The Law Society of British Columbia v. Crischuk
2017 BCSC 531
http://canlii.ca/t/h2x1c
The defendant's name was somewhat confusing since he seemed to chose almost randomly from a menu of alternate names. According to the decision he is partial to Kazimierz Chester Crischuk, Kaz Crischuk, Kaz-Chester: Crischuk, Kazimierz-Czelaw: Crischuk and Mythlim-Axkw. I searched for him on Quatloos and, although I didn't try all of his alternate monikers, I found enough to determine he's been discussed here, but only peripherally;
He's popped up in the Allen Bolisjoli discussion;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11098&p=234433Belanger seemed to have an animus against someone called Kaz;
So I looked Kaz up and, unfortunately, I have to agree with the Paraclete on this one. Kaz is Kaz-Chester Crischuk and these two cases involve him.Cory Black
[12} I find myself in agreement with the Crown’s submission that even if one assumes that Mr. Crischuk is sincere in respect of the religious beliefs that he has espoused, his mistaken belief that the Income Tax Act is not applicable to his conduct is a mistake of law. In R. v. Klundert, (2004) 2004 CanLII 21268 (ON CA), 187 C.C.C. (3d) 417, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a mistaken belief that a statute is invalid or otherwise not applicable to the accused’s conduct is a mistake of law.
Like · September 23 at 1:40pm
Edward Jay Robin Belanger
yah I know Kaz that idiot
Like · September 23 at 1:42pm
Edward Jay Robin Belanger
he never refuted the assumption he is a person
Like · September 23 at 1:42pm
Edward Jay Robin Belanger
i was councilling him but he refused to listen then I found out he was a revenue Canada employee for 25 years
Like · September 23 at 1:43pm
Edward Jay Robin Belanger
he was in bed with the crown the whole time
Like · September 23 at 1:43pm
Cory Black
'The prerogative remedies are exceptional in their nature and should not be made available to those who sleep upon their rights.' "
Like · September 23 at 1:44pm
Edward Jay Robin Belanger
I know him very well
R. v. Crischuk, 2010 BCSC 716
http://canlii.ca/t/29w67
R. v. Crischuk, 2007 BCPC 470
http://canlii.ca/t/20phz
And he comes across as, yes, an idiot. Although I suspect that Belanger's animosity is partly fueled by professional rivalry since Kaz was in the same business of flogging biblical gibberish as Belanger.
[11] The main defence advanced by the accused is that he refused to file the Income Tax returns as required pursuant to the requirements within the timeframe authorized because to do so would conflict with his religious beliefs. The accused asserts as a proposition that the Queen is constitutionally, contractually, morally and ethically bound to uphold the Christian principles set out in the Bible. He argues that statutes which advance the faith are binding but if statutes derogate or diminish the faith they are not binding. He suggests that the Income Tax Act derogates the faith and the principles of the Holy Bible and his religious beliefs and is therefore of no force and effect. He furthermore asserts that where there is a conflict between a statute and the fundamental principles of the Christian religion, the former must give way to the latter. He argues that the taxation system embodied in the Income Tax Act supports usury, which is contrary to fundamental biblical principles and specifically is contrary to his religious convictions and beliefs. Therefore, he argues, he is under no obligation to participate in the taxation system, which would include the filing of tax returns. He also makes the surprising argument that taxation, biblically, of necessity and pursuant to the rule of law, must be voluntary. He suggests that forced taxation is theft. Interestingly, in the accused’s volume entitled “Under Protest, Duress and Intimidation – Challenge to Jurisdiction “, filed in the Registry April 5, 2007, at page 6, para. 28, it is stated that Mr. Crischuk does pay sales and gas taxes, however, this is only because of the extreme difficulty present in refusing to pay them. It would appear therefore that that extreme difficulty trumps his religious conviction. I conclude that if it were extremely difficult for Mr. Crischuk to refuse to pay income tax, he would also then pay income tax notwithstanding his religious convictions.
