Having problems with message search?
Forwarded.
--------
Dana Beal <dana@...> wrote:
Dana Beal <dana@...> wrote:
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 21:10:15 -0400
From: Dana Beal
Subject: GMfCL 2003 #42: Sign up w. 69 Other Cities on the MMM Poster for
2004!CC: eco man
, yerbanena@...,
risto.mikkonen@..., "Ken Gorman",
indianbud@..., initiativ@...,
Mojca Straus, ezpz@..., newagecitizen@...,
hromi@..., "Terry Mitchell",
pariah_mob@..., jc0_66@...,
"Irena", legalizemichigan@...,
"Matthew Jorn", Newagecitizen@...,
Xpu100, mjmarch@..., info@...,
marijuanamarch@..., hempSA@..., has.cornelissen@...,
farid@..., inorml@...,, Boris.it@...,
Chris Conrad, iowanorml@...,
duncaneddy@...,, RoadsEnd@...,
Chris Wright, rastapeace@...,
pdxnorml@..., hempSA@..., smuuthc11@...,
acididea@...,, andyganja2001@...,
"Melody Karr",
"Howie Hempalot", ,
mmm@..., melacs42x60@..., rebelart@...,
pcornwell@..., martin@..., CAMPNC@...,
Blocpot@..., DennyLane@..., rappa@...,
Hanfparaden Center Berlin, ,
mayday@onelist.com, "kathy kennedy", , sokrates@..., , , "justin ballot" ,
Hempsters@..., texasm5@...,
"Roy B. Scherer",
helmut holtzheimer, phillty2@...,
steph@..., "Bill Downing",
"Dave Toaff", mmm@...,
"Angela Goodhope",
Usersvoice.jmt@..., Michael Palmieri,
PROBER13@..., StewMO1941@..., rmelamed@...,
chris@..., pakaloha@...,
werkhausen@... (M. Werkhausen), chairman@...,
bloom@..., pdr, aksh1@...,
fdb@...,, Hanf-tv@...,
blair@..., "Jay Statzer",
encimer@..., Skywolf@...,,
cannabisal@..., globalpeas@..., emanuel@...,
dangssdp@..., fine_time909@..., Boris@...,
miriamwhite420@..., bud_jamesbud@..., mappnow@...,
xchaos@..., btm42@..., wachtel@...,
forml420@..., Michela Gesualdo,
terryparkerjr@..., fjhc@hotmail, "Razor",
legalise@..., "Nelg Nella",
artworks@..., phillyweed420@..., info@...,
doncriss@..., "Joe Wein",
"Bud Spliff", info@...,
OCannabisSociety@..., "Catherine Jones",
writch@..., cannabisaction@yahoogroups.com,
mary mackenzie, hilary@...,
escandonavia@..., jipiando@..., leoparda_azul@...,
faenadub@..., don@..., ultra_plus_estrella@...,
helmcke@..., m_bandida@..., malcomska@...,
foroalici@..., earthfirstswt@..., dmcvay@...,
taudarknes@..., "The Happy Hemptress",
"New Paltz Norml", hamppu.kaupunki@...,
bitchcrafts420@..., kendermag@...,
"melissa ann"
So far, 69 Cities are Signed up for 2004 .
MAYDAY IS JAY-DAY!
(Next year, the first Saturday of May falls on May 1. We are recommending Sunday, May 2 or Monday May 3 in cities where there is significant conflict with other local events--or as a rain date. Of course, we understand that some schools have to do it on 4/20 because their school year is over by May, and that some northern cities have to do it a little later in May...)
albany
albuquerque
ashland
asheville
auckland
boone
bratislava
buenos aires
capetown
christchurch
cincinnati
cleveland
dallas
darwin
dayton
des moines
detroit
dover
dublin
dunedin
eugene
fayetteville
flint
frankfurt
ft. lauderdale
halifax
helsinki
houston
kansas city
las vegas
lansing
levin
mexico city
minneapolis
montpelier
napier
nashville
newark
new orleans
new york
nimbin
ogden
orlando
paducah
paris
parkersburg
philadelphia
portland
prague
raleigh-durham
rapid city
richmond
rosario
salt lake city
san francisco
san juan
san marcos
st. louis
sturgeon falls
tampa
toronto
tokyo
traverse city
tucson
tupelo
upper lake
vancouver
wellington
wichita
wilmington
Help us reach our goal of 300 cities worldwide!
To get on the poster for 2004--"Mayday is Jay Day"--check yr contact info and email me back telling me to add yr city to the List at the top of this email. Right now the last listing we have for you is as follows:
Eaton: Andy Fudge fudgeie@... 210 eaton lewisburg rd apt#61 Rally 12 noon -- lots of kick ass specialties
By the way, I lost about three weeks email not long after this year's event. Did anything happen on the first Saturday of May in Eaton? Numbers? Arrests? Media? Anything of interest happen, etc?
You can also call me at 212-677-4899.
Dana/cnw
P.S.: We are also interested in adding to our list of prestigious endorsers, which consists of pot activists well-known in their city or country. We need a name and phone number for each. Any suggestions?
P.P.S: We need on average $100 for each affiliate to print and ship this year's poster. If you can't send it, we have to raise it somewhere else.*****!!! May 3, 2002/Mayday 2004 Cannabis Liberation Day: Updates, Reports!!!*****From:"Rev. A. S. Wright" <legalizemichigan@...>
Date:
2003/09/11 Thu AM 04:29:05 CDT
To:
Dana Beal <dana@...>
CC:
mmm419@yahoogroups.com , rockngram@... , baren1@... , lmc2410@... , Mike Moore <2004@...>
Subject:Re FLINT: MillionMarijuanaMarch 2004:Scarecrow Burning 2004
Dana,
The Flint info will change this year. FLINT Norml is taking the event over, I will pass the banner officially the first Saturday in October, and the new info to you ASAP.
In Flint I had a major problem and no legal help to pursue it. Ive detailed it here:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/mimjevents/messages?msg=87.12
Essentially, I was told to beleive his GOD or go to jail. Seriously. No arrests, maybe 60-80 people, and 20 hardcore marchers, tv12, wbnn101.5 and flint journal coverage...
Id like to go on to Saginaw or Bay City now that Im moving on from Flint, and Im still pretty split. I need to chose one, or do my local (Tuscola) county seat in Caro,MI. Any contacts you have for any of these may help sway me. Im still not sure...
Please publish this release on your multinational list:
ScareCrow Burning October 4th 2003
FIRE IT UP!
Starts at 4:20 First Saturday In October, $10 in advance $20 at the door: Adults Only 18+
Pumpkin Smashing, Raffle, Nudists Admitted FREE
To Benifit:
The Happyhouse Church
The "Give a Shyt" Foundation
Flint NORML
The Charlie Hughes Legal Fund
Featuring:
Mossy Twine - Pavlov's Dogs
The Lawbreakers
Four Of The Same Guy
The John Thomas Experiment
The No Baloney Zone
At an undisclosed location in the THUMB of Michigan
Rev A.S. Wright legalizemichigan@...
PO BOX 22 Deford MI, 48729 (989) 222 6969
http://www.geocities.com/legalizemichigan/events/SCB
As for your request, I know quite a few whose deserve to be recognized for their good work. Adrienne Cser, Donna Pardee, Melody Karr, Debra Anne, Kathy Kennedy, Renee Emery Wolfe, Debra Wright, Trina Moss, Amanda Hempfeild, Roachelle and Uncle Betsy for the ladies,
And for the men, Dana Beal(Lansing?),Marvin Marvin, Adam Brooks, Rev Steve Thompson, Bonner, George Tomfeilds, Mike Seggesta, Will Dwyer, Tim Beck, Dan Soleno, Richard Lake, Jay Statzer, Professor Hemp, Charlie Frakes, Greg Schmidt, Hilo Bob, Tom Ness, John Sinclair and myself, Rev Happy
I apologize if i missed everyone, im trying, its late. I cant send you anyones phone number but when you get this project underway just ask...
Dana, what about the Marijuana Trading cards? Can you get that wheel back in motion, and can I have a hand in it? I think I can twist it to be useful at marches. Sometimes all you gotta do is ask the right questions, we all try.
----
From:"Reverend SAM" <iamm@...>
Date:
2003/09/10 Wed PM 08:07:24 CDT
To:
"NEWS ROOM EDITORS - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE" <NewsRoomEditors@...>
CC:
"Reverend SAM" <iamm@...>
Subject:
Re: Federal Court of Canada Judge Orders Charter Challenge to proceed on Sacramental Marijuana issues...
or move to
NEWS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FROM: The Church of the Universe,
Morning Star Mission of God
544 Barton St., E. , Hamilton, On. L8L 2Z1
Voice:905) 522-3247
Re: Reverends Tucker & Baldasaro v. The Queen
Federal Court (Trial Division) File T-1805-98
Re: Charter Challenge to proceed on
Sacramental Marijuana issues.
NOTICE: The Crown's Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss our Action against Canada's Marijuana Laws based upon freedom of religion and the Charter of Rights, was heard at Hamilton, Ontario on June 23, 2003 before Mr. Justice Gibson who reserved his decision and accordingly released his Order and Reasons for Order on August 29, 2003 from Ottawa. (Order and Reasons for Order are included below)
ORDER, GIBSON J. August 29, 2003
Docket: T-1805-98
Citation: 2003 FC 1008
BETWEEN:
REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL BALDASARO and
REVEREND BROTHER WALTER TUCKER , Plaintiffs
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Defendant
ORDER
ON MOTION on behalf of the Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 216(1) of the Federal Court Rules , 1998, and for costs;
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The Motion is granted in part. The Plaintiff's (Reverends Tucker and Baldasaro) , action seeking relief pursuant to paragraph 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms from the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as it relates to possession for personal use as or in support of a sacrament in their religious worship and cultivation for such personal use of cannabis, cannabis sativa, marijuana, hemp, chanvre and/or any of its or their derivatives shall
proceed to trial or to other final disposition . In all other respects, summary judgment is granted in favour of the Defendant in this action.
