Latest / International Flavor: Where the Truth Tastes Better / Valentine’s Day Launch of Civic Outlaws: Chevron Falls, Missouri Fights Back, and Bureaucrat Overreach Gets Named

Transcript

Valentine’s Day Launch of Civic Outlaws: Chevron Falls, Missouri Fights Back, and Bureaucrat Overreach Gets Named · International Flavor: Where the Truth Tastes Better

• 0:00
  Hello.
• 0:00
  Good morning.
• 0:01
  Welcome.
• 0:02
  I am Samuel Trapp.
• 0:03
  This is Civic Outlaws.
• 0:06
  If you were expecting here, this is, this
• 0:08
  is international flavor.
• 0:10
  You are mistaken.
• 0:12
  Of course, I'm going to keep them on
• 0:13
  the same platform for now.
• 0:15
  Uh, certainly it's always going to be on
• 0:17
  damn radio, but I'm going to record them
• 0:19
  and keep them just for, uh, uh, entertainment
• 0:22
  purposes and keeping them for later publication on
• 0:26
  international flavor for now.
• 0:27
  And, uh, there's a reason for that.
• 0:29
  Um, I don't want to pay for another,
• 0:32
  uh, um, anything like paying for extra stuff.
• 0:38
  So I'm not going to right now.
• 0:40
  Um, anyway, I am Samuel Trapp, whereas we
• 0:43
  started a new organization.
• 0:44
  It's called the Civic Outlaws.
• 0:46
  It's been in effect a little more than,
• 0:49
  uh, uh, well, since the beginning of the
• 0:50
  year, probably around always, we, we got our
• 0:53
  five Oh one C three authorizations in November
• 0:56
  sometime, but we really didn't really start activities
• 1:00
  until, um, January 1st.
• 1:05
  And we had came out swinging and that's
• 1:08
  for sure.
• 1:09
  And we've got some interesting and cool and,
• 1:13
  uh, informative information on our website where you
• 1:19
  can go out and check out our current,
• 1:20
  um, current activities.
• 1:22
  Our current action tracker is out there.
• 1:26
  Uh, there's a whistleblowers portion.
• 1:28
  Should you like to put it out there?
• 1:30
  Now, those of you who've listened to me,
• 1:33
  Samuel Trapp for a while, know that I
• 1:36
  have a history, know that I, uh, uh,
• 1:39
  have been very vocal about corruption, about government
• 1:44
  overreach, about, um, um, bureaucrats taking over the
• 1:48
  world.
• 1:49
  You know, they're like pinky in the brain.
• 1:52
  Um, and but only I'm pinky in there,
• 1:54
  the brain, I say, what are we going
• 1:56
  to do today?
• 1:58
  Bureaucrat and they go same thing we do
• 2:00
  every day.
• 2:01
  Sam key plan to take over the world.
• 2:05
  And that's what a bureaucrat does.
• 2:07
  That's, that's what they do.
• 2:08
  Whether it's the globalist wanker, whether it's the
• 2:12
  Missouri bar wanker, or whether it is any
• 2:15
  number of other bureaucrat who loves his position,
• 2:22
  let's call it that.
• 2:24
  And they engage in what they call public
• 2:27
  overreach or overreach.
• 2:29
  Now, because I've made a mistake, uh, and
• 2:31
  I'm one that tends to admit my mistakes
• 2:34
  when I'm a bad person.
• 2:36
  Some of you, if you are listening to
• 2:38
  damn radio this morning, I've gone, wait a
• 2:41
  second.
• 2:41
  This, this guy did this show yesterday.
• 2:44
  Well, I did, but I cocked up the
• 2:48
  recording and it didn't happen appropriately.
• 2:51
  And so guess what?
• 2:52
  We're doing it again.
• 2:53
  And so, uh, if you'd like to call
• 2:55
  in, please do 573-746-8020, but I'd
• 2:59
  never announced it to anyone.
• 3:00
  All I'm trying to do is retake, uh,
• 3:02
  the, uh, information missed for us so I
• 3:06
  can store it and record it.
• 3:08
  And, uh, I'm the, the big part of
• 3:11
  that is going to be the introduction of
• 3:15
  an article I wrote.
• 3:19
  And I wrote this article.
• 3:22
  It is out on my LinkedIn page and
• 3:25
  I will, you know, you got to LinkedIn
• 3:28
  Samuel trap and find me and you will
• 3:31
  find it.
• 3:32
  And you will see that I am a
• 3:34
  founding member of, uh, what do you call
• 3:38
  it?
• 3:38
  Civic Outlaws.
• 3:40
  And if you click on the Civic Outlaws
• 3:43
  logo or the post, it'll take you to
• 3:46
  this article and you can read it at
• 3:48
  your own, at your own leisure.
• 3:51
  And, uh, if you feel like that, that
• 3:53
  would be great.
• 3:53
  And, um, and, and there you have it.
• 3:56
  I, but I want to share this article
• 3:59
  and a bit of analysis on this problem
• 4:01
  because this is a true bureaucrat problem.
• 4:04
  Those of you who know me also know
• 4:06
  that I'm, I was pretty vocal during the,
• 4:09
  uh, the Ike Skelton debacle about the overreach
• 4:12
  of the prosecutor, about the BS of these
• 4:15
  cameras in the first place about the flock.
• 4:18
  And you know what?
• 4:19
  I haven't checked that in a while.
• 4:21
  I should look at the flock case going
• 4:25
  on in Richmond, Virginia, because their flock was
• 4:31
  not allowed to participate and their, uh, their
• 4:35
  lawyers tried to intervene twice and, and, uh,
• 4:39
  they, they wanted to file a friend of
• 4:41
  the court brief, whether that'd be amicus or
• 4:43
  whether it was they get to, uh, they
• 4:46
  get to enter in as a party, although
• 4:48
  they're not sued.
• 4:49
  They want to be the friend of the
• 4:51
  court.
• 4:51
  This is what powerful money, money people do.
• 4:56
  Heck, uh, Civic Outlaws plans to be the
• 4:59
  friend of the court in, in many things.
• 5:01
  Um, you know, we, we are working together
• 5:04
  with, uh, modern law ecosystem, which I'm also
• 5:08
  a founder of and you can go out
• 5:10
  to modern law ecosystem.com.
• 5:13
  That website is under development right now, and
• 5:16
  that's going to be nationwide, worldwide.
• 5:20
  In fact, and enormous.
• 5:21
  I am thinking extremely large here.
• 5:24
  The practice of law is changing and I'm
• 5:27
  going to give you a, a critical thought
• 5:33
  process about that.
• 5:34
  Probably here on our Civic Outlaws channel before
• 5:39
  too long.
• 5:41
  Um, this is going to be a weekly
• 5:42
  for now program.
• 5:44
  I think weekly might be a little too
• 5:46
  much.
• 5:48
  I don't know.
• 5:50
  I'm still thinking about it.
• 5:51
  I do my international flavor radio show Monday
• 5:54
  through Thursday from seven 30 until nine.
• 5:57
  And on Friday we're tacking into there, uh,
• 6:00
  on damn radio.com forward slash live.
• 6:03
  And every program is live.
• 6:05
  You can phone in at five, seven, three,
• 6:06
  seven, four, six, eight, zero to zero.
• 6:08
  Uh, you know, usually in studio, if there's
• 6:11
  not, that'll be out.
• 6:12
  I've got a little mini set of equipment
• 6:14
  and I've got a, uh, uh, an interview,
• 6:17
  uh, platform and I have press credentials.
• 6:22
  And I do intend to go to the
• 6:24
  places and interview people, man on the street
• 6:27
  type or whatever, or go interview people.
• 6:30
  They don't need to come to the studio.
• 6:32
  I'll go to them.
• 6:33
  You know, I'll go to press conferences and
• 6:34
  whatnot like I did in Russia.
• 6:37
  And if you want to go to, uh,
• 6:39
  my web, my, uh, I tried to clean
• 6:42
  up my, um, my LinkedIn page to reflect
• 6:48
  all of that properly.
• 6:50
  And I linked a couple of my Russian
• 6:52
  language articles out there too.
• 6:55
  And I hate to too, uh, blatantly self,
• 6:58
  uh, promote myself.
• 7:00
  But a lot of these things I think
• 7:04
  are very important.
• 7:04
  Um, international events I think are important.
• 7:07
  I don't, or I wouldn't be doing international
• 7:09
  flavor.
• 7:10
  You know, my, my, my radio program.
• 7:12
  I think that that the mainstream media gets
• 7:17
  it wrong far too often.
• 7:19
  Uh, or they pump a narrative far too
• 7:22
  often.
• 7:23
  And, and I'm not, I don't discriminate.
• 7:25
  I, I, I hate everyone equally.
• 7:28
  Um, I, I take them all apart and
• 7:32
  I don't like slanting stuff one way or
• 7:35
  the other.
• 7:36
  I'm, I'm more or less conservative, but I
• 7:41
  also have some pretty strong opinions about what
• 7:43
  goes on, um, uh, internationally and the mistakes
• 7:48
  that our country has made in a long,
• 7:50
  long time.
• 7:51
  I'm a, I'm a Patriot in America and
• 7:53
  I always have been, I was a diplomatic
• 7:56
  interpreter for this, for, uh, it was subordinate
• 8:00
  to the state department, but it was an
• 8:02
  agency called the onsite inspection agency, which is
• 8:05
  now the nuclear threat reduction agency.
• 8:06
  I believe they have, they change acronyms, like
• 8:10
  other people change their underwear in Washington DC
• 8:13
  and whatever, whoever's in charge this month, uh,
• 8:16
  change it to whatever some bureaucrat will change
• 8:19
  everything around.
• 8:20
  And I have very little trust in any
• 8:22
  of it anymore.
• 8:23
  And so that is unfortunate, but true.
• 8:25
  If you grew up in the nineties, if
• 8:28
  you grew up there in the Clinton Bush,
• 8:31
  Cheney, uh, Obama and, and even Trump.
• 8:36
  Okay.
• 8:36
  Uh, there's, so I don't, I don't discriminate.
• 8:40
  I don't like things being twisted against the
• 8:44
  citizenry.
• 8:45
  Okay.
• 8:45
  I want, I want government to act on
• 8:49
  my behalf or on our behalf, not just
• 8:53
  me, but I consider myself the average white
• 8:56
  guy.
• 8:57
  You know, I want them to look out
• 9:00
  for not just white guys, not just average
• 9:02
  white guys, but average Brown people too.
• 9:04
  And, uh, I, I, I fight that stuff
• 9:07
  and always have, okay.
• 9:09
  I fight overreach and anybody who knows me
• 9:12
  knows I have, whether it's from being a
• 9:15
  Sergeant in the army and they called me
• 9:16
  Sergeant question mark, whether it's, uh, uh, wondering
• 9:19
  why we were doing idiotic things at an
• 9:22
  area 51 and on the Nevada nuclear test
• 9:25
  site.
• 9:26
  It was, you know, I've, I've, I've always
• 9:29
  been, uh, I don't know, uh, a non
• 9:33
  -believer, you know, in the, in the typical
• 9:35
  line.
• 9:36
  And so it's not, it's not something that
• 9:38
  was, it was developed.
• 9:39
  It's a natural thing for me.
• 9:41
  I just don't believe because you tell me
• 9:44
  something that it's accurate.
• 9:46
  So I like to dig in and find
• 9:48
  things and go for things.
• 9:49
  And so that's a little bit about me.
• 9:51
  Okay.
• 9:51
  I also have plenty of history.
• 9:53
  You want to go back and check out
• 9:54
  all of my other stuff.
• 9:55
  There's plenty of it in past, uh, uh,
• 9:57
  episodes of international flavor.com because they've been
• 10:01
  doing it.
• 10:02
  Jeez, we gotta be running on two years,
• 10:04
  uh, especially in the, uh, it was, in
• 10:07
  fact, it was February of, uh, geez, I
• 10:11
  think it was, is it three years?
• 10:13
  Holy crap.
• 10:14
  I could be getting old, but well, I
• 10:16
  am old, but anyway, I've been publicly voicing
• 10:21
  my opinions on Ukraine since the day it
• 10:24
  started.
• 10:24
  So that's four years.
• 10:26
  And I, after Tucker Carlson did his interview,
• 10:30
  I did a critique of that in Russian
• 10:32
  and put it on the, uh, uh, YouTube.
• 10:34
  And I have still got, I don't know,
• 10:37
  15,000 followers in my Russian channel.
• 10:40
  And so, uh, you know, I, I tend
• 10:43
  to dig a little bit and, and I
• 10:45
  hope that this helps other people when I
• 10:48
  do it.
• 10:48
  This article is a, is a bit of
• 10:51
  a long read.
• 10:52
  It's written in the style of a legal
• 10:55
  brief without all the lawyerly crap.
• 10:59
  Okay.
• 11:00
  And so I'm, I'm more of a section
• 11:02
  person.
• 11:03
  So each part will have the headline of
• 11:05
  the story.
• 11:06
  The story is called liquor license dispute leads
• 11:10
  to creation of civic outlaws, a new charity
• 11:14
  targeting government overreach.
• 11:17
  That's the title.
• 11:18
  It's a long title, but that's how a
• 11:20
  legal brief one is written.
• 11:21
  You put, you know, whatever your proposition is
• 11:24
  up on top and then you defend it
• 11:27
  as you go through the document.
• 11:29
  Okay.
