issue of guilt to the jury,
stated that a verdict of not guilty would eliminate the issue of jurisdiction,
but a verdict of guilty would be subject to the opinion of the court
on jurisdiction. 7 A plea to the jurisdiction must precede a plea of not
guilty. 8 Following the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction the defendant
may plead over.59
59. United States v. Lawrence, 26 Fed. Cas. 879, 884 (No. 15573) (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1876); United States v. Caldwell, 25 Fed. Cas. 237, 238 (No. 14707) (C.C.S.DN.Y. 1871).
Alas, this is one reason I am glad that I STILL have NOT entered a plea in the case against me. I refuse to accept the court's jurisdiction until they answer a few questions !!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pleas in Abatement are discussed on page 33. Melvin Stamper asserts that in today's courts under martial law rule, this is the best course of action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
forget this clown, concentrate on common law, the Magna Carta and Blackstone,
Melvin Stamper and Larken Rose !
Question everything !
 

Bibliographic information