💇♀️ Why do I need a license to braid hair in New York?
Happy New Year!!
Hi, I’m 007 Blon’De an expert on infection control in salons.
I’m going to share with you hair braiding states that are deregulated from cosmetology and barbering.
Let’s begin with your FREE coaching call at https://payhip.com/OO7BlonDeNaturalHairCare where you can purchase your state’s requirements in a perfect ebook designed just for your hair braiding business.
These are my chosen states with cosmetology deregulation for hair braiding licensing as they are requiring special licensing for hair braiders.
For techniques as minor as cornrowing into patterns or extending with sew-in weaving for Hair Braiders and Natural Hairstylists are required to get an occupational license in hair braiding.
Hair braiders are not conditioning and manipulating the hair strands with chemical hair straightening agents as a cosmetologist does.
Deregulation of state Cosmetology and Barber Boards makes entry barries for hair braiding creates more women entrepreneurs.
Minnesota Hair Braiding Registration License is the key to a Natural Hair Braider Board.
Equality for ALL women!
I want to explain more on how the Minnesota Hair Braider Registration Licensees “simple hair devices” are being manipulated into being in the Board of Cosmetology favor through legal cases brought on by the Institute for Justice.
Why should we care? Because it Black Women #AmeicanDOS who bare the bottom of the barrel to healthcare and HIV and HPV infections. However most don’t know how they contracted the virus.
I’m here in your face telling you while white women protect them selves you are the cost.
Minnesota Advance Practice Deceptions
Gives the Board the authority to make rules and change the definition at will for “Simple Braiding Devices” it reads:
“Hair Braiding, Simple Braiding Devices, Hair Braiding Services, and Hair Braiding are defined are to be defined in Minn. R 2642.100 (which was later repealed and renumbered to Minn.R 2105) and Hair Braiding, Hair Braiding Services and Hair Braiders are to be construed as exempt from Minn. R 2100(2003), 2646(2003) and 2644(2003).
This gives the Board the authority to overwriting the definitions and rules for Hair Braiding, Simple Braiding Devices, and Hair Braiding Services.
But grants exemptions ONLY to Hair Braiding, Hair Braiding Services, and Hair Braiders.
Therefore, allowing the Boards total control over Simple Braiding Devices which includes the ‘needle’.
Minnesota Hair Braiding Registration License is the key to a Natural Hair Braider Board.
Equality for ALL women!
I want to explain more on how the Minnesota Hair Braider Registration Licensees “simple hair devices” are being manipulated into being in the Board of Cosmetology favor through legal cases brought on by the Institute for Justice.
Why should we care? Because it Black Women #AmeicanDOS who bare the bottom of the barrel to healthcare and HIV and HPV infections. However most don’t know how they contracted the virus.
I’m here in your face telling you while white women protect them selves you are the cost.
Minnesota Advance Practice Deceptions
Gives the Board the authority to make rules and change the definition at will for “Simple Braiding Devices” it reads:
“Hair Braiding, Simple Braiding Devices, Hair Braiding Services, and Hair Braiding are defined are to be defined in Minn. R 2642.100 (which was later repealed and renumbered to Minn.R 2105) and Hair Braiding, Hair Braiding Services and Hair Braiders are to be construed as exempt from Minn. R 2100(2003), 2646(2003) and 2644(2003).
This gives the Board the authority to overwriting the definitions and rules for Hair Braiding, Simple Braiding Devices, and Hair Braiding Services.
But grants exemptions ONLY to Hair Braiding, Hair Braiding Services, and Hair Braiders.
Therefore, allowing the Boards total control over Simple Braiding Devices which includes the ‘needle’.
Minnesota Hair Braiding Registration License is the key to a Natural Hair Braider Board.
I want to explain more on how the Minnesota Hair Braider Registration Licensees “simple hair devices” are being manipulated into being in the Board of Cosmetology favor through legal cases brought on by the Institute for Justice.