There is no order as to costs of this motion.
Frederick E. Gibson, Judge
REASONS FOR ORDER Gibson, J. August 29, 2003
Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division)
Action commenced at Toronto
Summary Judgment heard at Hamilton, June 23, 2003
Date: 2003/08/29
Docket: T-1805-98
Citation: 2003 FC 1008
BETWEEN:
REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL BALDASARO and
REVEREND BROTHER WALTER TUCKER
Plaintiffs
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
GIBSON J.:
INTRODUCTION
[1] These reasons follow the hearing at Hamilton,
Ontario on the 23rd of June, 2003, of a motion on behalf of the Defendant for summary judgment dismissing this action with costs. The Defendant's motion was filed the 16th of December, 2002. The grounds for the motion are stated to be that the Plaintiffs have not raised a genuine issue for trial by claiming that their use of marijuana constitutes a religious practice that is protected by paragraph 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[1] (the Charter) and constitutes a breach of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act[2].
BACKGROUND
[2] In their Amended Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs
allege that they are Canadian citizens and Ministers of The Assembly of the Church of the Universe who use The Tree of Life, Cannabis, Cannabis Sativa, Marijuana, Hemp, Chanvre (marijuana) ... in their daily lives on the advice of the Lord God's word revealed in The Holy Bible, Book of Revelation, Chapter 22, verse 2", which is quoted to read as follows:
In the midst of the street and on either side of the river was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
[3] The Plaintiffs further allege that:
There are no reasonable and probable grounds and/or just cause upon which the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act can be used to justify an offence and/or punishment in relation to God's Tree of Life, Cannabis, Cannabis Sativa, Marijuana, Hemp, Chanvre and/or any of it's derivatives.
For the foregoing allegation, the Plaintiffs, at some length, purport to cite a judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)(Southwest Region).
[4] The Plaintiffs continue by alleging the following:
The Plaintiffs have knowledge as disabled persons that marijuana is medicinally beneficial to their health, well being and enjoyment of life and the denial and deprivation of this medicinal herb is cruel and unusual treatment and punishment to all of us.
Every day our freedom of association and security is being violated because at any time we can expect the government law enforcement agencies to smash down our doors and point guns at us, as they have in the past, for celebrating religious worship.
Our freedom of Association is being violated. We are afraid to gather and meet because of fear of government attacks.
We fear for our freedom and our lives because of our religious practices and beliefs.
All other avenues have been closed to us because the government refuses to acknowledge that a mistake may have been made in regard to this herb. We have been in the Provincial Criminal Courts defending ourselves against this non-criminal, civil health law many times over the past 30 years. In those courts it is to their benefit to maintain the status quo and have denied jurisdiction to change the present law and therefore all avenues except this one appear to be closed.
Our religious freedoms are being threatened on a daily basis by the current legislation prohibiting our Sacrament Marijuana and the war currently being waged against us because of it. The fact that we have been dragged through Provincial Criminal Courts, found guilty, fined and imprisoned over our religious use and practices of our said Sacrament directly affects us. This legislation constitutes a serious issue to be tried and constitutional challenges to be heard and relief's to be decided and given in a proceeding before a Court of Competent Jurisdiction.
The exceptions we are asking to be entered in the legislation are the exceptions and exemptions of religious freedom and use and use for medicinal purposes. It is not our intention to destroy the legislation. [emphasis added]
[5] In the result, the Plaintiffs seek the following
reliefs:
a. a Binding Declaration of right ... declaring the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act unconstitutional and ultra vires Parliament as it pertains to the Tree of Life Cannabis, Cannabis Sativa, Marijuana, Hemp, Chanvre and/or any of it's derivatives as it violates, infringes and denies the principles of fundamental justice; and the provisions of Sections 1., 2(a)(b)(c)(d), 7., 8., 9., 11.(d), 12., 15.(1), 24.(1), 26., 27., 31., 52.(1), 91, 91.27 and 92.9 and 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1867 to 1998;
b. an order ... quashing the provisions of the Controlled
Drug [sic] and Substance [sic] Act pertaining to the use, cultivation and distribution of The Tree of Live, Cannabis, Cannabis Sativa, Marijuana, Hemp, Chanvre, in all its spiritual, medicinal, healing and other uses;
c. a Writ of Prohibition ... prohibiting the Federal
Government and its agents from enforcing the aforesaid legislation against Members and Clergy of The Assembly of the Church of the Universe until such time as this matter can be heard and fully and finally determined; and such further and other reliefs as advised and admitted.
No interlocutory Writ of Prohibition has been issued in the action to this point in time. While the foregoing quotations imply infringement of a range of provisions of the Charter, I interpret them as focusing particularly on the fundamental freedom of religion that is reflected in paragraph 2(a) of the Charter.
[6] This action has not proceeded speedily and without
difficulty. It has given rise to numerous interlocutory motions including two (2) motions on behalf of the Defendant to strike the action. The first motion to strike was successful and the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim was struck with leave to amend, giving rise to the Amended Statement of Claim earlier referred to and quoted in part. The second motion to strike, relating to the Amended Statement of Claim, was heard by Justice Sharlow, then of the Trial Division of the Federal Court of Canada. That motion was dismissed. Justice Sharlow's reasons[3], dated the 13th of December, 1999, are of direct relevance for the purposes of this motion for summary judgment. For ease of reference, paragraphs [20] to [29] of those reasons are reproduced in full as an Annex to these reasons.
[7] Of particular relevance are paragraphs [27] and [28]
from Justice Sharlow's reasons and they are again reproduced here:
On the other hand, there are at least two cases in which the courts have been persuaded to allow for a constitutional exemption from marijuana laws on medical grounds: R. v. Parker(1997), 12 C.R. (5th) 251) (Ont. Prov. Ct.); Wakeford v. Canada ... (1999), 173 D.L.R. (4th) 726 (Gen. Div). Whether the reasoning in those cases can be extended to protect the right of religious freedom seems to me to be an open question.
The Crown is concerned, and properly so, about the lack of a factual matrix for the determination of the constitutional questions raised by the plaintiffs, such as would exist if this constitutional challenge were raised in the context of a prosecution under the challenged legislation. However, there are factual allegations in the amended statement of claim relating specifically to the plaintiffs and their religion, and relating to the properties of marijuana and the other named substances. Evidence as to the truth of those allegations will have to be adduced at a trial or possibly through examinations for discovery. If the plaintiffs' evidence is insufficient to prove the alleged facts, their claim may fail. But that is no reason to strike the claim at this stage. [emphasis added]
THE ISSUES
1) Preliminary matters
[8] The Plaintiffs sought to file two supplementary
affidavits purporting to be commissioned the 4th of May, 2003, well beyond the time provided by order of this Court for filing of the Plaintiffs' affidavit material on this motion. By direction dated the 21st of May, 2003, Prothonotary Lafrenière directed that the supplementary affidavits... shall be rejected as submitted for filing beyond the time provided in the Order dated December 27, 2002. The Plaintiffs sought before me to appeal Prothonotary Lafrenière's direction. No right of appeal lies from a direction of the Court[4]. As a preliminary matter, at the opening of the hearing of the motion for summary judgment, I rejected the Plaintiffs' appeal.
[9] Counsel for the Defendant drew to my attention the
fact that affidavits of the Plaintiffs that were before me purported to be commissioned, in the case of the affidavit of Brother Tucker, by Brother Baldasaro, and in the case of the affidavit of Brother Baldasaro, by Brother Tucker.
[10] In Huang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration)[5], Justice Evans wrote at paragraph [6]:
It is obviously desirable that affidavits are submitted in the form prescribed by the Rules and if they are not, they are liable not to be admitted as evidence in proceedings in this Court.
[11] The Plaintiffs are well aware of this issue but urged
before me that they should be afforded special treatment because they are ...minister[s] of the church.... I advised the Plaintiffs that their role as ministers of a church afforded them no special status such as that of commissioners for oaths. In the result, I advised the Plaintiffs that I would give no weight to their affidavits[6].
2) On the Motion for Summary Judgment
[12] Put at their simplest, I am satisfied that the issues on this motion for summary judgment are: first, the appropriate test for summary judgment; secondly, whether that test has been met; and finally, whether either side should be awarded costs of the motion.
a) Summary Judgment Principles
[13] The principles governing the determination of a motion
for summary judgment under the rules of this Court were essentially not in dispute before me. They were, I am satisfied, admirably summarized by my colleague Justice Russell in Apotex Inc. v. Canada[7], where he wrote at paragraphs 9 and 10 of his reasons:
There is no material disagreement between the parties as to the general principles applicable in a motion for summary judgment under rules 213 - 219 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998. As enunciated in cases such as Granville Shipping Co. v. Pegasus Lines Ltd. S.A. et al. (1996), 111 F.T.R. 189, I am required to find that the claims in question present no genuine issue for trial or that the issue is so doubtful that it deserves no further consideration. Also, each case must be interpreted in its own context and if the necessary facts cannot be found, or if there are serious issues of credibility, the matter should go to trial.
The burden lies with the moving party to establish that there is no genuine issue to be tried, but both parties must put their best foot forward to enable the motions judge to decide whether or not there is a genuine issue for trial, and the judge is required to take a hard look at the merits and, if possible, make findings of fact and law if the materials allow this. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Limited v. S. F. Concrete Technology Inc. (1999), 165 F.T.R. 74.
I adopt the foregoing paragraphs as my own.
b) Has the Test for Summary Judgment been met?
i) Introduction
[14] As noted earlier in these reasons, the Plaintiffs seek
relief on the basis of...Sections 1., 2(a)(b)(c)(d), 7., 8., 9.,11.(d), 12., 15.(1), 24.(1), 26., 27., 31., 52.(1), 91, 91.27 and 92.9 and 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1867 to 1998". Certain of the provisions cited are not provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at all but are rather provisions of the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982. That being said, the evidence before the Court provides no basis whatsoever that I can discern for the claims for relief other than on the basis of section 2 of the Charter. That section reads as follows:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association
2. Chacun a les libertés fondamentales suivantes :
a) liberté de conscience et de religion;
b) liberté de pensée, de croyance, d'opinion et d'expression,
y compris la liberté de la presse et des autres moyens de communication;
c) liberté de réunion pacifique;
d) liberté d'association.
