Mak Parhar - Flat Earther CV-9 Denialist

[Mr Stormcrow]

Meet Mak Pahar, now detained for ignoring Canadian quarrantine requirements and refusing to close his yoga studio.
He appears to have a full set of crackpot beliefs.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- ... -1.5790376



I would love to read the transcripts because the guy is so stupid he can only make it 100x worse at a minimum.

[Burnaby49]

Since then, Parhar has sold his hot yoga business and it is now under new ownership and management.

Theres $50 for his defense fund.

[Philistine]

"I'm not going to put myself in prison, because I'm a free man with god-given rights,"

That's fine, we'll do it for you, dangerous nutter.

[Mr Stormcrow]

Apparently, his day in court is on the 15th November.

[jackroe]

He seems to have this fellow, Christopher James, helping him:

"Trespass Case #5

Mak Parhar

REDACTED — Notice Appearance November 13th 2020

REDACTED — Notice Jurisdiction Daniel November 13th 2020

REDACTED — Notice Trespass November 13th 2020

REDACTED — Parhar Court No. 233120 filing November 13th 2020"
https://awarriorcalls.com/trespass-case-5/

These are links to PDFs that seem to have a very strange way of saying "you do not have jurisdiction," which is never taken for granted, I mean, jurisdiction comes from somewhwere, it's not sitting in the room that makes a Judge, if the janitor donned robes and ascended the bench, he would not be a Judge, would he?

That said, I keep an open mind---in my youth, I saw a guy appear before the provincial court, and he said to the JP "I demand sight and hearing of the commission by which you claim jurisdiction over me." The JP wouldn't say another word on record. I was there for another matter, but it seemed interesting, I'd never seen that before. So, I ended up following him to another room, where they got him to go before a judge. Same deal. The Judge, an old defense lawyer, got the biggest smile I've ever seen on a Judge and said "I think he's saying I don't have jurisdiction." He never said he had jurisdiction.

And then, because I was a young man, I followed the case. I didn't attend every hearing, so maybe I missed something, but the fellow was bailed (this was criminal) and he re-offended and had more charges added while he remained in custody. When it came to trial (afaik this never got written reported reasons, just a low level drug case) the smiling defense lawyer judge found him not guilty on the informations he had excepted to jurisdiction on, but guilty on the subsequent ones where, as I understand it, he had become demoralized due to being held in the hoosegow, so he didn't except to jurisdiction.

Of course I didn't see the whole case, so perhaps he was not guilty on some other ground, but these were straightforward drug cases, both times he was caught in possession, it wasn't like he was in his car and he said "someone put that there," he basically admitted guilt but still insisted on a trial for political reasons. But I've always wondered---what is jurisdiction, how is it gained? Not that this matters to a practitioner, but, philosophically, it's a fun question...

[jackroe]

I guess I don't understand why, if they want to question jurisdiction, they do it by submitting paperwork in the form of an application, why would anyone apply to someone if he didn't already have jurisdiction? Why would you trust someone without jurisdiction to read what you wrote?

[eric]

Actually Christopher uses a competing jurisdictions process now that he has realized that his very early forays into OPCA woo were utter failures, such as with Ozelie. It's a two step process. First prove that you have jurisdiction over me. If you can't, a court named after me, in this case the Prahar court has jurisdiction over you, and you owe me large sums of money.
https://awarriorcalls.com/pdfs/REDACTED ... 3-2020.pdf
So far, followers of Christopher Pritchard over the last ten years or so have not won a single case using this method, in fact their losses usually number well into the thousands.
Aside - Christopher likes to hide his identity, so for giggles, and because he doesn't know how to properly redact a PDF file to hide personal info, I've started to use his full name.

[jackroe]

Doesn't seem legit, at common law the King is the Judge Ordinary, and only a judge delegate may judge, except by consent, then the judge is an arbitrator, says so in Bracton. A judge delegate can only be made by the King! So, I have to give this one a fail for not being very fun. And what is this iMak stuff, is this shades of David:Wynn:Miller?

Sort of sad because there is at least a live Charter issue re: liberty and fundamental justice, a good lawyer could at least give it a go, AFAIK this has not yet been tested.

[eric]

Sort of sad because there is at least a live Charter issue re: liberty and fundamental justice, a good lawyer could at least give it a go, AFAIK this has not yet been tested.

I'm sorry for dashing your hopes but Christopher's methods have been tested in multiple courts and so far I haven't found any wins. Let me see... Ozelie Caissie (LOSS) minus 25 k$ plus property; Michael Sekulovski (LOSS) minus 40 k$ and still ongoing; Brent Manary (LOSS) minus 1.345 M$ plus his farm which was his whole livelihood - that's the big one. I totally fail to understand why he posts these unmitigated disasters on his page. Once you go to something like Canlii you discover these were all abject failures.