• 11:29
  And so they're, they're, uh, subtopic heavy.
• 11:33
  And so I've got these and you can
• 11:34
  read the little subtopics and usually if it's
• 11:38
  decently written, which I'm not claiming that mine
• 11:41
  is, although I'm a fairly good writer, the,
• 11:44
  um, the subtopics will give you kind of
• 11:49
  the narrative, you know, that you would break
• 11:51
  down for your thesis.
• 11:52
  And in the narrative you could read just
• 11:55
  those five or eight, whatever the hell it
• 11:58
  is, uh, sub sub topics and get an
• 12:01
  idea of where I'm going.
• 12:02
  Okay.
• 12:02
  So as I go through this, I hope
• 12:04
  not to stop too much because I would
• 12:06
  like it to be clarity, but the beauty
• 12:09
  of being on a radio program and today
• 12:12
  having no time limit because it's just recording
• 12:15
  for as long as I choose, actually, that's
• 12:17
  not necessarily true because I'd have to throw
• 12:20
  up some kind of the block and, but
• 12:21
  it's, you know, I have about two and
• 12:23
  a half hours.
• 12:23
  Should I like to go through this and
• 12:26
  chat it up with you?
• 12:28
  So if you happen to be listening and
• 12:31
  you'd like to call in, please do 573
• 12:33
  -746-8020.
• 12:35
  If you'd like to keep it to this
• 12:36
  topic, that would be fantastic.
• 12:38
  And, um, but my main goal today is
• 12:41
  to replace the content I didn't record yesterday.
• 12:45
  And you know, on the, on the, on
• 12:47
  the real, uh, anniversary, I cocked it up.
• 12:50
  Like I said, anyway, uh, I want to
• 12:52
  get that article to you and there are
• 12:55
  some other things that I may throw in
• 12:57
  there as I recall them while I read
• 13:00
  through this transcript, but the government, the structure
• 13:07
  of the government, okay.
• 13:08
  I'm going to give you a bit of
• 13:09
  a backdrop there and then I won't have
• 13:12
  to interrupt while I start reading this story.
• 13:15
  There has always been an everybody took their
• 13:18
  civics classes in a 10th grade or whatever
• 13:21
  it was.
• 13:22
  And everybody took their, uh, uh, administrative law
• 13:27
  in law school in their second year of
• 13:30
  law school.
• 13:31
  And, uh, the administrative law is, uh, gives
• 13:35
  you the outline of how the administrative state
• 13:39
  is supposed to work.
• 13:41
  They go through administrative decisions.
• 13:44
  They go through the power of the bureaucrat
• 13:47
  basically.
• 13:47
  And, uh, if you're a discriminating law school
• 13:52
  student, you will look at that and go,
• 13:54
  geez, what a racket.
• 13:57
  This is a racket.
• 13:59
  Unelected a-holes running the whole show.
• 14:02
  And, uh, you know, this is, this is
• 14:04
  administrative law.
• 14:06
  They get in there and trust me, they
• 14:08
  know what they are doing.
• 14:10
  The career bureaucrat nine times out of 10
• 14:13
  is a lawyer anyway.
• 14:14
  And they don't practice.
• 14:16
  They don't have to, they get to take
• 14:17
  all the power without doing anything.
• 14:19
  They just seize power.
• 14:21
  But unfortunately, a lot of times they don't
• 14:24
  even have a law degree.
• 14:26
  And a lot of these people become career.
• 14:28
  And I'm not discriminating against people who don't
• 14:30
  have law degrees, but Jesus, don't act like
• 14:33
  you know what the law is doing.
• 14:34
  If you aren't, if you don't even have
• 14:35
  the training and that is the state of
• 14:38
  our nation, or at least in the last
• 14:40
  good number of years, what I did want
• 14:42
  to do because I've never done it is,
• 14:44
  um, go out and, uh, get for you,
• 14:48
  which I didn't do, but I'm going to,
• 14:51
  I was getting the flock camera, uh, Virginia,
• 14:54
  try to get some kind of a, uh,
• 14:56
  police department issue or issue of public release
• 15:00
  on that, which they're trying to defend themselves.
• 15:02
  And then I wanted to also get what
• 15:06
  was the Chevron case, case, case, case that
• 15:14
  was overturned by Loper bright.
• 15:21
  So Loper bright is a United States Supreme
• 15:24
  court case.
• 15:26
  And I wanted to make sure that I
• 15:28
  was given the proper information on the case
• 15:32
  that it overturned.
• 15:34
  Okay.
• 15:34
  Cause this is important people.
• 15:36
  And, uh, so, uh, that case was called
• 15:40
  Chevron USA Incorporated versus natural resources defense council
• 15:48
  Inc and NRDC.
• 15:51
  Okay.
• 15:52
  And, uh, basically that case was tried in
• 15:55
  1983, the year I graduated high school.
• 15:59
  Okay.
• 16:00
  And that, mhm.
• 16:06
  I'm also, uh, what do you call it?
• 16:09
  Uh, frequently taking sips of coffee whilst in
• 16:12
  the studio.
• 16:13
  And that could be distracting.
• 16:14
  I apologize for it in an advance or
• 16:17
  in advance.
• 16:18
  I can't even speak, but, uh, Chevron USA,
• 16:20
  Inc.
• 16:20
  Vince NRN RDC, the, uh, the link for
• 16:25
  that, not link, but the, uh, uh, us
• 16:28
  Supreme court reference for that is 40 set
• 16:30
  for 67 us eight 37 decided to 1984.
• 16:35
  And basically the primary holding the, like the
• 16:38
  law created by that Supreme court case, if
• 16:42
  you will.
• 16:42
  And, uh, you know, always they're repeating other
• 16:45
  people's facts.
• 16:47
  Okay.
• 16:47
  This one said a government agency must conform
• 16:51
  to clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying
• 16:56
  law.
• 16:58
  But here's the, but this is the important
• 17:00
  part.
• 17:01
  Courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous
• 17:07
  situation as long as the interpretation is reasonable.
• 17:11
  Now think about how ludicrous that decision was
• 17:14
  in the first place.
• 17:15
  Okay.
• 17:16
  So, Hey, bureaucrat, since you're such a professional
• 17:20
  and you're a professional bureaucrat, uh, gee, you
• 17:23
  know what?
• 17:24
  Perhaps we should let you interpret the legislative
• 17:27
  intent.
• 17:27
  That's nonsense.
• 17:29
  Okay.
• 17:29
  I thought it in law school.
• 17:31
  I think it today.
• 17:32
  I've always thought that way.
• 17:33
  That is just nonsense.
• 17:35
  The interpreters of the law are supposed to
• 17:38
  be the, uh, judicial branch, right?
• 17:42
  The judges, for God's sake, that's who interprets
• 17:45
  the law.
• 17:46
  I don't care about some bureaucrat, you know,
• 17:49
  saying, no, we, we think we know what
• 17:51
  they went and we went to didn't, we're
• 17:52
  the professionals.
• 17:53
  Right?
• 17:54
  So that cat case, let's let them in.
• 17:56
  And you know what I'll do just because
• 17:57
  we're not subject to any time limit today.
• 17:59
  I'm going to give you the facts, the
• 18:02
  mini fact pattern of that case, because I
• 18:05
  think it's important.
• 18:07
  Okay.
• 18:07
  So the facts of that case, Congress amended
• 18:09
  the clean air act in 1977 that imposed
• 18:13
  certain requirements on states that had not attained
• 18:17
  the national air quality standards previously established by
• 18:20
  the EPA.
• 18:21
  One of these requirements was that these non
• 18:25
  attainment states set up a permit program that
• 18:28
  regulated new or modified major stationary sources of
• 18:32
  air pollution under EPA regulations promulgated in 1981
• 18:36
  to supplement that requirement.
• 18:39
  A state could adopt a plant wide definition
• 18:43
  of the term stationary source such that an
• 18:47
  existing plant with several pollution emitting devices could
• 18:50
  install or modify one piece of equipment without
• 18:53
  meeting a permit.
• 18:54
  If the alteration did not increase total emissions
• 18:57
  at the plant, this was known as the
• 18:59
  bubble concept because it allows a state to
• 19:02
  treat all devices within the plant as though
• 19:05
  they were encased in a single bubble.
• 19:07
  So they aren't going to regulate just one
• 19:10
  piece of equipment in the plant.
• 19:12
  They're going to regulate the whole plant and
• 19:15
  shut the entire plant down instead of a
• 19:17
  particular machine.
• 19:18
  Basically the amended clean or vice versa.
• 19:21
  If you want to get a new one
• 19:22
  in there and you don't like the new
• 19:24
  one, they're not going to allow you to
• 19:26
  put in the new one because it would,
• 19:28
  they'll shut down the whole plant if you
• 19:30
  do, because it will, uh, you know, uh,
• 19:33
  what do you call it?
• 19:34
  The bubble effect, since it's one land, one
• 19:36
  plant, one location, you're not targeting a particular
• 19:38
  machine.
• 19:39
  This is complicated stuff.
• 19:41
  This is, and how in the world does
• 19:43
  an EPA guy gonna, who said he gets
• 19:47
  to decide this question?
• 19:48
  Well, Supreme court, we'll get to that in
• 19:50
  a second.
• 19:50
  Uh, so this is known as bubble concept
• 19:52
  because it allowed a state to treat all
• 19:55
  the devices within a plant as though they
• 19:57
  were encased in a single bubble.
• 20:00
  And the facts, the amended clean air act
• 20:03
  does not explicitly defined, define what Congress meant
• 20:08
  by a stationary source to which the permit
• 20:12
  program should apply.
• 20:13
  Meaning they didn't say whether it should be
• 20:16
  the whole plant or just the piece of
• 20:18
  equipment and that the issue was not squarely
• 20:21
  addressed in the legislative history.
• 20:23
  Meaning the court goes back through the legislative
• 20:25
  history and says they discuss this, they discuss
• 20:27
  that.
• 20:28
  And when they implemented the law, there's a,
• 20:31
  here's some of the discussions they had on
• 20:33
  the floor and the discussions on the floor
• 20:35
  addressed the, whether the, the, the piece of
• 20:38
  machinery was going to be an independent piece
• 20:40
  of machinery or what it would affect the
• 20:42
  entire plant.
• 20:42
  And they did, they didn't discuss that in
• 20:44
  this legislative history is what they're saying, that
• 20:47
  they didn't say whether it would affect the
• 20:49
  entire plant or just the machine.
• 20:51
  So the court went through all of that.
• 20:54
  And then the question before the court is
• 20:57
  whether the EPA's allowance of this bubble concept,
• 21:00
  the EPA and administrative agency created this bubble
• 21:05
  concept, not the legislature.
• 21:10
  And is this a reasonable instruction of what
• 21:14
  the legislature said?
• 21:17
  Okay.
• 21:18
  Now this is nonsense, friends and neighbors, but
• 21:21
  you know, what is the, can it be
• 21:25
  said, it was said by the way, under
• 21:27
  the Chevron doctrine that these concepts, as long
• 21:31
  as they're based on a reasonable construction of
• 21:34
  the statute itself, and by the way, any
• 21:37
  associated discussion earlier that is reflected by the
• 21:41
  final transcript of the, of the, it comes
• 21:46
  out in the statute of these statutory terms
• 21:50
  stationary or the statutory term stationary source in
• 21:54
  this case.
• 21:55
  Okay.
• 21:56
  So that is there.
• 21:57
  The issue was whether Congress had the specific
• 22:01
  intention on the applicability of the bubble concept
• 22:06
  in this case.
• 22:08
  And the holding was no, the legislation in
• 22:12
  its history suggested that Congress did not have
• 22:15
  the specific intent to apply the bubble concept
• 22:18
  in these cases.
• 22:19
  So the court got that part right.
• 22:21
  Okay.
• 22:22
  And the second issue, whether a court may
• 22:24
  adopt a static judicial definition of a statutory
• 22:27
  term when it determines that Congress itself didn't
• 22:31
  command that definition.
• 22:34
  Okay.
• 22:35
  No.
• 22:36
  And here's the holding.
• 22:37
  This is the bullshit holding of them all.
• 22:39
  No, I shouldn't talk like that.
• 22:40
  That's bad language.
• 22:41
  But no, a court may not substitute its
• 22:44
  own construction of a statutory provision for a
• 22:48
  reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an
• 22:51
  agency.
• 22:52
  What?
• 22:53
  Do you understand that?
• 22:54
  What the court, this is the Supreme Court
• 22:56
  of the United States of America.
• 22:58
  Bunch of morons didn't go to civics class
• 23:01
  in 1983 or 1965 for them.
• 23:05
  But, or maybe sooner, 1945, they're all like
• 23:08
  90.
• 23:09
  And so they ruled that now the court's
• 23:14
  not going to substitute its interpretation for, you
• 23:17
  know, a, a, a regulatory expert, a bureaucrat.
• 23:22
  What kind of crap is that?
• 23:24
  Nothing in my civics class or in my,
• 23:26
  uh, administrative law, uh, second year law school
• 23:29
  class said that, uh, the person that should
• 23:32
  interpret the law as the administrator is the
• 23:35
  bureaucrat.
• 23:36
  That's no, nowhere out there.
• 23:37
  My 10th grade teacher, uh, civics class, uh,
• 23:40
  did, didn't say, Hey, uh, you know, Sam,
• 23:42
  let's ask you a question on the, on
• 23:44
  the divisions of power in the United States.
