Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 7400 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason by anyone. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Do not attempt to comment using the handle "Unknown" or "Anonymous". Your comment will be summarily deleted. Additionally we do not allow comments with advertising links in them for your products. When you post a comment, it is in the public domain. You have no copyright that can be enforced against any other individual who comments here! Do not attempt to copyright your comments. If that is not to your liking please do not comment. Any attempt to copyright a comment will be deleted. Copyright is a legal term that means the creator of original content. This does not include ideas. You are not an author of articles on this blog. Your comments are deemed donated to the public domain. They will be considered "fair use" on this blog. People donate to this blog because of what Anna writes and what Paul writes, not what the people commenting write. We are not using your comments. You are putting them in the public domain when you comment. What you write in the comments is your opinon only. This comment section is not a court of law. Do not attempt to publish any kind of "affidavit" in the comments. Any such attempt will also be summarily deleted. Comments containing foul language will be deleted no matter what is said in the comment.


Wednesday, July 13, 2022

Non-Federal Licenses, Bonding, and Permits

 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.  

----------------------------

See this article and over 3700 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

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

It's up to you each and individually to determine whether you have "Federal Income" or not.  

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.  

----------------------------

See this article and over 3700 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.