[TheNewSaint]

Christopher James has come up here before. He has his own thread: viewtopic.php?f=48&t=12171

[jackroe]

Sort of sad because there is at least a live Charter issue re: liberty and fundamental justice, a good lawyer could at least give it a go, AFAIK this has not yet been tested.

I'm sorry for dashing your hopes but Christopher's methods have been tested in multiple courts and so far I haven't found any wins.

You're misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not talking about any jailhouse lawyer stuff, I am talking about the Charter and how it can be used to challenge legislation---AFAIK there have not been any cases challenging the quarantine act's isolation provisions under the Liberty section. It obviously deprives of liberty to be under house arrest, the question then is whether it is (1) prescribed by law and (2) a reasonable limitation in a free and democratic society.

[eric]

I realize that Blackstone didn't make a ruling on Canada's quarantine laws, as has neither Aristotle or Plato. That being said, the Federal Court of Canada has done so on a case that had much more possible merit than that of an unemployed yoga instructor returning from a trip to the US.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/20 ... ltIndex=32
Besides, you can't pick and choose your laws, as in quarantine orders are not law but the Charter is. And yes, the judge did examine whether it was "law", whether or not he had jurisdiction, and whether it was fair and reasonable, taking into account possible harm to the livelihood of the petitioner and his employer.

[jackroe]

I realize that Blackstone didn't make a ruling on Canada's quarantine laws, as has neither Aristotle or Plato. That being said, the Federal Court of Canada has done so on a case that had much more possible merit than that of an unemployed yoga instructor returning from a trip to the US.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/20 ... ltIndex=32
Besides, you can't pick and choose your laws, as in quarantine orders are not law but the Charter is. And yes, the judge did examine whether it was "law", whether or not he had jurisdiction, and whether it was fair and reasonable, taking into account possible harm to the livelihood of the petitioner and his employer.

"[98] The liberty interest identified by the applicant, as part of the harm he will experience if he remains in quarantine, is a significant interest. While the applicant made no submissions with respect to a violation of his liberty rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I accept that loss of liberty even for a short period is a factor of considerable force in the assessment of balance of convenience."

The case does not perform any Charter analysis of the s. 7 issue.

Parhar's case is different, he is being tried criminally for violating the the Quarantine Act. Not that he will make a Charter argument, but it is there to be made. Anyway, it's all relatively stupid at this point because there is no more trial by combat, which is the best check on both litigants and judges.

"But, although a Court is not obliged to defend its Record by the Duel, yet is it bound to defend its Judgment by the Duel. If, therefore, any one should declare against the Court for passing a false Judgment, and, therefore false, because when one party had said this, and the other answered thus, the Court in question had judged falsely of their allegations by deciding in such words; and that the Court had given such false Judgment by the mouth of N.; and, if he were disposed to deny the present charge, the other was prepared to prove it against him, chiefly by such proper witness, who was ready to enter upon the proof. Thus may the matter, and that very properly, be decided by the Duel. But whether such Court is obliged to defend itself by one of its own members, or may have recourse to a stranger, may be questioned?

It ought, indeed, to defend itself chiefly by the person who has passed the Judgment..." (Glanville, tr. Beames, pp. 210-11. https://archive.org/details/atranslatio ... 1up?q=duel)

Trial by combat is the fundamental control on judicial over-reach, if every judge has to defend his judgments by his body, he will be fit of body and mind, and he will not render judgments that tend to absolutely destroy people for trivialities, like going for a walk because some statue erected by a synod or parliament or whatever said he shouldn't.

Also, they never deal with the issue if personal jurisdiction, all they do is claim jurisdiction throughout a political subdivision, e.g. CANADA or BRITISH COLUMBIA, and it is very strange that people should be made to believe that they exist in political subdivisions, that is, bodies politic or corporations. So, once Parhar is inevitably tried, he could, once the officer testifies, "so, you say it happened in British Columbia? I put it it you it happened on the land" or "in space." Those are non-political terms. The other issue is the date on which it happened, Calendars are religious institutions for scheduling festivals---they exist only in agrarian societies, there are no calendars in hunter-gatherer society, not in the sense of a universal prescription of a specific date as, for example, the "new year." Calendars and Political Subdivisions go hand in hand, because, of course, a subdivision is only current after the date it is registered.