• 23:46
  So we have the legislative branch, we have
• 23:49
  the judicial branch and we had the executive
• 23:51
  branch run by the governor of a state
• 23:54
  or the president in the case United States.
• 23:57
  He's the head of the executive branch, which
• 23:59
  is the administrative function that carries out all
• 24:02
  the laws created by the legislature and interpreted
• 24:05
  by the proper answer they gave in 1983
• 24:09
  wasn't interpreted by the court.
• 24:10
  It was interpreted by the bureaucrat.
• 24:13
  What kind of crap is that?
• 24:15
  That's the worst jump of logical leap ever.
• 24:21
  Okay.
• 24:21
  In my humble opinion, that's not ever.
• 24:24
  There's been some, some other ones, but it
• 24:26
  quietly went by.
• 24:27
  And this is part.
• 24:28
  And so since 1983, 40 years, well, 1984
• 24:34
  was the decision, but for 40 years, states,
• 24:40
  and especially the federal government has lived under
• 24:43
  this concept that the bureaucrat is God.
• 24:47
  Okay.
• 24:48
  And the bureaucrat if the legislature is too
• 24:50
  stupid to put in the proper definitions of
• 24:54
  a term that the bureaucrat gets to define
• 24:58
  it.
• 24:58
  Now that's harsh saying coming from Samuel Edward
• 25:02
  von trap the third or whatever the hell
• 25:04
  Jr calls me.
• 25:05
  It, uh, uh, is, is harsh, but this
• 25:09
  is a harsh world who I don't believe
• 25:12
  the founders, the founders, let's throw them out
• 25:15
  there.
• 25:16
  Ben Franklin with a great big signature, John
• 25:18
  Hancock with a huge signature out there.
• 25:20
  You know, everybody signed in, you know, uh,
• 25:22
  the important documents of forming the country.
• 25:25
  You know, this young infant country, that's going
• 25:27
  to be the best country on the planet
• 25:29
  was destroyed by decisions like this.
• 25:31
  Okay.
• 25:32
  This is a crap decision all across the
• 25:34
  board.
• 25:35
  And, uh, it, and then this is the
• 25:36
  unfortunate part of the judicial branch.
• 25:38
  In the first place, the judicial branch is
• 25:41
  just as subject to politics is all the
• 25:44
  rest, which is why it moves so slowly.
• 25:47
  And, uh, you know, because half of the
• 25:49
  people, well, let's call it 51% goes
• 25:52
  extreme right one year and then five years
• 25:55
  later, it's 51% going extreme left and
• 25:58
  they make decisions that have to work their
• 26:00
  way for five years through a legal system.
• 26:04
  It's crap.
• 26:05
  And, uh, and so don't go thinking that
• 26:07
  the, the judicial branch or the good guys
• 26:09
  either, because they're just as subject to the
• 26:12
  wrong stuff.
• 26:12
  And the people who need to know that
• 26:14
  are the people that civic outlaws wants to
• 26:16
  talk to.
• 26:17
  And perhaps maybe we can do something about
• 26:19
  this because a lot of people say you
• 26:21
  got to work within the system to fix
• 26:23
  the system.
• 26:24
  Well, if you don't know what the problem
• 26:25
  is, you sure as hell can't fix it.
• 26:27
  Can you?
• 26:28
  The Supreme court of the United States in
• 26:31
  2024 decided this case that I was telling
• 26:36
  you about called Loper bright in Loper bright,
• 26:42
  a similar, well, similar issue to what was
• 26:46
  presented in a oops, I'm sorry, my phone's
• 26:50
  ringing and it shouldn't be too loud.
• 26:54
  I need to get rid of that and
• 26:56
  I have to send the person a message.
• 26:58
  So I'm very sorry whilst I turn it
• 27:00
  off.
• 27:01
  Uh, so I'm sorry, but I can't do
• 27:05
  two things at once.
• 27:06
  Everybody knows that.
• 27:07
  Anyway, I'll try to cut this part out
• 27:09
  when I, uh, uh, when I, when I
• 27:11
  edit the show for publication, anyway, Loper bright
• 27:14
  enterprises versus Raimondo.
• 27:17
  Okay.
• 27:18
  And the historic decision, right?
• 27:21
  This is the history making decision of the
• 27:26
  Chevron doctrine, which is what they called this.
• 27:29
  So the Chevron doctrine, the bureaucrat gets to
• 27:31
  keep in his pocket for 40 years.
• 27:34
  Every time somebody tries to tell him what
• 27:35
  to do, the, the, the, uh, the career
• 27:38
  bureaucrat gets to pull out of his pocket.
• 27:41
  Well, uh, yeah, I know the statute doesn't
• 27:43
  say that, but I'm the King.
• 27:46
  I'm the King.
• 27:47
  The bureaucrat is the King.
• 27:49
  I'm the head of an agency and therefore
• 27:51
  I'm God.
• 27:53
  And so I, I interpret it this way.
• 27:56
  And if you want to go to the
• 27:57
  Supreme court, well, they're not gonna, you know,
• 28:00
  rule your way because they defer to our
• 28:03
  interpretations long as we can claim they're reasonable.
• 28:06
  I claim this is reasonable.
• 28:08
  Would you like to fight that now?
• 28:10
  Would you like to submit to what I'm
• 28:12
  telling you as the regulator?
• 28:14
  Because this is what I'm supposed to do.
• 28:15
  You're supposed to submit to me.
• 28:17
  This is what you have to do public.
• 28:19
  You have to submit to me because I
• 28:21
  am God bureaucrat.
• 28:23
  You know, I always just talk about the
• 28:25
  God Emperor because I liked that title.
• 28:27
  God Emperor of Dune was one of my
• 28:30
  favorite books.
• 28:30
  And so if I want a good title,
• 28:32
  if I want, you can refer to me
• 28:34
  as God Emperor, but if you're a bureaucrat,
• 28:37
  maybe you can be the God bureaucrat.
• 28:40
  Okay.
• 28:41
  And that's what they thought they were.
• 28:44
  And, uh, and well, they, they still think
• 28:45
  they are unfortunately because people aren't questioning him
• 28:48
  enough.
• 28:48
  However, we are civic outlaws.
• 28:52
  We create civic warriors.
• 28:55
  If you'd like to be a civic warrior,
• 28:57
  join us.
• 28:58
  You come in, you know, whatever level, uh,
• 29:01
  our donation pages are up and out there.
• 29:03
  We, you know, it's expensive to go after
• 29:05
  bureaucrats.
• 29:06
  It is not simple and it costs a
• 29:09
  lot of time and a lot of money.
• 29:11
  And I'm telling you, they don't make it
• 29:14
  easy.
• 29:14
  And if you go out to civic outlaws
• 29:16
  .com, you'll see how difficult these people make
• 29:19
  it.
• 29:19
  They turned that document against us and said
• 29:22
  that this document was going to be, it
• 29:25
  was the documents that we requested in a
• 29:27
  sunshine request, not civic outlaws, but one of
• 29:30
  the founding members that, uh, one of the
• 29:32
  documents we requested, one of the series of
• 29:35
  documents re-requested was going to take 44
• 29:40
  plus years to provide and the total costs
• 29:46
  payable in advance, by the way, friends and
• 29:49
  neighbors, 360 something thousand dollars.
• 29:54
  And they couldn't guarantee it even then because
• 29:57
  they may have to go to the Missouri
• 29:58
  legislature to get, uh, some more, uh, some
• 30:02
  more help.
• 30:03
  And anytime there's a budgetary person to add,
• 30:07
  they, they could only guarantee us five hours
• 30:09
  a week because these documents were all, uh,
• 30:12
  you know, they identified, uh, $300,000.
• 30:17
  I forget what it was there.
• 30:19
  36,000 documents or something like that.
• 30:22
  600,000 emails that they would have to
• 30:25
  review in order to do it.
• 30:27
  Well, nobody said they had to review all
• 30:29
  of this crap.
• 30:29
  They just give it to us.
• 30:30
  It's public overreach.
• 30:32
  We're public.
• 30:33
  Why don't you just send it to us?
• 30:34
  No, no, no.
• 30:35
  We gotta have a lawyer review this and
• 30:37
  codify.
• 30:38
  That's your own problem.
• 30:39
  That's not my problem.
• 30:40
  Why don't you just send me the documents?
• 30:42
  Be done with it.
• 30:43
  And, uh, well, you know that, but the
• 30:46
  ludicrousness of sending me a bill that says
• 30:48
  it's going to take you 300 or 42
• 30:51
  years to provide the documents and, uh, you
• 30:54
  can't provide them because you need to get
• 30:56
  another bureaucrat on board solely for that purpose
• 31:00
  is crap.
• 31:03
  You just, they're public records anyway.
• 31:06
  Why don't you provide them to me?
• 31:07
  Tell, and why can't you provide them in
• 31:09
  electronic format?
• 31:10
  Why are you still charging me 10 cents
• 31:12
  a copy or more to copy the damn
• 31:14
  things?
• 31:15
  Just put it on a thumb drive like
• 31:16
  everybody else does and turn them over to
• 31:19
  me.
• 31:19
  Nobody turns over paper documents.
• 31:21
  These people did and charged the crap out
• 31:23
  of us for doing it.
• 31:24
  And you know, I forget what it was,
• 31:26
  $6,000 or something to date that we've
• 31:28
  spent getting records and those record 4,500,
• 31:33
  5,000 pages, something like that.
• 31:35
  So we're well over 10 cents a page.
• 31:37
  It's nonsense.
• 31:39
  And, uh, uh, hell, that's a dollar a
• 31:41
  page.
• 31:41
  What am I talking about?
• 31:42
  I can't do my own, uh, 10th grade,
• 31:44
  um, uh, arithmetic.
• 31:46
  Um, anyway, the, the key portions of Loper
• 31:50
  Bright Enterprises versus Ramundo or this Chevron was
• 31:55
  overruled in a, and this is, this is
• 31:57
  written by the Liberty Justice Center.
• 32:00
  So it could be twisted a little bit
• 32:02
  for us.
• 32:03
  Okay.
• 32:04
  And the Liberty Justice Center, uh, was, uh,
• 32:08
  in instrumental in making sure that, or promoting
• 32:13
  amicus briefing, you know, and press releasing this
• 32:17
  information.
• 32:17
  Okay.
• 32:18
  And, uh, basically, and they were instrumental in
• 32:21
  helping get it done.
• 32:22
  They, then, so I don't know if you
• 32:23
  understand what amicus brief means, but what it
• 32:26
  is, basically, uh, it's called a friend of
• 32:29
  the court for, for simple English.
• 32:31
  Uh, and basically, so I sue my friend
• 32:35
  for, I don't know what, stealing my cow.
• 32:37
  And, uh, uh, you know, he sues me
• 32:40
  for saying, well, you left the cow on
• 32:42
  my property too long.
• 32:43
  Of course I stole it.
• 32:44
  And, uh, uh, we argue that fact out.
• 32:47
  Well, what an amicus brief is is somebody
• 32:50
  comes in who has an interest in property
• 32:54
  rules all over the country and go, wait
• 32:57
  a minute, you don't get to steal somebody's
• 32:59
  cow because he hung out on your land
• 33:01
  too long or you do because he supports
• 33:05
  the property.
• 33:05
  And he writes a friend of the court,
• 33:08
  amicus brief supporting that theory because he has
• 33:13
  interests and members that support property rights.
• 33:18
  Okay.
• 33:19
  And, uh, somebody else likes cows and likes
• 33:22
  to, that you can't go, you know, uh,
• 33:24
  rustling cattle just because the cow crossed the
• 33:27
  line.
• 33:28
  That's why we have brands on the cow.
• 33:30
  In the first place we put it.
• 33:32
  And by the way, I heard that there's
• 33:33
  some real serious rules about branding cows even
• 33:36
  now.
• 33:37
  And they try to property recognize their cows
• 33:39
  with the tags on the ear and the
• 33:40
  brands on the tail and, uh, or the
• 33:42
  butt.
• 33:43
  And, uh, and anyway, that's a different theory
• 33:44
  altogether.
• 33:45
  But you have another person submitted amicus brief,
• 33:48
  who especially when you get to the higher
• 33:49
  levels that says, Hey, here's, here's the issue.
• 33:53
  And we believe that you're, this cattle theft,
• 33:57
  you know, this is, is rustling cattle.
• 33:58
  We don't like this.
• 33:59
  And then so both of them write a
• 34:01
  brief to the court.
• 34:02
  It's not just the lawyer of the parties
• 34:04
  that are involved.
• 34:05
  It's lawyers of other people similarly interested.
• 34:08
  They get to do it.
• 34:09
  They have to do it with permission of
• 34:10
  the court.
• 34:10
  Most of the time that they have to
• 34:12
  petition the court to be allowed to do
• 34:14
  it.
• 34:14
  I was telling you about in flock camera
• 34:16
  case in Richmond, Virginia.
• 34:18
  The last time I looked, which was around
• 34:19
  the time Ikester, uh, was forced to plead
• 34:23
  guilty on properly, improperly, in my opinion.
• 34:26
  And he should have fought it, but I
• 34:27
  get what he's, why he did what he
• 34:29
  did.
• 34:29
  It makes absolute sense to me.
• 34:30
  And I honor his decision to make it.
• 34:33
  And I honor the decision to get rid
• 34:34
  of BS in your life because trust me,
• 34:37
  it's easier than the fight.