Why should we care? Because it Black Women #AmeicanDOS who bare the bottom of the barrel to healthcare and HIV and HPV infections. However most don’t know how they contracted the virus.
I’m here in your face telling you while white women protect them selves you are the cost.
Minnesota Advance Practice Deceptions
A. In consequence, Judge Isabell Gomez’s Court Order, Section III. Agreed Order, paragraph 8., letter B., and page 15.
Gives the Board the authority to make rules and change the definition at will for “Simple Braiding Devices” it reads:
“Hair Braiding, Simple Braiding Devices, Hair Braiding Services, and Hair Braiding are defined are to be defined in Minn. R 2642.100 (which was later repealed and renumbered to Minn.R 2105) and Hair Braiding, Hair Braiding Services and Hair Braiders are to be construed as exempt from Minn. R 2100(2003), 2646(2003) and 2644(2003).
This gives the Board the authority to overwriting the definitions and rules for Hair Braiding, Simple Braiding Devices, and Hair Braiding Services.
But grants exemptions ONLY to Hair Braiding, Hair Braiding Services, and Hair Braiders.
Therefore, allowing the Boards total control over Simple Braiding Devices which includes the ‘needle’.
Unfortunately, this is how the Board can get back into the Health Practices Cataorgy and ask the goverment for more funding in approations through legislation for the health and welfare of the public.
B. The Revisors Rules docket RD4342 denied by Judge Eric Lipman but later approved by Judge Tammy Pust allows AP Estheticians to use Simple Hair Braiding Devices definition separate to create the medical health, safety and sanitation for the welfare of the public claims needed to support the NEW licensing of estheticians.
The Board ask for rulmaking authority over 155A.21 to 155A.36 this mistake includes 155A.28 for Hair Braiders Registration.
I beleive it’s valid enough for this procedural mistake to go back before an adminstrative judge.
In the Matter of the Board of Cosmetologist Examiners’ Proposed Permanent Rules Governing Advanced Practice Estheticians; Minnesota Rules Chapters 2105 and 2110 Section II. Rulemaking Authority.
8. The Board also relies upon its general rulemaking authority under Minn. Stat. § 155A.26, which provides: The Board may develop and adopt rules according to chapter 14 that the Board considers necessary to carry out sections 155A.21 to 155A.36.
9. With respect to regulating salons, the Board also relies on Minn. Stat. § 155A.29, subd. 2. This statute provides that “the conditions and process by which a salon is licensed shall be established by the Board by rule.” Additionally, Minn. Stat. § 155A.29, subd. 3, provides that “minimum infection control standards for the operation of a salon shall be established by rule.” https://mn.gov/oah/assets/9013-33230-board-cosmetologest-examiners-rules-report_tcm19-327496.pdf
C. In addition to, creating the definition and rules for Sharps the Board has the athourity over simple braiding device the needle.
3.10 Subp. 11h. Sharps. “Sharps” means any object, sterile or contaminated, that may
3.11 purposefully or accidentally cut or penetrate the skin or mucosa including presterilized
3.12 single-use lancets, dermal blades, and razor blades.
3.13 Subp. 11i. Sharps container. “Sharps container” means a closed, puncture-resistant,
3.14 leak-proof container, labeled with the international biohazard symbol, that is used for
3.15 handling, storage, transportation, and disposal of sharps.
D. Judge Isabel Gomez’s ruling is being construded as Simple Braiding Devices are separate from Unregulated Services 10a to 10c and are numbered as 11g, 11i and now11j.
As a result, the Board can regulate the simple braiding devices that Hair Braiders use in their services.
4.6 by UV radiation and spray tanning units; injectables; services for theatrical, television, film,
4.7 fashion, photography, or media productions or media appearances; mortuary services;
4.8 massage; body wraps and lymphatic drainage when performed by a massage therapist; the
4.9 practice of medicine as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 147.081, subdivision 3; and
4.10 hair braiding, hair braiding services, and hair braiders, as defined in subparts 10a to 10c;
4.11 and threading as defined in Minnesota Statutes,section 155A.23,subdivision 13. Ordinances
4.12 by local units of government that prohibit hair braiding, hair braiding services, or hair 4.13 braiders, as defined in subparts 10a to 10c, or regulate any matter relating to licensing,
4.14testing,or training of hair braiding, hair braiding services, or hair braiders are preempted 4.15 by this part.
