Wednesday, July 13, 2022
3757-3758: Non-Federal Licenses, Bonding, and Permits from Lincoln County Watch
By Anna Von Reitz
I
just wrote a brief Article for you on Federal licenses which typically
involve health care professions (Uniformed Officers as defined under
Federal Code Titles 11 and 37) and some kinds of real estate,
securities and insurance licenses--- also shedding some light on what
counts as "Federal Income" and how "licensed professionals" can
structure their businesses to pay less Federal Income Tax or even no
Federal Income Tax.
If
you get funds from Federal Workers, you get Federal Income. If you get
funds from making use of a Federal License, you get Federal Income.
But what State-of-State Licenses? Bonding? Permits?
Remember
that in this country at the current time, all "States of States" are
business franchises of foreign Federal Corporations, so these "State
Licenses" issued to contractors, bankers, securities brokers, and some
kinds of healthcare professionals, real estate vendors, insurance
vendors, and others --- are not really State Licenses.
They
are being called "licenses" but in effect they are permits to do
business with Federal Citizens, including Federal Corporations, and
those permit/licenses guarantee a certain level of professional
competence and/or agreement to adhere to certain published standards,
and like bonding, are designed to provide a basis for consumer
protection and damage claims if work is substandard.
These
provisions are not there for the benefit of the General Public. Those
provisions and "requirements" are there for the benefit of Territorial
and Municipal Corporations, their officers, employees, and dependents---
and that's all that they apply to, too.
In
other words, if you aren't applying for a Federal or State of State
franchise contract you don't need to have any permits, licenses, or
bonding.
The
situation is exactly analogous to the earlier discussion about Federal
Licenses, because in fact, the State of State licenses are just another
form of "Federal Franchise License", and they all work the same way.
If
you are doing a job for an incorporated business, especially under
contract, they will require you to be licensed and bonded and get all
the permits to do the job. But, do you do business with a lot of
Federal or State of State Corporations, or do you do business with
unincorporated Mom and Pop businesses and other men and women?
A
great many licensed and bonded contractors and people in the trades ---
plumbers, carpenters, millwrights, machinists, etc., etc., etc., ---
have fallen into the same trap of assumptions that doctors and nurses
and dentists have accepted, and so, they believe that they "have to
have" a license and they "have to have bonding" and so on, which isn't
necessarily true. It depends on who or what your clientele is, and what
you are willing to put up with, and how you choose to structure your
business.
Occupational
licenses like Professional licenses are conditions of employment if you
want to provide services to and do business with these foreign
corporations and their personnel.
During
the Covid Madness I advised small businesses all over the country to
post disclaimers openly saying that U.S. Federal Public Persons and
Municipal CORPORATIONS and their Employees and Dependents are entering
the premises (of the bar, restaurant, hotel, retail shop) at their own
risk.
What
does that do? That puts the whole issue of doing business with Federal
and Federal franchise corporations and their employees "on the hand
that fits". It tells them flat out, well, if you want to do business
with me and obtain my services, it's on my terms. Otherwise, hike down
the street and find someone who will pander to your mandates, licensing,
bonding, and other "requirements" to do business with you.
As
long as your business isn't incorporated, it's yours. You get to
determine who you serve and what the terms of service are.
If
you aren't particularly stuck on serving the 10 to 12% of the people
who are Federal Workers, you don't need to be licensed or bonded or
anything like that to provide services to the rest of us ------or to
them, if they are advised of your terms of service and decide to "waive"
their "requirements". A simple disclaimer given to each and every
potential customer either as part of your initial intake paperwork or
posted in a prominent position in your place of business, places the
entire responsibility for accepting or not accepting your services on
them.
Now
you may encounter some Ninnies and some Ignoramuses who look at you
wide-eyed and say, "But, but! --- It's the Law! Arizona Statute AS
101.22.333 says: blah,blah,blah, blah, blah...."