[15] As earlier noted, the Plaintiffs' amended statement of
claim, and indeed, the evidence properly before the Court, discloses that the principal basis of the claim is freedom of religion, although, impliedly at least, other of the fundamental freedoms referred to in section 2 might well be called in aid of freedom of religion.
[16] I find no significant evidentiary basis on the record
properly before me for a challenge to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in its entirety but only in relation to the provisions of that Act making possession, trafficking, production and related acts, and perhaps importation and exportation and related acts, of marijuana or the tree of life, offences. The amended statement of claim refers to...medicinal, healing and other uses, as well as spiritual issues. Once again I find there to be no significant evidentiary basis properly before the Court in relation to ... medicinal, healing and other uses and in any event, Courts have otherwise spoken in relation to certain of those uses in relation to certain controlled substances. In the result, these reasons will focus only on whether or not the material properly before the Court presents a genuine issue for trial, on the basis of freedom of religion, in relation to the possession, production, trafficking, including importation and exportation, of marijuana, as earlier defined and whether or not that issue is so doubtful that it deserves no further consideration.
ii) The Evidence of the Plaintiffs that is before the Court.
[17] As indicated earlier in these reasons, I give no weight to the affidavits of the Plaintiffs. That being said, counsel for the Defendant put before the Court transcripts of examination for discovery of the Plaintiffs. It is evident from the transcripts that the Plaintiffs were not easily examined. Some of the following extracts from the transcripts demonstrate the difficulties. Other of the extracts are testimony of the Plaintiffs relating to the use, cultivation and dissemination of marijuana, particularly as its use constitutes or relates to a sacrament of The Assembly of the Church of the Universe.
[18] The first attempt to examine the Plaintiffs for
discovery took place on the 3rd of May, 2001. The Plaintiffs refused to be examined separately and indicated that each was counsel for the other. Counsel for the Defendant indicated:
I want to ask you questions about your religious beliefs, and about your church, and not to show that they're not authentic, or sorry, not to show that they're false because
- - - they're not honestly held B
Brother Tucker: Oh, give me a break. Will you quit it. I've been in it for 30 years. Do you think I've spent 30 years of my life in something I don't believe in. There is something wrong with you people in Ottawa, there really is, there's something wrong with your heads. Give yourself a damn good shake. I've been practicing my religious beliefs for 30 years with your knowledge, and now you say, Look, I don't know whether they're honestly held. I don't give a damn whether you believe they're honesty held or not, that's not your business.
[8] Brother Tucker had earlier commented to much the same effect:
If the government's intentions in their questions is to deny the authenticity of our church or our religious beliefs, you can forget it. We have no intention of even thinking about answering a question like that for the government, because we've - - every time we've exposed ourselves to the government through our religious beliefs, we've been attacked by their police force. We have no intention of putting ourselves in your hands any more. I've told you that. We will not march into an oven easily...
Page [9]
[19] That being said, Brother Tucker did indicate:
My religion is about worshipping God, and my communication thereto, and the use of the cannabis marijuana plant, the tree of life for my health and for my spiritual well-being.
Page[10]
[20] Brother Tucker re-attended for examination with Brother Baldasaro appearing with him. The following are extracts from the later examination of Brother Tucker:
Q. Okay, Now, is it a requirement of your church that a
person smoke marijuana?
A. No, They can eat it. They can wear it. They can write on it. They can surround themselves in it in any way they want.
Q. But they don't have to actually use it?
A. They don't have to smoke it, no.
Page[11]
Q. When did you actually start experiencing this spiritual connection through the use of marijuana?
A. Well, probably when I was born.
Q. Through the use of marijuana?
A. Well, probably when I got involved with marijuana and
found that my connection was stronger.
Q. Roughly in time frame, do you recall when it was?
A. Probably ... that would probably be in 1968 or 1966,
probably.
Q. Okay, before the foundation of your church?
A. Pardon?
Q. Before the foundation of your church?
A. Oh, goodness, yes.
Q. That was in 1969?
Yes. I smoked it, but I never . . . I never . . . really, it never became a big thing until the church formed and it helped to make me a better person and helped me to make connections with my fellow human beings and with God. And then it became the sacrament in my life from a personal dedication. I realized that marijuana . . . by smoking marijuana, my belief, my connection with God, my connection with my fellow human beings was more human.
Page[12]
Q. Do you have other sacraments besides the tree of life,
the marijuana?
A. I don't.
Q. Are there any in your church?
A. I don't.
Q. In your church, are there any?
A. I can't answer for anyone else, Brother. I can answer that I don't have any, and as far as I know, the . . . I don't know of any others.
Page [13]
[21] Brother Baldasaro was subsequently examined with Brother Tucker appearing. The following are extracts from Brother Baldasaro's examination:
Q. You said that you discovered marijuana as a sacrament on your own, and how did you discover that in the late 1960's?
A. When I started using it, I guess it would have been, you know, 1969/70 is when I started ingesting marijuana.
Q. So that was the first time.
A. Yes, and I always believed in God and I found it brought me closer to God in my prayers and that. It sort of opened me up more to God, it made me feel more a part of God's creation, it made me more peaceful and then I started, I was reading the Bible with it. I mean, all my life I've studied religion and God, with the Roman Catholic Church and then with the Church of England for a little while, and, like I say, I've been talking to God. I was taught by my mother to say my prayers and God has directed me. My beliefs are just my B I can't even prove to you God exists other than I believe God does. I think that's why believing is so important in religion.
Q. What if another substance had made you feel closer to God, like say LSD or something like that? Would, then, that as well have become a sacrament for you?
A. Well, I've tried it and I found it opened up a lot of
things, too, but I think it's sacred to the people that use it. I'm not standing up, I'm not here because of that, I'm here because what I do use and I found works in my relationship with God is the tree of life, that the police keep stealing it and putting me in jail for it for all these years.
Page [14]
Q. Why would you say that it's morally a good thing to have this sacrament, the tree of life?
A. Because it softens people, it wakes them up, it makes them more open to God, more open to peace and all the things and it's healthy for them. The leaf of the tree is for the healing of the nations. ...[15]
Q. What do you mean by healing of the nations?
A. ..., and then I look at the benefits of it and I look at other B if you want to start saying wine as a sacrament, I can see all the harm alcohol has done, yet it's tolerated as a sacrament, and you wouldn't ask a priest why God told him wine.
Well, he can say because Jesus said this is my body and this is my blood, and I could question if that's what he meant by that. Like, so, it's all faith, what I believe is faith. What I've talked to God about in my private closet when I injected the tree of life, which I used to think was marijuana and sometimes it will still slip out, but it isn't, because God opened my eyes to that by, like I say, through experience, through judgments of these courts. This is the only plant of all the plants of this earth, you're trying to stamp out a plant that's probably on the same level with caffeine, if that. To me, the tree of life, is.
Q. So because the tree of life has these positive effects
A. Yes, and because it has these effects on me personally.
Q. that's what makes it religious and a sacrament.
A. No, no, I told you. What make it religious is it opens me
up more to God. Besides all the other benefits that I can wear it, you know, it will keep me warm, because it will clean my blood also, and the tea, it warms me up that way as well as wearing clothes with it and when I smoke it, it brings me closer to God.[16]
Q. But my question was, how is the tree of life religiously a good thing?
A. I already told you. When I pray to God, when I smoke, when I burn it, when I ingest the smoke, it open me up to prayer with God, private communication. I'm not going to tell you what I talk to God about. I can't give you that. I go in my closet and do that or I'll share that with other people, but it's a very opening experience.
Q. Why do you go to your closet?
A. Because the Bible told me to, Jesus told me to.
Q. In the Bible.
A. Yes, if you want to pray, don't pay [sic] like the pagans do in crowds. Go to your closest and close the door and talk to God. He's listening to you. I can put up a wall right now and talk to God if I have to.
Q. So, if that's what the Bible says, then why do you also use the sacrament of the tree of life in a group?
A. Well, to share. That's a different way of worshipping God, to worship together. That's why the church, it works that way. Whose that worship that way gather to do that. We're a culture.[17]
Q. You're saying that you were told by God that this is thetree of life and to use it as part of your sacrament.
A. Yes, yes, God didn't tell me not to.
Q. But if you received another message from God that...
A. Wait a minute we need the rules. Did you see the rules on the site? Only the women make the rules, she can change her mind at any time. If God's a woman, yes, I'm in trouble, and the man-made is always wrong. I don't have a copy or I'd give it to you. But, seriously, no, I don't think God's going to change His mind. God isn't speaking with a forked tongue, isn't an Indian giver, and God showed me this and, you know, over the years I've been incarcerated and people have said, Boy the guards say, you might live to regret what you're fighting for. And I looked at it up and down, and long before I smoked marijuana I worked in Yorkville at 17 years old with the Diggers, and I found the people that were smoking marijuana weren't idiots. They were usually school teachers trying to help drug addicts and alcoholics recover in the Yorkville scene, right.
So, later on, much later on in life, maybe I was around 20Bish when I smoked the drug, and I relate to God and that's when it happened for me and it's just kept happening and just kept growing. I realized there's a whole culture behind it. In fact, it's the oldest cult on earth. God said to Adam and Eve, tend the garden, agriculture. That's all we are and the most important plant in that garden which I have come to identify is the tree of life and I have found it. It works, it does everything God says it does and I talk best to God and pray best when I use that. All the other things are just benefits. I have to use it in my religion, I have to use it in my prayers, sister.
Q. And how strongly do you believe in needing to disseminate the tree of life? Is that also a strong belief of yours?
A. I think it's the church's responsibility to do that and that's why we're here. We can't, we can't we don't want situations where the police are raiding our places where we grow the sacred herb. I don't want that. I want to be protected.
