Dear Sirs,

Strong Challenge to the Jurisdiction.

What's the case all about?

Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
PS: October 19th 2007 was a Friday.


----- Original Message -----
From: The Assembly of the Church of the Universe
To: Assembly of the Church of the Universe
Cc: Legal Self Defence Work Group
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:25 PM
Subject: R. vs. Reverends Tucker & Baldasaro - Notice of Motion - November 19, 2007


Reverend Tucker: Information No. 04-1252-02
Reverend Baldasaro: Information No. 04-1252-01





SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

(South Central Region Hamilton, Ontario)



B e t w e e n:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Prosecution

(Respondent to Motion)


- and -



REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER
Defendant
(Moving party)
- and -


Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro
Defendant

(Moving party)





NOTICE OF MOTION
(Returnable, November 19th, 2007)







TAKE NOTICE: that the Defendant, REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER, and the Defendant Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro, will make a Motion to this Honourable Court, on MONDAY, october 19th, 2007, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon, or so soon thereafter as the Motion can be heard, at the John Sopinka Court House, 45 Main St. E., Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.



The Hearing of the Motion will take approximately 1 hour of the Honourable Courts time.

THE MOTION IS FOR:



1. An order issue quashing these proceedings, directions and such further and other relief as may be advised and the Honourable Court admit.

The grounds for the motion are as follows:



2. This will be the second illegal trial we have been subjected to upon these same charges. We believe that is against the law and our constitutional rights and freedoms to be tried twice upon the same charges.



3. Parts of the evidence are in question, before the Court of Appeal for Ontario, from the orders of Mr. Justice Ramsay, as introduced before him upon the Sworn Affidavit of Mr. Lou Strezos in the Superior Court of Justice at Kitchener.



4. The Hamilton Police Service violated Section 176. of the Criminal Code of Canada and our constitutional rights and freedoms when they invaded the sanctity of our Church and homes.



5. Mr. Justice Weseloh violated our constitutional rights and freedoms when he knowingly put us on trial on his own hook, on March 1, 2005, at the behest of the Attorney General’s Agent who misled him into the violation, without jurisdiction by denying us the exercise of our statutory right pursuant to Section 536. Of the Criminal Code of Canada, to elect our mode of trial, ab initio.



6. Mr. Justice Weseloh did not have the jurisdiction to violate the orders of The Honourable Mr. Justice Borkovich and the Court of Appeal for Ontario who ruled that he continue the Trial Proper and therefore could not change his decision at a later date and rule he had no jurisdiction. The Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Borkovich was never quashed by the Court of Appeal and therefore stands to this day as law.



7. All evidence obtained in the proceedings commenced March 1st 2005 before Mr. Justice Weseloh, as misled by the Crown, was obtained without jurisdiction to hold an “absolute jurisdiction trial” and a violation of our constitutional rights and freedoms. It remains an open question before this Honourable Court, as it was ruled by the Court of Appeal of Ontario “moot” in light of the flip flop Ruling of Mr. Justice Weseloh of March 25th 2005 when he ruled that Crown Counsel had misled him into a jurisdictional error and thereby caused the Honourable Court to err in jurisdiction in embarking upon the absolute jurisdiction trial in the first place which he was ordered to continue (sic).



8. Mr. Justice Weseloh lost jurisdiction over the Defendants by trying both accused upon a summary and indictable offence at the same time.



9. Refusal of this Motion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute again. R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3.

a) Lack of jurisdiction in this context means, not merely lack of initial jurisdiction but loss of jurisdiction which can occur where the justice presiding at the preliminary hearing fails to observe a mandatory provision of this Act or where there has been a denial of natural justice. R. v. Forsythe, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 268, 53 C.C.C. (2d) 225, 15 C.R. (3d) 280 (7:0).





10. The Defendants are entitled to constitutional relief. The Courts must apply a sanction to the Charter violation.

a) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Commentary by Tarnopolsky & Beaudoin
A Carswell Student Edition

[T]he Courts must apply a sanction. We would not be justified
in simply ignoring the breach of a declared fundamental right or in
letting it go merely with words of reprobation.





11. Such further and other grounds as may be advised and this Honourable Court admit.



The following documentary evidence will be used at the hearing of the MOTION:



12. All documents, evidence and materials filed herein these proceedings in
Court File No. 04-1252-01 and Court File No. 04-1252-02 and such further and other materials as may be advised and the Honourable Court admit.





All of which is respectfully submitted
this 19h day of November, 2007 at Hamilton



Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro

The Assembly of the Church of the Universe

544 Barton Street East Apt. #2

Hamilton, Ontario L8L 2Z1
Voice: (905) 522-3247



Defendant
(Moving party)





Reverend Brother Walter A. Tucker

The Assembly of the Church of the Universe

544 Barton Street East Apt. #3

Hamilton, Ontario L8L 2Z1



Defendant
(Moving party)





TO: THIS HONOURABLE COURT





AND TO: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
c/o The Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Lou Strezos, Outside Counsel
130 King St., W, Suite 3400, Box 36

The Exchange Tower, First Canadian Place

Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1K6


Prosecution/Respondent









__________ NOD32 2666 (20071119) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com