But
no, occupational licensing is not the "Law" for everyone, it's only the
"Law" for those wishing to contract with U.S. Federal Public Persons
(Territorial U.S. Citizens) and Municipal CORPORATIONS, their employees,
and their dependents. This is part of what was brought home in the
recent U.S. Supreme Court Case, Virginia v. EPA, which reiterates the
findings of the Tennessee Supreme Court in Norton v Shelby almost a
century ago: Administrative Law does not apply to the General Public.
If
you aren't a corporation and aren't working for a corporation and not
seeking to contract with corporations, it doesn't apply to you at all.
It's not your law. It's their law. And you can happily tell them that
they are welcome to it.
The
same considerations of Federal Income apply. If you go to work for the
State of Utah, you are working for a Territorial United States (USA)
Federal Franchise Corporation and adopting the role of a U.S. Federal
Public Person and as such, you are receiving Federal Income. It's
"franchise income" but it is still "federally connected" income, so you
still pay Federal Income Taxes on it.
If
you have a small unincorporated retail business called "Nancy's Nifty
Nook" and you post your Disclaimer behind the cash register or similar
obvious spot, and a Federal Worker has the temerity to do business with
you (say that despite the fact that you are an American Philistine, your
donuts and other pastries are too good to resist) the "gift" of any
"Federal Income" is on them and thanks to your Disclaimer, you are free
to presume that only Americans operating in their private capacity are
belly up to your bar hogging down those fritters. All you need to do to
close the loop is to redeem the fiat notes and checks as lawful money as
provided for by Section 15 of the Federal Reserve Act by making the
proper notations for endorsement on the checks ---and for cash, on the
deposit slips.
So
do you need (or want?) an "Occupational License" to be a hair-dresser?
It depends entirely on the clientele you want to serve and what you are
willing to put up with to provide such service. Licensing usually
carries with it additional, sometimes hidden, obligations, such as
requirements that you file Federal Income Tax forms or you go back to
school for training for three weeks every year or, or, or.... and again,
it is entirely up to you and your situation whether the customers you
gain by accepting a license is worth the cost and "voluntary" regulatory
obligations the license carries with it.
This
applies in the same way to "Business Licenses" which allow your
business to do business in a foreign Territorial State-of-State with
their officers and employees and dependents. Or, in a foreign Municipal
STATE OF STATE, serving Municipal CORPORATIONS and their officers and
employees and dependents. A Business License of this kind allows you to
do business in their jurisdiction, under their rules, and lets you
provide services to their Corporations/CORPORATIONS and their citizenry,
as a non-resident alien.
This
is all very odd because they are in fact the ones intruding into your
space and doing business in your State of the Union--- but, from their
perspective when you elect to do business with them and their employees,
you are entering their turf and subjecting yourself to their rules by
"voluntarily accepting" a Business License from them.
You
could just as well stand on your two little feet and ask them where
their license to operate in your State is? When you do this, you will
cause a great deal of bureaucratic consternation. They will cast about
and mumble something about the State of State Constitution, but no,
while the State of State Constitution allows them to provide certain
services, it isn't a Business License. It's a Service Contract.
No
Federal or Federal State of State Franchise has any authority to
regulate you or your business or license you with the following
exceptions: they do have the authority to regulate the interstate
manufacture, sale, and transport of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
Otherwise, they are just bluffing and racketeering and getting you to
"voluntarily" comply and pay them for a license to do something that you
have every right to do anyway.
The
practice of law, medicine, banking, barbering, and numerous other
occupations that have been subjected to "voluntary" licensing, are in
fact occupations of common right that anyone can engage in with
impunity, leaving nothing but proof of your own skill to decide whether
or not you can make a living at it.
By
these incremental and insidious impositions of private corporation
codes, regulations, ordinances, licensing obligations, and statutes
misplaced upon and enforced against the General Public, these
"governmental services corporations" and their franchises have been able
to gradually usurp against the Public Law and enforce their "standards"
and "requirements" on everyone else with no granted authority to do
so.
Just
as they have imposed Professional and Occupational Licensing using
private Administrative Codes and Legislative Statutes that apply only to
their own corporations and personnel and dependents (collectively
called their "citizenry") they have imposed and illegally enforced Motor
Vehicle Codes and Internal Revenue Codes and Real Estate Codes and
other forms of Administrative Law on members of the Public.