Q. Do you think that's also part of the sacrament, needing to disseminate?
A. Of course, tending the garden. Who's going to grow it? If we don't grow wheat we don't have bread.
Q. Is it something that you receive any donations for doing from. . .
A. We're going to have to.
Q. ...when you disseminate it?
A. We're going to have to receive donations for doing
that.
Page [18]
[22] Thus, I am satisfied that there is evidence before the
Court that the Plaintiffs sincerely believe that marijuana or, as they prefer, the tree of life, is a sacrament to them and in their church. It facilitates their communication with God, their peacefulness and their openness to God and to other persons.
[23] More directly on the issue of cultivation and
dissemination, Brother Baldasaro acknowledged that we, and I assume by that he meant the church or he and Brother Tucker, would receive donations for disseminating the product of tending the garden.
iii) The Law
[24] Justice Sharlow, in her reasons dismissing an earlier
motion to strike this action that are extensively quoted in the Annex to these reasons, provides an admirable summary of the caselaw that is here relevant. That being said, counsel for the Respondent cited additional cases before me which are deserving of note.
[25] In R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd.[19], Chief Justice
Dixon , for himself and Justices Chouinard and Le Dain wrote:
The purpose of s. 2(a) [of the Charter] is to ensure that society does not interfere with profoundly personal beliefs that govern one's perception of oneself, humankind, nature, and, in some cases, a higher or different order of being. These beliefs in turn govern one's conduct and practices. The Constitution shelters individuals and groups only to the extent that religious beliefs or conduct might reasonably or actually be threatened. For a state-imposed cost or burden to be proscribed by s. 2(a) it must be capable of interfering with religious belief or practice. In short, legislative or administrative action which increases the cost of practicing or otherwise manifesting religious beliefs is not prohibited if the burden is trivial or insubstantial:.. [citation omitted]
[26] In R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.[20], Justice
Tarnopolsky wrote for the Court:
In my view, where one claims exemption on grounds of religion or conscience to a particular government regulation or requirement, one must be prepared to show that the objection is based upon a sincerely held belief based upon a lifestyle required by one's conscience or religion. Otherwise, s.2(a) of the Charter might become a limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted legal obligations.
[27] In B. (R.) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan
Toronto [21], Justices Iacobucci and Major, with the support of Justice Cory, wrote:
Just as there are limits to the ambit of freedom of expression ..., so are there limits to the scope of s. 2(a), especially so when this provision is called upon to protect activity that threatens the physical or psychological well-being of others. In other words, although the freedom of belief may be broad, the freedom to act upon those beliefs is considerably narrower, and it is the latter freedom at issue in this case. The fact that "freedom" does not operate in a vacuum was underscored by Dickson J. (as he then was) in his seminal decision in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., ...:
Freedom in a broad sense embraces both the absence of coercion and constraint, and the right to manifest beliefs and practices. Freedom means that, subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience.
[citations omitted, emphasis in the original]
[28] In Trinity Western University v. British Columbia
College of Teachers[22], Justices Iacobucci and Bastarache, for the majority, wrote:
...the proper place to draw the line in cases like the one at bar is generally between belief and conduct. The freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act on them.
[29] In paragraph [16] in these reasons, I note that courts
have otherwise spoken in relation to...medicinal, healing and other uses of certain controlled substances. Of particular relevance is the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker[23]. The head note to the cited report reads in part as follows:
The accused was charged with cultivating marijuana under the now-repealed Narcotic Control Act,... . As the result of a second search of his home, he was also charged with possession of marijuana under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. He suffered from epilepsy and experienced frequent, severe and potentially life-threatening seizures. His attempts to control those seizures with conventional medication were only moderately successful. He found that he could substantially reduce the incidence of seizures by smoking marijuana. The accused could not locate a lawful source of marijuana and grew his own.
The charges were stayed at trial. The trial judge found that the accused required marijuana to control his epilepsy and that the prohibition against marijuana infringed his rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In order to protect the accused and others like him who need to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, the trial judge read into the legislation an exemption for persons possessing or cultivating marijuana for their "personal medically approved use". The Crown appealed.
[30] The Ontario Court of Appeal disposed of the appeal
before it in the following terms which are quoted from page 551:
Accordingly, I would vary the remedy granted by the trial judge and declare the marijuana prohibition in s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to be invalid. I would suspend the declaration of invalidity for a period of 12 months from the release of these reasons. The respondent is exempt from the marijuana prohibition in s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act during the period of suspended invalidity for possession of marijuana for his medical needs. I would set aside those parts of Sheppard J.'s judgment reading in a medical exemption into the former Narcotic Control Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and ordering the return of the plants seized in the September 1997 search. In all other respects, I would dismiss the Crown appeal.
[31] Thus, the Plaintiffs' challenge to certain of the
provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as they relate to marijuana, is not without successful and recent precedent, albeit those challenges have not been on the basis of freedom of religion.
iv) Findings
[32] Against the reasoning of Justice Sharlow based on the
authorities cited by her and against the foregoing authorities not cited by Justice Sharlow, and against the evidence of the Plaintiffs cited herein, I make two findings with regard to the Plaintiffs' action based upon freedom of religion: first, the Plaintiffs' claim to be exempt from the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as it relates to dissemination of marijuana or the tree of life presents no genuine issue for trial or, in the alternative, is so doubtful that it deserves no further consideration; and secondly, in all other respects, the Defendant has failed to meet the burden on it to establish that there is no genuine issue for trial or success is so doubtful that the matter deserves no further consideration.
[33] With regard to cultivation and dissemination, except in relation to cultivation for personal use, the evidence on behalf of the Plaintiffs is, at best, marginal. Against such evidence as there is, I am satisfied that the interest of the public at large far outweighs the interests of the Plaintiffs in being able to cultivate and disseminate marijuana, for donation or reward, to support their own religious beliefs and practices and those of the adherents to their church. That there are alternative means to meet any legitimate demands that are established by others for acquisition and possession of marijuana for use by them as or in support of a sacrament in the Plaintiffs' church is well borne out by arrangements described in reasons for order in Patriquen v. Lucie McLung and others[24].
[34] As regards possession and cultivation by the Plaintiffs for personal use as or in support of a sacrament in their religious worship, I cannot conclude that the Plaintiffs' action presents no genuine issue for trial or that the issue presented is so doubtful that it deserves no further consideration. The Plaintiffs' evidence as cited earlier in these reasons is much stronger on simple possession and cultivation for personal use as or in support of a sacrament in strongly held personal religious beliefs than is the evidence on any other aspect of the Plaintiffs' claim for relief. Similarly, I am satisfied on the basis of the abundance of case law cited by Justice Sharlow and additional case law cited earlier in these reasons provides potential room for relief to the Plaintiffs in this area, depending almost entirely upon the credibility and strength of the Plaintiffs' evidence at trial.
CONCLUSION
[35] In the result, while the Defendant will be significantly successful on this motion for summary judgment, she will not be fully successful. The Defendant's motion will be granted in all respects except as to the Plaintiffs' claim for relief against the application of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as it pertains to their possession and cultivation of marijuana or the tree of life for their personal use as or in support of a sacrament in their religious worship, on the particular facts of this matter. The latter claim should proceed to trial or other final disposition.
COSTS
[36] Given the divided success on this motion for summary
judgment, there will be no order as to costs of the motion.
_________________________________
Judge
Ottawa , Ontario
August 29, 2003
Annex
(Paragraph [6] of the reasons)
[20] Finally, the Crown argues that the plaintiffs do not have a reasonable cause of action because they have failed to establish either an actual violation of their rights under the Charter, or the threat of such a violation. As stated above, the plaintiffs say that the existence of the challenged law creates a threat of prosecution that affects their religious freedom.
[21] In a cursory survey of the case law, I have been unable tofind any case that supports the general proposition that the right of freedom of religion can never prevail over a law that makes possession of a sacrament unlawful. In the absence of such authority, I cannot conclude that the plaintiff's claim has no hope of success.
[22] That is not to say that the plaintiffs' case is without difficulty. The plaintiffs seek a complete invalidation of the marijuana laws because the religious freedom of the members of their church is adversely affected by those laws. The Crown says that the remedy sought is disproportionate to the problem, and in the end a court may agree.
[23] It is abundantly clear from the case law that religious
freedom, while important, is not unfettered. An early survey of some of the relevant cases can be found in R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Zaharia (1987), 31 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (C.A.). In that case, the Ontario Court of Appeal said, at pp. 467-473...:
Reliance is placed upon the Charter as constitutionally enshrining the recognition of freedom of religion. The appellant Scientology relies on R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. ... [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295. The guiding principle of this judgment is set forth by Chief Justice Dickson at p.
336:
A truly free society is one which can accommodate a wide variety of beliefs, diversity of tastes and pursuits, customs and codes of conduct. A free society is one which aims at equality with respect to the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms and I say this without any reliance upon s. 15 of the Charter. Freedom must surely be founded in respect for the inherent dignity and the inviolable rights of the human person. The essence of the concept of freedom of religion is the right to entertain such religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination. But the concept means more than that.
....
One of the major purposes of the Charter is to protect, within reason, from compulsion or restraint. Coercion includes not only such blatant forms of compulsion as direct commands to act or refrain from acting on pain of sanction, coercion includes indirect forms of control which determine or limit alternative courses of conduct available to others. Freedom in a broad sense embraces both the absence of coercion and constraint, and the right to manifest beliefs and practices. Freedom means that, subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights or freedoms of others, no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience.
> What may appear good and true to a majoritarian religious group, or
the state acting at their behest, may not, for religious reasons, be imposed upon citizens who take a contrary view. The Charter safeguards religious minorities from the threat of "the tyranny of the majority".
. . . .
A we think it is appropriate to note that the mere fact that an organization claims to be a religion does not bar the Crown or any other litigant from seeking the assistance of the court in the determination of either criminal or civil wrong.
. . . . .