Minnesota Hair Braiding Registration License is the key to a Natural Hair Braider Board.
I want to explain more on how the Minnesota Hair Braider Registration Licensees “simple hair devices” are being manipulated into being in the Board of Cosmetology favor through legal cases brought on by the Institute for Justice.
Why should we care? Because it Black Women #AmeicanDOS who bare the bottom of the barrel to healthcare and HIV and HPV infections. However most don’t know how they contracted the virus.
I’m here in your face telling you while white women protect them selves you are the cost.
Minnesota Advance Practice Deceptions
A. In consequence, Judge Isabell Gomez’s Court Order, Section III. Agreed Order, paragraph 8., letter B., and page 15.
Gives the Board the authority to make rules and change the definition at will for “Simple Braiding Devices” it reads:
“Hair Braiding, Simple Braiding Devices, Hair Braiding Services, and Hair Braiding are defined are to be defined in Minn. R 2642.100 (which was later repealed and renumbered to Minn.R 2105) and Hair Braiding, Hair Braiding Services and Hair Braiders are to be construed as exempt from Minn. R 2100(2003), 2646(2003) and 2644(2003).
This gives the Board the authority to overwriting the definitions and rules for Hair Braiding, Simple Braiding Devices, and Hair Braiding Services.
But grants exemptions ONLY to Hair Braiding, Hair Braiding Services, and Hair Braiders.
Therefore, allowing the Boards total control over Simple Braiding Devices which includes the ‘needle’.
Unfortunately, this is how the Board can get back into the Health Practices Cataorgy and ask the goverment for more funding in approations through legislation for the health and welfare of the public.
B. The Revisors Rules docket RD4342 denied by Judge Eric Lipman but later approved by Judge Tammy Pust allows AP Estheticians to use Simple Hair Braiding Devices definition separate to create the medical health, safety and sanitation for the welfare of the public claims needed to support the NEW licensing of estheticians.
The Board ask for rulmaking authority over 155A.21 to 155A.36 this mistake includes 155A.28 for Hair Braiders Registration.
I beleive it’s valid enough for this procedural mistake to go back before an adminstrative judge.
In the Matter of the Board of Cosmetologist Examiners’ Proposed Permanent Rules Governing Advanced Practice Estheticians; Minnesota Rules Chapters 2105 and 2110 Section II. Rulemaking Authority.
8. The Board also relies upon its general rulemaking authority under Minn. Stat. § 155A.26, which provides: The Board may develop and adopt rules according to chapter 14 that the Board considers necessary to carry out sections 155A.21 to 155A.36.
9. With respect to regulating salons, the Board also relies on Minn. Stat. § 155A.29, subd. 2. This statute provides that “the conditions and process by which a salon is licensed shall be established by the Board by rule.” Additionally, Minn. Stat. § 155A.29, subd. 3, provides that “minimum infection control standards for the operation of a salon shall be established by rule.” https://mn.gov/oah/assets/9013-33230-board-cosmetologest-examiners-rules-report_tcm19-327496.pdf
C. In addition to, creating the definition and rules for Sharps the Board has the athourity over simple braiding device the needle.
3.10 Subp. 11h. Sharps. “Sharps” means any object, sterile or contaminated, that may
3.11 purposefully or accidentally cut or penetrate the skin or mucosa including presterilized
3.12 single-use lancets, dermal blades, and razor blades.
3.13 Subp. 11i. Sharps container. “Sharps container” means a closed, puncture-resistant,
3.14 leak-proof container, labeled with the international biohazard symbol, that is used for
3.15 handling, storage, transportation, and disposal of sharps.
