Graydon Tyskerud - King James Bible Tax Evader

[Burnaby49]

Sorry, I'm being too flippant. The correct legal term term for the taxpayer's arguments, as used by the British Columbia Provincial court was "Organized Psudolegal Commercial Arguments". Link to decision below. Some new tax protester gibberish, at least new to me.

Turns out that the Law of the Land isn't what is written in incomprehensible statutes, it's the King James Bible. And the King James doesn't say anything about telling those pesky tax people what you earn. Note how his inquisitive mind just happened to wander into an area that allowed him to justify, to himself, tax evasion:

[29] Graydon Tyskerud testified that he is an inquisitive person and undertakes research into issues of interest to himself and he pursues self education on a broad range of topics. These have included matters relating to the law, legal definitions, the Canadian Constitution, civil and human rights, Canadian and international banking and monetary policy, income tax and the Bible. In the mid-1980s, he took and completed a tax preparation course through H & R Block Tax.

[30] In or around 1993, at the urgings of his wife, he became interested in reading the full version of the King James Bible and studying scripture and specific parts of the Old and New Testament. He began interacting with people who were adherents to his wife's family faith that he described as not being a mainstream religious group.

[31] In his affidavit sworn March 21st, 2012 and admitted as evidence in the trial as Exhibit 95, Graydon Tyskerud further confirmed many of his religious beliefs. These were also raised in his viva voce evidence. Both in his viva voce evidence and in this affidavit he provided specific references to Bible passages which form part of the fundamentals of his beliefs which he indicated are relevant to this case.

This is what King James had to tell him:

8. As above, I accept as true, the "King James Bible", is the "Law" and the "Will" of God.
9. I understand God created Man.
10. I understand Man is God's Beneficiary.

then with specific reference to Ecclesiastes 3:13 in paragraph 17 and Ecclesiastes 1:3 – 11 in paragraph 18 the affidavit continues as follows:

19. I understand the above to mean, "There is no profit in my labour".
20. I understand the "good of my labour" is a "gift from God".
31. I know "Deuteronomy" is in the "King James Bible".
32. I accept the fact that "Law of the Land" is "Deuteronomy"

But, you ask, how did this biblical guidance actually become law?

[33] As I further understand Graydon Tyskerud's evidence, he is of the belief that King Alfred made the 10 Commandments the "Rule of Law". Furthermore he subscribes to the words attributed to Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke, purportedly Chief Justice of Common Pleas and a member of the British Parliament in the 17th century, who was later elevated in 1613 to the Lord Chief Justice of England: "Any laws of Parliament that conflict with the laws of God, the laws of Parliament are null and void".

And, of course, capitalization comes into it:

[42] In his evidence, Graydon Tyskerud described another of his beliefs which he suggested is confirmed by a publication entitled Canadian Style Guide to Writing and Editing produced in coordination with the federal Public Works and Government Services Canada Translation Bureau. As I understand his evidence, the use of capitalization for an entity such as a city or an individual is a reference to a legal fiction. Accordingly, he is of the belief that he may in one situation be regarded as a legal fiction created for a useful purpose, linked to his birth certificate, social insurance number and even the filing of a Declaration of Firm Name for a proprietorship while in another situation he can be regarded as what he describes as a "private person", which from his testimony I understand is not a legal fiction.

[43] His testimony suggests that Graydon Tyskerud, the legal fiction, is the entity that was required and did file income tax returns, in particular between 1994 and 2001 when the proprietorship was personally doing commercial activity.

[44] The spelling of his last name in block capital letters, as it initially appeared in the first information, as I understand his evidence, would be a reference to Graydon Tyskerud the legal fiction rather than Graydon Tyskerud the private person. I further understand that Graydon Tyskerud the private person has at times appeared in court as agent for the legal fiction.

As far as I can understand it (it gets convoluted) the taxpayer incorporated a company that he then worked for but a company is a legal fiction and, since legal fictions can't pay wages, the money he took out was a gift from the company and Canada has no gift tax so he was in the clear. After this he went full-frontal Porisky on the natural man BS. As he testified (I'm not talented enough to make this up):

Graydon Tyskerud, the legal fiction for this tax return, which is another creation of man, did not receive income, although of necessity you cannot go to a bank and open up a bank account, receive cheques and cash them in this society that we are in today, or back even then. So what happens is it would appear that Graydon Tyskerud the legal fiction would receive income because it would go into that legal fiction's bank account, or credit card or line of credit or whatever it happened to be, flowing through the legal fiction.

