Sovereignty Education Church
YHVH our Sovereign — Yashua Messiah our Redeemer
Ten Commandments our Law — Kingdom of Heaven our Citizenship

Cover | Home | Psalm 115 | Foundation Principles | Real or Counterfeit | Two Chances

Two Chances

There was a sign on the flightline at Taegu, South Korea during the Korean War which said:

Cheer up! — You have two chances
You'll either come back on the same flight or you won't.
If you come back, you have nothing to worry about.
If you don't, you still have two chances.
You'll evade or you won't.
If you evade, you have nothing to worry about.
If you don't, you still have two chances.
You'll escape or you won't.
If you escape, you have nothing to worry about.
If you don't, you still have two chances.
You'll come out alive or you won't.
If you come out alive, you have nothing to worry about.
If you die — well, you still have two chances.

Nothing has changed. Well, sort of. Because, with life as we know it, it is when, not if, you die. So, when you die, you have two chances. Either you will be right about your beliefs in life, or you will be wrong.  If you are right, there will be nothing to worry about. But, what if you are wrong? Will there still be two chances?

There are many belief systems on this earth. Some include so-called "religion," some don't. In general, "religion" is presumed to include a belief in a "higher being." Whether that "higher being" is "God" is not always clear.  Most people I know have been taught that "things" have to be interpreted. I.e., what the Bible says, or what a country's statutes say, must be "interpreted" by an expert, such as for example, a minister or a lawyer. This idea that an expert must interpret for "us" has become so pervasive that no one thinks for themselves anymore, especially when it applies to issues of law. It is well said from ancient times — and it is a maxim of law today — that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The question then is: If someone else interprets the law for you, how can you know the law? Obviously, if you don't study and know the law for yourself, then you don't know the law, and there is no excuse for that.

Are those harsh words to you? Which is worse: being incarcerated, not for a criminal act, but for ignorance? Or avoiding incarceration because you know the law well enough to know the charge has no basis in fact or in law? These are not meaningless questions, because I have done as study of the number of inmates incarcerated in the State of Oregon Department of Corrections (meaning the State prison system) facilities for the fiscal year 7/1/95 to 6/30/96. This study did not include those incarcerated in County or City jail facilities. During that fiscal year, a total of 5456 inmates were incarcerated in ODoC facilities. Of those 5456, 2504 — 45.9% of those incarcerated — did not commit any crime as defined in State of Oregon statutes! So how did that happen? Because the ones charged (a) did not know the charges against them were not criminal and carried no penalty, neither monetary nor penal, and (b) neither their lawyers nor the judges informed them there were no penalties. In reality, most likely — but not in every case — neither their lawyers nor the judges knew there was no penalty attached, because the lawyers and judges also did not know the law. Why? Because they are misinformed — that means miseducated — in the law schools.

But you say, "That is an outrageous charge; it cannot possibly be true." It is true, because I have had lawyers admit to me they were miseducated and misinformed in law school, and I have obtained law school textbooks which have  material redacted from them (that means they are "abridged" versions of the law) which would reveal truths which are counter to what the law schools teach. A specific example is that all definitions defining "United States" and "States" are not included in tax-law textbooks. Are those definitions really needed? Doesn't everyone know what the "United States" is and what the "States" are? No, everyone does not know. They may have an opinion, but their opinion is not law. Most people are taught that the term "United States" means the 50 several states, and that the word "State" means one of the 50 several states. However, according to Federal law, the term "United States" does not include the 50 several states (except in very narrow circumstances), and the word "State" means only the District of Columbia (again, except in narrow circumstances). And, according to laws in each of the 50 several states, most or all of them use the term "this state" to mean themselves, and the term "United States" to reference the District of Columbia.

What am I saying? I'm saying that the law is very explicitly defined, and that almost no one — most lawyers and judges included* — do not know what the law is because no one takes the time to really study and understand the "law" for themselves. The law does not need to be interpreted. It means what it says.

So, you have two chances. If you know the law, there is (usually) nothing to worry about. If you do not know the law, you generally don't have two chances, because you will be unable to correctly defend yourself against a 50% chance (actually, it is more like an 85% chance based on informal studies of county and city inmates) of being charged with an offense for which there is neither a monetary or jail penalty attached. Would you like to spend months, even years incarcerated because you are ignorant of the law? Unless you have a martyr syndrome, I'd guess you would say "no way."

How did I learn about these problems? I started studying for myself after a government agency attacked me in a manner I knew "by instinct" was unlawful. Rather than roll over and play dead, I fought back, and had to study to maintain the fight. The more I studied, the more I found that government routinely disobeys their own laws, and generally gets away with it because the one being attacked is ignorant of the law. There are three main reasons people are ignorant of the law. The first is, they do not study for themselves, but depend on lawyers to interpret the law for them. The second is, the laws are written in such a manner that the words appear to say one thing when they actually say another (this method of writing is called "word of art"). The third is, they presume a word means a particular thing without first studying the definition at law.