• 34:39
  Um, and I don't want to call it
• 34:41
  easier because that's not it either less expensive
• 34:44
  and maybe right for you at the time,
• 34:45
  especially if you don't have time to pay
• 34:47
  lawyers and other similarly situated assholes to, to,
• 34:51
  uh, uh, pay for this nonsense.
• 34:54
  They price, they price justice outside of the
• 35:00
  normal person's reach.
• 35:02
  And so who always wins the bureaucrat, because
• 35:05
  they don't have to worry about spending your
• 35:07
  money to attack you.
• 35:10
  They have it, you know, they control your
• 35:12
  money anyway through taxes and all the other
• 35:15
  stuff.
• 35:16
  And, and, and, and, and ever since then
• 35:18
  Chevron has ever since 1983, at least Chevron
• 35:21
  has said that, well, you know, of course
• 35:24
  we're going to defer to the bureaucrat.
• 35:26
  They know everything.
• 35:27
  And they, you know, they've been there for
• 35:28
  a while.
• 35:29
  And this is the, the huge portion of
• 35:31
  the bureaucratic state.
• 35:32
  So I was telling you that the sloper
• 35:34
  bright thing that they have listed here, Chevron
• 35:38
  is overruled.
• 35:39
  And this historic decision that was issued June
• 35:42
  the 28th of 2024, I'm reading their content
• 35:46
  of the overruled.
• 35:48
  The Supreme court formally overturned the Chevron doctrine,
• 35:51
  a rule that adopted in 1984 under which
• 35:54
  federal courts defer to federal agencies interpretation of
• 35:58
  their own power as a matter of course.
• 36:01
  That's a scary sentence, but that's true.
• 36:03
  The court ruled in favor of the herring
• 36:05
  fishermen who argued their case.
• 36:08
  So these herring fishermen group together, came up
• 36:12
  against Raymundo.
• 36:12
  And the case called Loper bright enterprises, which
• 36:16
  well, you know, fish is herring versus Raimundo
• 36:19
  who's some I forget which agency he's with
• 36:24
  before the court, they argued it in the,
• 36:26
  before the court in the January, 2024 session
• 36:29
  in December, 2022, the Liberty justice center, this
• 36:33
  person, similar to what we're creating with civic
• 36:38
  outlaws filed an amicus brief and Loper bright
• 36:41
  enterprises versus Raymundo alongside the Cato Institute.
• 36:45
  And they urged the Supreme court to hear
• 36:47
  the case and strike down Chevron as unconstitutional
• 36:52
  and a historical meaning against history.
• 36:57
  Okay.
• 36:57
  Well, like I just said, against history, against
• 37:00
  the historic interpretation of the founding father's intent
• 37:04
  in creating three branches of government.
• 37:07
  And after the court granted the petition for
• 37:10
  certiorari means they decided to hear the case
• 37:13
  90% of the kid, more than that,
• 37:15
  98, 99% of the cases, they refused
• 37:17
  to hear and just go, it's too important
• 37:19
  for us to get busy with that.
• 37:21
  They only hear a 6% of cases
• 37:23
  that are submitted to them.
• 37:25
  The rest, they just ignore completely.
• 37:27
  So when you go to the Supreme court,
• 37:30
  good luck because they're just as, as bureaucratic
• 37:36
  as the rest.
• 37:38
  Okay.
• 37:38
  They just, you know, they try, they sit
• 37:40
  in their huge hall of justice and decide
• 37:43
  who gets Liberty and who doesn't.
• 37:45
  Anyway, these fishermen these agencies supporting the fishermen
• 37:52
  filed an amicus brief in July of 2023
• 37:55
  and urged the Supreme court to overturn Chevron
• 37:58
  because it unconstitutionally delegated the judicial branches, interpretive
• 38:05
  authority to the executive branch.
• 38:09
  It's quite true by the way, for decades,
• 38:12
  the Chevron doctrine has allowed unaccountable agencies and
• 38:16
  bureaucrats to determine the scope of their own
• 38:19
  power and to use that excessive power to
• 38:23
  run roughshod over American's rights.
• 38:27
  We applaud the Supreme court's decision to overturn
• 38:30
  Chevron, restore court's power to independently interpret statute
• 38:36
  and significantly reign in the administrative States unlawful
• 38:41
  overreach said senior counsel, Lauren C Hayes.
• 38:46
  Now that courts are no longer shackled to
• 38:49
  agency interpretations, agency rules can be fairly interpreted
• 38:54
  and we look forward to challenging overreach.
• 38:59
  Now that's important friends and neighbors.
• 39:02
  And that's not me.
• 39:04
  That's although I know it too, it's not
• 39:07
  me stating that these are some, some high
• 39:10
  level muckety mucks, right?
• 39:12
  These are people involved in the process.
• 39:14
  These are people sniping from the sidelines, you
• 39:17
  know, and I no longer want to snipe
• 39:19
  from the sidelines.
• 39:20
  Everybody knows that I got plenty of, uh,
• 39:23
  of, uh, of skeletons in my closet for
• 39:25
  attacking the state of Missouri, but loads of
• 39:28
  them.
• 39:28
  So I can't remember.
• 39:30
  I, last time I looked on the federal
• 39:31
  court, it was like 62 or something times.
• 39:34
  I had a suit filed in federal court
• 39:36
  and more than half of those were against
• 39:37
  state actors.
• 39:38
  You know, when I was practicing law, I
• 39:41
  believe it's part of why I was targeted
• 39:42
  by Sam Phillips, another bureaucrat, although the bar
• 39:46
  is untouchable.
• 39:48
  That's another story.
• 39:49
  And I've talked about that in prior episodes.
• 39:51
  You can go of international flavor.
• 39:53
  You can go back and get my words
• 39:55
  on that all you'd like.
• 39:56
  Okay.
• 39:56
  And that's absolutely true too.
• 39:58
  And it's also absolutely true that there's a
• 40:01
  process in Missouri that has actually been sent
• 40:04
  to many other States that bears significant reason
• 40:10
  to be hated.
• 40:11
  And my ire is directed at this process
• 40:14
  too, because it allows this type of bureaucratic
• 40:17
  crap to continue.
• 40:19
  And that is the alleged nonpartisan bar plan.
• 40:24
  Oh, well, it's not them on partisan bar
• 40:25
  plan, but it's the nonpartisan as a joke.
• 40:29
  That was trying to be funny.
• 40:30
  It's the nonpartisan judicial selection plan and the
• 40:34
  committee of the bar has the power to
• 40:38
  promote who they want to act in their
• 40:41
  own behalf to the extreme disenfranchisement of the
• 40:48
  public.
• 40:50
  But Oh no, it's untouchable because why in
• 40:53
  the thirties, there were corrupt union bosses that
• 41:00
  controlled in Missouri between Kansas city and Missouri,
• 41:04
  they controlled Jefferson city by appointing all the
• 41:07
  judges to the Missouri Supreme court or to
• 41:10
  either of the, or any of the appellate
• 41:12
  courts.
• 41:13
  So we still have leftover remnants of that,
• 41:16
  which you could argue that they did need
• 41:19
  to do something to stop the, um, the
• 41:24
  heavy duty pressure by outside actors like the,
• 41:31
  uh, what do you call it?
• 41:33
  Unions in union bosses that controlled much of
• 41:36
  it and therefore controlled the judiciary.
• 41:38
  You see that in movies all the time
• 41:40
  and everybody takes it as a matter.
• 41:41
  Of course, however, nobody wants to say the
• 41:44
  same thing against the Missouri bar, although it's
• 41:47
  just as crap.
• 41:48
  The process of selection of these people, they're
• 41:51
  not selected by the people, not remotely.
• 41:54
  You want to hear detailed analysis of that
• 41:56
  go to prior programs that I did.
• 41:58
  And, uh, but that's a little further than
• 42:01
  I want to go.
• 42:02
  And I don't want to spend the whole
• 42:03
  time of this show speaking on that.
• 42:05
  And so with that backdrop, okay.
• 42:07
  Of the Chevron doctrine being overturned in 2024
• 42:10
  on June the 28th, that happened.
• 42:15
  The Missouri Congress, uh, the, the legislature of
• 42:18
  Missouri took action and they, uh, as of
• 42:25
  August 28th of, uh, 2025 enacted a
• 42:35
  new statute.
• 42:37
  Okay.
• 42:37
  And, or they revised an existing statute.
• 42:41
  That statute was a revised statute state of
• 42:45
  Missouri, five 36 dot one four zero.
• 42:48
  Okay.
• 42:49
  One four zero said or says now they're
• 42:53
  in.
• 42:54
  And, and, and I, I went through this
• 42:55
  a little bit yesterday, so I want to
• 42:56
  make sure to go through it today to
• 42:58
  make sure that when you go out to
• 43:00
  the revisor of statutes and everything, all of
• 43:02
  this is public document.
• 43:04
  You can go to revisor.mo.gov and
• 43:07
  get all the statutes and they do a
• 43:09
  pretty good job of, uh, in fact, a
• 43:12
  really good job.
• 43:12
  If all you're doing is looking at the
• 43:14
  Missouri statutes and you're not looking for, uh,
• 43:17
  um, history, although a lot of times down
• 43:20
  below, there's a lot of legislative or case
• 43:22
  history that you can click on and follow
• 43:24
  what courts have said about this, uh, statute
• 43:27
  or whatever.
• 43:28
  There's, it's a decent free research source, even
• 43:31
  for lawyers.
• 43:32
  And you can go in there and have
• 43:33
  a, have a look at what it is.
• 43:35
  So the basics of this five 36 dot
• 43:38
  one 40 is for judicial review.
• 43:41
  This is how the legislature says that judicial
• 43:44
  review should be conducted when a citizen makes
• 43:47
  a complaint about a statute, a regulation, an
• 43:50
  action by an administrator, an action by somebody
• 43:54
  in a county or a city administrator that
• 43:57
  changes the rules of, you know, all of
• 43:59
  these things.
• 44:00
  When a judge is interpreting these things, they
• 44:03
  have to, you know, when the case is
• 44:04
  before a court or it's being interpreted or
• 44:07
  it's even an administrative law judge, these things
• 44:10
  have to be considered, um, and five 36
• 44:15
  dot one 40, which was effective August 28th
• 44:18
  of 2005 that's when the law was written,
• 44:22
  gave the instructions for how the court is
• 44:24
  supposed to consent by the legislature of how
• 44:27
  the court is supposed to interpret executive actions
• 44:30
  against citizenry.
• 44:32
  Okay.
• 44:32
  That's the basics of it, right?
• 44:35
  Under that there was a paragraph that used
• 44:37
  to say, and because down below it, when
• 44:40
  you, when you're on the revisor's site, it
• 44:43
  actually does a pretty good job.
• 44:44
  You can go down to the bottom and
• 44:45
  click on the history of the, uh, this
• 44:49
  statute and it will give you the history
• 44:51
  of the statute.
• 44:52
  So you go and you see the date
• 44:54
  down below where the effective date of five
• 44:57
  36 dot one 40 that I'm reading from,
• 45:00
  uh, from now was effective at August 28th
• 45:03
  of 2005 and the authority of that statute
• 45:06
  ended August 28th, 2025.
• 45:10
  So it was in effect for a full
• 45:12
  20 years and then above it you can
• 45:14
  click on the link for the one that
• 45:16
  is effective now as of August 28th of
• 45:20
  2025.
• 45:21
  Okay.
• 45:22
  So I'm going to read to you the
• 45:23
  important subparagraph three, what it said before 2025
• 45:28
  August 28th and what it now says 2025
• 45:32
  that is effective.
• 45:33
  Okay.
• 45:34
  The important part was this.
• 45:37
  Here was the prior paragraph three subparagraph to
• 45:42
  five 36 to one 40.
• 45:44
  Whenever the action of the agency being reviewed
• 45:48
  by the court does not include involve the
• 45:51
  exercise by the agency of administrative discretion in
• 45:57
  the light of the facts, but only involves
• 46:01
  the application by the agency of the law
• 46:04
  to the facts, the court may upon application
• 46:08
  of any party conduct a de novo review
• 46:12
  of the agency decision.
• 46:15
  And then paragraph four said wherever under subsection
• 46:18
  three or other.
• 46:19
  So, so basically that outlined a person's right
• 46:22
  to file a motion for declaratory judgment, declaratory
• 46:26
  relief in the, um, in the court, uh,
• 46:29
  you know, usually Cole County circuit court because
• 46:32
  most of those are filed in Cole County
• 46:34
  unless you want to go after a regulator
• 46:37
  in a particular area.
• 46:38
  There are strategic parts for reviewing that.
• 46:40
  And I don't real, I don't think there's
• 46:43
  any specific things as all should be filed
• 46:45
  at any state.
• 46:46
  One should usually be filed in Cole County
• 46:48
  anyway cause they are the best people to
• 46:50
  interpret it cause they get them all the
• 46:51
  time.
• 46:51
  And so their regulatory interpretations or bureaucratic overreach
• 46:57
  that has to be filed in Cole County.
• 46:59
  What doesn't have to be.
• 47:00
  But 99% time you would want to
• 47:02
  file it there anyway.
• 47:03
  So under subsection four old version, wherever under
• 47:06
  subsection three, the one that allows you to
• 47:08
  sue or otherwise the court is entitled to
• 47:11
  weigh the evidence and determine the facts on
• 47:13
  its own.
