The Assembly of the
Church / University of the Universe

(Updated June 18, 2008)

LIST OF CURRENT COURT CASES

· Marijuana Party of Canada - News Reports and Up-dates
POT CHURCH BUSTED and
CHURCH OF THE UNIVERSE FOUNDER RELEASED PENDING APPEAL
http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=406

· Federal Court of Canada Class Action, Court File No.: T-1430-07
Reverend Edwin Pearson and others vs. The Queen

Class Action and Motion and Motion for Certification

· CASES before Her Majesty’s Ontario Courts
CASE 1 Reverends Tucker and Baldasaro vs. The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd.

· Case 2 Queen vs. Reverends Tucker and Baldasaro, 2000 Marijuana Trafficking Charges

· CASE 3 Queen vs. Reverends Tucker and Baldasaro, 2004 Marijuana Trafficking Charges

IMPORTANT - Read Transcript of proceedings of November, 27, 2006 before Justice Borkovich.

· Legal Self Defence “LSD” News List List of Legal News and eGroups

[Case 1] Reverends Tucker & Baldasaro v. Cadillac Fairview Corporation
Court of Appeal for Ontario, Judgment July 12, 2005
On February 1^st 2008 a New Jury Trial was set to commence at Hamilton and shortly thereafter, the matter was settled, out of court, for an un-disclosed amount.

[Case 2] Her Majesty The Queen vs. Reverends Tucker & Baldasaro
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Trafficking Marijuana: 1999-2000
The R.C.M.P. Raided the Church of the Universe at Hamilton, Ontario, and arrested Reverends Tucker and Baldasaro for sending the Honourable Allan Rock, Canada’s Health Minister samples of Medicinal Marijuana.

Note: Read the Royal Canadian Mounted Police SURVEILLANCE REPORT filed by the R.C.M.P. Hamilton Detachment and under-covers in support of their investigation and C.D.S.A. Charges.

FINAL OUTCOME OF PROSECUTION: Charges stayed by Crown in March 2006

Proceedings have since been instituted by us against the Queen for the recovery of costs and return of Church Sacrament. The trial for the return of Sacrament is set to be Tried on January 7^th and 8^th 2008 at 10 a.m. in the Ontario Court of Justice before Madam Justice Agro. Note: The Crown had 30 days to return Sacrament, money and other things seized by the RCMP no longer needed for prosecution etc, and 1 year later we had to go to Court to demand their return. We have won before we started. The Crown is in contempt of the order commanding the return of all things, including misc. monies etc. within 30 days of their staying the charges.

[Case 3] Her Majesty the Queen vs. Reverends Tucker & Baldasaro
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Trafficking Marijuana: 2003-2004

Hamilton Spectator NEWS ARTICLES:

· Barbara Brown, August 24, 2007 Church leaders go to court over confiscated pot

· Barbara Brown, November 30, 2007 http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/289275

· Susan Clairmont, January 25, 2008 Pot circus Comes to the Court House

The Hamilton Police Service raided the Church of the Universe, Morning Star Mission at Hamilton, Ontario and arrested Reverends Tucker & Baldasaro. On March 1, 2005 a Trial began before Justice Weseloh on the Evidence of an Undercover Officer known to the Reverends as “Sister Kim”. Seven days into the trial Judge Weseloh finally agreed with us that the Court had no jurisdiction to hold its “absolute Jurisdiction Trial” and turned the proceeding into a preliminary hearing which is currently before the Supreme Court of Canada on Application for Leave to Appeal. The Trial by Jury which was set to commence on September 27, 2006, was suspended by Judge Borkovich and is put off until the Fall of 2007 pending the out-come of the Application for Leave to the Supreme Court.

Note: Transcript of the proceedings are online of November 27, 2006 before Justice Borkovich are online
This is an interesting and encouraging look into the progress of Church Ministers before the Courts at Hamilton in 1984 and of the he Crown Prosecutor’s failed attempt on September 27, 2006 to use the Judgment of Judge Borkovich in 1984 sentencing Reverend Baldasaro to prison, to prove to the new Judge that Reverend Baldasaro was “Conning” Justice Borkovich as to the Church and his Religion. What the Crown did not anticipate was the fact that Mr. Justice Borkovich was to sit in the proceedings of November 27, 2006 and that he had had a change of mind since 1984. Now he believed that Reverend Baldasaro was indeed a “Reverend”.

Reference:

See Cases cited below:

Note: Transcript of the Examination and Cross-Examination of Hamilton Undercover Police Officer Kim Walker in the proceedings before His Honour, Judge Weseloh at Hamilton, Ontario on March 3rd, 7th and 8th 2005 are online @ http://www.iamm.com/Transcript-March-3-7-8-2005.htm. This transcript demonstrates that the Church and its Clergy and Members are a well respected and recognizable religious minority by the Police of Hamilton, Ontario and as such, should be entitled to the protection of Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Freedom of Religion) regards the use and distribution of Church Sacrament “God’s Tree of Life”, Marijuana amongst Church Members etc.

See Cases cited below:

Reference:

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, 2006 SCC 6

Balvir Singh Multani et al., Appellants v. Commission scolaire Marguerite Bourgeoys and A.G. of Quebec, Respondents and World Sikh Organization of Canada, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Human Rights Commission and Ontario Human Rights Commission, Interveners

Per McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Arbour and Fish JJ.: Defined broadly, religion typically involves a particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship. In essence, religion is about freely and deeply held personal convictions or beliefs connected to an individual's spiritual faith and integrally linked to his or her self-definition and spiritual fulfillment, the practices of which allow individuals to foster a connection with the divine or with the subject or object of that spiritual faith.

