Gandhi was a plant, my man. Mother Teresa... If you know about them but you do not know them personally they are not there for you! Look at was was accomplished around them. Look at what was claimed they accomplished and didn't. Didn't Gandhi just do a hunger strike?
His promotion of CIVIL RIGHTS kind of marks him. Civil rights are privileges granted by the state, governing body, and can be removed by the same. That is why WE THE PEOPLE have our rights granted by the Sovereign Father, not by the governing body.
They thought you would follow the STARS (celebrities)
That is cute but it only furthers the unnecessary elements of Law.
This is the thing, people break the laws. Making more laws only means more people will break the laws. Enter law makers. Laws are not meant for you to follow, those that enforce them do not even follow them. They are a trap for you and me so that they can squeeze us for everything that we have. Enter lawyers.
Look at the gun argument. Have more laws helped that people still shoot people that they had no reason shooting or do they make it more difficult for the "law" abiding to maintain such right? Criminals don't bother with background checks. Those laws are not meant to protect you.
I'm just saying the system relies on a functioning court system (as it was important to the British empire) and this has historically been a successful tactic to exploit.
I am often wrong, the following may serve as an example:
Had they wished to accomplish anything they would have served him. All they did was let him know that he was going to be eventually which gives him time to get the hell out of dodge. She can accept the papers all she wants but if he isn't there then he hasn't been served and now he knows to hightail it before he is. Could, eventually, be a win, but it looks obvious that they are just wasting time.
Gandhi was a plant, my man. Mother Teresa... If you know about them but you do not know them personally they are not there for you! Look at was was accomplished around them. Look at what was claimed they accomplished and didn't. Didn't Gandhi just do a hunger strike?
His promotion of CIVIL RIGHTS kind of marks him. Civil rights are privileges granted by the state, governing body, and can be removed by the same. That is why WE THE PEOPLE have our rights granted by the Sovereign Father, not by the governing body.
They thought you would follow the STARS (celebrities)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-asian-studies/article/gandhi-lawyers-and-the-courts-boycott-during-the-noncooperation-movement/C47A172A65733ED95161F7B2456FF006
That is cute but it only furthers the unnecessary elements of Law.
This is the thing, people break the laws. Making more laws only means more people will break the laws. Enter law makers. Laws are not meant for you to follow, those that enforce them do not even follow them. They are a trap for you and me so that they can squeeze us for everything that we have. Enter lawyers.
Look at the gun argument. Have more laws helped that people still shoot people that they had no reason shooting or do they make it more difficult for the "law" abiding to maintain such right? Criminals don't bother with background checks. Those laws are not meant to protect you.
I'm just saying the system relies on a functioning court system (as it was important to the British empire) and this has historically been a successful tactic to exploit.
I am often wrong, the following may serve as an example:
Had they wished to accomplish anything they would have served him. All they did was let him know that he was going to be eventually which gives him time to get the hell out of dodge. She can accept the papers all she wants but if he isn't there then he hasn't been served and now he knows to hightail it before he is. Could, eventually, be a win, but it looks obvious that they are just wasting time.