• 47:14
  So the court gets to weigh the evidence.
• 47:16
  The court may hear and consider additional evidence
• 47:18
  if the court finds that the evidence in
• 47:20
  rector size of V sorry, an exercise of
• 47:23
  reasonable diligence could not have produced or was
• 47:26
  improperly excluded at the hearing before the agency.
• 47:29
  Meaning this is only an appellate type.
• 47:31
  So if somebody else considered it at the
• 47:32
  administrative level, the court may or may not
• 47:35
  take additional evidence that might be missing from
• 47:37
  the record down below.
• 47:38
  Okay.
• 47:39
  Wherever the court is not entitled to weigh
• 47:41
  the evidence or determine facts for itself.
• 47:43
  So this is a lot of times it
• 47:44
  says in a statute, the legislature will limit
• 47:48
  what the court can do and say, listen,
• 47:50
  you can only talk.
• 47:51
  You can't get new facts out there.
• 47:54
  You can't present new evidence.
• 47:55
  You can only consider what happened below.
• 47:58
  Okay.
• 47:58
  You can only get, that is what it
• 48:00
  is, what it used to say.
• 48:01
  Okay.
• 48:02
  Um, if the court finds there's a competent
• 48:04
  material evidence, which in the exercise of reasonable
• 48:08
  diligence could not have been produced or was
• 48:12
  improperly excluded at the hearing before the agency,
• 48:16
  meaning if the agency, uh, who is, who
• 48:18
  are also a bunch of bureaucrats, they may
• 48:20
  be a decision committees, but they're bureaucrats.
• 48:23
  If they left out this evidence or material,
• 48:26
  uh, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, diligence
• 48:29
  the court may remand the case to the
• 48:32
  agency.
• 48:33
  They can say, nah, we're sending it back.
• 48:35
  There's evidence that you could have listened to
• 48:37
  and you didn't.
• 48:38
  So listen to the new evidence and then
• 48:40
  make a decision.
• 48:41
  And if that David decision takes care of
• 48:43
  the issue, well, there you go.
• 48:45
  They can abdicate their responsibility to, uh, uh,
• 48:48
  and maybe not, but they can send it
• 48:49
  back down to the court below to consider.
• 48:51
  Now, um, agencies can't hear constitutional challenges anyway.
• 48:55
  So ultimately you'll probably end up in front
• 48:58
  of the, the Cole County circuit court in
• 49:00
  the first place.
• 49:01
  But, uh, anyway, they would give directions to
• 49:03
  consider that evidence, consider the decision in light
• 49:07
  of the evidence that could or should have
• 49:09
  been permitted.
• 49:10
  The court may in any case here and
• 49:12
  consider evidence of the reged alleged irregularities and
• 49:17
  procedure or unfairness by the agency that are
• 49:21
  not shown in the record.
• 49:22
  That's what it used to say.
• 49:25
  Okay.
• 49:26
  Now that's discombobulated nonsense.
• 49:29
  Anyway, I think it should always be the
• 49:32
  court determining, uh, you know, more power than
• 49:36
  the, uh, administrative hearing commission or a regulator,
• 49:40
  uh, or group of regulators beaten up on
• 49:43
  a citizen because that's what they do.
• 49:46
  You know, sometimes they're all, they're so slanted.
• 49:48
  You don't even really present any evidence.
• 49:50
  You just present the record.
• 49:52
  It's an administrative function.
• 49:53
  You're issuing a license.
• 49:54
  You're a, I don't know what deciding whether
• 49:57
  something can be built.
• 49:58
  You're given a permit, you know, whatever, uh,
• 50:00
  in an administrative law case.
• 50:02
  And so in these administrative law cases, the
• 50:05
  court would always assume that the facts were
• 50:07
  considered properly.
• 50:08
  And if the ruling didn't, uh, didn't reflect,
• 50:12
  uh, realistic or adequate or sometimes a bigger
• 50:16
  case examination of the facts, then the court
• 50:19
  could overrule that decision and say, no, the
• 50:22
  law means X, but the law should be
• 50:24
  determined by then, but after Loper bright.
• 50:28
  So even Missouri had some of the, some
• 50:30
  of the, it was a tiny bit tougher
• 50:32
  inside of Missouri, but really still the, uh,
• 50:35
  bureaucrats making the decision.
• 50:37
  Okay.
• 50:38
  So that all changed August 28 of 2025.
• 50:44
  Okay.
• 50:45
  Because the new version of five 36 dot
• 50:49
  one 40 reads as follows.
• 50:52
  When you have the same sort of thing,
• 50:55
  interpreting a statute, interpreting a decision that the,
• 50:59
  uh, a, uh, that the bureaucrat made below
• 51:02
  admit, you know, uh, an activity of a
• 51:05
  bureaucrat, you know, in creating his own little
• 51:08
  kingdom, which they, you know, can't help but
• 51:10
  do, especially since 1983.
• 51:13
  And the Missouri didn't do anything about it,
• 51:16
  you know, until 2005, but they always let
• 51:19
  the, let the, uh, administrator do what he
• 51:22
  wanted.
• 51:22
  Right.
• 51:22
  And then all that changed August 28, 2025,
• 51:26
  which is why it's so important to have
• 51:28
  a civic outlaws type organization inside the state
• 51:32
  of Missouri attached to national issues as well,
• 51:36
  but focused at least initially on Missouri crap.
• 51:41
  And there's plenty of it to go around.
• 51:43
  So this, uh, the, the news, the new
• 51:46
  statute says as follows.
• 51:49
  Okay.
• 51:49
  In some paragraph three.
• 51:51
  Okay.
• 51:52
  I'll read you three and four, and these
• 51:54
  are effective as of August 28, 2025.
• 51:59
  So some paragraph three says in interpreting a
• 52:02
  state statute rule regulation or other sub regulatory
• 52:06
  document.
• 52:07
  Now that's a hell of a lot more
• 52:09
  than it said previously right there, a court
• 52:12
  or an officer hearing an administrative action shall
• 52:16
  not know, shall not.
• 52:18
  Those are powerful words.
• 52:19
  It doesn't say, you know, maybe it says,
• 52:21
  shall not.
• 52:23
  And, uh, it, it shall not determine what
• 52:26
  in the hell, uh, you know, the court
• 52:27
  shall do as follows.
• 52:29
  Okay.
• 52:30
  And, um, let's see, shall not defer to
• 52:38
  a state agency's interpretation of such statute rule
• 52:42
  regulation or other document.
• 52:45
  That's a powerful sentence in the state of
• 52:48
  Missouri shall not.
• 52:49
  The legislature is making groundbreaking and very clear
• 52:56
  direction of what the citizens of Missouri want.
• 53:01
  They are the people who were elected.
• 53:03
  So you, you know, rarely does, uh, uh,
• 53:07
  you know, I hate to be too anti
• 53:08
  because they got it right here, but it's,
• 53:13
  it's the BS of being a politician is
• 53:15
  sometimes difficult, you know, and I realized you
• 53:18
  got a, uh, you know, horse trade quite
• 53:20
  a bit in politics to get what you
• 53:22
  want, but here it worked out or to
• 53:25
  get what you think your constituents want.
• 53:27
  I get that.
• 53:28
  But I honor the legislature that acts on
• 53:30
  behalf of his constituents.
• 53:32
  I don't, I love in Missouri that they're
• 53:34
  temporary, you know, that they have term limits.
• 53:37
  That alone is enough for me to say
• 53:40
  hands off and let them do what they
• 53:42
  want.
• 53:42
  If they're doing damage, they can only do
• 53:44
  it for so long.
• 53:45
  If they're being great.
• 53:46
  Well, sometimes I'd like to keep them, but
• 53:49
  it's better to, uh, you know, have one
• 53:53
  person get screwed over by, or the constituents
• 53:55
  get screwed over by not having a similar,
• 53:58
  you know, a person acting on their behalf
• 54:00
  than it is to have corruption that's inherent
• 54:02
  in the system.
• 54:03
  If you allow them to live in power
• 54:06
  eternally, that's a Sam concept right there.
• 54:09
  You don't have to agree with that or
• 54:11
  disagree with that.
• 54:12
  But if somebody is term limited, I'll continue
• 54:16
  to vote for them.
• 54:16
  If someone is not term limited and they
• 54:19
  have been there, you know, longer than two
• 54:21
  terms, I never vote for them.
• 54:24
  Never.
• 54:25
  I will not vote for somebody who's been
• 54:27
  in office more than two terms unless they're
• 54:31
  term limited, you know, by three, four, whatever.
• 54:34
  Um, and in Missouri, our state guys are
• 54:36
  term limited.
• 54:37
  So that's a philosophical thing for me.
• 54:39
  It has nothing to do with real politics.
• 54:41
  It has to do with power.
• 54:43
  So anyway, I sorry to get sidetracked with
• 54:45
  that, but the, the state legislature in this
• 54:48
  instance got it absolutely right.
• 54:49
  Five 36 one 40 sub paragraph three, when
• 54:52
  they directed that the court shall not defer.
• 54:56
  And then the next part of the same
• 54:58
  sentence and it says shall, shall, they must
• 55:04
  interpret the meaning and effect of whatever the
• 55:08
  state agent or bureaucrat did de novo de
• 55:11
  novo means brand new review.
• 55:14
  It doesn't matter what the bureaucrat said.
• 55:15
  It matters what, that's all circumstances surrounding that
• 55:20
  decision made by a bureaucrat, including a bureaucratic
• 55:24
  agency and including a bureaucrat in the capacity
• 55:28
  of a hearing officer.
• 55:30
  Okay.
• 55:31
  And then it continues another sentence in actions
• 55:35
  brought against a state agency after applying all
• 55:40
  customary tools of interpretation, the court or hearing
• 55:44
  officer.
• 55:45
  Here it comes again.
• 55:46
  Here's that interesting word shall decide any remaining
• 55:51
  doubt like tie goes to who does the
• 55:55
  tie go to in these cases in favor
• 55:58
  of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency power
• 56:02
  and maximizes individual rights.
• 56:06
  Individual liberty.
• 56:07
  So the state of Missouri through the legislature
• 56:10
  has just thrown a bomb into the bureaucrats
• 56:16
  nest and it is a nest because they
• 56:19
  never leave.
• 56:21
  You're in a nest because they never have
• 56:24
  to perform.
• 56:25
  They get a free paycheck.
• 56:26
  Everybody always complained.
• 56:27
  Oh geez, those poor administrators don't make any
• 56:29
  money.
• 56:29
  My ass they control the world and they
• 56:31
  get a fair pay and they get unbelievable
• 56:33
  benefits.
• 56:34
  And if they didn't want the power, they
• 56:36
  wouldn't stay there in the first place.
• 56:38
  Now that's harsh too.
• 56:40
  I'm a harsh person when it comes to
• 56:41
  that.
• 56:42
  Go out in the real world and see
• 56:43
  if you can be a in charge of
• 56:46
  life.
• 56:46
  Doesn't work that way.
• 56:48
  Why should it work for the government when
• 56:49
  the citizens want a government that is limited
• 56:52
  in scope and power?
• 56:54
  That's what we want.
• 56:55
  If you're a true American, that's what you
• 56:57
  want.
• 56:58
  You don't want a stronger government except in,
• 57:02
  you know, arguably some of the military stuff.
• 57:04
  So although even that is all controlled by
• 57:06
  outsiders these days, I believe that these things
• 57:10
  have made it possible to attack the bureaucratic
• 57:14
  overreach of the state of Missouri, which is
• 57:18
  the reason for the founding of civic outlaws
• 57:21
  at this time.
• 57:22
  It's the perfect time.
• 57:24
  And so the brief I'm going to read
• 57:26
  to you, and then I'll close the show
• 57:27
  today as something that I wrote that goes
• 57:30
  a particular case.
• 57:32
  It'll, it'll talk about the case.
• 57:34
  Now you don't have to agree with the
• 57:37
  premise of the case to believe that what
• 57:40
  I just outlined to you is anything less
• 57:44
  than true and accurate.
• 57:45
  Everything I've outlined to you, according to what
• 57:47
  the state must do, what the U S
• 57:50
  government with the U S Supreme court ruled
• 57:53
  will take place in federal agencies.
• 57:56
  And as far as being interpreted, what the,
• 57:59
  it limited what the executive branch gets to
• 58:02
  do to interpret all of these things.
• 58:05
  And, uh, through their career bureaucrats, which I
• 58:08
  believe should be term limited at the federal
• 58:10
  level too, but they're not bureaucrats are not
• 58:13
  terminated.
• 58:14
  If it's just a job, they sit there
• 58:16
  regardless of who's in power.
• 58:17
  If they don't like who's in power, they
• 58:19
  mark time until that person is no longer
• 58:21
  in power until they get a friend in
• 58:23
  office and then they go back to regulation
• 58:25
  as usual.
• 58:26
  So, and I believe that's what's going to
• 58:27
  occur with the Trumpster that three years would
• 58:30
  be marking time and then hopefully we'll be
• 58:33
  set up to keep this activity going on
• 58:36
  a federal level as well.
• 58:38
  Cause I ain't afraid of them either.
• 58:39
  I should be, I suppose, because people get
• 58:42
  murdered, people end up dead on back streets.
• 58:45
  Like they used to charge the Soviet, uh,
• 58:48
  the, the, the Soviet, uh, about, um, I'm
• 58:52
  sorry, that's the, uh, um, uh, the, uh,
• 58:56
  Ukrainian version.