Sure, I know, old hat, where it gets into new gibberish is here:

[50] It is apparent that sometime around 2005, Graydon Tyskerud began to utilize what is described as a "Statutory Declaration Truth of Identification- Documentation Number MY-7748229" which I understand was prepared by Graydon Tyskerud:


[51] It cites various Biblical references and secular sources of information. According to Graydon Tyskerud's testimony, these passages form part of his beliefs. It was purportedly sworn by him before a Notary Public. No date appears in the document. It contains a picture of him. It was presented by him at various times to various CRA officials and some of them were cross examined on it during the trial. It was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 81.

[52] In part, that document contains the following language:

"The Rule of Law by King Alfred (880 A.D.) all heirs and successors

I Affirm, as a Declaration and Solemn Expression of Truth, Supremacy of God and the Holy Bible I, Graydon Paul Tyskerud a Non-Person of Man and a Defender of the Faith (never to be confused with a Person of Man or Juristic Person) do solemnly declare that:

1) I am competent to state to the matters set forth herein
2) I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein
3) All facts stated herein are true, correct, certain and admissible as evidence, as a Non-Person of Man and a Defender of the Faith. If called upon as a witness, I will testify to their veracity
Full Christian Appellation Calling Graydon Paul Tyskerud
Country of Inhabitation -Canada Citizenship -Canadian
Date of Birth As I Have Been Told [inserted in document]
Birthplace As I Have Been Told [inserted in document]
Thereafter appears information concerning a "Contact Address", a "B.C. Registration Number" and "Place of Issue – Regina, Saskatchewan"

A jurat has been inserted utilizing the following words:

"I hereby solemnly affirm and declare that all the information contained herein is the truth and is free of any fabrication to the best of my knowledge"

Thereafter appears a signature that says "Graydon Paul Tyskerud" and below it the words "a Defender of the Faith/Non-Person Man"

But why is it Doucument number MY-7748229? Simple:

[53] As I understand from Graydon Tyskerud's testimony, this document is intended by him to maintain what he describes as his status of a "Private Person". He further testified that the "Documentation Number MY-7748229" if spelled out by referencing the numbers on a standard telephone pad says "My Privacy".

He apparently had conclusive proof that the Cnada Revenue Agency agreed with his position:

A. No. Well, I believe now it is non-taxable because I have written letters and I have asked numerous times for Canada Revenue Agency, yourself, to answer and no answer is forthcoming. Obviously I must be correct.

It was clear why the cross-examining lawyer couldn't understand the obviousness of his position:

A. I do not believe everyone could structure their--could understand the concept. I don't believe you even can understand the concept because I don't believe that you really believe in God.

It is a long decision and full of much more of the same. Essentially his position was that you don't pay tax if you believe in god:

57] Therefore from his evidence, I understand that Graydon Tyskerud says that he follows a theory that this concept of the private contract of hire and the income tax results flowing from it are conditional upon and only available to those people who believe in God and live by the word of God. He includes himself as one of those people or as he also describes them, "children of God".

[58] He links this with his notion of a "private person". Those who are "strangers" and do not hold these beliefs or who have filled out an application for a social insurance number according to his evidence would pay tax.

[59] This belief of course raises the question that if the payments that are received under a private contract for hire are not income, then what are they? In response, Graydon Tyskerud testified it is a "gift from God". This conclusion is based on his understanding that "there is no profit in a man's labour".

They (both father and son were charged) argued that since they received gifts direct from god and since there is no place in the Canadian Income Tax Return to record gifts everything they made was tax-free. Since they were both god-fearing men they would never knowingly commit a criminal act and they could therefore not be found guilty of a criminal offense. Their last line of defense was that, if somebody did commit illegal tax evasion, it wasn't the two natural god-created men Graydon Tyskerud and Matthew Tyskerud, but their legal fictions GRAYDON TYSKERUD and MATTHEW TYSKRUD so go after them instead.

Court didn't buy it and they both ended up with criminal convictions. Sentencing to follow.

