services rendered,” among other requirements. A.R.S. § 6-702(9)(f). If, as JHass argues, the phrase “receiving money,” as it is used in § 6-701(4) means “taking actual possession of,” then this exemption would be redundant; bill paying service providers who merely control, but do not actually possess, debtors’ funds would not constitute debt management companies within the language of § 6-701(4) and would not require a license to operate anyway. Likewise, if the legislature intended “receiving” to mean only actual physical possession, then presumably it would have used “receiving money” in § 6-702(9)(f), or it would have used “take physical possession” in § 6-701(4) to create a mirror image of the rule and the exception. See Williams v. Thude, 188 Ariz. 257, 259, 934 P.2d 1349 (1997) (<HOLDING>). The legislature did not draft the statutes in
holding that the word void is not sufficient holding that each provision of a statute must be afforded meaning when possible holding that effect must be given if possible to every clause and word of a statute recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous  the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect recognizing that each word and phrase of a statute must be given meaning so that no part of it will be void inert redundant or trivial