• 58:57
  Anyway, uh, that's paragraph three.
• 59:00
  That is powerful.
• 59:01
  And then paragraph four tells how you're going
• 59:04
  to exclude and excludes the similarly to what
• 59:07
  the paragraph four said before.
• 59:08
  But the important part is that sub paragraph
• 59:10
  three, which is the bomb thrown in to
• 59:13
  the nest of vipers at the bureaucratic level.
• 59:16
  Okay.
• 59:16
  Now with all that backdrop, which hopefully you
• 59:19
  listened to, um, and I hope you had
• 59:22
  the time to go through this with me,
• 59:24
  you know, because it's been about an hour.
• 59:25
  I'm going to go another half an hour.
• 59:27
  So should take me to get through this
• 59:29
  article and any associated stuff and then the
• 59:31
  program will end.
• 59:32
  And I'm going to, and you can find
• 59:34
  this article.
• 59:34
  If you want to stop listening, please do,
• 59:38
  but read the article.
• 59:39
  The article is out on my LinkedIn page,
• 59:42
  which, uh, let me give you my LinkedIn
• 59:45
  address, which I don't know, used to be
• 59:47
  something easy, but I haven't used LinkedIn.
• 59:50
  I only recently repaired the page.
• 59:52
  Uh, so it reflects who I am properly.
• 59:57
  And, uh, it says that I am, uh,
• 1:00:03
  if I look at the page, where am
• 1:00:06
  I?
• 1:00:08
  Scooby dooby doo doo.
• 1:00:10
  I am at Samuel trap is my address.
• 1:00:13
  And, uh, Samuel trap is who I am.
• 1:00:18
  And if I, you know, was sharing the
• 1:00:20
  chant and it, and it has out there,
• 1:00:22
  the home of civic outlaws, which is a
• 1:00:25
  new page.
• 1:00:25
  I created the home of modern law ecosystem,
• 1:00:28
  my measure in the road, Nif, Kuzna, Ruscom,
• 1:00:32
  my, uh, uh, Russian site on YouTube and
• 1:00:36
  my international flavor, a website where I put
• 1:00:40
  all of my shows out on international flavor,
• 1:00:43
  uh, as they occur four times per week.
• 1:00:46
  Okay.
• 1:00:47
  So that's how you find me, Samuel trap
• 1:00:49
  on LinkedIn.
• 1:00:50
  And, uh, my article is out there in
• 1:00:53
  a post of, uh, Thursday, I believe it
• 1:00:57
  was that I did that post.
• 1:00:58
  Let me put on my glasses and I'm
• 1:01:00
  going to read to you this article.
• 1:01:03
  And I think I did a pretty good
• 1:01:05
  job of not directing this to lawyers or
• 1:01:08
  to other people, you know, that are obsessed
• 1:01:10
  with, uh, with, uh, the legal backdrop, but
• 1:01:14
  with clarity so that people can understand the
• 1:01:17
  issue.
• 1:01:18
  Okay.
• 1:01:18
  And, uh, especially here in Missouri.
• 1:01:21
  And so liquor license dispute leads to the
• 1:01:24
  creation of civic outlaws, a new charity targeting
• 1:01:27
  government overreach by Samuel trap.
• 1:01:30
  It's a sub paragraph.
• 1:01:32
  Uh, remember I told you sub paragraphs reflect,
• 1:01:35
  you know, well, whatever, it doesn't matter.
• 1:01:36
  Uh, government creep, administrative autonomy.
• 1:01:40
  And the moment the line was crossed.
• 1:01:44
  And so we begin government overreach rarely announces
• 1:01:48
  itself with a press conference.
• 1:01:50
  More often it arrives quietly through internal emails,
• 1:01:53
  revised enforcement priority, and a growing comfort with
• 1:01:57
  discretion untethered from statute.
• 1:02:00
  This article is not about a particular business
• 1:02:03
  model, a controversial industry, or a single licensing
• 1:02:07
  dispute.
• 1:02:08
  It's about the quieter phenomenon, government creep, the
• 1:02:12
  gradual expansion of administrative authority beyond its lawful
• 1:02:16
  lane justified internally as efficiency autonomy, or the
• 1:02:22
  policing of morality at the center of this
• 1:02:28
  story is a state licensing agency charged with
• 1:02:32
  narrow, well-defined mission regulating the sale of
• 1:02:36
  alcohol under chapter three 11 of Missouri law.
• 1:02:40
  That's alcohol control.
• 1:02:41
  Licensing regimes are supposed to be mundane.
• 1:02:45
  They involve posted permits, compliance checks, clearly articulated
• 1:02:50
  rules.
• 1:02:50
  They are not intended to become a moral
• 1:02:53
  tribunal or a substitute for a criminal court.
• 1:02:56
  Yet beginning in 2022 internal alcohol, tobacco control,
• 1:03:02
  ATC communications, reflect a notable shift in posture.
• 1:03:07
  One that treats statutory boundaries as flexible and
• 1:03:11
  agency discretion as expansive.
• 1:03:13
  Now, with my explanation to you of Loper,
• 1:03:16
  bright, and all that, this is commentary outside
• 1:03:18
  the article with my explanation of Loper, bright,
• 1:03:21
  Chevron, and a Missouri reach.
• 1:03:24
  How can you blame them?
• 1:03:26
  You know, they've, they've been for, for years
• 1:03:28
  allowed to run roughshod over citizens and they
• 1:03:31
  like it.
• 1:03:32
  They're used to it.
• 1:03:33
  In those internal communications, senior leadership of the
• 1:03:37
  ATC described the agency as blessed to operate
• 1:03:42
  with an abundance of autonomy while discussing the
• 1:03:45
  discovery of a statute that by the agency's
• 1:03:49
  own admission had not been previously understood or
• 1:03:52
  enforced.
• 1:03:53
  That language matters.
• 1:03:55
  It does not reflect caution, uncertainty, or deference
• 1:03:59
  to a legislature.
• 1:04:00
  It reflects a bureaucrat's confidence, a confidence that
• 1:04:04
  her interpretation is more than a valid substitute
• 1:04:07
  for the law and that enforcement priorities can
• 1:04:11
  be re-engineered from within.
• 1:04:13
  Now, a side point here, all the documents
• 1:04:16
  that are referenced in this are available at
• 1:04:19
  civicoutlaws.com under a current events or recent
• 1:04:23
  activity or whatever that, whatever that says out
• 1:04:25
  there.
• 1:04:26
  I've got it pulled up, but I'm not
• 1:04:28
  going to go look at it.
• 1:04:29
  Copies, copies of these internal communications have been
• 1:04:32
  public released and are already available through civic
• 1:04:35
  outlaws published materials.
• 1:04:36
  They are referenced here not to litigate personality,
• 1:04:40
  but to document institutional mindset.
• 1:04:43
  One in which administrative discretion is understood as
• 1:04:47
  sufficiently broad to reshape enforcement without new legislation,
• 1:04:51
  rule-making or clear public notice.
• 1:04:55
  That mindset collided inevitably with a changing legal
• 1:05:00
  landscape.
• 1:05:02
  In June of 2024, United States Supreme Court
• 1:05:05
  decided Loper Bright Enterprises v.
• 1:05:07
  Raimondo.
• 1:05:08
  Re-centering courts not agencies is the ultimate
• 1:05:11
  interpreter of statutory meaning.
• 1:05:14
  Missouri followed the same path.
• 1:05:16
  Effective August 28, 2025, Missouri law now directs
• 1:05:19
  courts to decide all questions of law without
• 1:05:22
  deference to agency interpretations.
• 1:05:26
  The message is unmistakable.
• 1:05:29
  Administrative confidence is not legal authority and statutory
• 1:05:34
  meaning does not expand by internal bureaucratic consensus.
• 1:05:39
  This article is written at the intersection of
• 1:05:42
  those two moments and internal expansion of perceived
• 1:05:45
  autonomy on the one hand and a judicial
• 1:05:48
  and legislative reassertion of limits on the other.
• 1:05:52
  The dispute that follows while originating in a
• 1:05:55
  specific licensing context raises a broader question with
• 1:05:59
  consequences far beyond alcohol regulation.
• 1:06:03
  What happens when an agency treats discretion as
• 1:06:06
  power interpretation as law and licensure as leverage.
• 1:06:11
  After courts have said that deference is over,
• 1:06:16
  civic outlaws exists because that question is no
• 1:06:19
  longer theoretical.
• 1:06:21
  It is being lived, litigated and paid for
• 1:06:24
  in real time by regulated citizens and businesses.
• 1:06:28
  This article does not ask readers to take
• 1:06:31
  sides on policy preferences or cultural debates.
• 1:06:35
  It asks something far more basic and far
• 1:06:38
  more American that government agencies stay in their
• 1:06:42
  lane, read the statutes they are given and
• 1:06:45
  respect the limits imposed by law.
• 1:06:49
  The rest of this article explains how the
• 1:06:51
  line was crossed, why it matters and why
• 1:06:55
  administrative autonomy, however blessed cannot replace constitutional
• 1:07:00
  accountability.
• 1:07:02
  The anti-deference shift, why courts not bureaucrats
• 1:07:07
  decide what a statute means.
• 1:07:09
  A liquor license is supposed to be boring.
• 1:07:12
  It's a tax stamp with rules post the
• 1:07:15
  license check ID.
• 1:07:17
  Don't serve to minors.
• 1:07:18
  Don't let fights spill in the parking lot.
• 1:07:21
  It is not supposed to be an open
• 1:07:24
  ended character trial, a morality referendum or a
• 1:07:29
  bureaucratic guessing game where a business owner has
• 1:07:32
  to predict what a state agent thinks is
• 1:07:35
  lewd on any given night.
• 1:07:38
  And yet in Missouri, that's exactly the kind
• 1:07:41
  of government creep this story exposes creep as
• 1:07:45
  a noun, the creeping expansion of power and
• 1:07:48
  creep as an action, the practice of sliding
• 1:07:51
  authority into places it was never granted.
• 1:07:53
  That creep is why a new charitable organization,
• 1:07:58
  civic outlaws exists to put a public spotlight
• 1:08:01
  on administrative overreach, weaponized discretion, and the quiet
• 1:08:05
  normalization of because we said so government.
• 1:08:10
  Now I'm going to stop right here because
• 1:08:11
  there's also a third and you can call
• 1:08:14
  it a noun as well.
• 1:08:15
  The government creep.
• 1:08:17
  Just take a picture of your favorite Burke
• 1:08:19
  bureaucrat and throw it up there.
• 1:08:21
  That's your government creep.
• 1:08:23
  But I didn't want to be horrible in
• 1:08:25
  my story.
• 1:08:26
  And there's a second part of it too.
• 1:08:28
  Um, remember I make the, a lot of
• 1:08:31
  these same allegations in not just this area.
• 1:08:34
  This story tells you why we exist, but
• 1:08:38
  it's not the only story.
• 1:08:40
  There's plenty more.
• 1:08:41
  And if you have any stories, you can
• 1:08:42
  always put them out through, uh, through your,
• 1:08:45
  uh, state rep, through your, uh, senator or
• 1:08:48
  even through a civic outlaws.com on the,
• 1:08:51
  uh, whistleblower page.
• 1:08:52
  So the catalyst of all this was Jack's
• 1:08:56
  Inc doing business as gentlemen quarters.
• 1:08:59
  Jack's a long standing Lake area business that
• 1:09:03
  has operated for decades.
• 1:09:05
  And by testimony has been in the community
• 1:09:08
  for almost 40 years with the same liquor
• 1:09:11
  license, with the same premises, with everything, all
• 1:09:14
  the same.
• 1:09:16
  At a December 20, at a December three
• 1:09:19
  2025 hearing, council emphasized that the establishment had
• 1:09:23
  operated in essentially the same position for years
• 1:09:26
  and had almost 40 years of community presence.
• 1:09:30
  At the same hearing, the record underscores what
• 1:09:33
  civic outlaws views as the deeper issue, a
• 1:09:36
  state agency using a licensing lever to impose
• 1:09:40
  consequences that look and feel punitive without procedural
• 1:09:45
  protections that normally attach when government accuses someone
• 1:09:49
  of a crime.
• 1:09:52
  This article is written to be diplomatic, but
• 1:09:54
  it is not written to be timid.
• 1:09:56
  If the public is expected to obey the
• 1:09:58
  law, the government should be expected to stay
• 1:10:01
  in its lane, read the statute and follow
• 1:10:03
  it.
• 1:10:04
  That is not a radical position.
• 1:10:06
  It's the old American idea.
• 1:10:08
  So old, it used to be called civics.
• 1:10:11
  The U S Supreme court corrects a decades
• 1:10:14
  long civics problems for years.
• 1:10:15
  The default operating system of modern government has
• 1:10:18
  been agency interpretation.
• 1:10:21
  Legislatures wrote broad rules.
• 1:10:23
  Agencies filled in the details.
• 1:10:25
  Courts often deferred.
• 1:10:27
  That deference has been increasingly questioned nationwide by
• 1:10:31
  citizens.
• 1:10:32
  By the way, the U S Supreme court's
• 1:10:34
  June, 2024 decision in Loper bright V Ramundo,
• 1:10:38
  a six Oh three U S and they
• 1:10:40
  haven't picked a number yet because it's so
• 1:10:42
  new is commonly described as rejecting, overturning Chevron
• 1:10:48
  deference to bureaucratic interpretation and recentering courts as
• 1:10:53
  the preferred interpreter of statutory meaning.