The Court made a fine distinction between what religion orders you to do and what you decide, in your own best interest, religion allows you to do:

338] It is noteworthy that so far as I can determine, neither in the evidence of Graydon Tyskerud nor in the joint submissions of the accused do the accused suggest that their religious beliefs prevent them from paying income tax. That argument would no doubt fail on the basis of a claim of freedom of conscience and religion protected by section 2(a) of the Charter (see: Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, [2009] S.C.R. 567).

[339] What the accused do say is that their religious beliefs, based upon the arguments that they have advanced, do provide them with the ability of choosing not to pay income tax.

The judge made very extensive reference to Justice Rooke's Major work on Tax Evaders already mentioned in numerous threads in this site including;

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=8805&p=147804&hilit=rooke#p147804

And finally, the citation:

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/20 ... cpc27.html

[Cathulhu]

Y'know, I seem to recall a parable about "render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's, and render unto God those things that are God's". Even an atheist like me knows the parables about paying taxes better than these "biblical scholars".

[Burnaby49]

Y'know, I seem to recall a parable about "render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's, and render unto God those things that are God's". Even an atheist like me knows the parables about paying taxes better than these "biblical scholars".

Please, don't embarrass yourself by even pretending you can match your scriptural understanding against these giants. It's like a weekend hacker teeing off against Tiger Woods. I'll bet you didn't know (I certainly didn't) that the bible became the legal basis for British law by order of king Alfred the Great (849 to 899) personally!

If your parable had any relevance these two searching minds, being fair honest christians, would have brought it up in court. Since they didn't it is prima facta proven that it has no bearing. The Crown wisely decided not to fight the defendants on their home ground and kept away from religion entirely and based the government's case on non-Alfred law.

[Burnaby49]

Although, to be fair to these guys, their comments about Alfred the Great aren't based entirely on fantasy. This is what Wikipedia has to say about the overall set of laws established by Alfred:

About a fifth of the law code is taken up by Alfred's introduction, which includes translations into English of the Decalogue, a few chapters from the Book of Exodus, and the "Apostolic Letter" from Acts of the Apostles (15:23–29). The Introduction may best be understood as Alfred's meditation upon the meaning of Christian law.[53] It traces the continuity between God's gift of Law to Moses to Alfred's own issuance of law to the West Saxon people. By doing so, it links the holy past to the historical present and represents Alfred's law-giving as a type of divine legislation.[54] This is the reason that Alfred divided his code into precisely 120 chapters: 120 was the age at which Moses died and, in the number-symbolism of early medieval biblical exegetes, 120 stood for law.

On the other hand it may not to be wise for Quatloosian lawyers to overly rely on Alfred next time they are in court:

When one turns from the domboc's introduction to the laws themselves, it is difficult to uncover any logical arrangement. The impression one receives is of a hodgepodge of miscellaneous laws. The law code, as it has been preserved, is singularly unsuitable for use in lawsuits. In fact, several of Alfred's laws contradict the laws of Ine that form an integral part of the code. Patrick Wormald's explanation is that Alfred's law code should be understood not as a legal manual, but as an ideological manifesto of kingship, "designed more for symbolic impact than for practical direction."

American judges really don't buy into the use of ideological manefestos of kingship in their courts.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

It appears Graydon Tyskerud not only is a spouter of gibberish, but he is also a purveyor of gibberish.

In April, just two months after having been found guilty, Graydon held a helpful web seminar, "Court Stories From the Front Lines": http://private-person.com/blog/training ... ont-lines/

What will one learn? Why, 10 steps to victory!

10 General Rules When Dealing With “THEM”

1. All their paperwork is defective, or flawed

2. Most of their processes are defective, or flawed

3. You can control the pace and process

4. Understanding the paperwork and process is easy

5. No one can do it for you

6. It’s possible for you to win

7. Question everything, assume nothing

8. Learn the basic principles, rinse and repeat

9. They will try to rush and silence you…don’t let them

10. They are liars, cheats and thieves, remember that.

Yes, those did work very well indeed.

This educational opportunity was posted on the "private-person.com" (http://www.private-person.com) website, which is yet another website selling Freeman-on-the-Land and Sovereign Citizen material, but not one that I have investigated in any depth.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

A minor update on Graydon and Michael Tyskerud. Mainstream media sources indicate they were sentenced on July 11, but accounts of the sentences they received are not the same. My guess is the following:

• Graydon Tyskerud was given a six-month conditional sentence, ordered to perform 160 hours of community service activities, fined $14,186.22 for payment evasion under the Income Tax Act, and ordered to file his outstanding income tax returns (2002-2007).
  