This
is now, finally, coming to a halt and being recognized and reversed.
The only question that remains is ---- are you a member of the General
Public, or are you a Federal Employee? If you are a Federal Employee
or a Federal State of State Franchise Employee, or you wish to contract
with these characters and their corporations, you may need an
Occupational License, a Professional License, a Driver's License, a
Business License, and probably, before long, you will need a License
License. By accepting a license you accept whatever obligations the
license requires.
Or,
you can stand under the Public Law as a member of the General Public
and Populace and carry on your own unincorporated business with none of
this foreign regulatory clap-trap.
----------------------------
To support this work look for the Donate button on this website.
How do we use your donations? Find out here.
Federal Licenses, Federal Income, and Potential Issues --- or Not
By Anna Von Reitz
Generally speaking, if you are receiving a check from the Federal Government (that isn't an earned pension based on private sector earnings)
you are in receipt of Federal Income. If you are the unemployed spouse
or minor child of a Federal Worker --- Military or Civil Service --- you
are in receipt of Federal Income because your Head of Household is
supplying you with his or her Federal Income.
If
you are a "Medical Doctor" and using your "Medical License" to treat
"U.S. Citizens" or "citizens of the United States", you are in receipt
of Federal Income. If you are a private physician who screens your
clients to be sure you are only treating Americans in a private capacity
and you properly endorse all checks to redeem the payment as lawful
money, you are NOT in receipt of any "Federal Income".
Most
doctors don't use their licenses for anything but writing prescriptions
and less than ten percent of the people who walk through their doors
are Federal Employees --- strictly speaking, they should ask patients to
disclose whether or not they work for the military or federal
government, and only pay Federal Income Taxes on money received from the
10% that are government workers or dependents of government workers.
All
of this hinges on your individual circumstance and how you structure
your business and handle your bank accounts. That should be perfectly
clear to anyone who thinks about this for more than a minute.
What
if I am a man who has retired from the military, then worked running
his own private non-federal lawn mowing business for ten years, and then
worked for the Post Office for ten years, so that when he retires his
retirement pension is based on two different kinds of "federal income"
from his time in the military and his time in the Post Office, plus
whatever he paid in from his lawn mowing business? Does he have
"federal income" as a retiree? Yes, he is receiving pension funds based
on Federal Income he earned in the past, so he has to pay Federal
Income Tax on that portion of his pension that he earned in Federal
jobs.
If more Federal Workers understood how they get
shafted and shafted again for working for the "Federal Government" a lot
of them wouldn't stick around.
Having a Federal License
doesn't necessarily mean ANYTHING. If I have a license to run a radio
station and don't have a radio station, having a license to run one is
immaterial.
Say that I am a Real Estate Agent ---
the word "Agent" is a tip-off that you are working in a federally
regulated industry --- same with "Insurance Agent" --- and yes, I might
have Federal Income as a result. If I am selling houses to
U.S. Citizens and citizens of the United States and expediting their
receipt of "Titles" to the property, then the "commission" (think
military commissions) I receive on the sale is most certainly Federal
Income and I am using a "license" to do this activity which obligates me
to pay the Federal Income Tax ----and redeeming the funds as "Lawful
Money" does not release my obligation to pay Federal Income Tax on the
gross receipts.
If, however, I am working in a private
capacity to help buyers find homes and helping sellers to sell homes,
and I screen that portion of my business so that I am working for
Americans on a private basis, then all I have to do is make sure that
the buyer actually pays "ten dollars" in silver money "in hand" to the
seller and provide information to the buyer on how to claim their Land
Patent, then I haven't used my "Real Estate License" and I
am not in receipt of Federally-connected income. I still have to
redeem any checks as "Lawful Money" but otherwise I am in the clear and
above board.
Now, this is all just common sense. If you
are providing services to Federal Workers and receiving their money,
you are in receipt of "Federal Income". If you are receiving money as a
result of employing a Federal license, you are in receipt
of "Federal Income" to the extent that you employ that license. It's up
to you to determine if you used that license to enable you to provide service to that specific person, or not.
