Make your own free website on Tripod.com

LoveCry Information

The Assembly of The Church Of The Universe

LoveCry Information
The Joy Mission Of Mother Goddesss and Father God
The Toronto Street News
General Health: Anthony Dipasquale
Hi I'm Angel
Changes Needed In The Children's Aid Sociiety
Medical Marijuana Issues
Child Abuse Issues
Homeless Issues
LoveCry

church_of_the_universe_banner-2.gif

s2371582172_9062.jpg

Legal Self Defence Work Group

Church of the Universe



March 5, 2009



Dear Brothers and Sisters,



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WHAT WE ARE SAYING 4:20 – April 20, 2009 at Osgoode Hall, Toronto

Her Majesty The Queen vs. Reverends Tucker & Baldasaro



We feel that because of the importance of the issues raised in the Supplementary Notice of Appeal below, everyone should be made aware of the issues and what is happening in this case.



In preparation for our appearance before the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Toronto, on 4:20, Aril 20th, 2009 at 10 am, we filed a Supplementary Notice of Appeal, (a copy of which we enclose below), which will help to explain WHAT WE ARE SAYING.
Last November, our appeal was adjourned to 4:20 because the Supreme Court is ruling on an appeal before it which outcome involves the forfeiture of property under the C.D.S.A. which the Church Building at 544 Barton St., E., was seized under and the decision will affect sentencing and the forfeiture issue. As of today, March 5, 2009 the ruling has not been released.



Please note that the G13 Missionaries will be commencing a Jury Trial on that same 4:20 day just down the street in Old City Hall and the issues we are raising will show you why our Appeal and the Question before the Trial Court in Toronto must go to the Supreme Court. The issues have been raised and our rights in the lower courts stare decises and res judicata in the rulings of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Baldasaro, [1996] O.J. No. 712, Court File No C20319, Morden A.C.J.O., Holden and Catzman JJ.A. See Para. 19. There is no jurisdiction in the Ontario Trial Courts because they are bound by the ruling of the Court of Appeal that religion is not a defence to trafficking marijuana and before that in the appeals of Reverends Walter and William Tucker. The only court of competent jurisdiction left is the Supreme Court and all Church Clergy and Members should apply to a transfer of their case because the lower courts are FUNCTUS – WITHOUT JURISDICTION until such time as the Court of Appeal overturns its ruling or the Supreme Court of Canada.



NOTE: The documents in support of Incompetence of Counsel referred to in para 14 will follow next week.



Thank you for your support.



Reverends Tucker & Baldasaro



Court File No.: C48735 and C48736


COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

- and -

REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL J. BALDASARO and
REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER

Appellants in Inmate Appeal

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTICE OF APPEAL
(Supplement to Notice of Appeal, dated April 28, 2008, filed May 6, 2008;
and Supplement to Supplementary Notice of Appeal, dated Aug 11, 2008)



PARTICULARS OF ORDER:



Place of Order: Superior Court of Justice, (South Central Region)
John Sopinka Court House
45 Main St. E., Hamilton, Ontario, Ontario.

Name of Judge: The Honourable Mr. Justice Cavarzan
Offence of which accused charged:
a. Reverend BROTHER Walter A. Tucker
February 10, 2004, Information No.: 04-1252-02
Section 5(1) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Traffic in a controlled substance, to wit: Cannabis Marihuana

b. Reverend BROTHER Walter A. Tucker
February 10, 2004, Information No.: 04-1252-02
Section 5(1) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Traffic in a controlled substance, to wit: Cannabis Marihuana



c. Reverend BROTHER Walter A. Tucker
January 29, 2004, Information No.: 04-1252-02
Section 5(1) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Traffic in a controlled substance, to wit: Cannabis Marihuana

d. Reverend BROTHER Michael J. Baldasaro
May 7, 2003, Information No.: 04-1252-01
Section 5(1) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Traffic in a controlled substance, to wit: Cannabis Marihuana

e. Reverend BROTHER Michael J. Baldasaro
May 21, 2003, Information No.: 04-1252-01
Section 5(1) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Traffic in a controlled substance, to wit: Cannabis Marihuana

Section of Controlled Drugs and Substances Act under which
order made:
Section 5.(1)
Date of Order: November 28, 2007
Plea at trial: Not guilty
Length of Hearing: 1 hour, approximately
Date of imposition of Sentence: April 25, 2008
Sentence imposed on Reverend Tucker:
1 year gaol and forfeiture order
Sentence impose on Reverend Baldasaro:
2 years in gaol and forfeiture order
Date of Conviction: November 28, 2007
If accused in custody, place of incarceration: N/A




The appellants appeal against:

13. The Conviction, and Forfeiture Orders registered, November 28, 2007 and Sentence imposed, April 25th 2008, by the Honourable Mr. Justice Cavarzan in the Superior Court of Justice at Hamilton, Ontario, (South Central Region).