[12] I find myself in agreement with the Crown’s submission that even if one assumes that Mr. Crischuk is sincere in respect of the religious beliefs that he has espoused, his mistaken belief that the Income Tax Act is not applicable to his conduct is a mistake of law. In R. v. Klundert, (2004) 2004 CanLII 21268 (ON CA), 187 C.C.C. (3d) 417, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a mistaken belief that a statute is invalid or otherwise not applicable to the accused’s conduct is a mistake of law.
He got mentioned in the Chief Rock Sino General discussion where he was using Mythlim-Axkw;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&p=161115I do not know if you see a distinction between an ‘Indian’ vs. ‘non-Indian’ name, but you may find R. v. Crischuk, 2010 BCSC 716 (http://canlii.ca/t/29w67) interesting. That is about a fellow who said this:
The judge said however that did not matter.The affiant, known as: Mythlim-Axkw of the Wilps-Daaxan, is a Sovereign North-American-Indian (sic.), given the spiritual appellation of the Mythlim-Axkw by the Tribal-Family (Exhibit A), and hereby reserves all rights and claims…as it relates to all parties.
A big Shout-out from Mowe in the Queen's Oath discussion;
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9498Ah yes, Mr. Kazimierz Chester Crischuk. A colourful fellow indeed. An accountant, as I understand it. And someone who has never seen a tax denial scheme he did not like.
I suppose one should be fair and mention he also called himself, at various points, Kaz-Chester: Crischuk, and also "Mythlim-Axkw". That last one is rather amusing. In R. v. Crischuk, 2010 BCSC 716 (http://canlii.ca/t/29w67) at para. 15 the court quotes an "Affidavit of Facts" that was part of the appeal record:
Mythlim-Axkw claimed he had been "adopted" by the Wilps-Daaxan tribe but offered only "largely unintelligible" evidence of that....The content is somewhat difficult to summarize. In paragraph 1, Mr. Crischuk deposed that:
In paragraph 6, Mr. Crischuk deposed that the Wilps-Daaxan Tribe had never transferred any of their lands to anyone and that their right to move on the lands is recognized by the Jay Treaty, a March 9, 1704, Order-in-Council issued by Lord Dufferin and the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The balance of the affidavit consists of Mr. Crischuk "accepting and returning" various parts of various statutes, including the Provincial Court Act, Canada Revenue Agency Act, and the Personal Property Security Act. Finally, he deposed that he did not understand any of the charges that he faced, an assertion that is difficult to reconcile with his earlier and later statements that he was not before the court to contest any of the allegations.
- 1. The affiant, known as: Mythlim-Axkw of the Wilps-Daaxan, is a Sovereign North-American-Indian (sic.), given the spiritual appellation of the Mythlim-Axkw by the Tribal-Family (Exhibit A), and hereby reserves all rights and claims…as it relates to all parties.
2. The affiant does hereby renounce and does declare void, ab initio and nunc pro tunc, any and all attempts to change the affiant’s status in Law to that of a Factor of, or for, an alien corporate, Statutory, Military, Maritime, Admiralty, Fictitious “CANADIAN”, “person”, “consumer”, “individual”, “citizen”, “citizen-subject”, “plaintiff”, “defendant”, “resident”, “whoever”, “taxpayer”, “driver”, “gun/firearm owner”, “debtor”, etc..
3. The affiant does not participate in any commercial activity in de facto corporate Canada; but remains as the Authorized Agent of the legal entity/juristic person known as KAZIMIERZ CZESLAW KRYSZCZUK CRISCHUK©™ (Trust), as the only authorized representative of the legal entity/juristic person of the Trust or any and all alphanumerical variation(s) thereof, herein after jointly and severally known as “Person”.
