WANTED: Outlaw Barber

[MaineShark]

mmmm student beauticians

Just need ourselves a laser to point the way to where they are...

Joe

[lildog]

mmmm student beauticians

Just need ourselves a laser to point the way to where they are...

Look at it this way. Considering the type of people you are and the environment you're in, you have to admit the strong possibility this may be the only chance you ever have in your entire lives... to have sex. 

[Puke]

I shave my own head?
Is this illegal? 

Is it only illegal if I pass a dollar bill from my right hand to my left hand while in the process of cutting hairs?

[burnthebeautiful]

Someone told me once that Sweden has a 70% sales tax on hair-cuts. I'm not sure if it's true, but it wouldn't surprise me. Somehow immigrants from the middle east still manage to run barber shops where they only charge 20 bucks.

[error]

I walked by a barber shop yesterday. They charged for a basic haircut: $15 for men, $35 for women.

[Recumbent ReCycler]

In Durham, there is a decent barber who charges $12 per haircut, but he looks like he's about 80 years old. 

313-A:9 Licensure Required. –
    I. It shall be a class A misdemeanor for any natural person, and a felony for any other person, to engage in any practice regulated by this chapter without the appropriate license.
    II. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to:
       (a) Operate a barbershop, salon, or school unless such establishment is at all times under the direct supervision and management of a professional licensed under this chapter.
       (b) Hire or employ any person to engage in a practice regulated by this chapter, unless such person then holds a valid license or a temporary permit issued by the board to practice the respective profession.
       (c) Operate a school, unless it has been licensed by the board and is operated according to rules adopted by the board.
       (d) Engage in the instructing of any activity licensed by this chapter without holding an appropriate license issued under this chapter.

Source. 2000, 118:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2001. 2006, 76:3, eff. July 1, 2006.

313-A:19 Shop Licensure. –
    I. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person, as owner, manager, or agent, to open, establish, conduct, or maintain a salon, barbershop, or mobile barbershop without first having obtained a shop license from the board. Application for such shop license shall be made to the board in writing and shall state the name and address of the owner of such shop, the shop's address or, in the case of a mobile barbershop, the business mailing address of the owner, and such other information as may be required by the board. Licenses under this section shall be conspicuously posted within the licensed establishment.
    II. (a) Any licensed barber, cosmetologist, manicurist, or esthetician who has completed one year of actual experience in a salon or barbershop shall, upon written application accompanied by the required fees, receive a license to operate a salon, barbershop, or mobile barbershop in this state, provided that the salon, barbershop, or mobile barbershop meets all requirements established in the rules of the board.
       (b) Booths attached to or within a salon or barbershop that are operated independently of the salon or barbershop shall be subject to licensure in the same manner as an independent establishment, except that each independently operated booth shall not be required to have a separate sink or shampoo bowl.
    III. In the event of a change of location of any licensed shop and upon notice thereof, the board shall issue a transfer of licensure of such shop to its new location, provided such new location meets the requirements of this section. The board may revoke any shop license upon a finding that such shop fails to comply with this chapter or the rules adopted by the board; provided that, before any such certificate shall be revoked, the holder shall have notice thereof and be granted a proper hearing.
    IV. In addition to licenses issued under paragraph II, the board may issue a license to an owner of a salon or barbershop who does not personally engage in cosmetology, barbering, or esthetics, provided the salon or barbershop shall fulfill all requirements set forth in the rules of the board and provided further that the owner has paid the required license fee for such salon or barbershop and employs a licensed cosmetologist, barber, manicurist, or esthetician as manager who has previously completed one year of actual experience in a licensed salon or barbershop. However, this section shall not authorize such owner to practice cosmetology, barbering, manicuring, or esthetics unless the owner has a cosmetologist, barber, or esthetician license.

Source. 2000, 118:1. 2002, 230:3, 4, eff. July 16, 2002.

313-A:25 Exemptions. –
    I. The provisions of this chapter relative to barbering shall not be construed to apply to the following persons:
       (a) Physicians and surgeons licensed under RSA 329 when engaged in the practice of their profession;
       (b) Chiropractors licensed under RSA 316-A when engaged in the practice of their profession;
       (c) Commissioned medical or surgical officers of the United States army, navy, or marine hospital service;
       (d) Registered and practical nurses licensed under RSA 326-B;
       (e) Licensed cosmetologists or estheticians under this chapter;
       (f) Persons engaged in the practice of barbering in public or private institutions where such practice is carried on solely for the benefit of such institution;
       (g) Morticians licensed under RSA 325 when engaged in the practice of their profession; or
       (h) Persons conducting programs for barbering demonstration sponsored by a recognized barber organization.
    II. The provisions of this chapter relative to cosmetology or esthetics shall not be construed to apply to the following persons:
       (a) Licensed barbers engaged in their usual occupation.
       (b) Persons engaged in behalf of a manufacturer or distributor solely in demonstrating the use of any machine or other article for purposes of sale, without charge to the person who is the subject of such demonstration.
       (c) Persons engaged in the practice of cosmetology or esthetics in a charitable or benevolent institution, where such practice is carried on solely for the benefit of the residents of such institution.
       (d) Persons conducting programs relating to demonstrations of cosmetology or esthetics sponsored by a recognized cosmetological or esthetical organization.
       (e) Licensed cosmetologists engaged in the practice of cosmetology upon an invalid, a person with a disability, or a person confined to the home because of age, in that person's place of residence.
       (f) Persons licensed as massage therapists under RSA 328-B.
       (g) Persons licensed as physical therapists or physical therapist assistants under RSA 328-A and 328-F.

Source. 2000, 118:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2001.