The Supplemental Grounds for appeal are:

14. Reverend Baldasaro’s Counsel in these proceedings, Mr. Peter R. Boushy, proved himself to be incompetent in the defence and performance of his duties.

The Learned Trial Judge erred in fact and law and indicated his bias and brought the administration of justice into disrepute as follows:

15. By ignoring the fact that a Church was before him and by allowing the Crown, to help their witness hide that fact, by permitting the Crown, Mr. Strezos and Mr. James Gorham to refer to the Reverend Defendant’s as “Mr.” and on occasion, Reverend Baldasaro, by his first name “Michael” before, the Court and before the Jury, thereby producing and attempting to produce hatred against us and the Church, an identifiable group in violation of Section 318, 319 and 320 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

a. Transcript of the Absolute Jurisdiction, Trial Proper converted to a Preliminary Hearing before Justice Weseloh, the many Judicial Pre-Trial Hearings before Justices Borkovich, and others, the Jury Trial and Sentencing Hearing.

b. Letter, January 14, 2003 from James Gorham to Federal Court,
Attn: Mary Sansone, Registrar.

c. Criminal Code of Canada Section 318.(4)

(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by color, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. R.S., c. 11.

d. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL USES OF CANNABIS AND THE CANADIAN "MARIJUANA CLASH"
Prepared For The Senate Special Committee On Illegal Drugs
Leah Spicer, Law and Government Division
12 April, 2002 - LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

e. Transcript, R. v. Reverends Tucker & Baldasaro,
Ruling The Honourable Mr. Justice N. Borkovich
Transcript, November 27, 2006, Preliminary Hearing

THE COURT: All right. Let’s deal with the other part of the application, about the reasonable apprehension of bias. It’s like – I note that there’s two reasons for sentence. The issue, as I recall, in the trial did not come up. I believe that was now Reverend Baldasaro – at that time he wasn’t Reverend.

16. By denying us right to the protection of 176. of the Criminal Code of Canada by ignoring the fact that the property he was giving away is the property of the Members of The Assembly of the Church of the Universe and as such is not subject to Civil Litigation or seizure.

17. The Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to bring The Assembly of the Church of the Universe its property before it because The Assembly of the Church of the Universe is not a registered corporation and cannot be a party that can sue and/or be sued, no more than can the Court of Appeal for Ontario sue or be sued because it is not a registered corporation. Reverends Tucker and Baldasaro v. The Honourable Mr. Justice Finlayson and The Court of Appeal for Ontario et al, Justice Laskin, on appeal from dismissal of Action by Ontario Court (General Division) at Hamilton, regards the Ruling of the Hon. Mr. Justice Finlayson in the matter of The Queen vs. Tucker, Tucker & Baldasaro, Ontario Reports 9 O.R. (3d), Indexed as R. v. Tucker, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Finlayson, Carthy and Galligan JJ.A., June 11, 1992.

18. By denying us due process, fundamental justice and our rights when he realized that there was a Church before him and further violated us by helping the Crown obfuscate, before the Jury, and denied there was a church before him by calling it a “convenience store” contrary to the evidence of Police and other Witnesses. the fact that its members and ministers were involved and by not demanding the Crown justify the interference of the exercise of the Defendants freedom of religion under the Charter.

19. The Learned Trial Judge and the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Supreme Court have violated the defendants constitutional rights and freedoms and the principles of fundamental natural justice by not referring the charges and matter before them to the Supreme Court of Canada by recognizing that the Defendants/Appellants were being denied their right to challenge the charges against them before Justice Cavarzan and the conviction in that there was no way the Defendants could challenge the charges against them the especially in light of the ruling indexed as R. v. Baldasaro, [1996] O.J. No. 712, Court File No C20319, Morden A.C.J.O., Holden and Catzman JJ.A., and the fact that it was agreed upon, during the Jury Trial of 1984 for trafficking Marijuana, by The Honourable Mr. Justice Borkovich, Reverend Baldasaro and his Church Counsel, Reverend Tucker, and the Acting Crown Attorney, Mr. Kenneth Dechart, Q.C., that in light of the fact that the Court of Appeal upheld Justice Borkovich’s Ruling in 1994, sentencing Revered Baldasaro to 1 year in gaol, because the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, being a Higher Court, was binding upon the then Ontario Court (General Division), now the Supreme Court of Ontario, as inferior Courts, is stare decises and res judicata, Justice Borkovich cited the aforesaid Judgment of the Court of Appeal as follows:

a. The Honourable Mr. Justice Borkovich, September 24, 1984
Ontario Court (General Division).



b. MORDEN A.C.J.O. (Endorsement):-- The only ground of appeal raised respecting he conviction is that the trial judge erred in rejecting the defence based on the submitted religious sacrament. This court has already decided that this is not a defence in law, R. v. Baldasaro, [1984] 0.J. No. 2033, September 24, 1984, Appeal from conviction dismissed.

