LIST OF CURRENT COURT CASES
· Marijuana Party of Canada - News Reports and Up-dates
Court of Canada Class Action, Court File No.: T-1430-07
Class Action and Motion and Motion for Certification
· CASES before Her Majesty’s
· 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
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.
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 7th and 8th 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
Hamilton Spectator NEWS ARTICLES:
· Barbara Brown, August 24, 2007 Church leaders go to court over confiscated pot
· November 30, 2007 http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/289275
· January 25, 2008 Pot circus Comes to the Court House
of the proceedings are online of November 27, 2006 before
Justice Borkovich are online
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
See Cases cited below:
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
Mills v. The Queen (1986), 26 C.C.C. (3d) 481, 29 D.L.R. (4th) 161, 52
C.R. (3d) 1,  1 S.C.R. 863
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.
RJR---MacDonald Inc. v.
R. v Big M Drug Mart Ltd.  1. R.C.S. at
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.
The Queen v. Christopher Clay and others
JUSTICE McCART . August 14, 1997
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
2. There exists no hard evidence demonstrating any irreversible
organic or mental damage from
consumption of marijuana;
4. There is no hard evidence that cannabis
5. Cannabis is not an addictive substance;
6. Marijuana is
not criminogenic in
that there is no
7. That the consumption of marijuana probably
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
11. Less than 1% of marijuana consumers are daily users;
12. Consumption in so called "Decriminalized states" does not
increase out of proportion to states where there is no
related costs of cannabis use are negligible when
Federal Court of Canada - Docket: A-20-98
 In its reasons, the Court of Appeal did
not “consider it necessary to form a concluded view” on whether the exclusion
of members of the public who wore head coverings “is in itself
sufficient to constitute reversible error,” in light of its decision to accept
Mr. Laws” appeal on other grounds.
Anyone interested in following our Defences
for Trafficking in Marijuana, God’s Tree of Life, and our constitutional arguments
in the Federal Court of Canada and the
In peace, bless us all.
Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro, Archbishop
Reverend Brother Walter A. Tucker, Abbot
Church of the Universe