One
way for doctors to use their "Medical License" to prescribe meds and
not claim the total patient receipts as "Federal Income" when actually
treating members of the General Public, is to track how much "income"
they receive specifically from writing the prescription or sale of the
medication and only claim that as "Federal Income". A physician, could,
for example, establish a flat fee for writing prescriptions -- say,
fifty bucks for up to two prescriptions, a hundred for three or more.
With respect to a non-Federal Employee patient, he would only owe
"Federal Income Tax" on the prescription fee.
I am giving
you these examples and expect you to sit down and think about the logic
that applies throughout---- and share this information with others so
that they have to sit down and use their own brains to solve their own
puzzles.
There is no "one size fits all" and certain
people are going to have to use their brains to figure out what they are
"licensed" to do and when those "licenses" apply and when they don't.
Some doctors treat a lot of Federal patients and some treat virtually
none at all. Some real estate deals involve actual money in hand and
others don't. Those that don't result in transfer of titles instead of
transfer of land and the receipts from those transactions are "Federal
Income".
So far as the Assemblies are concerned, the only
issue is --- does the person have Federal Income? Yes or no? If yes,
how much Federal Income?
Having genuine Federal Income in amounts greater than The Standard Deduction precludes us from revoking election to pay Federal Income Taxes.
Anyone who has actual Federal Income in excess of The Standard Deduction is obligated to pay the Federal Income Tax.
The
problem is that millions of Americans have been taxed on their private
sector earnings and millions of people have paid Federal Income Tax on
all their receipts when they are actually only required to pay Federal
Income Tax on the portion of their receipts that derives from the use of
a license or from providing service to Federal Workers and their direct
Dependents.
Receipt of substantial amounts of Federal
Income also prevents us from acting as State Citizens. Remember that
the whole idea of being a "State Citizen" revolves around the fact that
you are free from other allegiances, obligations or conflicts of
interest ---- and having Federal Income is a potential conflict of
interest that could lead one to make decisions favorable for the Federal
Government but against the best interest of one's State of the Union.
If
someone has Federal Income less than the amount of The Standard
Deduction each year, it is regarded as totally insufficient to create a
conflict of interest.
For example, someone spent two
years in the Navy back in 1966-67 and as a result, a very small amount
of the monthly Social Security pension check -- about $40 a year --- is
based on Federal Income. This is much less than The Standard Deductible
and doesn't have to be reported and is immaterial so far as the
Assemblies are concerned with respect to any conflict of interest.
For
example, someone has a Real Estate License, but they don't use it
anymore, or have no Federal Income resulting from it because they are
doing cash sales with actual money paid, or, they use the license very
occasionally and have Federal Income less than The Standard Deduction or
less than ten percent of their total income --- so long as this is
true, there is no reason for the Assembly to be concerned about any
conflict of interest. It shouldn't even be a question.
For
example, someone has a Medical Doctor's License, but 97% of their
patients are non-Federal Workers, and the bulk of any Federal Income
they receive comes from fees for writing prescriptions ---- even though
they might have Federal Income in excess of The Standard Deduction and
might have to file the paperwork, if less than 10% of their total
earnings comes from Federal Income, it presents no possible presumption
of conflict of interest.
Assemblies and Vetting
Committees are expected to apply some Common Sense when determining
whether or not a financial interest is sufficient to create a conflict
of interest or not. Generally speaking, anyone who has less Federal
Income than The Standard Deduction is 100% held harmless. Anyone who
has less than ten percent of their total income from Federal Sources is
100% held harmless.
What you have to ask yourselves is
--- would a Prudent Man given these facts find that the potential for
conflict of interest exists?
People who have substantial
portions of their income derived from Federal sources should not be
serving as State Citizens, but a veteran who has $40 of Federal Income
per year can serve as a State Citizen because the amount of Federal
Income he receives poses no rational threat of any conflict of interest
and provides no motive to undermine the welfare of his State of the
Union.
Keep your focus on "What makes sense?" and "Why are we concerned about this?" And remember that every case is different.
----------------------------
To support this work look for the Donate button on this website.
How do we use your donations? Find out here.
No comments:
Post a Comment