We noted above the definitions of "United States" and "State" and how most people do not know the correct definitions at law. As another example, the word "drive" is presumed by "everyone" to mean "get behind the wheel of, and control, an automobile while it is going down the highway." That definition could be argued to be the correct definition according to "common usage" such as in Webster's, etc. However, that is not the definition at law. At law, "drive" means to convey passengers or goods for hire. I.e., "drive" is a commercial use of the roads for pay. Because to "drive" is commercial, if you inspect a State's statutes, you will find all the "driver license" statutes under the section of statutes dealing with that State's Department of Transportation. What is the duty of the DOT? To regulate and oversee the commercial use of the roads in that State. This means, if you are not using the highway for a commercial activity, you are not a "driver" and do not need the "driver license" which is the State's grant of the privilege to use the highways in that State for a commercial activity.

For example, The State of Oregon's laws, Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) In Chapter 183, Civil Penalties, Administrative Procedures and Rules of State Agencies, states at Section 183, Definitions, at subsection 310(5) states: "183.310(5) "License" includes the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or similar form of permission required by law to pursue any commercial activity, trade, occupation or profession." The Oregon Department of Transportation is a state agency. The statutes pertaining to their administrative procedures and rules are found in ORS Chapters 801 to 828. This definition applies to those Chapters, which include, among many other subjects, the statutes relating to the classes of "driver license" issued by "this state." Further proof of the fact that this definition applies, is that there is no other definition of "license" found in the ORS.

This brings me to the foundation point of this discussion; counterfeits. The point of someone printing counterfeit money is to make it look so real that others will use it as though it were real. In general, most lawyers, judges, and yes, the people, apply the "statutes" as though they were real, yet, in one fiscal year, 2504 inmates were the victim of statutes applied in a manner which appeared to be "real" but in fact were counterfeit. So, you have two chances. If you learn what is counterfeit, then you (usually) have nothing to worry about. If you don't learn what is counterfeit, you generally don't have a chance; you will get taken for a ride — a really bad ride.

The same concept applies to life. Either your beliefs are in something real or in something counterfeit. And there are plenty of counterfeits for anyone who is uninformed.

There are two chances. Either God is real or "He" is a counterfeit. In general, the truth is simple but the false is complex — as in "one lie leads to another." That is why the Biblical laws about crime are simple — they are true. Four crimes, four verses. All forms of crime fall within those four verses. The so-called "penal code" in the ORS is a counterfeit of those four verses. There are hundreds of pages of statutes which appear to describe a "crime" and "reference" a penalty. But when properly cross referenced, these statutes are found to be empty of fine or penalty. They are "one lie leading to another." They are a counterfeit of the real laws defining crimes. Yet, people who are innocent of any crime put their faith in the counterfeit and pay for their misapplied faith by needlessly wasting months or years of their lives incarcerated.

There are two chances. Either there is a supreme God who made provision for mankind to be redeemed from this life, or there is not. If there is, and you believe in Him, you have nothing to worry about. If there is, and you don't believe in Him, then what? Is the idea of "he who dies with the most toys wins" appealing?

There are two chances. Either there is a supreme God who created everything and who sustains His creation, or there is not. If He did create everything (as the Bible claims), and you believe He also has the power to recreate and redeem you from this life (as the Bible also claims), then you have nothing to worry about. If you believe in evolution — which is a counterfeit of creation — then what? Is "Mother Earth" going to save you?  Unless embalmed, every dead body gets reclaimed by the so-called "Mother Earth" — some salvation that is.

There are two chances. Either what you believe is right or what you believe is wrong. The truth is simple. In the beginning, God created the earth. The creation story occupies a few pages at the beginning of the Bible. The counterfeit is complex. The theory — and it is a poor theory at best — of evolution is a counterfeit. It deals in glittering generalities, physical and mathematical impossibilities, misinterpretation of geologic and paleoligic evidence, vast non-specific ages of time, is rife with experts who can't agree with one another and with proponents who ignore simple evidences which fly in the face of their constantly changing explanations of their theories.

There are two chances. Either you will recognize that counterfeit ideas are rampant upon this earth, or you won't. If you recognize there are counterfeits, you will either try to identify them and replace them with the real, or you won't. One way or another, what you believe in is your religion — it is your faith. Your faith will be in a Creator God (Creationism), the primordial mud (Evolution), Wall Street (Capitalism), government (Socialism), or some other religion.

So, there are still two chances. Either your faith is well placed or it is not. If your faith is well placed, you have nothing to worry about. If not, well, then you won't have to worry about anything for very long, because there won't be anything left to worry about.

So Be It
Bruce Craig, Director and Pastor

* There is some evidence that judges are aware of these fine points of law, but manage to avoid admitting their knowledge in open court. Generally, if an issue such as "there is no law" is raised, the judge may bluster, then cover up their knowledge by using some abstruse excuse to dismiss the matter.

Copyright 1992-2007 Sovereignty Education Church
All Rights Reserved
Any material quoted from other sources in this site
is acknowledged, is Copyright of the owner, and
no claim is made to ownership of said material.

Cover | Home | Psalm 115 | Foundation Principles | Real or Counterfeit | Two Chances