• 1:10:56
  Missouri's own administrative review statute RSMO five 36,
• 1:10:59
  one 40 moved in the same direction in
• 1:11:01
  an amendment effective August 28, 2025, a recent
• 1:11:05
  Cole County circuit court order from January, 2026
• 1:11:08
  quotes the heart of that statute.
• 1:11:10
  By the way, I believe this is the
• 1:11:11
  first appearance of interpreting of a court having
• 1:11:16
  to interpret five 36 dot one 40 after
• 1:11:19
  the change of the legislature.
• 1:11:22
  So I think this is important what the
• 1:11:23
  court does here.
• 1:11:24
  So this bears following out in Cole County
• 1:11:27
  court.
• 1:11:28
  Let's see.
• 1:11:29
  But the quote there says the court shall
• 1:11:32
  decide all questions of law without deference to
• 1:11:35
  any prior determination that may have been made
• 1:11:38
  on the question by the agency.
• 1:11:39
  Just like the statute five 36 dot one
• 1:11:42
  40 reflects that sentence is the point.
• 1:11:47
  It's the dividing line between a government of
• 1:11:49
  laws and a government bureaucrat deciding that we
• 1:11:52
  interpret however we want.
• 1:11:54
  Civic outlaws view is blunt.
• 1:11:56
  The modern administrative state trains the system to
• 1:12:00
  treat agency interpretation as expertise, but bureaucratic confidence
• 1:12:05
  is not legislative intent and no replacement for
• 1:12:08
  constitutional authority.
• 1:12:11
  Legitimacy comes from a statute, not from a
• 1:12:14
  bureaucrat's job title to Jack's litigation sits on
• 1:12:18
  that fault line.
• 1:12:19
  The state's position stated openly in December 20
• 1:12:22
  December 3rd is that the ATC can look
• 1:12:25
  beyond chapter three 11 and use good moral
• 1:12:30
  character as a kind of universal hook.
• 1:12:33
  If you violate the law, you respect, you
• 1:12:38
  lack respect for the law and that can
• 1:12:40
  be used to restrict or deny alcohol licensure.
• 1:12:45
  Now pause for a second.
• 1:12:47
  That's nonsense.
• 1:12:48
  It's a big, it's a good sentence, but
• 1:12:51
  who gets to define my good moral character?
• 1:12:55
  Some a bureaucrat.
• 1:12:56
  Hell no.
• 1:12:57
  I want the good moral character to at
• 1:12:58
  least be defined by the by the statute,
• 1:13:03
  you know, by the legislature.
• 1:13:04
  Anyway, I continue.
• 1:13:08
  If you lack, if you violate the law,
• 1:13:10
  you lack respect for the law and that
• 1:13:12
  can be used to restrict or deny alcohol
• 1:13:15
  licensure.
• 1:13:15
  The plaintiff's position is that this becomes a
• 1:13:18
  backdoor criminal enforcement regime, particularly where the law
• 1:13:23
  being invoked is outside of ATC's licensing lane
• 1:13:27
  statutorily and instead is administrative enforcement of a
• 1:13:32
  criminal code carrying penalties arguably worse than criminal
• 1:13:37
  consistent consequences.
• 1:13:40
  The going 70 in a 30 73 in
• 1:13:43
  a 70 program.
• 1:13:46
  Who decided who decides what's preposterous and where
• 1:13:49
  does it stop?
• 1:13:51
  The December 3rd transcript of the Cole County
• 1:13:54
  circuit court hearing contains a moment that should
• 1:13:56
  matter to anyone who has ever dealt with
• 1:13:59
  an agency that thinks bureaucratic discretion is a
• 1:14:02
  blank check.
• 1:14:02
  During argument about good moral character, the court
• 1:14:06
  tested the state's logic.
• 1:14:09
  If moral character equals respect for the law,
• 1:14:12
  does any alleged violation of the law count?
• 1:14:16
  The court pressed, so I'm going 73 in
• 1:14:19
  a 70 do I lack respect for the
• 1:14:22
  law?
• 1:14:22
  Where does that lie?
• 1:14:24
  The assistant attorney general responds by calling that
• 1:14:27
  example preposterous explaining that no one would use
• 1:14:31
  that as an excuse to revoke a license
• 1:14:34
  and that any such attempt would be overturned.
• 1:14:39
  But the exchange is not about speeding.
• 1:14:41
  It's about structural weakness in the state's theory.
• 1:14:46
  The difference between enforcement and overreach becomes whatever
• 1:14:49
  the agency and later a judge might decide
• 1:14:53
  is reasonable, preposterous or ludicrous in hindsight.
• 1:14:56
  How is that any sort of licensure standard?
• 1:15:00
  Is the public expected to live under such
• 1:15:03
  restrictions without question?
• 1:15:05
  Must longstanding businesses bleed money in real time
• 1:15:08
  between the interpretation and the ultimate conclusion of
• 1:15:12
  the case?
• 1:15:14
  Apparently so.
• 1:15:15
  And I say that because a temporary relief
• 1:15:18
  was not granted to the license holder.
• 1:15:20
  He was for reasons outlined here.
• 1:15:22
  We'll get here.
• 1:15:23
  And, and you know, that decision is the
• 1:15:25
  decision.
• 1:15:25
  It's not the ultimate decision.
• 1:15:26
  We'll get to that in a minute.
• 1:15:28
  If the rule is we can treat any
• 1:15:30
  alleged violation of any statute as evidence of
• 1:15:34
  bad character, the next question is unavoidable.
• 1:15:38
  And it really is which alleged violation will
• 1:15:42
  be treated as serious enough to punish a
• 1:15:48
  business owner by restriction of the business's liquor
• 1:15:52
  license.
• 1:15:54
  Hmm.
• 1:15:55
  Curious, isn't it?
• 1:15:59
  Who decides how consistently with what written standard
• 1:16:03
  and with what due process when the agency's
• 1:16:06
  accusation is of alleged criminal activity, Jack's licensure
• 1:16:11
  choice and the reality of coercion.
• 1:16:15
  A recurring theme in these disputes is the
• 1:16:17
  word voluntary.
• 1:16:19
  Agencies love that word.
• 1:16:21
  If a business voluntarily alters operations, governments get
• 1:16:25
  to deny responsibility for the consequences.
• 1:16:29
  The December 3rd transcript shows why civic outlaws
• 1:16:33
  rejects that framing.
• 1:16:35
  The testimony reflects that Jack's could sell liquor
• 1:16:38
  inside its establishment for nearly 40 years up
• 1:16:42
  until June 27, 2025 that was the day
• 1:16:47
  their liquor license was denied for 2026 or
• 1:16:51
  the 2025, 2026 year.
• 1:16:53
  And that after their denial, ATC deigned to
• 1:16:59
  allow the sale of alcohol outside the facility,
• 1:17:02
  but not inside.
• 1:17:03
  They could sell it out in the yard.
• 1:17:05
  The record reflects the practical problem.
• 1:17:09
  After documents and conversations with ATC, the witness
• 1:17:12
  testified that the ATC made it very clear
• 1:17:15
  they were not going to give me a
• 1:17:17
  license to operate inside of the establishment.
• 1:17:21
  So they forced him to agree to only
• 1:17:24
  outside.
• 1:17:25
  And you could argue about the, uh, you
• 1:17:27
  know, cause that it's as bad character that
• 1:17:29
  he's operating inside cause he's allegedly breaking the
• 1:17:32
  law, but he still has, isn't bad character
• 1:17:36
  dependent upon the person and not dependent upon
• 1:17:39
  the location.
• 1:17:40
  This is nonsense.
• 1:17:41
  Uh, you know, that's the gun to the
• 1:17:43
  head issue.
• 1:17:43
  If you limit your license premises, you, you
• 1:17:46
  aren't, uh, uh, you have good character if
• 1:17:50
  you limit your license, but if you don't
• 1:17:51
  limit your license, you don't have good character.
• 1:17:54
  Nonsense.
• 1:17:55
  Anyway, that's the gun to the head issue
• 1:17:56
  in plain English.
• 1:17:58
  When government controls your license and says you
• 1:18:00
  can operate, but only if you accept these
• 1:18:03
  restraints.
• 1:18:04
  When your business is shut down by government
• 1:18:06
  overreach, calling agreement compliance and voluntary is legal
• 1:18:11
  fiction.
• 1:18:13
  Civic outlaws position is that a licensing system
• 1:18:16
  cannot be allowed to function as a coercion
• 1:18:19
  machine that accomplishes through conditions.
• 1:18:22
  What the government would struggle to prove through
• 1:18:25
  criminal process at the same here, uh, the
• 1:18:29
  SOB statute and the bootstrapping problem chapter three
• 1:18:32
  11 as a portal into chapter five 73,
• 1:18:36
  five 73 is a criminal statute, uh, which
• 1:18:39
  ATC has no authority to enforce at the
• 1:18:42
  same hearing council for ATC conceded an important
• 1:18:46
  historical point.
• 1:18:48
  He stated that he was unaware of this
• 1:18:51
  statute to pro hit five 73 prohibited the
• 1:18:54
  sale of alcohol at gentlemen's clubs where it'd
• 1:18:57
  been being sold for 40 years, by the
• 1:18:59
  way, until he discovered it in 2022.
• 1:19:02
  That's a remarkable admission on its face.
• 1:19:05
  It suggests that for years, whatever enforcement existed
• 1:19:08
  was inconsistent, localized, or simply not pursued the
• 1:19:12
  way it is.
• 1:19:12
  Now the administrators changed it around.
• 1:19:15
  The state's theory is that none of that
• 1:19:17
  matters because the agency is applying administrative law.
• 1:19:21
  Even if it's five 73, they're only applying
• 1:19:24
  it administratively and three 11 dot zero six
• 1:19:27
  zero requires all licensees to possess good moral
• 1:19:31
  character, which it defines as respect for the
• 1:19:36
  law.
• 1:19:36
  So in other words, we can use chapter
• 1:19:38
  three 11 licensing standard to enforce compliance with
• 1:19:42
  other laws.
• 1:19:43
  We have no statutory grant of power to
• 1:19:46
  enforce and they don't.
• 1:19:48
  Civic Outlaws calls that bootstrapping using an administrative
• 1:19:53
  licensing statute as a portal into criminal law
• 1:19:56
  enforcement without any criminal procedure.
• 1:19:59
  This is not abstract.
• 1:20:00
  The hearing record reflects the plaintiff's argument that
• 1:20:03
  there had been no finding that any criminal
• 1:20:05
  violation of any relevant criminal standard other than
• 1:20:09
  the agent said so, and that the administrative
• 1:20:12
  process is effectively declaring him guilty of a
• 1:20:15
  criminal violation without due process and without the
• 1:20:19
  protection of criminal burdens of proof.
• 1:20:22
  The state for its part argued that the
• 1:20:24
  underlying sexually oriented business determination remained pending at
• 1:20:29
  the administrative hearing commission, but that the business
• 1:20:31
  model itself is predicated upon alcoholic sales in
• 1:20:35
  that context.
• 1:20:36
  Whether one agrees with the state's policy goal
• 1:20:38
  or not.
• 1:20:39
  Civic Outlaws point is procedural.
• 1:20:41
  If a state carries crim, I'm sorry if
• 1:20:44
  a statute carries criminal consequences and social stigma,
• 1:20:48
  the government should not be able to achieve
• 1:20:50
  the same effect through administrative shortcuts and discretionary
• 1:20:54
  labels.
• 1:20:54
  If he's guilty of a crime, charge him
• 1:20:56
  with a crime.
• 1:20:57
  Don't steal his alcohol license.
• 1:20:59
  In short, that's nonsense.
• 1:21:02
  And he's not, by the way, even what
• 1:21:04
  they're alleging he did, it's not violating the
• 1:21:07
  law.
• 1:21:08
  Him.
• 1:21:08
  It's him allowing other people to allegedly violate
• 1:21:12
  the law in another spot.
• 1:21:13
  It's a nonsense.
• 1:21:13
  The whole thing.
• 1:21:15
  The court orders careful, preliminary and still a
• 1:21:18
  long road.
• 1:21:20
  It is tempting, especially in public facing advocacy
• 1:21:22
  to treat a judge's initial order as the
• 1:21:25
  decision they were in the court.
• 1:21:27
  They, they, they were only asking for a
• 1:21:29
  preliminary orders to allow him to go back
• 1:21:31
  to the way he was operating before.
• 1:21:34
  That would be inaccurate here and Civic Outlaws
• 1:21:37
  does not want to misstate the posture.
• 1:21:39
  The January 2026 order on the request for
• 1:21:42
  temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction reflects a
• 1:21:45
  narrow procedural focus.
• 1:21:48
  Injunctions are extraordinary relief and plaintiffs have to
• 1:21:51
  show among other things, irreparable harm and no
• 1:21:54
  adequate remedy at law.
• 1:21:56
  So the court denied injunctive relief and relief
• 1:21:58
  and importantly did so without reaching any merits
• 1:22:02
  argument that Civic Outlaws believes remains on the
• 1:22:05
  table.
• 1:22:05
  The court stated a practical point that matters
• 1:22:08
  going forward.
• 1:22:09
  The order notes that Jack held the license
• 1:22:11
  for the entire premises and later for outside
• 1:22:15
  the bar only.