In Canada, there are many instances where the sincerely held beliefs of members of particular religious groups or sects have been held to be ineffectual defences to the alleged breaches of laws of this country. In R. V. Lewis (1903), 7 C.C.C. 261, ..., this Court held that a conscientious objection to medical treatment because of the belief in the doctrines of the sect known as Christian Scientists is not a lawful excuse for failing to provide medicines and medical aid under the Code. In R.V. Chomkowski (1973), 11 C.C.C. (2d) 562, ..., a Jehovah's Witness who believed that he would give his breath only to God and not to the police was convicted for refusing to provide a breath sample for breathalyzer testing. See also R. v. Reed (1983), 8 C.C.C.(3d) 153, where the accused was convicted of causing a disturbance contrary to the Code, by shouting at and disturbing an assembly of persons meeting for religious worship, despite his belief that as a dissenter from the Jehovah's Witnesses he had a right to express his freedom of conscience and religion and to denounce the Jehovah's Witnesses. In R. v. Bear's Shin Bone (1899), 3 C.C.C. 329, ..., an Indian who married twice, according to the marriage custom of his tribe, was convicted of bigamy.
In Baxter v. Baxter (1983), 6 D.L.R. (4th) 557, ... Pennell J. of the High Court of Justice of this province refused to give effect to the argument of a husband respondent in a divorce proceeding that the granting of a decree absolute was an infringement of his right to exercise freely his religion and opinions, as guaranteed by s. 2 of the Charter. At p. 560, Pennell J. stated:
The fact that the government cannot exact from the individual a surrender of the smallest part of his religious scruples does not mean that he can demand of the government exclusion of his marriage from the provisions of the Divorce Act, the better to exercise his religious beliefs.
Similarly, the British Columbia Supreme Court, in Price, Fraser and McRae v. A.G. of British Columbia et al., [1976] 5 W.W.R. 656, held that while the religious beliefs of a union member may have permitted him to refrain from joining a union, it was not an infringement of his rights that he be required to contribute to the union financially to the same extent as a member..
The courts of this country have not hesitated to interfere with religious practices when they run contrary to existing laws or, indeed, in some cases, acceptable practices. In Re Singh et al. and The Queen (1985), 18 C.C.C. (3d) 31, a trial judge refused to permit a member of the Sikh religion to carry a ceremonial dagger into the courtroom. Chief Justice Dewar held that the trial judge was correct. Although the accused, as a baptized member of the Sikh religions, was required by the tenets of his religion to wear the kirpan (dagger) at all times, Dewar C.J.Q.B., held that the ruling of the trial judge was not an unconstitutional infringement of the accused's freedom of religion as guaranteed by s. 2(a) of the Charter. The Chief Justice stated that such a ruling would serve the transcending public interest that justice be administered in an environment free from any influence that might tend to thwart the process; the ruling was made in the exercise of the court's jurisdiction to maintain order and security in the courtroom. It was, therefore, a reasonable limit prescribed by law as could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
In R. v. Harrold (1971), 3 C.C.C. (2d) 387 ..., leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, May 5, 1971, the accused was a member of a religious group which had as its mandate the systematic propagation of spiritual knowledge to society at large. The accused was convicted of contravening the City of Vancouver's anti-noise by-law. Tysoe, J.A., speaking for the British Columbia Court of Appeal, stated at p. 374: "The right to freedom of religion does not permit anyone, acting under the umbrella of his religious teachings and practices, to violate the law of the land, whether that law be federal, provincial or municipal." Similarly, in R. v. Jack and Charlie (1982), 67 C.C.C. (2d) 289, ..., affirmed 21 C.C.C. (3d) 481, ..., the accused was convicted of hunting deer out of season despite his contention that he needed to use the meat in a religious ceremony. See also Tucker et al. v. The Queen, [[1979] O.J. No. 1532,] and R. v. Baldasaro, [[1982] O.J. No. 2082] (both unreported decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the first released on November 28, 1979 and the other on November 15, 1982; leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, January 22, 1980 and January 25, 1983 respectively), where this Court held that notwithstanding the contentions of the accused persons as to the necessity for the use of marijuana in their religious practices, they were subject to the Narcotic Control Act.
In Re Fardella and The Queen ..., [1974] 2 F.C. 465, ..., the majority of the Federal Court of Appeal held that the requirement that a child care worker oblige the students under his charge to attend religious services did not violate his rights under the Canadian Bill of Rights, which protected, inter alia, freedom of religion. His right to believe and worship or not to believe and worship as he pleased had not been interfered with in any way. The requirement that he oblige the students under his charge to attend denominational religious services might be an infringement of the religious freedom of the children or their parents if they were compelled to attend -- which they were not -- but it was not an infringement of his rights. The Court held that he was properly discharged for failing to look after this aspect of his duties.
[24] I note that two of the cases cited in the Church of Scientology decision relate to the Plaintiffs in this case. It is not clear whether the Charter issues that are the subject of this action were or could have been raised in those proceedings. But in the later case of R. v. Baldasaro, [1982] O.J. No. 2033 (C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal said this:
We do not think that the trial judge erred as a matter of law in instructing the jury that it was not a defence to the charge that the accused had possession of the marijuana for use as part of their ritual and practice of their Church. The provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms granting freedom of religion affords no defence in this case.
[25] This passage gives some support to the Crown's argument that the plaintiff's case is without merit. However, it is impossible to determine from the very short reasons for decision in that case what the facts were that led to the conviction. Perhaps there was evidence in that case that would have been capable of proving the facts alleged in the amended statement of claim in this case, but perhaps there was not. Perhaps the constitutional argument proposed to be made in this case was made, but perhaps it was not.
[26] Also favouring the Crown's position are a number of cases in which the prohibition against the possession of marijuana has been held not to infringe section 7 of the Charter (the right to life, liberty and security of the person): R. v. Hamon (R.) ... (1993), 85 C.C.C. (3d) 490 ( C.A.), leave to appeal refused January 27, 1994; R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., [1998] B.C.P.C. Uned. 961 (S.C.); R. v. Caine, (April 20,1998), Surrey 65381 (B.C.P.C.); R. v. Hunter (I.F.), [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 782 (S.C.); R. v. Clay (C.J.) and Prentice (J.K) 1997, 39 O.T.C. 89; ... . In one of those cases, Malmo-Levine, the issue of religious freedom under s. 2 of the Charter was also raised, but it was rejected on the facts; there was no religious foundation to the beliefs professed by the accused.
[27] On the other hand, there are at least two cases in which the courts have been persuaded to allow for a "constitutional exemption" from marijuana laws on medical grounds: R. v. Parker (1997), 12 C.R. (5th) 251 (Ont. Prov. Ct.); Wakeford v. Canada ... (1999), 173 D.L.R. (4th) 726 (Gen. Div.). Whether the reasoning in those cases can be extended to protect the right of religious freedom seems to me to be an open question.
[28] The Crown is concerned, and properly so, about the lack of a factual matrix for the determination of the constitutional questions raised by the plaintiffs, such as would exist if this constitutional challenge were raised in the context of a prosecution under the challenged legislation. However, there are factual allegations in the amended statement of claim relating specifically to the plaintiffs and their religion, and relating to the properties of marijuana and the other named substances. Evidence as to the truth of those allegations will have to be adduced at a trial or possibly through examinations for discovery. If the plaintiffs' evidence is insufficient to prove the alleged facts, their claim may fail. But that is no reason to strike the claim at this stage.
[29] The Crown's motion to strike the amended statement of claim is dismissed. Costs of the motion will be costs in the cause. [some citations omitted, emphasis added in paragraph [28].
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1805-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER and
REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL J. BALDASARO
And
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: HAMILTON, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 23,2003
REASONS FOR ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIBSON
DATED: August 29, 2003
APPEARANCES:
REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER
FOR APPLICANTS
REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL J. BALDASARO
FOR APPLICANTS
ANDREA HORTON
FOR RESPONDENT
JAMES GORHAM
FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A.TUCKER
REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL J.BALDASARO
PHOENIX MISSION OF GOD
THE ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF THE
UNIVERSE
535 BARTON STREET, EAST
HAMILTON , ONTARIO
L8L 2Y9
FOR APPLICANTS
P.2
MORRIS ROSENBERG
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ONTARIO REGIONAL OFFICE
THE EXCHANGE TOWER
130 KING STREET WEST
SUITE 3400, BOX 36
TORONTO , ONTARIO
M5X 1K6
FOR RESPONDENT
-----------------------------------------------------------
[1] Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 (R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 44), being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 ( U.K.), 1982, c. 11.
[2] S.C. 1996, c. 19.
[3] (1999), 180 F.T.R. 263.
[4] See Froom v. Canada (Minister of Justice) [2003] F.C. J. No.448 (C.A.).
[5] [1999] F.C.J. No. 106 (F.C.T.D.).
[6] Transcript, pages 34 and following.
[7] [2003] F.C.J. No. 593 (Q.L.), (F.C.T.D.), not cited before me; appeal filed April 17, 2003, Court File: A- 188-03.
[8] Evidence cited in the Defendant's Memorandum of Fact and Law (Tabs 1 to 30), Volume 2 of 2, (the Evidence), Tab 19, pages 17 and 18.
[9] The Evidence, Tab 19, pages 16 and 17.
[10] The Evidence, Tab 19, pages 10 and 11.
[11] The Evidence, Tab 21, page 134, questions 461 and 462.
[12] The Evidence, Tab 21, pages 135 and 136, questions 467 to 472.
[13] The Evidence, Tab 21, page 149, questions 549 to 551.
[14] The Evidence, Tab 29, pages 189 and 190, questions 718 to 720.
[15] The Evidence, Tab 29, page 202, question 754.
[16] The Evidence, Tab 29, pages 202 and 203, questions 755 to 757.
[17] The Evidence, Tab 29, pages 210 and 211, questions 786 to 789.
[18] The Evidence ,Tab 29 pages 216 to 218, questions 808 to 813.
[19] [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713 at 759.
[20] (1984), 48 O.R. (2d) 395 at 423 (Ont. C.A.).
[21] [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315 at 435.