G and his father B are orthodox Sikhs. G believes that his religion requires him to wear a kirpan at all times; a kirpan is a religious object that resembles a dagger and must be made of metal.  In 2001, G accidentally dropped the kirpan he was wearing under his clothes in the yard of the school he was attending.  The school board sent G’s parents a letter in which, as a reasonable accommodation, it authorized their son to wear his kirpan to school provided that he complied with certain conditions to ensure that it was sealed inside his clothing.  G and his parents agreed to this arrangement.  The governing board of the school refused to ratify the agreement on the basis that wearing a kirpan at the school violated art. 5 of the school’s Code de vie (code of conduct), which prohibited the carrying of weapons.  The school board’s council of commissioners upheld that decision and notified G and his parents that a symbolic kirpan in the form of a pendant or one in another form made of a material rendering it harmless would be acceptable in the place of a real kirpan. B then filed in the Superior Court a motion for a declaratory judgment to the effect that the council of commissioners’ decision was of no force or effect.  The Superior Court granted the motion, declared the decision to be null, and authorized G to wear his kirpan under certain conditions.  The Court of Appeal set aside the Superior Court’s judgment.  After deciding that the applicable standard of view was reasonableness simpliciter, the Court of Appeal restored the council of commissioners’ decision.  It concluded that the decision in question infringed G’s freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Canadian Charter”) and s. 3 of Quebec’s Charter of human rights and freedoms (“Quebec Charter”), but that the infringement was justified for the purposes of s. 1 of the Canadian Charter and s. 9.1 of the Quebec Charter.

Held:  The appeal should be allowed.  The decision of the Court of Appeal should be set aside and the decision of the council of commissioners should be declared to be null.

Freedom of religion is triggered when a claimant demonstrates that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion. Once religious freedom is triggered, a court must then ascertain whether there has been non trivial or non-insubstantial interference with the exercise of the implicated right so as to constitute an infringement of freedom of religion under the Quebec (or the Canadian) Charter.

Reference:

Mills v. The Queen (1986), 26 C.C.C. (3d) 481, 29 D.L.R. (4th) 161, 52 C.R. (3d) 1, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863
La Forest J. There must always be a court of competent jurisdiction available to provide a remedy as it considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. Therefore, while the trial court would ordinarily be the appropriate court to grant the remedy, situations might arise where the trial court is itself implicated in the breach of a constitutional right. In those cases the superior court would have jurisdiction as a court of competent jurisdiction.

Reference: Southam Inc. and The Queen (No.2) (1982), 70 C.C.C. (2d) 264, 38 O.R. (2d) sub nom. R. v. Begley et al. (Ont. H.C.J.) An application under this subsection would not seem to be limited to a case where the applicant's rights were infringed by the Government but rather would include the case where the allegation is that the applicant's rights were infringed by another court.

Reference:

RJR---MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1994)1 S.C.R. 311 at p., (321)
*** the Charter charges the Courts with the responsibility of safeguarding fundamental rights.
For the Courts to insist rigidly that all legislation be enforced to the letter until the moment that it is struck down as unconstitutional might in some instances be to condone the most blatant violation of Charter rights. Such practice would undermine the spirit and purpose of the Charter and might encourage the government to prolong unduly final resolution of the dispute”. To this, in the instant matter, should be added the query: Should this Court unduly prolong the potential deprivation of life, liberty and security, the real effect of the Order of the Court of Appeal suspending the declaration of unconstitutionality?

Reference:

R. v Big M Drug Mart Ltd. [1985] 1. R.C.S. at
p. 295 And The A.G. Canada, New Brunswick and Sask. Sup. Ct. Can. File: 18125 1984: March 6, 7,; 1985:

The supremacy of the Constitution declared in s. 52 dictates that no one can be convicted under an unconstitutional law. Any accused, whether corporate or individual, may defend a criminal charge by arguing the constitutional invalidity of the law under which the charge is brought.

Reference:

The Queen v. Christopher Clay and others

JUDGMENT, JUSTICE McCART . August 14, 1997 London, Ontario Court Of Justice (Gen.-Div)
(Southwest Region) Now The Supreme Court of Ontario

I wish to turn now to some statistical evidence which was introduced by various of the witnesses and which I accept as valid. I heard from a most impressive number of experts, among whom there was a general consensus about effects of the consumption of marijuana. From an analysis of their evidence I am able to reach the following conclusions:

1. Consumption of marijuana is relatively harmless
compared to the so called hard drugs and including
tobacco and alcohol;

2. There exists no hard evidence demonstrating any irreversible

organic or mental damage from consumption of marijuana;
3. That cannabis does cause alteration of mental functions and
as such, it would not be prudent to drive while intoxicated;

4. There is no hard evidence that cannabis consumption
induces psychoses;

5. Cannabis is not an addictive substance;

6. Marijuana is not criminogenic in that there is no
evidence of a causal relationship between cannabis use
and criminality;

7. That the consumption of marijuana probably does not
lead to "hard drug" use for the vast majority of

marijuana consumers, although there appears to be a

statistical relationship between the use of marijuana

and a variety of other psychoactive drugs;

8. Marijuana does not make people more aggressive
or violent;
9. There have been no recorded deaths from the
consumption of marijuana;
10. There is no evidence that marijuana causes

amotivational syndrome;

11. Less than 1% of marijuana consumers are daily users;