It isn't very clear about whether money changing hands for a hair cut is illegal or if giving the hair cut itself is illegal without a license.  What is an institution?  I just looked it up, and it is defined as "an organization founded and united for a specific purpose".  I believe the FSP can be considered an institution.  It appears that you two may be exempt from RSA 313-A:9 because you are both members of an institution. 

313-A:25 Exemptions. –
    I. The provisions of this chapter relative to barbering shall not be construed to apply to the following persons:
f) Persons engaged in the practice of barbering in public or private institutions where such practice is carried on solely for the benefit of such institution;

I suppose different people would probably interpret the statute differently.  By the way, I learned how to give a decent hair cut when I was in the army.  I specialize in high-and-tights and skin-tight-fades.  I use electric clippers for almost the entire hair cut.  I cut my son's hair and sometimes cut my own. although it is hard to do a good job on hair that I can't see (like the hair on the back of my head).  If someone knows how to give a good skin-tight-fade tapered straight up on the sides, I could use a hair cut myself.  I used to get a hair cut at least every other week, but since I moved to NH, where hair cuts are so much more expensive (at least twice as expensive) than any of the places I was stationed, I only have someone else cut my hair every few months.  I trim it some myself about twice a month.

[thinkliberty]

I would be willing to pay someone to haircut as well.  I could pay someone to use some cordless clippers that I have to do some maintenance on my mohawk.

It would have to be done on the weekend though...

[error]

I'll come to Concord any day of the week with the mess on my head and allow (almost) anyone to cut it off.

[Bald Eagle]

Notice that the Statutes specify "Persons," not men and women.

From http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris/person.html

One of the very first of your STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt.

In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:

(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.

(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.

(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.

NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN -- THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!

Under the rule of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.

Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.

If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :

1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person ...

2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person ...

3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person ...

4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person ...

5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person ...

Notice that only "persons" can commit these STATE legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the "STATE." If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.

So is a WOMAN were to give a MAN a haircut, would the STATE be able to enforce punishment for violation of its Statutes?  It doesn't seem so, because only "PERSONS" are subject to Statute.

Notice that PEOPLE as in We the People, is not PERSONS.

People must learn the difference between "represented status", "pro se" and "pro per" or "sui juris" status in the court. The deception is that "pro se" means literally "represent myself" and you do not "represent" yourself - you are yourself. Pro per means "for myself" and Sui Juris literally means "of my own right (with all the rights to which freemen are entitled.)" The difference is between living and being a non-entity. Do not believe anyone in the court who tells you there is no difference in what these terms mean in the court process.

Furthermore, I would suggest that the haircut be PAID for with GOLD, or SILVER.

I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the privilege of DISCHARGING DEBT [my emphasis...] with limited liability, instead of paying debt. When we pay a debt, we give substance for substance. If I buy a quart of milk with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the milk, and the milk bought the dollar -- substance for substance. But if I use a Federal Reserve Note to buy the milk, I have not PAID for it.[my emphasis...] There is no substance in the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE. It is worthless paper given in exchange for something of substantive value. Congress offers us this benefit: Debt money, created by the federal United States, can be spent all over the continental united States, it will be legal tender for all debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that you cannot be sued for not paying your debts. So now they have said, "We're going to help you out, and you can just discharge your debts instead of paying your debts." When we use this colorable money to discharge our debts, we cannot use Common Law Court. We can only use colorable Court. We are completely under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code -- We are using non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we are discharging debt rather than paying the debt.

I mean, if people are willing to go head to head with the STATE, why not do it from a position of power and do the experiment to see if these arguments have real merit and legal substance.

[error]

Um, well, personally, it's because I don't want to set up a new state on slightly different principles.

[thinkliberty]

(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.

They define what a "person" is as an individual... are you a single human being?

From Merriam-Webster definition of an individual:

Main Entry: 2individual
Function: noun
1 a : a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as  (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution <a teacher who works with individuals>  (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group b : a particular person
--

I only wish it were so easy as to say I am not a person and be free, but tyrants don't make their laws that way.

[dalebert]

Maybe the Porc Fest would be good timing for this as we may be able to get a more sizable crowd. I'm biassed because I would actually get to attend in that case.   

[Bald Eagle]

Sure, but if you read the website I got most of that from even briefly, there seems to be no real danger of that.

You become a STATE created statutory "person" by taking up residency with the STATE and stepping into the office of "person." You must hold an "office" within the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature's control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution.

The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as "person." Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so.

The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.

The way the STATE gets around God's Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as "person" and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws - motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office -- YOU.

Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of STATE government are hundreds of other STATE created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate.

The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official STATE office.

They have created the office of "person."

It's no wonder we don't have government of by and for the People - we all play the roles of "Persons."

I mean, if you're going to do a lot of stuff that may get you arrested, what do we really have to lose trying to see if this stuff is actually true?  Wouldn't it be great to get these government Persons arrested for violating the Inherent Rights of Sovereign Men and Women and breaking their Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution for the united states of America?

If all that stuff about Admiralty courts is true, and they're committing treason, hell, I'll donate the rope to hang them with.  I get to keep it after they're hung from the neck until they're dead.



Use a LAW dictionary designed for use in those courts by court officers and Persons, not a dictionary written by a man for use by other men and women.

[TheLiefie1]

I walked by a barber shop yesterday. They charged for a basic haircut: $15 for men, $35 for women.

What if a woman wanted to buy a men's cut? Is it discriminatory to refuse the sale on the basis of gender?   

[dalebert]

Someone told me once that Sweden has a 70% sales tax on hair-cuts. I'm not sure if it's true, but it wouldn't surprise me. Somehow immigrants from the middle east still manage to run barber shops where they only charge 20 bucks.

The state subsidizes hippies!