Lots of other silly arguments. Mythlim-Axkw demanded oaths of office from a bunch of officials (R. v. Crischuk, 2007 BCPC 470 at para. 7) (http://canlii.ca/t/20phz). Said paying tax is against his religion, which led to this amusing comment from the Provincial Court judge at para. 11:
On appeal he also argued a split/double person motif in that he had somehow taken control of his capital letter strawman (paras. 43-45), but nevertheless did get his sentence reduced: R. v. Crischuk, 2010 BCSC 1165 (http://canlii.ca/t/2c43c). The B.C. Court of Appeal denied leave: R. v. Crischuk, 2010 BCCA 391 (http://canlii.ca/t/2c87t).... He also makes the surprising argument that taxation, biblically, of necessity and pursuant to the rule of law, must be voluntary. He suggests that forced taxation is theft. Interestingly, in the accused’s volume entitled “Under Protest, Duress and Intimidation – Challenge to Jurisdiction “, filed in the Registry April 5, 2007, at page 6, para. 28, it is stated that Mr. Crischuk does pay sales and gas taxes, however, this is only because of the extreme difficulty present in refusing to pay them. It would appear therefore that that extreme difficulty trumps his religious conviction. I conclude that if it were extremely difficult for Mr. Crischuk to refuse to pay income tax, he would also then pay income tax notwithstanding his religious convictions.
Something I had not realized til I was doing research on Mr. Crischuk is that he started his descent by hooking up with minister Belanger and CERI (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9261). But sure enough, Belanger has thoughtfully posted Crischuk's entire CERI-type package online (http://allcreatorsgifts.blogspot.ca/200 ... ement.html). Like all CERI documents it goes on ... and on ... and on ...
But one bit I liked is that Crischuk has his own church!
Since Mythlim-Axkw has now lost his protection as a bankrupt perhaps it's time to play the religion card again?From the Okanagan Sui Juris Church
Being a non-commercial, benevolent congregation of respected men not being "persons" (James 2:9; Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34) having assembled in response to a universal calling for the maintaining of truth, liberty and justice. This assembly of men is not to be assumed as purposed in clandestine order nor cultish performance but of quest for open and honest unfettered sharing of truths to ensure that integrity and honor prevail. "The one law is to cause no harm". Those who deem faith in God as cultish are obviously without God and discriminate against those who do profess their faith on a religious basis. The cult deemers do so with the intent to ignore their oath-sworn duty and to label a Christian monarch as cultish.
Minister of Christ, Kazimierz-Czeslaw: Crischuk in official function and performance of an ecclesiastical duty asserting no association with a false fictitious tax file number Account 607-902-723.
...
The men I speak for as their minister have an inherent right and duty, God commanded, not to bow to de facto authority. It is in ignorance that the people have given over their energy. We cannot contribute to what we have proof is a fraud. We, as followers of God's word and commandments, cannot be driven from the scriptural warnings and commandments of God. It is only by our free will of allowing deception to prevail that we can ignore them.
It is our belief that your fictional government form is based upon commerce and we are not to unite with or serve mammon which is commerce. We do not wish to insult anyone or decline our responsibilities to pay for essential social services and the maintenance of other usufructs. It is the servicing of a usurious and fraudulently obtained debt with which we take umbrage. It is pure slavery and forced work outside of God's Laws.
SMS Möwe
And in the David-Kevin: Lindsay: discussion;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10022&p=172921[23] Again, I find this argument to be without merit. The Honourable Judge Klinger dealt with a similar submission in Regina v Crischuk, Kelowna Registry No. 61735, June 15, 2007. Judge Klinger has this to say at paragraphs 11 and 12:
[11] The main defence advanced by the accused is that he refused to file the Income Tax returns as required pursuant to the requirements within the timeframe authorized because to do so would conflict with his religious beliefs. The accused asserts as a proposition that the Queen is constitutionally, contractually, morally and ethically bound to uphold the Christian principles set out in the Bible. He argues that statutes which advance the faith are binding but if statues derogate or diminish the faith they are not binding. He suggests that the Income Tax Act derogates the faith and the principles of the Holy Bible and his religious beliefs and is therefore of no force and effect. He furthermore asserts that where there is a conflict between a statute and the fundamental principles of the Christian religion, the former must give way to the latter. He argues that the taxation system embodied in the Income Tax Act supports usury, which is contrary to fundamental biblical principles and specifically is contrary to his religious convictions and beliefs. Therefore, he argues, he is under no obligation to participate in the taxation system, which would include the filing of tax returns. He also makes the surprising argument that taxation, biblically, of necessity and pursuant to the rule of law, must be voluntary. He suggests that forced taxation is theft. Interestingly, in the accused’s volume entitled “Under Protest, Duress and Intimidation - Challenge to Jurisdiction”, filed in the Registry April 5, 2007, at page 6, para. 28, it is stated that Mr. Crischuk does pay sales and gas taxes, however, this is only because of the extreme difficulty present in refusing to pay them. It would appear therefore that that extreme difficulty trumps his religious conviction. I conclude that if it were extremely difficult for Mr. Crischuk to refuse to pay income tax, he would also then pay income tax notwithstanding his religious convictions.
[12] I find myself in agreement with the Crown’s submission that even if one assumes that Mr. Crischuk is sincere in respect of the religious beliefs that he has espoused, his mistaken belief that the Income Tax Act is not applicable to his conduct is a mistake of law. In R. v. Klundert, 2004 CanLII 21268 (ON CA), (2004) 187 C.C.C. (3d) 417, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a mistaken belief that a statute is invalid or otherwise not applicable to the accused’s conduct is a mistake of law.
Well now it's finally time for Crischuk to come into his own by getting a dedicated Quatloos discussion. Sadly it will be about losing yet again but since he's been at this since at least 2010 he's not easily discouraged. So on to the case at bar. First the background;
Paragraphs 7 to 15 tell the story that got Crischuk in front of judge Weatherell. A company called Preferred Credit Resources Ltd. started a legal action against aPerry Mazzei to recover about $40,000 in credit card debt. Initially Mazzei dealt directly with Preferred Credit Resources Ltd.'s counsel but, on October 4, 2016, Mazzei informed Preferred Credit's counsel that he'd retained Crischuk to act as his agent. Between April 4 and April 21, 2016, Crischuk wrote directly to counsel and attempted to negotiate a settlement of Mazzei's debt. As part of this he employed the usual magical Freeman debt elimination schenes by sending Preferred Credit's counsel a Bill of Lading and Notice of Understanding and Liability.[5] The factual basis for the petition and legal background is set out in the petition and supporting affidavits filed by the petitioner. Briefly, they are that the respondent (note - Crischuk) resides in Kelowna and refers to himself as an "independent public accountant". The respondent is not and has never been a member of the Law Society of British Columbia nor, for that matter, a lawyer registered to practice in any province, as far as the petitioner is aware.
[6] The respondent has been convicted and incarcerated for evading taxes and for preparing false tax returns for his clients. In defending those charges personally, the respondent repeatedly and unsuccessfully employed various tactics known as organized pseudo�legal commercial arguments (“OPCA”), as was discussed by the associate chief justice of Alberta in the well�known decision of Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII).
The Law Society apparently got involved at this point and had a paralegal in their Unauthorized Practice Department contact Mazzei by telephone. He confirmed that Crischuk was his authorized representative and had provided him with legal advice and had drafted the counterproposal on his behalf and had assisted in preparing the response to civil claim and other legal and court documents. Mazzei said that he intended to have Crischuk continue to assist him in the action. So the Laws Society wrote to Crischuk to advise that it was their belief he was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and sought an undertaking from him to stop. He didn't respond to the letter. Leading to this;
The judge noted, right at the beginning of the Reasons for Judgment, that Crischuk's response was somewhat irregular;[18] The petitioner asserts that one is deemed to be engaged in the practice of law if he or she offers to provide such services or represents him or herself as qualified or entitled to engage in such activities.