  Michael Tyskerud was given a six-month conditional sentence, ordered to perform 80 hours of community service activities, fined $3,320.82 for payment evasion under the Income Tax Act, and ordered to file his outstanding income tax returns (2002-2007).

No media sources report a probation order, which I find surprising. I have not identified a written sentencing decision, though I would anticipate one given the size of the trial decision and its complexity. It may be the written decision is presently under preparation or simply has not yet reached the case law databases.

Graydon Tyskerud had this to say about the sentencing process (http://private-person.com/blog/upcoming-court-dates/):

Gray T says:
May 20, 2013 at 8:58 am
Another sentencing update,

Day #1364 from the first appearance and counting.

Sentencing began on April 23, 2013. Adjourned to May 1, 2013 to May 3, 2013 to May 14, 2013.

About 2 full days of court time but many hours waiting for other cases to process.

We still didn’t finish. Have to put written submissions in by May 21, 2013 then Crown submits their reply by June 4, 2013.

We are set to hear judge’s decision on June 28 but the judge said he had other sentences to complete and he will be hard pressed to have it completed by then!!!

Always be prepared to be found guilt.

Once you begin to analyze the principals of sentencing you will see how important it is to prepare and submit a properly outlined sentencing submission.

The sentencing process is another trial.

As with most cases involving “pro se” litigants, proper sentencing submissions are not offered to the judge therefore the usual sentence is the Crown’s offered version therefore future cases will be determined by the Crown’s version of appropriate sentence for a similar offence.

Think of those who came before you and those whom are coming after you.

In sentencing if the offender does not put forward a proper submission based upon proper principals of sentencing then the preceding sentencing judge will most likely adhere to the Crown’s recommendations. Then piling upon future case decisions relying upon the case that no proper offender submissions were presented.

The result being, the future offender will receive a longer and harsher penalty then if a proper principled sentencing based submission was offered to the prior sentencing judge.

Stay tuned, starting to look at Appeal.

You may respond with email to:

Iam.2013@yahoo.com

God Bless,

Graydon

Frankly, were I him I would take the sentence without complaint.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

The Tyskerud sentencing decision is out:

• R. v. Tyskerud, 2013 BCPC 277: http://canlii.ca/t/g0spx

Judge MacCarthy took some time putting this together, it's a lengthy and thorough analysis. Media reports were inaccurate - the elder Tyskerud received an 11 month conditional sentence (para. 137), not the 6 months I had previously reported.

The judge was not impressed by the manner in which the Tyskerud's framed their appreciation of their misconduct, for example this little exchange:

[46] Matthew Tyskerud's pre-sentence report provides, under the heading "Attitude and Understanding Regarding Offence," the following statements:

Specific to the index offence, Matthew stated, "I figured they would find us guilty from the get-go."

[47] He described the guilty verdict as a "copout answer" and stated, "I still don't believe I did anything wrong." Matthew stated, "For me to be found guilty and for that guilt to be felt, I need to be told why." He claimed, "If I am guilty, tell me clear and why," and "If I had all my questions answered, had that feeling of guilt, then I would pay, as I am wrong." Matthew said, "I'm not saying I'm right or wrong. I think I am right; does it make me wrong" and further stated, "I want information. Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Tell me how I was wrong. Teach me. Educate me. Show me." Matthew advised, "Bottom line, I want education," and "If I am found guilty, I am fine with whatever judgment; however, I want a real understanding of why."

[48] Both in the pre-sentence report and in oral submissions, Matthew Tyskerud indicated that he subscribes to the theory that the payment of income tax is not a matter of personal responsibility for him since by not doing so there is a "minimal impact." He is of the view that he does not receive any benefits generated from income tax. When I questioned him about the publicly funded education that he would have received as part of his electrician's training at Camosun College, his response was to the effect that he paid what he was asked to pay.

[49] I understand that he shares the views that I heard expressed by his father, Graydon Tyskerud, in evidence, that by making payment of sales tax, gas taxes, and GST, that he is making his contribution to the public purse. ...

So there you go, Burnaby49. You might want to recommend to your former colleagues that the problem is one of education. All you need to do is just explain why people pay income tax. So simple.

The Crown took the position that house arrest was just not enough for persons such as the Tyskerud's (paras. 66-67) and when it comes to persons who employ OPCA schemes to avoid tax then the primary consideration during sentencing is deterrence (para. 63):

General deterrence is necessary, says Crown, to provide the strong response to OPCA litigants and the so-called "detaxers" who form part of the "tax protester" movement as analyzed in Meads. Such general deterrence is essential for the OPCA litigants themselves in order to get them to recognize they are on a dead-end and ruinous path by following these concepts. This general deterrence is also essential for the good of the general public in order to contain the significant financial cost to the CRA and the federal government in dealing with OPCA litigants and their misguided theories.

The Tyskeruds really, really tried to dodge the OPCA label:

[80] First, there is the denial by the accused that they should be characterized as OPCA litigants for the beliefs that they hold and were the subject matter of significant portions of Graydon Tyskerud's evidence. Significant time was spent in their submissions attempting to distinguish themselves from some of the features of an OPCA litigant contained within the Meads analysis. Amongst other things, they disavow violence. They indicate that they have recognized the court process and have not abused it, nor can they be considered vexatious litigants. They say that they are not part of or associated with any organization or movements identified by Meads. They deny that they are conspiracy theorists. They state in Matthew Tyskerud's written submissions that "if the Tyskeruds are in fact OPCA litigants, then they are so far off the spectrum it would be the tip of their finger poking in."

[81] The submissions are less fulsome in addressing the Trial Judgment’s examination and findings about their belief systems about income and income tax with OPCA litigant features that ultimately were rejected and led to their convictions. I am left with a strong sense that they continue to look for an explanation or answers and education as to why their views should not prevail on the relevant issues.

[82] Matthew Tyskerud's written submission is replete with rhetorical questions which do not offer much in the way of assistance to the court.

[83] Instead, they submit that they are self-represented litigants who cannot afford good legal representation, and if I understand their argument, in summary, they have faced overzealous prosecution on income tax evasion charges and harsh civil enforcement proceedings, all at the hands of CRA. The civil enforcement proceedings have resulted in the seizure of their assets that are required to earn their livings but have only resulted in recovery from all seized personal and business assets of approximately $17,000 for Graydon Tyskerud and approximately $3,150 for Matthew Tyskerud.

[84] They assert that they have been denied due process by virtue of CRA's proceeding against them with tax evasion charges and thereby staying their ability to deal with their appeals and proceedings in Tax Court.

[85] As part of their submissions, they provide their estimate and say the CRA has spent hundreds of thousands dollars in these pursuits with little to show by way of results. I understand them to be saying that they have been required to run their defence because of the original charge amounts being "grossly overstated." In the final result, the amount of Graydon Tyskerud's evasion is only 52 percent of what was originally claimed in the information, and Matthew Tyskerud's evasion was only 37 percent of the amount originally claimed in the information.

[86] In addition, Crown stayed Count 5 against Graydon Tyskerud on the GST charges in the amount of $5,937.44 which they view as a validation of the defence position.

[87] They further submit that Crown is simply seeking to characterize them as OPCA litigants for the simple purpose of obtaining a "harsher or unjust sentence."

The Tyskeruds also relied on commentary and research by Prof. Julie McFarlane (para. 77), whom I have criticized elsewhere for having not met what I would consider a minimal standard on analysis of OPCA litigants and litigation. It appears Judge MacCarthy put no weight on that.

Instead Judge MacCarthy placed the blame squarely on the Tyskeruds themselves:

[103] The income tax evasion charges of which each accused stands convicted are serious and criminal in nature. They are an affront to important fundamental obligations of citizens in a free and democratic society. They flow from an attempt to cheat the state and thereby inevitably increase the burden on their fellow citizens. As stated by Cory J. in Knox:

• 17 It is fitting and appropriate that the s. 239 offences be considered as criminal law. The Income Tax Act is a major source of funds for the federal government. Its provisions are applicable to most adult Canadians. The vast majority pay their income tax by way of payroll deduction with little or no opportunity for evasion or misstatement. Those who do evade the payment of income tax not only cheat the State of what is owing to it, but inevitably increase the burden placed upon the honest taxpayers. It is ironic that those who evade payment of taxes think nothing of availing themselves of the innumerable services which the State provides by means of taxes collected from others.
  
  18 The entire system of levying and collecting income tax is dependent upon the integrity of the taxpayer in reporting and assessing income. If the system is to work, the returns must be honestly completed. All taxpayers have the right to know that it is a criminal violation to commit any of the offences described in s. 239. The Act imposes a public duty. A breach of that fundamentally important public duty should constitute a criminal offence.

[104] Both Graydon Tyskerud and Matthew Tyskerud must shoulder the entire responsibility for their actions and their violations of this duty. Graydon Tyskerud shoulders an extra responsibility as the architect of the scheme that gave rise to the income evasion on the part of each of the two accused. That architecture included utilization of discredited concepts to attempt to justify the violation of their duty to the state.

While conditional sentences were ordered, that was chiefly because the judge concluded these persons could safely serve their time in the community (para. 132). Nevertheless denunciation and deterrence are the primary factors for sentencing (para. 125):

[126] The accused's skewed notion of the social contract in a free and democratic society that relies upon only paying for what you take or receive from the state and leaving it to others to financially support the state through the payment of income taxes while intentionally evading payment of income tax is, in my view, naive, unacceptable, and contemptible. The furtherance of these views must be denounced and deterred.

All in all a reasonable decision in my opinion. The fact these are community sentences does not change that the lengths of these sentences are a significant precedent for anyone who attempts to evade income tax.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Thanks for the update although I'm disappointed they didn't do jail time for their refusal to accept any responsibility at all. Essentially just a pair of parasites taking whatever they can from the system and refusing to contribute. The big (and very expensive) personal benefit in Canada is our free medical care. This covers almost everything. Do you think the Tyskeruds or their familes have, for all their blowhard comments about not receiving any benefits from income tax, foregone medical treatment in Canada? And I doubt I've ever heard a more self-serving comment than the one that they didn't pay tax because it would have only a "minimal impact".

They take the same line as Dean Clifford in one of his videos that, by paying totally inescapable point of purchase taxes, they have extinguished their responsibility to pay all taxes:

[49] I understand that he shares the views that I heard expressed by his father, Graydon Tyskerud, in evidence, that by making payment of sales tax, gas taxes, and GST, that he is making his contribution to the public purse. ...

Just smug hypocricy in implying that there was in any way any voluntary aspect.

[notorial dissent]

An interesting little interlude, sounds all to common though. I can't really judge if they really went all OPCA, but they are, what we call down here, of the "show me the law" crowd. They are kind of a subset, and don't really belong to either the Sovrun or Freeman groups, and in some cases really aren't even TP's, they just have a very weird view of how the law and law in general works. Of course, no matter what or how they are shown, it is never sufficient or doesn't address them individually, or doesn't say it the way they want it to, and thus doesn't will never ever apply to them. I can't judge the sincerity of their "I just want to be educated/show where I was wrong" plaint, I personally don't believe them, but I do believe that no one will ever provide the evidence they require to accept and acknowledge that fact. i don't know if real time in jail will get the message across, but it will come closer than going "there there, shouldn't do that!!!" ever will.

[Burnaby49]

The Tyskeruds have appealed their criminal convictions for tax evasion. While their religious beliefs prohibited them from paying income tax (the basis of their defence) their beliefs apparently are quite amenable to allowing them to try and make the government pay for their appeal. Same as a lot of other clowns we review on Quatloos, self-righteous about how they are exempt from tax but see no reason why other people's tax dollars aren't their personal property.

Unfortunately the court was not entirely sympathetic to their plea for succor;

[32]I now turn to the merits of the appeal gleaned from all of the materials that have been provided, including the lengthy, extensive, and detailed judgment of the Provincial Court judge.

[33] As I have stated, in my view it is well settled that whether or not it is desirable in the interests of justice that counsel be appointed under s. 684 includes a consideration of the merits of the appeal:

[34] On this point, much of Graydon Tyskerud's testimony, Matthew not testifying at the trial, was referred to in the trial judge's reasons, including Mr. Tyskerud's religious beliefs and views, and views on the relevance and the applicability of the Income Tax Act with respect to persons who hold his views and beliefs. The learned Provincial Court judge also referred to the Alberta Queen's Bench decision in R. v. Meads when considering several of the defences advanced by Graydon Tyskerud, as well as many other authorities that have considered and dismissed similar arguments and defences that were advanced at trial by the appellants.

