Latest / International Flavor: Where the Truth Tastes Better / HB 2378: ATC police-power creep, Missouri Bar secrecy, and why “exigent circumstances” threatens the

Transcript

HB 2378: ATC police-power creep, Missouri Bar secrecy, and why “exigent circumstances” threatens the · International Flavor: Where the Truth Tastes Better

• 0:00
  Hello, good morning. Welcome. I'm Samuel
• 0:02
  Trap. This is International Flavor. Um,
• 0:07
  it is Tuesday.
• 0:10
  Or are we already on Wednesday? I don't
• 0:11
  even know what day I'm on. How
• 0:14
  depressing for me. I'm glad to have you
• 0:17
  though. Damn glad to have you here at
• 0:19
  damradio.comlive
• 0:21
  if that's how you're listening. Um, and
• 0:23
  then
• 0:25
  we're coming to you live from the Lake
• 0:27
  Ozark Real Estate Art Studio. This is
• 0:29
  international flavor. If you feel like
• 0:30
  calling in, you can do so at 573746820,
• 0:34
  which would also be entertaining for
• 0:36
  today. I'm uh following up on a couple
• 0:38
  of topics that I've been uh uh you know,
• 0:41
  beaten up upon truthfully in the last uh
• 0:47
  couple of weeks. Um, we talked about
• 0:49
  last Friday on Civic Outlaws, uh, some
• 0:53
  of the,
• 0:55
  uh, efforts that we've been taking, our
• 1:00
  push against our push back, I should
• 1:02
  say, against the, uh, alcohol tobacco
• 1:07
  control folks and
• 1:11
  their overreach. and we talked a little
• 1:13
  bit. I shared with you one of my
• 1:15
  articles that I wrote last Friday if you
• 1:18
  want to find those. We uh you know you
• 1:22
  can find them all of them out either on
• 1:25
  my LinkedIn page Samuel Trap and just do
• 1:29
  a quick search you'll find me modern law
• 1:32
  ecosystem and civic outlaws and all
• 1:37
  those articles will be out there. I have
• 1:39
  another one that I'm publishing this
• 1:40
  week that I'm going to share most of it
• 1:42
  with you today because I think it's
• 1:44
  important.
• 1:47
  They're uh I I I shared with you that
• 1:49
  they're trying to pass a bill that gives
• 1:51
  uh liquor license investigator
• 1:57
  police authority to arrest um at any
• 2:00
  time and how that folds up against the
• 2:03
  Fourth Amendment in my view. And this
• 2:05
  has been my position for a long time.
• 2:08
  And uh you know, I've been right before
• 2:11
  and uh the judicial branch has struck me
• 2:14
  down. I'm still right. And I wanted to
• 2:17
  share a little bit about that too cuz
• 2:19
  I'm going to repeat that effort this
• 2:21
  week or very soon as well uh about the
• 2:25
  Missouri Bar and the BS that they have
• 2:28
  going on. They are not your friends
• 2:30
  lawyers. Uh they're not. their web page
• 2:32
  looks better than it used to and they're
• 2:35
  uh you know trying to trying to I don't
• 2:37
  know what show that they're uh uh you
• 2:40
  know that they might take the interests
• 2:43
  of lawyers almost as importantly as uh
• 2:47
  the protecting the public. They got to
• 2:49
  protect the public from evildoers like
• 2:52
  me and uh it's BS the way they do it
• 2:56
  without any authority grant. So, some of
• 2:59
  the things that I've actually been
• 3:01
  talking about on the ATC side are the
• 3:04
  exact same issues in the bar. They just
• 3:10
  they don't have the authority. It wasn't
• 3:12
  given to them. Not by the legislature,
• 3:14
  not by the Supreme Court, by nobody.
• 3:16
  They do not have the authority. And yet,
• 3:20
  they regulate and uh nobody says
• 3:22
  anything. Hell, they're so they're so
• 3:24
  secure that they don't even answer
• 3:26
  sunshine requests. And I didn't push it
• 3:28
  last summer. I wasn't ready. But uh I
• 3:33
  uh wrote the following. Let's see. I got
• 3:36
  the date. June 30th of 2025
• 3:40
  is when I sent this out. And remember, I
• 3:42
  sent the same thing to the governor's
• 3:43
  office and uh the same thing to the
• 3:48
  Supreme Court itself. The Supreme Court
• 3:51
  answered, the governor answered, but the
• 3:55
  Missouri bar blanked me. Nothing. And
• 3:58
  not even a we're not going to answer.
• 4:01
  Just nothing. So, that effort is going
• 4:04
  to go again this week, but we're going
• 4:06
  to certified mail it. We're going to uh
• 4:11
  ask for some things
• 4:13
  uh that
• 4:15
  that are truly wrong, and we're going to
• 4:18
  dig. Why? because I like to dig and I'm
• 4:21
  an outlaw and uh um if you want to be
• 4:24
  become a civic warrior, go out to civic
• 4:27
  outlaws and join the fight. You know, uh
• 4:31
  uh these are expensive fights. These are
• 4:34
  not cheap. And I anticipate uh
• 4:38
  government overreach continuing long
• 4:41
  into the future,
• 4:43
  which is we we have a government class
• 4:45
  that believes they run the planet. And
• 4:48
  apparently they do. Uh because now you
• 4:51
  can strike Iran if you feel like to pro,
• 4:53
  you know, we're now Rubio is now saying
• 4:55