Broadly, and this is fairly current in postcolonial theory, the Government of Canada is a de facto Government, certainly in British Columbia. None of the mainland first nations every gave up their sovereignty, though, in fact, they have been reduced to a state of dependence on the Crown, but that does not mean that such was lawful. So, one could also ask "did the events not take place within the traditional and unceded territory of the Sto:lo, Squamish, Musqueam and Tseil-watuth?" Or perhaps the Haida, they ranged as far south as Northern California, hunting wives and other things.

And you can certainly pick and choose---laws are treaties, anyone is free to say "I resile from that treaty, I'll fight you to the death rather than obey you." So you might get killed, so what, today is a good day to die. Instead of going to jail, treat every encroachment upon your liberty "justified by law" or not as an act of war. So you'll die, it's purely cultural whether one thinks being taken prisoner is dignified or not. In many cultures it is considered undignified to allow oneself to be taken prisoner, it is more honorable to fight and make them kill you, because this makes them realize what they are: killers. Law is a command backed by the threat of death. If they come to take you away, you go with them, or they kill you, unless they can subdue you without killing you, but, still, if push comes to shove, they kill you. And I am not saying there's anything wrong with that, but it is purely a docile Eurasian cultural norm that you go quietly with your captors.

[jackroe]

And as to jurisdiction,

"9 (1) The court continues to be a court of original jurisdiction and has jurisdiction in all cases, civil and criminal, arising in British Columbia." (Supreme Court Act)

"(3) The court and every judge have jurisdiction throughout British Columbia to exercise all the power and perform all the duties conferred or imposed on a judge of the Provincial Court, a magistrate, justice or 2 or more justices sitting together, under an enactment of British Columbia or of Canada." (Provincial Court Act)

None of this grants jurisdiction over any persons, it says that there is jurisdiction in cases arising in British Columbia, or jurisdiction to exercise power under an enactment of British Columbia or of Canada. Neither of these says the Court has any jurisdiction over persons, nor is British Columbia or Canada defined, and even if they were, where did the power to create political subdivisions come from?

So, one can always say

"jeo demant la vuue et la oiee de la comision par que vous clamez juresdicion sur mei," and all the commission will say is that the Lt. Governor or Governor General and Attorney General have made XXX a Judge of Court Y, the Court being some sort of Corporation, in the case of the Provincial Court of BC, it was incorporated in 1969, in the case of the Supreme Court of BC, in 1870. AFAIK there is no customary power of erecting corporations in America, tho, maybe there is in England or France.

[eric]

(Ignoring the above since it appears the drugs are strong).....
I decided to actually check into our dear yoga instructor's actions, as compared to what is claimed, whether by the word salad above or Christopher's account. Anyways, he returned to Canada in the last week of October and should have stayed in quarantine for two weeks. He violated the terms and was warned on 30 October. On 31 October he violated again and was ticketed. Violated again on 1 November, another ticket, and finally on 2 November, along with a ticket he was put in custody. The next day in Court the judge calculated out the two weeks quarantine and said he had to stay inside till 6 November with a bail of 3K$ once he got out. On 16 November he was in court again, complete with lawyer, so I guess he accepted jurisdiction, no trial by combat, indigenous spiritual healing circles, or video appearances by a bearded figure who reminds me of the Wizard of Oz. He's next up tomorrow so we will see how it all pans out.

[Dr. Caligari]

Isn't it getting to be time for the word salad bar?

[Burnaby49]

I'll be stepping in with my mighty moderating powers if he continues, perhaps during one of my traditional late night drunken rages.

Jackroe has been flooding Quatloos with overwhelming masses of pure gibberish to the point I now consider it just pure trolling. His last response to this post has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion as are the great majority of his other posts. Time to stop it.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'll be stepping in with my mighty moderating powers if he continues, perhaps during one of my traditional late night drunken rages.

Jackroe has been flooding Quatloos with overwhelming masses of pure gibberish to the point I now consider it just pure trolling. His last response to this post has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion as are the great majority of his other posts. Time to stop it.

I just sent him a second warning. I will leave it to you to impose the time-out, unless he makes another idiotic post, in which case I will do the honors, if you haven't beaten me to it.

[LaVidaRoja]

My early warning system is that if I do not finish reading the second sentence of a post, I believe the moderators should step in. You are far, far more gentle than I.

[eric]

It appears that Mak's assorted filings claiming his own personal court and fantastic monetary penalties have reduced the British Columbia court system to a state of quivering misery. So much in fact, that they've been totally ignored.
Results from his court appearance yesterday are a few assorted pre-trial conferences and then a two day trial March next year - I guess they expect him to talk a lot. BTW, according to Christopher's latest video it's tremendously significant that the court appearance was by video call, something about they are afraid to have Mak personally appear.