With respect to sentence in all of the circumstances, we think that one year would be sufficient. Leave to appeal granted. The appeal is allowed to the extent of varying the sentences imposed to one year concurrent to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed by Crane J. on October 25, 1994, as varied by this curt to time served.
A Bench warrant was issued at the discretion of the Crown.


20. The decisions of 1984 cannot be used to deny Charter Rights of Religious Freedom because it wasn’t until 1985, that the right to equality became available to the defendants and since that time it has not been adjudicated. Justice Cavarzan had no jurisdiction to refuse the claim of freedom of religion, especially in light of the fact that the evidence before him proved its existence, . And further, until such time as the Court of Appeal reverses its decision in R. v. Tucker and R. v Baldasaro, both cases prior to 1985, the Superior Courts of Ontario have no jurisdiction to entertain the Defendants Defence as the Court of Appeal decisions are stare decises and res judicata to them.
The decision of the Court of Appeal that “Religion is not a Defence” to the Charges herein of Trafficking Marijuana, Church Sacrament, infringe, violate and deny the Appellant’s Charter rights and the principles of fundamental justice and must be reversed and/or adjourned to the Supreme Court of Canada, the only remaining Court or Competent Jurisdiction to entertain and remedy it.

a. Syndicate Northcrest v. Amselem
S.C.C. File No’s.: 29253, 29252. 2004: January 19; 2004: June 30.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

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. However, even if the claimant successfully demonstrates non-trivial interference, religious conduct which would potentially cause harm to or interference with the rights of others would not automatically be protected. The ultimate protection of any particular Charter right must be measured in relation to other rights and with a view to the underlying context in which the apparent conflict arises.

21. The refusal to hear the Appellant’s Appeals to the Supreme Court, by the Supreme Court to give reasons for denying the Appellants Applications for Leave to Appeal is a violation, infringement and denial of the Appellants Constitutional rights and freedoms and the principles of fundamental natural justice.

22. By allowing evidence of Police harassing and arresting Members of the Church upon their leaving the Mission at 544 Barton St., E., Hamilton for possession of Marijuana, especially when at that time marijuana was legal to possess.

23. By denying the members standing as members of the Church;

24. By calling us convenience store customers and by taking away a property that belonged to The Assembly of the Church of the Universe.

25. By failing to understand that the Church of the Universe is not a Corporation of the Province of Ontario and/or the Government of Canada, that the Honourable Court did not have jurisdiction over it and its property at 544 Barton Street, East, Hamilton, Ontario L8L 2Z1. The Church of the Universe can nor more sue and/or be sued than can the Court of Appeal for Ontario, because neither is incorporated and therefore does not exist in law.

26. The Learned Trial Judge erred in not declaring a mistrial when he found that all of the evidence that had been gathered by the Police Department had not been presented to the jury so as to render full answer and Defence impossible.

27. The Learned Trial Judge erred in fact and law by not declaring a mistrial when he realized that the evidence placed before him by the Police Witnesses against the accused was most likely perjured evidence when adding and comparing what was put before the Jury as evidence at the Trial compared to the evidence place before the Judge during the sentencing and forfeiture hearing.

28. That the Judiciary inclusive of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, by their actions and inactions helped to produce incitement of hatred and derision against us and the Church, an identifiable group in violation of Section 318, 319 and 320 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

a. Criminal Code of Canada Section 318.(4)

(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by color, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. R.S., c. 11.

29. We did not have full disclosure, the proof of which is that we had no proof of the investigation of ourselves and the Church, except from the time of the video tape taken after the Robbery of Reverend Tucker at Hamilton Police Station. We had always asked for full disclosure, the proof we didn’t is before the Court now.

30. Such further and other grounds as may be advised and admitted.






The relief sought is:

31. That the conviction, sentence and forfeiture orders be quashed.

32. In the alternative, that the Appeal be transferred to the Supreme Court.

33. We believe that in the end, because of all the mistakes and violations of due process and the law that have occurred during this past course of events between the Attorney General Staff and ourselves before the Courts that in the best interest of everyone involved, a Judicial Inquiry ought to be initiated to clarify everyone’s view of the legal confrontation between the Parties and Courts.

34. Such further and other relief as may be advised and admitted.

March 3, 2009



Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro
4-19 Westinghouse Avenue
Hamilton, Ontario
L8L 2Z1

Appellant In Inmate Appeal





Reverend Brother Walter A. Tucker
6-549 Barton Street, East
Hamilton, Ontario L8L 2Z2

Appellant in Inmate Appeal

TO: THIS HONOURABLE COURT




AND TO: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Criminal Prosecutions Section

The Honourable Robert Nicholson, Attorney General

Suite 3400, The Exchange Tower

Box 36, First Canadian Place

Toronto Ontario
M5X 1K6

Antoinette Issa, Counsel
Voice: (416) 952-2130
Facsimile: (416) 952-2116
eMail: Antoinette.Issa@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca

Respondent in Appeal
n526075417_1587775_6231514.jpg

Donate Now Through CanadaHelps.org!

Blessings and LoveTo All