  that these strikes on Iran were
• 4:57
  preemptive because uh we don't want Iran
• 5:00
  blowing up. Once again, it's evil versus
• 5:02
  good. That's what they're trying to get
• 5:04
  you to believe. Don't believe it because
• 5:06
  this is not good and evil. That's Well,
• 5:09
  the evil is actually the government and
• 5:12
  uh uh our government, our overreach.
• 5:15
  Okay? Because no, we don't want to go to
• 5:18
  war with Iran, do we? I mean, does
• 5:21
  anybody out there even know the issues
• 5:23
  regarding this? They're going to sell
• 5:25
  you the crap that uh oh, gee, Iran's the
• 5:27
  bad guy. The Ayatollah is the evil man
• 5:30
  on the planet. Well, not according to 97
• 5:33
  million uh Iranians.
• 5:38
  And they got stockpiles. I'm telling
• 5:40
  you, they got big stockpiles of drones
• 5:42
  and uh and missiles. They can hold out
• 5:45
  probably longer than we can. Ours are
• 5:47
  depleted, all sent into Ukraine. So,
• 5:50
  we're we have stepped into another
• 5:52
  forever war that uh it used to was going
• 5:55
  to be a couple of days surgical strike.
• 5:57
  We find out now we're following who? As
• 6:00
  usual, we're following Israel, right?
• 6:02
  And so I I I take this and this is a
• 6:06
  much smaller issue, but it's the same
• 6:07
  damn concept. It's people making
• 6:10
  decisions for you that they really
• 6:12
  shouldn't be making. It's people taking
• 6:14
  power that they really haven't been
• 6:16
  given. And uh that's it's just that's
• 6:20
  why Civic Outlaws exists. and know. So,
• 6:23
  we sent out some sunshine requests
• 6:25
  yesterday, which I hope to also be able
• 6:27
  to share with you, but I might not get
• 6:29
  to those until Friday. Um, but I'm going
• 6:31
  to share you because share with you
• 6:33
  because we are going to do the Missouri
• 6:35
  bar part and um I've created an entity
• 6:39
  with a partner. We have partners and uh
• 6:41
  uh that entity is called Modern Law
• 6:44
  Ecosystem. You can find it at
• 6:45
  modernlawecosystem.com
• 6:48
  and it's a sort of a companion with uh
• 6:52
  our 501c3
• 6:54
  charity which is Civic Outlaws and we're
• 6:58
  having a fundraiser for Civic Outlaws.
• 7:01
  Details will follow uh because I I I'm
• 7:04
  only on the periphery of that. There are
• 7:06
  several of us in Civic Outlaws. If you'd
• 7:09
  like to uh we're looking for for donors,
• 7:11
  of course. We're looking for board
• 7:12
  members, of course, and uh if you have
• 7:17
  uh you want to open the window, raise
• 7:21
  the blinds, as it were on these
• 7:24
  overreach efforts, I I think you should
• 7:27
  join us. And I I'd love to to speak with
• 7:31
  you and get you involved. Um, we're
• 7:34
  we're we're already so busy.
• 7:39
  We're like uh you know, it may be calm
• 7:42
  on the surface, but underneath we're
• 7:44
  like a duck on the water and our our
• 7:46
  legs are paddling like crazy, right? Um,
• 7:49
  if you remember that metaphor I stole
• 7:52
  from somebody or metaphoric example, I
• 7:54
  suppose it would be. But I shared the
• 7:56
  following letter on June the 30th of
• 7:58
  2025. And I did it to the Supreme Court
• 8:03
  in one version to the to of Missouri to
• 8:06
  the U
• 8:08
  uh governor's office in another version
• 8:11
  and then to the Missouri bar. Okay. And
• 8:15
  the the letter went like this. I'm
• 8:17
  writing on behalf of International
• 8:19
  Flavor. I wrote on behalf of my my radio
• 8:21
  program, a nightly investigative
• 8:24
  broadcast on DAM radio in Lake Ozark,
• 8:27
  Missouri. We've launched a publicfacing
• 8:30
  sunshine law campaign demanding records
• 8:33
  from the Missouri Bar, Missouri Supreme
• 8:36
  Court, and the governor's office related
• 8:39
  to the highly secretive judicial
• 8:41
  selection committee, the fee dispute
• 8:44
  resolution program, and the client
• 8:47
  security fund. These entities
• 8:50
  collectively control who becomes a
• 8:53
  judge, who gets sanctioned,
• 8:56
  and who gets silenced, all behind closed
• 8:59
  doors.
• 9:01
  We believe these committees operate with
• 9:04
  no meaningful transparency,
• 9:07
  no public oversight, and in direct
• 9:10
  conflict with the public's right to
• 9:12
  know. We've issued formal sunshine law
• 9:15
  requests and are preparing litigation if
• 9:18
  they refuse to comply. This Thursday, we
• 9:21
  will air 90minute opening campaign uh
• 9:24
  exposing on on international flavor
• 9:26
  exposing the structure, process, and
• 9:28
  personalities behind Missou's
• 9:31
  selfprotecting
• 9:33
  judicial pipeline. We are seeking
• 9:37
  investigative collaborators, legal
• 9:39
  experts, journalists, whistleblowers,
• 9:42
  and any individual impacted by these
• 9:44
  opaque barrun systems. Please see the
• 9:47
  attached press release and uh that was
• 9:51
  sent to them. And we attached uh the
• 9:54
  following. