IS THE ACCUSED A DOPE PUSHER OR A DOPE PRIEST

On Thursday the Supreme Court will deliver a decision in the case of
Reverend Brother Michael Baldasaro vs. Her Majesty the Queen.

Baldasaro is appealing a decision by an Ontario court.

The specific issue under the Charter is whether the prohibition of
marijuana trafficking in the Controlled Drug and Substances Act
violates the right to religious freedom under the Charter.

Michael Baldasaro is no ordinary drug pusher.

He and Walter Tucker are ministers in the Free Church of the
Universe, which professes marijuana to be sacramental. They were
charged on two counts of drug trafficking and sentenced to
imprisonment for two years.

A secondary issue under appeal is whether the Ontario Court made a
mistake in ordering the partial forfeiture of a church as
offence-related property under the Controlled Drug and Substances
Act. The Hamilton property was confiscated as proceeds of crime.

They have already appealed once at the provincial level, but the
conviction was upheld. However, the length of the sentence was
reduced, and Baldasaro, for example, was sentenced to five months'
imprisonment, instead.

The forfeiture order for the property was also set aside, and a
confiscation order was issued for only half of the property.

The Facebook page in support of the Church of the Universe, subtitles
the issue "Canadian Justice or Witch Trial?"

There are quite a few fans and friends, just as there have been when
the two ran for political office.

In the summary of the case, the Facebook page cites Hamilton Superior
Court Justice John Cavarzan saying, "544 Barton Street East is a
marijuana convenience store that operates for profit like a
prohibition-era speakeasy, but disguised as a church."

The case runs back to 2004, when after selling small amounts of
marijuana to a female undercover police officer Baldasaro and Tucker
were arrested and charged with trafficking.

In 2007, they pleaded not guilty to the charges on the principle of
religious freedom but, after a lengthy trial, a jury found them both guilty.

One defendant, Brother Baldasaro, aged 58, was convicted on two
counts of marijuana trafficking.

His crime involved about 2.5 grams worth $30, a minor matter when it
comes to possession but a major matter when it is sold. And Baldasaro
is not new to the court, having 12 previous trafficking convictions.

The other defendant, Brother Tucker, 75, was convicted on three
counts of trafficking involving $40 worth of marijuana. The two are
well known in the community, and the case received quite a bit of
media attention.

At their sentencing hearing in April 2008, four years after the
initial charges, Baldasaro was sentenced to a two-year penitentiary
term, while Tucker was sentenced to a one-year reformatory term. The
Crown also applied to the court to have the property from which they
distributed marijuana and their Church forfeited to the federal
government as an offence-related property.

So-called forfeiture laws allow property which is derived from crime
to be seized and sold, profits divided between government and police.

Forfeiture laws have been criticized as a cash grab, especially in
those places where they constitute a significant source of income for
prosecutors and police. Planes, boats, houses, and many other things
are seized and sold at auction.

The stated objective is that criminals do not profit from criminal
activity. But it was a lucrative fishing expedition for the authorities.

In this case, the Brothers were only charged after repeatedly selling
marijuana to an undercover officer. However, what is disingenuous is
that she posed as a lonely woman new to town, seeking comfort.

She posed as someone sympathetic to the church's mission, not as a
neighbourhood kid wanting to get high. So rather than being a
'marijuana convenience store,' the police had to approach them as a
church in order to get them to commit a crime.

In other words, they had to con him in his belief that he was acting
as a priest rather than a pusher.

Guess that proves his point.