[35] There was also extensive reference by the trial judge to Mr. Tyskerud's defence that a man's labour is a gift from God which, in Mr. Tyskerud's submission, is therefore not income within the meaning of the Income Tax Act and therefore not subject to the provisions of the Act.

[36] I have said the trial judge's decision and judgment was lengthy and extensive. The judgment was 460 paragraphs, over 151 pages. In my view, the trial judge's reasons clearly illustrate he thoroughly and fairly considered all of the arguments advanced at trial by the appellants.

[37] While the Crown acknowledges that the threshold that the Tyskeruds must overcome in terms of the merits of the appeal may not be particularly high, Crown submits that the grounds of appeal are so weak that there is little, if any, prospect for success. In other words, the grounds simply do not give rise to an arguable appeal.

[38] The Crown submits that the appellants in the material before the court have not been able to point to any reversible error that would entitle them to succeed in their appeal. The Crown submits the appeal is without merit or has little or no chance of success and, as such, it cannot be said that it would be in the interests of justice to appoint counsel.

[39] The Crown has summarized in its argument the grounds of appeal that have been advanced by the appellants. . . The grounds of appeal are as follows:

c) . . . the Court's determination that taxable income deriving from labour is contrary as per sections 2(a & b), 6(2)(b), 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 4 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Ecclesiastes 3:13 of the King James Bible.
This would appear to be relevant with respect to Mr. Graydon Tyskerud's submission that his labour is a gift from God and gifts are not subject to pacts.

e) Finally, actions of the Crown and the Honourable Judge Saunders injured the integrity of the administration of justice.

[42] As far as the merits of the appeal are concerned, I agree that the burden on the appellants is not unduly high. In this regard, the applicants need not show that the appeal will ultimately succeed. The applicant need only demonstrate arguable grounds of appeal: see R. v. Donald and R. v. Yliruusi, 2011 BCCA 477.

[43] However, the applicant has the onus of demonstrating that he or she has an arguable appeal, and where that onus is not met, the appellant will not have met the onus upon him or her to justify the appointment of counsel. I agree with the Crown that the authorities clearly establish that it is not in the interests of justice to appoint counsel where an appeal has no merit, even though some of the other factors that are relevant may favour appointment of counsel.

[48] While an appeal court must, to some extent, re�examine and re�weigh the evidence, the appeal court will not simply substitute its view for that of the trier of fact. The question then becomes whether, on the whole of the evidence, the trial judge could reasonably have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Graydon and Matthew Tyskerud were guilty as charged.

[49] The Crown submits in this case the evidence was overwhelming and more than reasonably capable of supporting the verdict. The Crown submits the Tyskeruds have failed to establish that the evidence is not capable of supporting the findings and inferences of the trial judge.

[50] The Crown also quite properly submits that those findings of fact and the inferences reached by the trial judge are entitled to substantial deference on appeal.

[51] I agree with the Crown that the totality of the evidence before the trial judge was clearly capable of supporting the findings of fact he made and his ultimate conclusion that the Crown had proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Those findings of fact were supported by all of the evidence.

[52] I also agree the evidence was overwhelming and that the appellants have presented no material that the verdict reached by the trial judge was perverse or that he made any errors.

[57] The next ground of appeal focuses on the trial judge's conclusion that there was indeed income generated by the appellants' activities. The Crown has correctly summarized the Tyskeruds' argument on appeal when they say that a determination that income from labour is taxable is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the King James Bible.

[58] The Crown submits that income for the purposes of the Act is determined by the Act and the jurisprudence that has considered and interpreted the Act. Reading the trial judge's judgment, I am satisfied he considered fully the appellants' arguments on this point and carefully analyzed and properly applied the legislation and relevant jurisprudence in dismissing this defence. There was ample evidence to support the trial judge's findings on this issue as well, and as a result I am of the view this ground of appeal has no merit.

[62] Finally, the appellants submit that the Crown and Provincial Court Judge Saunders "injured the integrity of the administration of justice". It would appear this ground of appeal is based on what occurred in Provincial Court on August 9, 2009. At that time, during an initial appearance by both appellants, Mr. Graydon Tyskerud was arrested and taken into custody when, according to my reading of the transcript, he refused to properly identify himself before Judge Saunders. The trial judge, in his reasons, observed Graydon displayed disruptive behaviour during the court appearance.