[22] [2001] 1 S.C.R. 772 at 814.
[23] (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 481.
[24] 2003 F.C. 927, July 29, 2003 (F.C.), at paragraph [4], not cited before me.*************************BUSHWHACKED!!*****************************
From:Expert53@...
Date:
2003/09/13 Sat PM 05:55:23 CDT
To:
undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject:CIA Pilot Admits Role in Kennedy Assasination Before Congress
THE TRUTH BEHIND THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION REVEALED BY CIA ASSET/PILOTNow Available on the Expert Witness Show ARchiveshttp://www.expertwitnessradio.org
Tosh Plumlee, a well-documented CIA (and other federal agency) contract
pilot, had flown missions from the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam to Iran Contra and
Mena. His story was so compelling and well authenticated that was called to
testify before Congress. As was predicted, his testimony was classified due to
"national security."
On 3/23/99 (the day of WBAI's Samori Marksman's death) Tosh risked
prison to, not only reveal what Congress had classified as
Top Secret but to undergo 5 hours of un-aired, recorded interrogation
by Mike Levine, a 25 year veteran Federal Agent and
court-qualified expert.
The results of those 5 astounding hours are now becoming available in The
Expert Witness Radio Show Archives, as follows
Hours 1 through 3 are now available
Hour 4 will be posted 12:00am Sunday, 14-September-2003
Hour 5 will be posted 12:00am Monday, 15-September-2003
You can hear Mike Levine Monday evenings at 5:00pm on WBAI New York City,
and Sundays at 11:00am on WCLH (90.7 FM) in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.The shows are also Netcast worldwide from http://ExpertWitnessRadio.org .****!!!IBOGAINE TREATMENT NOW $1500 IN HOLLAND--CALL SARA, 0113134-624-1770 !!!****
From:Highlander35739@...
Date:
2003/09/09 Tue PM 01:42:35 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Junkies are sicker than normal
Sorry marc but i strongly, infact very strongly as in it could of been me that wrote his post our experiences of things/life seem so similair. Life , drug use dont neccesarily have to be in a fixed scientific , hypothesis type of proving or understanding. Some things are beyond us. I spent most of my late teens in young offenders institutions where i smoked cannabis read castaneda thought about life, religion, philosiphy and human nature. I've smoked pot everyday of my life since the age of sixteen (bar maybe 10% for dry spells-too many lucky cops)but did not start to use heroin until the age of 24 and only because of severe circumstances. I had just been sentenced to 6 years inprisonment for possesion with intent to supply (lsd) on getting to prison and doing the rounds making friends and shooting the shit did i realise that if i wanted parole which meant getting out after 3 years or not getting it and maybe doing 4+ i would have to not smoke pot . As pot is detectable in the urine for long periods of time. So being a downer man and the speed it leaves the trace in the urine and being the place was full of it and everyone was at it i tried it that was six years go and all you fellow users will understand whats happened since then --not good. Basically the scottish prison system and H.M government have ruined my life i now have no friends am disowned by my family and life is a misery im on medication but i top up using as my Doc wont give the amounts of DHC i need to hold me but at least financially im saving a fortune so Preston Peace my brother and marc go back to your laboratory and have another talk with young Dexter LOL///Highlander35739@...From:Marc Scott Emery <marc@...>
Date:
2003/09/09 Tue PM 02:28:13 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Junkies are sicker than normal
Allison,
The balanced childhood with two loving, compassionate biological parents provides confidence, stability, and warm environment where a child grows up confident of their self, their future.
From there, the slings and arrows of everyday life can be dealt with without serious crutches.
I believe the number of drug addicted individuals who had the benefit of two loving, biologically connected (to the child) parents who were present and non-violent is extremely rare.
In any case, whats your excuse? What is missing in YOUR life that you lack the will to overcome clearly destructive tendencies? I can find the missing link in the patients I have administered iboga to. I can't see the explantion in your case.
Marc
From:deartheo@...
Date:
2003/09/09 Tue PM 07:44:34 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Junkies are sicker than normal
I would just like to make clear that even though my bio-father wasn't around
when i was a child, i do not consider that in any way a reason for my poor
choices. I would consider mis-information the main cause of my decent into
worse drugs. The anti-drug special interest simply don't have the money to not
resort to scare tacticts. 12 step groups are guilty of this too. I was in NA
for 3 years, sponsored people and all that and of course thought i was well
informed. Drugs are not the same and they should be treated seperatly. I just
don't like to see people posting incorrect reasons for how and why I became
addicted to opioids. I consider myself, and always have, very lucky for my
family situation because i was able to have 3 dads and 3 moms (counting step
parants) and i feel i was able to learn allot more then i would have with only
two.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HSLotsof@... [mailto:HSLotsof@... ]
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003, 9:28 AM
> To: ibogaine@...
> Subject: Re: [ibogaine] Junkies are sicker than normal
>
>
> In a message dated 9/7/03 6:41:49 PM, marc@... writes:>
> >After treating 28 drug addicted patients with iboga over the last 12 months,
> >I have realized that virtually all my patients had very radical childhood
> >traumas relating to the absense of the male parent. Of the 28, all of them
> >were missing the biological father for all or much of their childhood.
> >This
> >put them on a road to alienation, bad decision making, early hard drug
> >use,
> >and over the years, their health and relationships have been unsteady and
> >unsatisfying. Many have come close to overdose death.
>
> Marc,
>
> Your patient group is rather biased in favor of "childhood traumas relating
> to the absense of the male parent." I mean in a statistical way. I might
> suggest that in your screening process you intake some patients who had quite> stable family backgrounds. It would be interesting to see if there are
> distinctions in ibogaine outcomes between the two groups.
>
> Howard
>
>------------From:"sandra ." <windforme@...>
Date:
2003/09/10 Wed AM 09:06:58 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Normal is sicker then Addicts,
Greetings,
perhaps I need to offer some clarity here. I can however, only give my
perspective...
Jennifer, I did not intend my last post to be directed towards you. It was more
of a response
to the thread begun by Marc. In reading your posts though, it seems to me that
you have
opened up a process that you may feel like exploring in some more detail. We're
all on this
list looking for clues as to how to figure things out. If you have anyone in
your life in whom you
can confide then seek them out and if not, then seek them out. I think perhaps
it is our
greatest challenges through which we discover our greatest talents and i also
suspect that
our talents are many and diverse...
For those of you interested in how the ITH is run, here is a brief synopsis:
Being a recently begun project we are in a constant process of learning how to
fine tune what
we do and have much yet to learn. In a sense it could almost be considered an
initiation with
iboga. Our intention is to provide the best assistance that we can in allowing
others to
explore the potentials for themselves. A great deal of my focus goes into
helping to create the
set and setting so to speak. Screening, evaluaton, facilitation and follow up
are parts of the
project that I engage in. It also includes at times grocery shopping, set up,
clean up and a
whole lot of time spent thinking about and discussing the implications of it
all. Those of you
who know about our situation in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver B.C. will
have some
inkling of what i mean.
Marc Emery is the sole funder and Director of the therapy house ( ...to use
technical jargon
speak and be slightly more specific). I beleive his reasons for doing this are
honest and that
his intention is to learn more about it all. For those of you who are
challenged by his posts
please bear in mind that we've all got a piece of the puzzle we just need to
put them together.
As i mentioned in my last post, in email communication there is often a lack of
context and
miscommunication happens through differences in syntax, lack of body language,
facial
expession and tone of speech. What some may mistake for conclusions could in
fact be an
invitation to discuss. This is why feeback is a key part of how we learn. Marc
is a very busy
person with all that he does; several major projects have been ongoing for a
long time, this
project is still in it's infancy.
It has not been without its challenges and details to consider. I have a great
deal of respect
for those of you that have been exploring this for awhile and am deeply
honoured by those of
you who choose to share what you have learned.
Sara, it is unfortunate that we cannot afford to have an MD on board just yet.
Our available
funding can not afford us this. We have just recently hired 2 new facilitatorswho are
intelligent, grounded and inspired. They will soon join this list and I am
happy to welcome
them on our team. It's a small team but a good one I suspect.
We are currently creating a database in hopes that it can be informativeenough to the health
authorities, government and other interested groups to merit a greater look
into the
potentials. There is a great deal of support coming from other organisations
including an
attempt at generating funds for a follow-up study. The information is to be
freely shared with
all in hopes of generating discussion and possibly formulating an action plan
of sorts. In the
meantime we are all learning here and I hope we can do so with integrity...
Happy spanksgiving (a fave burning man quote)
-sandra
oh and Sara, I'm sooo interested in learning more about the mushroom, sleep, l-
tryptophan
connection. Can we discuss this on the list? ..or off?
---------From:"Preston Peet" <ptpeet@...>
Date:
2003/09/10 Wed AM 09:48:21 CDT
To:
<ibogaine@...>
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Fw: [drugwar] Hartford, CT TV discovers Marc Emery Direct Seeds!Gamma wrote >AND, they have big 3 ring binders filled with volumes of
anti-drug propoganda
tailored to (try, anyways) scare the be-jeezus out of first time teen drug
offenders (10 car pile up, 12 dead and all the glossy photos from the wreck<
This may be a bit off-topic for the ibogaine list, but...
Back in the early 80s, a friend of mine was at a high school assembly one
morning, as the Florida Highway Patrol was giving a presentation on the
dangers of drunk driving. As the officer was speaking, behind him was a huge
movie screen emblazoned with slide shots of various wrecks. Lo and behold,
suddenly my friend realized that one of the wrecks the officers allowed to
linger on the screen behind him for some minutes was a photo of the car my
Dad and I were in, the one I was driving when I hit another car head on,
they going 55 and me 45 miles per hour.
The un-funny part of it was that we had been returning from a weekendFun-o-Ree, where boy scouts gathered at Camp Flying Eagle to give some
mentally challenged (former called retarded but am unsure what we call them
today) men the opportunity to get out in nature, go camping, and be boy
scouts for a weekend. I was an Eagle Scout and definitely neither of us
were drunk, not my Dad as passenger nor me the driver- yet they still used
the photo of our car as it was a real humdinger of an accident, grusome and
graphic and shocking in the extreme.
