Intro
Via “W.D. Fard‘s First Footsteps in America: The Trail in Oregon” (2025) Anton Batey and Kevin Morris found a case from 1927, i.e., The 1927 case of People v. Ford (81 Cal. App. 450). They referenced “The Pacific Reporter” 968.; Reports of Cases Determined in the Courts of Appeal of the State of California, vol. 81, Bancroft-Whitney, 1928, pp. 449-455. This case can be found herein at The Pacific reporter v.253, pages 966-968)(Dated Feb-23-1927)(See the scans in the below). 

However, in their research work, Anton Batey and Kevin Morris told the world that this case focuses on the Fard’s criminal appeal following his conviction for offering to sell narcotics alongside Donaldson (in 1926). This appeal, brought solely by Ford, highlights issues related to the sufficiency of evidence, the admissibility of co-defendant statements, and Ford’s apparent attempts to shift blame onto Donaldson. The dynamic between the two raises the possibility of a falling-out, particularly given Ford’s efforts to minimize his role and suggest Donaldson bore greater responsibility. One might speculate whether Ford resented Donaldson for failing to properly vet the undercover officer, ultimately leading to their arrest. The facts of the case reveal a coordinated effort between the two defendants. Donaldson, acting as the initial point of contact, negotiated with an undercover officer posing as a prospective narcotics buyer. Donaldson then introduced the officer to Ford at a restaurant owned and operated by Ford. During their meeting, Donaldson retrieved a newspaper wrapped package containing narcotics from Ford’s premises. Although Ford initially denied involvement, claiming the package was “a bundle of old laundry,” he later admitted his connection to it. The narcotics were seized by law enforcement and identified as heroin and morphine. A major point of contention in Ford’s appeal was the use of Donaldson’s statements made in his absence. Typically, such statements are inadmissible unless a conspiracy or partnership is clearly established. In this case, the court determined that the two men were indeed partners in the crime, as evidenced by their coordinated actions and Donaldson’s description of their agreement to split profits. As a result, Donaldson’s statements were deemed admissible because they furthered the objectives of their joint enterprise. Fard’s defense rested on d istancing himself from Donaldson. He argued that Donaldson acted independently and that the evidence linking him (Ford) to the crime was insufficient. His appeal also challenged the trial court’s refusal to grant a directed verdict in his favor, claiming there was no conclusive proof of his active participation. However, the appellate court found otherwise. Testimony from the undercover officer, Ford’s own admissions, and Donaldson’s statements presented a consistent narrative of Ford’s direct involvement. The evidence demonstrated that Ford not only facilitated the transaction but also stood to profit equally.

______________________________________________________________________________________________
The Pacific reporter v.253, pages 966-968)(Dated Feb-23-1927). 
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4428923&seq=998&q1=Donaldson

Scans

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

W.D. Fard’s First Footsteps in America: The Trail in Oregon: Batey, Anton, Morris, Kevin: 9798280341470: Amazon.com: Books

Catalog Record: The Pacific reporter | HathiTrust Digital Library

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100334005

Who is Wallace Farad? Aka W.D. Fard aka Fard – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Who is Wallace Farad? Aka W.D. Fard aka Fard

Who is Wallie Ford? – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Who is Wallie Ford?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #mirzaghulamahmad