[64]On this point, the Crown says there is nothing in the material before the court that sets out any error or a specific principle that would warrant consideration by an appeal court. In addition, the Crown says there is no evidence as to what injury was caused to the administration of justice. Even though the notice of appeal on this point is somewhat unclear, Mr. Tyskerud does state that his s. 7 and s. 9 Charter rights were breached when Justice Saunders issued a warrant and he was taken into custody.

[67] In conclusion, given the totality of the evidence presented during the trial and the trial judge's considered analysis of the evidence and his findings of fact, coupled with the materials presented and the submissions of the appellants and the Crown, I am satisfied there is no basis to conclude the convictions were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. In addition, in my view the trial judge properly considered every argument and defence that was advanced by the appellants during their trial.

[68] As a result, and even if I were satisfied that the appellants had established they lack the means necessary to retain counsel for their appeal, I have not been persuaded that the various grounds of appeal have sufficient merit such that they have any prospect of succeeding. In these circumstances, it is not in the interests of justice that counsel be appointed to assist the appellants in pursuing their conviction appeal.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/ ... SC2249.htm

[Burnaby49]

One of the Tylerud's grounds in their appeal to have their convictions overturned is that there were unreasonable delays in proceeding to trial. Where did many of these delays originate? Well, let's look to the decision in their review pleading for funds;

[21] As the Crown has submitted, the Tyskeruds, in my view, cannot be characterized as completely uneducated or unsophisticated. The Crown acknowledges that, while they do not have advanced or post‑secondary education, the nature of the numerous pre‑trial applications brought by Mr. Tyskerud in Provincial Court and the quality of their written materials in support of those applications cannot be characterized as uninformed.

[22] The Crown has emphasized that in the course of the proceedings in the Provincial Court the appellants brought approximately 11 applications for disclosure, extension of time to bring applications, the adjournment of the trial, an application challenging the standing of the Attorney General to bring the prosecution, an Askov application for a judicial stay of proceedings on the basis of unreasonable delay, and various other applications, including an application to quash the Criminal Code search warrant on the basis it was not properly issued.

[23] I agree with the Crown that, having regard to all of the circumstances, there is nothing in the reasons for judgment on all of these respective applications that the appellants were not capable of properly bringing and arguing their applications.

This seems to be a deliberate tactic. As Mowe posted on this thread:

In April, just two months after having been found guilty, Graydon held a helpful web seminar, "Court Stories From the Front Lines": http://private-person.com/blog/training ... ont-lines/

What will one learn? Why, 10 steps to victory!

10 General Rules When Dealing With “THEM”

1. All their paperwork is defective, or flawed

2. Most of their processes are defective, or flawed

3. You can control the pace and process

4. Understanding the paperwork and process is easy

5. No one can do it for you

6. It’s possible for you to win

7. Question everything, assume nothing

8. Learn the basic principles, rinse and repeat

9. They will try to rush and silence you…don’t let them

10. They are liars, cheats and thieves, remember that.

Yes, those did work very well indeed.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Thanks for posting the latest judgment in the Tyskerud saga, Burnaby49. I'm unsurprised by this result - but it is good to see.

Somehow I think the characterization of the relative strengths of the trial decision and the Tyskerud's arguments does not bode well for the appeal proper...

I was also interested in how Justice MacKenzie referenced Meads v. Meads, albeit with a mutant style of cause:

[34] On this point, much of Graydon Tyskerud's testimony, Matthew not testifying at the trial, was referred to in the trial judge's reasons, including Mr. Tyskerud's religious beliefs and views, and views on the relevance and the applicability of the Income Tax Act with respect to persons who hold his views and beliefs. The learned Provincial Court judge also referred to the Alberta Queen's Bench decision in R. v. Meads when considering several of the defences advanced by Graydon Tyskerud, as well as many other authorities that have considered and dismissed similar arguments and defences that were advanced at trial by the appellants.

[Emphasis added.]

The raw number of citations of the Meads v. Meads judgment are certainly a clear indication of its broad acceptance and application in Canadian courts, but I find it interesting that the decision has now become, for lack of a better description, an authority that is simply recognized with an associated scope and function, and no further description is required.

SMS Möwe