Oh well.
Peace,
Preston
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gamma" < gammalyte9000@... >
To: < ibogaine@... >
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 1:48 AM
Subject: Re: [ibogaine] Fw: [drugwar] Hartford, CT TV discovers Marc Emery
Direct Seeds!
> Dunno if these were Connecticut State Troopers, but they are a SCARY Lot.
> Perfectly crisp uniforms, army-issue buzz cuts and hats worn in a
perfectly
> sterile manner.
>
> AND, they have big 3 ring binders filled with volumes of anti-drug
propoganda
> tailored to (try, anyways) scare the be-jeezus out of first time teen drug
> offenders (10 car pile up, 12 dead and all the glossy photos from the
wreck
> -"Marijuana is responsible for tradgedies like this" is what I was told.
> Trooper Smith didn't take too kindly to me inquiring as to why the caption
said
> that the driver responsible had a a blood level of 0.10 (or whatever) of
> ALCOHOL! No mention of Marijuana... the evil weed! LOL.
>
> ~gamma
>From:Bill Ross <ross@...>
Date:
2003/09/10 Wed AM 09:57:18 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Normal is sicker then Addicts,
> Being a recently begun project we are in a constant process of
> learning how to fine tune what we do and have much yet to learn.
> In a sense it could almost be considered an initiation with iboga.
Coincidentally I just came across:
http://www.shaman-australis.com/~claude/tabernanthe-iboga-initiation.html
Sorry to mischaracterise your "red herring" statement, Sandra.
Bill
---From:Marc Scott Emery <marc@...>
Date:
2003/09/10 Wed AM 11:27:58 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Junkies are sicker than normalThere is nothing scary about iboga/ibogaine insofar as being something that will harm you or change you negatively.
There are times during the iboga experience where you may have intense and apocalyptic visualizations or feelings, and these may be 'frightening' but pose no harm to you.
Marc
----- Original Message -----
From: Jennifer
To: ibogaine@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [ibogaine] Junkies are sicker than normal
I wonder about myself also Marc. I had a good childhood, 2 loving, bioligical married parents and two siblings. Always had what I needed and most of what I wanted, yet I've still always had a feeling something is missing, a hole, that I continue to try to fill up with pills. I am hoping to try Ibogaine in a clinical setting in the Spring to help with the physical w/d and also to find out why I feel this way and how I can stay off for good, but I must it admit, being unfamiliar with Ibogaine, scares me!!!
Jennife------From:
Marc Scott Emery <marc@...> Block Sender | Block Domain
Date:
2003/09/10 Wed AM 11:36:14 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Junkies are sicker than normal
This is not my (limited to 28 patients, 43 dosings) experience,
>>>A multitude of factors are involved in addiction, and are not solely
based on
dysfunctional, absent or abusive parents<<<
I have not found many other factors.
MarcFrom:Marc Scott Emery <marc@...>
Date:
2003/09/10 Wed AM 11:40:44 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Junkies are sicker than normal
Most of our patients are 30 - 50 years old, many with children of their own.
Most are middle class who have had full time jobs but whose
addictions/prohibition created problems for them with their relationships,
health, job. Only about eight would be considered penniless/poor.
MarcFrom:Marc Scott Emery <marc@...>
Date:
2003/09/10 Wed AM 11:33:23 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:
Re: [ibogaine] Junkies are sicker than normal
Jennifer, The truth is in here somewhere:
>>> I do remember even as a child feeling alone very often though<<<
MarcFrom:"Patrick K. Kroupa" <digital@...>
Date:
2003/09/10 Wed PM 02:50:34 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Patrick is it true?
On [Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 11:51:46AM -0400], [ HSLotsof@... ] wrote:
| Patrick,
|
| Is it true that the web page below is used as a training page for ibogaine
| providers?
|
|http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/1996-10-21/index.html
|
| It is dead obvious it is used in the methadone industry.
Howard,
Sadly, it appears to be relatively accurate.
But that's old sKool. So much room for improvement.
The New Regime will look a lot more like this:
http://www.marcusgray.com/fetish/polish.htm
I posit a dramatic improvement in treatment outcomes.
Patrick
Dr. Hunter, a third opinion?From:HSLotsof@...
Date:
2003/09/10 Wed PM 03:25:48 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Patrick is it true?
Yes,
I'd like to get Dr. Hunter's opinion also. I returned to the original url I
sent and found a "next" button, eventually coming to
http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/1996-12-09/index.html
I do think we need a medical opinion. Concerning the web page you indicated
above, http://www.marcusgray.com/fetish/polish.htm , I think it may indicate
advantages over the cavity search in my first web page suggestion but, I can
determine no accurate conclusion based on the available data. Possibly, we can
take this up during the ibogaine roundtable at the drug policy alliance
conference, http://www.ibogaine.org/dpa.htmlHoward
From:Gamma <gammalyte9000@...>
Date:
2003/09/11 Thu PM 08:37:31 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Patrick is it true?
After careful consideration and much deliberation I posit the following
treatment personel in what could only be described as a retro-look:
http://members.aol.com/onosko2/nurse.jpeg
a close runner up is: http://www.evilscience.net/institutions/esu/nurse.gif
And of course for the ladies we have:
http://www.nursinggifts.com/images/largemalenurseshelfsitter.jpg
and for the gender confused:
http://contrapunctus.net/league/photo/pcd4096/006-nurse.3.jpg
We had to pass this candidate up, for obvious reasons:
http://www.mogozuzu.com/nurse.jpg
now, during treatment all the above treatment personel could likely look like
this: http://www.francis-bacon.cx/figures/nurse.jpg - But do not be alarmed,
this is only a glitch in the matrix and just a pigment of your imagination.
Our research and development staff has decided on the following treatment
devices for our soon-to-open offshore clinic:
http://www.stanandconnie.com/photos/pecosbeautychair.jpg (for monitoring and
capturing Ibogaine induced visions)
http://www.studentambassadors.org/photos/humor/wickham.jpg (For the unwilling
addict)
http://www.coastergallery.com/GA/jammer09.jpg (for group treatments and proper
guidance)
Regards,
Dr. Hunter
From:"Sara" <sara119@...>
Date:
2003/09/10 Wed PM 04:01:36 CDT
To:
<ibogaine@...>
Subject:[ibogaine] reason for using drugs.
As we all see there is a big drug market out there,
One day it comes on someone's path for what ever reason and they feel like trying it.
Only some people like it a lot and that makes them want to use again and again, it goes out of control
And then it become a problem to the one who wants to stop or doesn't have the money for it, if the dealer is out of town or the police is behind us.
I have also tried chasing the dragon, but every time I got so sick I couldn't feel what the fun in doing it .
My drugs of choice are always begin with the letter c,
Coffee cannabis, chocolate , Cream cheese cake with strawberries Coke.
Because I'm not addicted to those drugs I don't get sick not doing them , it doesn't go out of control yet, but with some people it does.
They have coffee machine at work and they can drink 20cups of coffee per day, or they sniff 5 grams a day or they sit at the coffee shop all day and they don't get out until closing time,
Other people eat 2 kg of chocolate per week, cream cake is just one of the things they must have daily with the afternoon tea.
What back round do we have ? we were born in a world were consuming is the education we get from birth, Big industries.
''I WANT" is small when we are babies and all we can do is cry until we get it , Í WANT "is growing learning to manipulate until getting,
The more we get the more we like to have that's the conditioning of the mind, you give one finger and they take the whole hand.
The more we want the more money we spend, the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer works harder and pay more taxes,
During Iboga "want "is gone to sleep it stays with just a sip of water.later is very different with everyone I treated, some people are nice and easy to be with and some are not.------
From:Marc Scott Emery <marc@...>
Date:
2003/09/11 Thu AM 02:36:18 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:[ibogaine] Jennifer: Describe the pain
Jennifer, Could you describe the kinds of things that create "pain" that requires the opiate self-medication? Are these recurrent feelings? Memories? Relationship based? I am interested in the source of your imbalance. I believe iboga would be helpful and positive an experience for you.
Marc Emery
-----Original Message-----
From: Jennifer [mailto:scrakalak@...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:07 AM
To: ibogaine@...
Subject: Re: [ibogaine] Junkies are sicker than normal
Thanks Marc, I hope to find out why. It's always bothered me that I've always felt this way, alone, abandoned, unwanted, insecure, etc. because I seemed to have had an 'ideal' childhood and things are basically good in my life. I also think that if I could resolve my feelings I could live a life more at peace without constantly trying to self-medicate the pain away. I want to improve my relationships and need to control. I look forward to working this out in the future. I'm hoping for the Spring so I'll have time to save up some $$$ and get everything set up, plane tickets, the testing I need, sitters for my kids, etc.
Jennifer
From:Marc Scott Emery <marc@...>
Date:
2003/09/11 Thu AM 02:29:26 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:[ibogaine] Afterplan
Well, none of my patients had an afterplan. How can many of them? No
jobs, bad health, burned bridges, no money, no close family, problems,
problems.
But they are all improved in their quality of life, so its not a waste
of their or my effort. Many are still drug abuse free.
What kind of afterplan should they have? And where will they get this
help? And how will they pay for it?
I dearly wish they all had loving, helping, wise counselors close at
hand but alas, mostly they have just themselves afterward. That is why I
hope iboga helps them discover their SELF and from there carry out the
will of the self.
Marc Emery
Iboga House
-----Original Message-----
From: Gamma [ mailto:gammalyte9000@... ]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 11:48 AM
To: ibogaine@...
Subject: Re: [ibogaine] Junkies are sicker than normal: Marc
--- Marc Scott Emery < marc@... > wrote:
> Ibogaine only helps the individual gain resolve over their own body
and
> actions, it does not precipitate a direct change in lefestyle until awill
> is found in oneself.