• 1:22:17
  And the only difference was a change in
• 1:22:19
  the description of the license premises.
• 1:22:22
  I think we're going to put up later
• 1:22:23
  the transcript of that hearing because it, uh,
• 1:22:26
  it could be interesting for you to read
• 1:22:28
  the admissions that they made.
• 1:22:31
  I'm not sure.
• 1:22:32
  We'll have to figure that out.
• 1:22:33
  The order further references argument by the assistant
• 1:22:36
  attorney general that a voluntary change could be
• 1:22:40
  processed by Jack's and notice that Jack's had
• 1:22:43
  not yet applied to turn it back to
• 1:22:45
  the same premises it occupied 40 years earlier.
• 1:22:48
  Well, they'd already been told, no, you can't
• 1:22:50
  do it.
• 1:22:50
  The only way we're giving you a license
• 1:22:52
  is if you do it.
• 1:22:53
  But what he argued and the court put
• 1:22:55
  in the temporary dark argument was, well, they
• 1:22:58
  say you can change it back, change it
• 1:23:01
  back, you know, send it out, change it
• 1:23:03
  back.
• 1:23:03
  And he's put that application out there.
• 1:23:07
  I'm sure we'll put most of that out
• 1:23:08
  online as well because it's important how these
• 1:23:11
  administrators act.
• 1:23:13
  It's wrong.
• 1:23:14
  Uh, and we'll see what they do to
• 1:23:16
  justify this.
• 1:23:17
  It's going to be funny.
• 1:23:18
  Anyway, the story continues.
• 1:23:20
  The article continues too.
• 1:23:22
  In plain terms, the case is not over.
• 1:23:24
  The court did not hand the state a
• 1:23:25
  blank check and the operational harm continues while
• 1:23:29
  the procedural steps play out.
• 1:23:32
  That time lag is the problem.
• 1:23:34
  Civic Outlaws keeps emphasizing.
• 1:23:37
  Courts can correct overreach eventually, but eventually is
• 1:23:41
  cold comfort when a business that sold indoors
• 1:23:44
  for years is told it must sell outdoors
• 1:23:46
  only through a narrow carve out during an
• 1:23:49
  ongoing fight and in a bitter cold Missouri
• 1:23:52
  winter.
• 1:23:54
  The police department issue when an agency renames
• 1:23:58
  itself as a police force enforces criminal statutes
• 1:24:01
  like a police force and then calls it
• 1:24:04
  a typo.
• 1:24:06
  Civic Outlaws is also focused on a separate
• 1:24:08
  unsettling theme.
• 1:24:10
  ATC documents that refer to the alcohol and
• 1:24:13
  tobacco control.
• 1:24:15
  Police department ATC repeatedly denied using that designation
• 1:24:20
  in sunshine law correspondence.
• 1:24:23
  Then when confronted with multiple examples of ATC's
• 1:24:29
  own produced investigative records using that phrase on
• 1:24:33
  a form responded that it was a mistake.
• 1:24:36
  They had done it for at least five
• 1:24:37
  years.
• 1:24:38
  Civic Outlaws views that as implausible on its
• 1:24:42
  face.
• 1:24:42
  One typo is a mistake.
• 1:24:44
  A multi-year pattern of documents branding the
• 1:24:47
  agency as a police department is culture.
• 1:24:50
  Words matter because they signal posture.
• 1:24:53
  Administrative enforcement is supposed to be bounded and
• 1:24:56
  reviewable.
• 1:24:57
  Police department language signals something else.
• 1:25:00
  Criminal posture, intimidation, and the implicit threat of
• 1:25:04
  punitive power.
• 1:25:06
  Civic Outlaws criticism here is straightforward.
• 1:25:09
  If an agency wants to act as a
• 1:25:11
  police department, it should be governed like one
• 1:25:15
  clear statutory authority, clear limits, clear reporting, clear
• 1:25:21
  accountability, and constitutional guardrails.
• 1:25:25
  And if the ATC is not a police
• 1:25:27
  department, it should stop talking like one in
• 1:25:31
  its official records, especially when those records are
• 1:25:35
  used against citizens and businesses.
• 1:25:40
  Who made you the decency czar?
• 1:25:44
  Finally, there is the enforcement culture issue.
• 1:25:48
  The thing normal people understand immediately, even if
• 1:25:53
  they don't know a single statute number.
• 1:25:56
  Civic Outlaws has described, including in its own
• 1:25:59
  documentary content on its website, civicoutlaws.com, an
• 1:26:04
  episode in which an ATC agent allegedly demanded
• 1:26:09
  a license holder at a swim up bar
• 1:26:12
  location at the lake.
• 1:26:14
  Remove a female patron because pubic hair was
• 1:26:18
  visible at the edge of her bikini.
• 1:26:21
  This story is jarring for a reason.
• 1:26:25
  It highlights how quickly alcohol enforcement can morph
• 1:26:29
  into morality enforcement and how quickly discretionary judgments
• 1:26:35
  about bodies become leverage over business licenses.
• 1:26:40
  Even leaving aside the specifics of that anecdote,
• 1:26:44
  the underlying concern is real and recurring.
• 1:26:48
  Who gave an ATC agent the authority to
• 1:26:51
  decide on sight what is lewd enough to
• 1:26:55
  jeopardize a license?
• 1:26:57
  What written standards govern that decision?
• 1:27:01
  Is it uniform across the state?
• 1:27:04
  Is it appealable in time to matter or
• 1:27:07
  is it simply the agent's own morality backed
• 1:27:11
  by the threat of administrative punishment?
• 1:27:15
  Civic Outlaws answer that is not how legitimate
• 1:27:18
  government is supposed to work.
• 1:27:21
  If the legislature wants an agency to enforce
• 1:27:25
  a morality code, it can say so clearly,
• 1:27:29
  define it carefully and cabin it tightly.
• 1:27:34
  If it has not done that, interpretation becomes
• 1:27:38
  freelancing bureaucracy and freelancing with licensing power is
• 1:27:43
  nothing but coercion.
• 1:27:46
  Why Civic Outlaws exists and what comes next.
• 1:27:50
  The creation of Civic Outlaws is not a
• 1:27:52
  branding exercise.
• 1:27:53
  It is a response to a pattern, administrative
• 1:27:56
  discretion, expanding into areas that look criminal, moral,
• 1:28:00
  and punitive without corresponding procedural protections.
• 1:28:05
  Jax is the origin of that story, but
• 1:28:07
  not the end point.
• 1:28:09
  Civic Outlaws intends to track and publish on
• 1:28:11
  a range of civil liberties and overreach issues,
• 1:28:14
  including surveillance tools like flock cameras, search and
• 1:28:18
  seizure boundaries, bureaucratic lockdown power, remember COVID, and
• 1:28:24
  the growing habit of treating citizens as subjects
• 1:28:28
  who must plead for permission instead of rights
• 1:28:32
  bearing adults who can demand justification.
• 1:28:36
  Some will call that anti-government.
• 1:28:38
  It isn't.
• 1:28:39
  It's pro constitutional.
• 1:28:41
  It's the old school position.
• 1:28:43
  Government must be limited, transparent, and accountable precisely
• 1:28:49
  because it is powerful.
• 1:28:52
  And yes, the Jax litigation is still in
• 1:28:55
  the long game.
• 1:28:56
  The court orders to date are preliminary, careful
• 1:29:00
  and procedural in important respects.
• 1:29:03
  Meanwhile, the legal fight continues over what authority
• 1:29:08
  ATC actually has, how it uses discretionary character
• 1:29:12
  and lewdness, and whether the administrative process is
• 1:29:17
  being used to impose consequences that belong in
• 1:29:22
  a criminal courtroom with full due process.
• 1:29:26
  Civic Outlaws will keep watching, not because it
• 1:29:29
  enjoys conflict, although I do, but because government
• 1:29:32
  creep only grows when ignored.
• 1:29:36
  If the public has learned anything in the
• 1:29:38
  past few years, regardless of your political tribe,
• 1:29:42
  it is this.
• 1:29:43
  Unchecked government does not stay polite for long.
• 1:29:48
  And that's the conclusion of the article, friends
• 1:29:50
  and neighbors.
• 1:29:51
  Um, I put in about the author part
• 1:29:53
  down there and I'm going to read that
• 1:29:54
  just because it's self-promotion.
• 1:29:57
  Samuel Trapp's founding member of Civic Outlaws and
• 1:29:59
  Modern Law Ecosystem initiatives focused on exposing administrative
• 1:30:03
  overreach, defending civil liberties, and restoring statutory limits
• 1:30:07
  on government power.
• 1:30:09
  He's also the host of the daily Lake
• 1:30:11
  of the Ozarks damn radio, radio program, international
• 1:30:14
  flavor, where he examines legal political and international
• 1:30:17
  developments through the lens of constitutional accountability and
• 1:30:20
  institutional restraint.
• 1:30:22
  What is that?
• 1:30:23
  A longtime critic of unchecked administrative authority, Trapp
• 1:30:26
  writes and speaks frequently on government creep across
• 1:30:30
  regulatory licensing and professional discipline systems.
• 1:30:36
  The end.
• 1:30:38
  All right.
• 1:30:39
  Well, that brings us to the end of
• 1:30:41
  the very first rerecording of, uh, Civic Outlaws
• 1:30:46
  show this a M I am Samuel Trapp.
• 1:30:50
  We intend that, uh, on damn radio for,
• 1:30:54
  uh, damn radio.com forward slash live is
• 1:30:59
  where you can listen to great music all
• 1:31:01
  the time and very good talk programs very
• 1:31:09
  frequently throughout the week.
• 1:31:10
  And, uh, you can listen to a podcast
• 1:31:13
  versions of all of those things at, um,
• 1:31:18
  damn radio.com forward slash podcast.
• 1:31:21
  Everybody's out there.
• 1:31:22
  Ike Skelton's out there and Ike's got, you
• 1:31:24
  know, his, the horror, horror story, the horror
• 1:31:27
  tale told, um, about his, uh, run in
• 1:31:32
  with the, uh, overzealous regulatory lot and criminal
• 1:31:39
  lot.
• 1:31:40
  And, uh, and you know, who can blame
• 1:31:41
  him for, uh, for the, uh, resolution of
• 1:31:44
  that, uh, that horrific issue, but more needs
• 1:31:48
  to be done about flock cameras, about police
• 1:31:51
  departments taking the power that they are taking
• 1:31:53
  on the administrative side and about administrative side,
• 1:31:57
  taking police power into their own.
• 1:31:59
  It's nonsense.
• 1:31:59
  You just grow your own, you grow your
• 1:32:01
  own power because you're working in the government.
• 1:32:05
  I dishonor a dislike.
• 1:32:07
  I despise such activities.
• 1:32:10
  Stay where you've been permitted to be.
• 1:32:13
  You're just a government employee and you need
• 1:32:16
  to do what the government intends to you.
• 1:32:18
  And that on its base terms is look
• 1:32:21
  out for the public first and yourself and
• 1:32:25
  your organization and increasing power to a much
• 1:32:29
  lesser degree.
• 1:32:30
  And if you're out there or are you
• 1:32:32
  consider it in light of some of the
• 1:32:35
  people and what the Missouri legislature required under
• 1:32:39
  the new version of five, uh, 36.140,
• 1:32:45
  perhaps you, Mr. Bureaucrat should read that.
• 1:32:49
  And, uh, and I appreciate you listening to
• 1:32:52
  this program.
• 1:32:53
  Um, I, uh, participate.
• 1:32:57
  I, I, I, I think it's wonderful.
• 1:32:59
  I have a song I want to look
• 1:33:01
  for while I go out.
• 1:33:03
  It's from a favorite movie of mine and
• 1:33:05
  it's not going to be part of the
• 1:33:07
  record on the show, but I'm looking for
• 1:33:08
  it and I want to make sure it
• 1:33:10
  gets set up properly so that I can
• 1:33:13
  play that.
• 1:33:14
  And then, uh, I show a depart the
• 1:33:17
  studio.
• 1:33:18
  So I appreciate you listening.
• 1:33:19
  I hope you listen to civic outlaws every
• 1:33:22
  Friday morning, seven 30 to about eight 45.
• 1:33:26
  And, uh, I hope you listen to international
• 1:33:29
  flavor with me for, uh, every morning, Monday
• 1:33:32
  through Thursday, seven 30 to nine AM.
• 1:33:40
  Uh, that is the end of the show.
• 1:33:45
  I hope you have a very, very nice
• 1:33:47
  day and I want to play for you
• 1:33:50
  something that's pretty funny.
• 1:33:52
  Um, well, you know what?
• 1:33:53
  You won't, you won't understand it anyway.
• 1:33:55
  So I'll do that another time.
• 1:33:57
  And, uh, uh, I will have my music
• 1:33:59
  ready for the next time that I stopped
• 1:34:01
  them.
• 1:34:01
  And so right now we're going to kick
• 1:34:03
  you back to your music, uh, that you
• 1:34:06
  like so much here on damn radio.
• 1:34:08
  Jr puts a pretty good pile of music
• 1:34:11
  together for us.
• 1:34:13
  And so I encourage you to listen to
• 1:34:15
  all of the talk here, but also all
• 1:34:19
  of the wonderful music that plays when the
• 1:34:22
  talk is not ongoing.
• 1:34:25
  Have a very nice day.
• 1:34:26
  See you next time.