D. Judge Isabel Gomez’s ruling is being construded as Simple Braiding Devices are separate from Unregulated Services 10a to 10c and are numbered as 11g, 11i and now11j.
As a result, the Board can regulate the simple braiding devices that Hair Braiders use in their services.
4.6 by UV radiation and spray tanning units; injectables; services for theatrical, television, film,
4.7 fashion, photography, or media productions or media appearances; mortuary services;
4.8 massage; body wraps and lymphatic drainage when performed by a massage therapist; the
4.9 practice of medicine as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 147.081, subdivision 3; and
4.10 hair braiding, hair braiding services, and hair braiders, as defined in subparts 10a to 10c;
4.11 and threading as defined in Minnesota Statutes,section 155A.23,subdivision 13. Ordinances
4.12 by local units of government that prohibit hair braiding, hair braiding services, or hair 4.13 braiders, as defined in subparts 10a to 10c, or regulate any matter relating to licensing,
4.14testing,or training of hair braiding, hair braiding services, or hair braiders are preempted 4.15 by this part.
Minnesota Board of Cosmetology is ManipulatingIJ.orgcases by Creating Anti-Trust Issues With the Public
Minnesota Hair Braiding Registration Licensee are more POWERFUL than ever before in the current political circus of “GETTING A TABLE” vs a set at the table.
Here is a detailed timeline that I could come up with for a step-by-step of the action taken with the Minnesota Board of Cosmetology and the Institute for Justice.
I don’t know if this is information overload, but feel free to contact me for more of an explanation.
I have provides the links to the pages where you can look at the dates and find the pdf’s, memo or actions for each group.
The groups are:
Judge Lipman
Judge Pust
Hair Braiding
Licensed to Practice
Eyelashes
Institute for Justice and
Denise Jarrett
Denise Jarrett
4/2005-2006 Hair Braider Registration Statue creating ‘simple hair devices which include the needle’.
1/2008 Sample Hair Braider Curriculum
5/2/2011 Medical AP Estithican Regulated-Non Regulated “Licensed Practice in a doctors office”
5/2/2011 Medical Estheticians Disclaimer
3/20/2012 Denise Jarrett eco Hair Braider
2/25/2013 Proposed Online Course
10/7/2013 Medical Esthetician Task Force and Programs created at Saint Paul College
2/3/2015 Medical Esthetician CISDECO substitution for 40 hours continuing education and School Manager License
5/11/2015 1400.2500 Petition statue to Adopt 155A.28 Hair Braider statue
7/20/2015 Denial for 1400.2500 Petition
3/7/2017 Board of Cosmetology Eyelash Complaints of 274
7/15/2017 Eyelash SF2802 Passed without rules
7/16/2017 Eyelash and AP Esthetician Schools Surety Bonds
10/16/2017 Institute for Justice Repeal of both Eyelash and Hair Braiding Proposals
11/16/2017 Adoption of Eyelash Rules
12/4/2017 Launched Eyelash Instructors
3/8/2018 Administrative Judge Lipman Court
2/22/2018 Administrative Judge Pust Court 1st time
6/7/2018 Failed bills for Hair Braiding and Eyelash
8/9/2018 AP Esthetician Curriculum Changes to add Eyelash
8/20/2018 Administrative Judge Pust and Board draft court orders for permanent adoption of APE and Eyelash
8/23/2018 added Revisors rules with Simple Hair devices definition included in rules even though cosmetology does not govern hair braiding
9/24/2018 Adoption of APE and Eyelash enactment goes into effect.
In short, The Board of Cosmetology has deceptive practices on both the Institute for Justice and the public.
The permanent removal from governing hair braiders court order stated that the board was to advocate in good standing for health, safety, and sanitation for hair braider with the governor and legislation.
This was broken in the past legislative session in which the Board of Cosmetology maintained a neutral advocacy for the repeal.
Then the Board of Cosmetology after that didn’t work stole all of Institute for Justice works and adopted the eyelash and now the simple hair devices into their rules.
I think this matter needs a rehearing with the Administrative courts.