I'm not entirely in agreement, although there is something to what you
are
saying. For me, it was the insight on FEAR and how it ruled my life (no
joke in
this fear based society). Add to that one hell of a spiritual experience
that
basically blind-sided me somewhere around the point that I felt my
spirit leave
my physical body, and I had the beginings of a new life. That
strengthened my
will to live, and not commit suicide on the time-payment plan. But I
wouldn't
put all my eggs in the "will" basket. It's more than that.
The exit plan is probably the most important part of the Ibogaine
healing
experience. Treating an addict without a aftercare plan is a waste of
everyone's time.
~gamma
From:Gamma <gammalyte9000@...>
Date:
2003/09/11 Thu PM 05:18:42 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Afterplan
An aftercare plan doesn't have to cost a dime.
It is a commitment to changes and a new, healthy way to live which should be
discussed, supported and outlined by the Ibogaine treatment provider.
Dosing someone with ibogaine without discussion and focus on life post-ibogaine
is a dis-service to the addict being treated.
An aftercare plan could consist simply of a Healthy Diet(something that escapes
most addicts, BTW), Excercise and Lifestyle Changes. Meetings aren't a bad idea
either, if only for the support of people going thru similar changes. The
individual can decide for themselves if the meetings help or not. All of this
doesn't cost a thing.
Professional help like therapy is an option, and in some cases necessary and
certainly costs money, that is for sure. It depends on the individuals
resources and/or willingness to pursue their freedom on wether therapy is for
them.
Relying on will power alone is shakey ground for an addict, I am surprised you
believe so much in it.
I ask again, since you are apparently treating people on what seems a regular
basis, do you have any professional training in counseling, therapy or
psychology? Do you have a staff with such training?
Have you considered offering post-ibogaine focus/support groups for Iboga House
Alumni? Prefereably staffed by someone with professional experience in group
counseling?
~dh aka gamma
From:Brett Calabrese <bcalabrese@...>
Date:
2003/09/11 Thu PM 03:22:26 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Afterplan
Not agreeing/disagreeing with anyone (how unusual),
just making a comment/observation/pseudo-opinion with
disclaimer and no warranty.
If you deal in absolutes, yes unless someone wants to
quit (drugs) ibo won't do it, but it is often in
degrees and ibo can shift the scale. Ibo also changes
some realities and understanding, changes what is
normally possible. So if someone was basing their
existance on a particular set of
beliefs/experiences... well absolutely ibogaine can
come in and let someone see that differently and
assist in changing them to what they truely are
(kind-of/sort-of). It isn't going to change that which
does not want to change or alter something from its
nature - it WILL help someone be who/what they are,
can help someone "grow up" or "get real" (...).
"> What kind of afterplan should they have? And where
> will they get this
> help? And how will they pay for it?"
Well, 12 steps if you got a buck, or if not. There are
also non-12 step groups (Rational Recovery, SMART...)
there are on-line meetings, they could subscribe to
the ibogaine list(s) though a more "patient"
orientated list would be much better. Once I went to
an out-patient (45 day) treatment that was available
from the county, quite free (they SUCKED,
co-dependents ran it, but it was something). Most
counties (or city/state/federal) have some drug
treatment help that is free or sliding scale. Then
there are churches and other organizations, some
provide free or sliding scale payment plans.
SOMETHING, DO SOMETHING, almost anything (on the
to-do/healthy list) that is a plan. Go to the
GYM/walk/sunshine/air/beach/fly a kite is a plan, eat
good food is a plan, get a job is a plan... Every day
get up and get your ass out of the house or out from
under the bridge, break the pattern... is a plan. But
many addicts just don't, nothing, "that won't work,
this won't", so why bother... Often fill in the words
after "But" or "I can't because"... Whatever it is,
do something and if that doesn't work or you grow past
that, do something else, and if it does work, slip it
in your list of BASIC stuff that works for you. If you
are an addict and do nothing to recover after ibo
treatment you will likely fall back into the default
pattern (the ones we are trying to change) if youdon't replace it with another pattern of behavior.
This is one reason in my mind several treatments are
often necessary, it can be as simple as (though IMO it
is not) re-treating and giving the patient the
opportunity to make a life, get it together, it takes
time (more for some than others). Somethimes the PLAN
(from their end) does not happen till after the
treatment, they can't see that far, can't even see
past getting off the stuff. Then maybe start with 12
step meetings if you don't have anything else. Don't
like the 12 steps, then good, do them till you find
something else... but don't sit there with nothing to
do waiting for something to come into your mind to do,
cuz I know what that will be. Keep busy, do healthy
stuff - Libraries are free BTW, read a book (recovery
maybe?), take out a free tape/CD, that is if you have
a VCR/TV/HOME... Libraries also generally have free
access to the internet and bulletin boards/informationthat may be of help. ALSO, free papers, in NYC (I
think) the Village Voice is still free but there are
local papers with information, often free/cheap help
or classes are available.
And if you can do a real plan, do it. I have seen
people set-up ibo treatment then follow it up with
in-patient/out-patient.
BTW, Addicts are not always from missing same sex
parents... abusive homes or wherever, there is just no
such qualifications that universally apply. For
instance, almost every doctor/nurse/pharmacist I know
of that got addicted does not fit that profile. They
often came from good homes and if they didn't (poor
home/family/daddy figure), by the time they became
doctors/nurses/pharmacists... they are more often more
over it and less of a risk than someone who came from
a good environment. There are a whole lot of
stock-brokers (lawyers/whoever) who got rich, got
coke, got crack and wound up down and out in NYC.
There are a variety of reasons, not everyone fits any
set pattern anything like all of the time or even most
of the time.
Where I came from, I saw lots of people just get into
drugs cause the park was directly across the street
from where I grew up. Yes the numbers no doubt lean in
several directions, heredity, environment, exposure,
family, lack of DADDY/MOMMY, BAD DADDY/MOMMY... and I
know addicts/alcoholics/single/broken home parents who
managed to recover as well as bring up healthy
non-addict children.
All IMVHO at the moment.Brett
From:deartheo@...
Date:
2003/09/11 Thu PM 09:59:18 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Afterplan
The problem i see with allot of aftercare is it's, in my opinion, over-emphisis
on talking about/'dealing with' the past. Perhaps i am the exeption, but it
didn't take me to long to figure out what needed to be done, and to me, to pass
up what needs to be done to talk about it more is inaction, and i've never felt
i had accomplished anything after a talking session with anyone, weither they
are "qualified or not". We are judged by our actions, the only thing i have
control over is right now and am i doing the most with my right now that i can,
enough to not regret putting in more later? Their is simply too much to be
done to spend so much time reliving the past or trying to pin down a
reason/justification for past mistakes. I think one of the loudest messages
i've recieved from my own iboga experience is that the time for talking is long
gone, and not only are actions the only thing that will change this chaos, but
their is responsibility to be taken for actions that weren't taken in the
past. I guess what i'm trying to say is allot of this has to do with personal
identity, wiether cornered into opioids or trapped by choice, i personally
don't want to be identified as a junkie anymore, or 'addict' (i personally
think addict better refers to the person who can't handle owning a cappachino
machine because they will have 40 cups in an hour, "if i have a beer or puff
herb i have to shootup"), and that is what it comes down to, personal
identity. Like still looking at yourself as a smoker or ex-smoker when
quitting tobacco, it wasn't until i looked at myself as a non-smoker (not ex-smoker) that it really started to change. My old NA sponsor used to say that
we all have a good dog and a bad dog and we feed one or the other by our
choices and actions and of course one will get strong and one will starve. It
all comes down to am I willing to do what needs to be done. I have been
finding strength in soldiers of the past, we are not alone, we are walking a
road other men and women have gone down.
Their comes a point of 'don't tread on me' energy that comes when the sickness
looses that control it had; the energy revolutions are sparked with, the fact
of not fearing a response from the sickness by poking it with a stick says
volumes in my opinion about the miracle of this treatment.
I cannot tell you how empowering it was when i realized the police cannot make
me sick anymore, they can lock me up in a cage with violent criminals and
rapists, they can take away my funding for college, but they can't make me sick
anymore. And that makes this whole situation doable. Many have had to kick
cold turkey in jail. Their are way too many who have had it way worse then i
could imagine for me to think of myself as a victom, one of my favorite movies
to watch when dope sick is grapes of wrath to remind me that others struggles
are much greater then my own. 4/5 of the worlds population is living in the
third world. I like that line i saw on the list a few days back " i asked
iboga how i can change the world, it said 'clean your room' "
Nothing is free.
Reap what you sow.
Every man think that his burden is the heaviest.
From:Bill Ross <ross@...>
Date:
2003/09/11 Thu PM 10:41:07 CDT
To:
ibogaine@...
Subject:Re: [ibogaine] Afterplan
> The problem i see with allot of aftercare is it's, in my opinion,
> over-emphisis on talking about/'dealing with' the past.
Did you try different types of aftercare? For example, aftercare
could be about dealing with feelings and situations in the present.
> Perhaps i am the exeption, but it didn't take me to long to
> figure out what needed to be done, and to me, to pass up
> what needs to be done to talk about it more is inaction,
It sounds like you may be the exception, given what I've read on
this list. Perhaps the iboga was able to do all you needed
without designated people to help. It would be interesting to hear
(if you'd be interested in sharing) how your ability and inclination
to connect to and rely on people changed after your experience.
Combining the missing parent concept put forward by Marc Emery
(expanded to include babies systematically left to cry) with the
description of a Bwiti ceremony I read recently, aftercare seems
like it could be a replacement for the bonding experience missing
from childhood.
The entire village takes part, each individual having a specific
role to play, instrument to play, part to sing, and they know the
ceremony intimately. Having an entire village dedicate a two solid
days or more to helping you clearly see through the fabric of this
reality in the most profound manner by singing chanting dancing is
an incomparable experience that even now moves me deeply. There is
such love eminating from these people. ...
The whole experience is built around you the individual, and is
formulated with your happiness in mind. They are such mindful people,
not a thing is left out.
http://www.shaman-australis.com/~claude/tabernanthe-iboga-initiation.html
(Message over 64k, truncated.)
Offline 
Send Email