[19] Based on the information received, the petitioner believes that the respondent had provided Mr. Mazzei with legal advice and services with the expectation of a fee, and that the respondent was engaged in the practice of law without a licence.
The judge had some difficulties with this;[3] The petition was filed on October 7, 2016. The respondent was duly served. He filed a response to petition on November 3, 2016, generally opposing the orders sought. The factual basis in the response to petition reads:
. . . the defendant is a Trust/Estate, a legal entity, a corporation, which cannot perform any act. i, the 3rd party representative, am a man, not a corporation, and i conditionally accept paragraph one and two upon proof of claim that i, a man, am a "person" as referred to in the Legal Profession Act and thus come under its authority.
[4] There is no legal basis noted in the response to petition. The material to be relied on in the response to petition is noted as a "Declaration of Facts [Affidavit] of Kazimierz Kryszczuk, made this October 30, 2016," which I take to be the affidavit noted as a "Declaration of Facts [Affidavit]" sworn by the respondent on October 31, 2016.
Instead of keeping an open mind and trying to understand the basis behind Crischuk's arguments the judge just chose to analize his response as it was submitted.[24] It was difficult to comprehend the respondent’s submissions in response. It seems that he does not recognize this Court's jurisdiction to either hear this petition or deal with the petition for a number of reasons. His book of authorities starts with the Holy Bible. His submission was that the Bible was really the only authority there is. He also relies on the Federal Interpretation Act, which is not applicable to this Court or this proceeding; the British North America Act of 1867; the Statute of Westminster of 1931; and on other unhelpful or irrelevant statutes that he seemingly obtained through searches of the Internet.
[25] He seems to suggest that the laws of Canada and the provinces are invalid, focusing on the various positions of governors general of Canada and the authority he says they did not have to enact laws or appoint provincial governors general. What little I could glean from his submissions included that he seems to suggest that appointments of the governors general were invalid.
[26] He also seems to believe that the laws of this province, including the Legal Profession Act, do not apply to him.
[27] He says that he is "a man created in the image of God". He said that he has no contract with the "legal fiction corporation called the Law Society of British Columbia" or with the affiants who have sworn affidavits in support of the petition. While it was not relied on in his submissions, he seems to suggest that he is in bankruptcy and "there is no Trustee or any one or more of the Trusts and Estates" which he refers to in his affidavit.
[29] As I hear him, he completely denies the constitutional history of this country as it applies to the rights and obligations of its people before the law. He denies The Law Society's legal authority to exist or to bring this petition.
And then this cruel, clearly unnecessary, comment;[30] The respondent’s submissions were incoherent, rambling and complete nonsense. He read at length from and followed what appeared to be a prepared script or instructions. For reasons that are not clear, he has a distorted view of the foundation of our legal system.
[31] He purports to restrict this Court's jurisdiction because it is defective. That submission is rejected. Any such attack fails because of the inherent jurisdiction and inherent authority of the Supreme Court.
[32] I have been unable to identify any valid legal arguments that the respondent has made. His submissions are rejected. They have no legal, historical, or constitutional foundation. They are deserving of no further attention, energy, or comment.
And so to sad defeat;[33] If he wishes to while away his time on something more productive and on something that makes sense, I recommend that he read Justice Rooke's judgment in Meads v. Meads.
[34] The respondent does not contest that he has never been a member of The Law Society. I am satisfied on the material before me that he has been practising law without a licence, and is unauthorized to do so, by attempting to assist Mr. Mazzei in the New Westminster Registry case, Preferred Credit Resources Ltd. v. Perry Mazzei.
[35] So on that basis, the orders sought in the petition are granted. The petitioner is also entitled to costs. The bill of costs that has been presented to me, the draft bill of costs, is Tariff Scale B. The Law Society seeks a lump sum award to avoid the necessity of having to have the bill of costs taxed.
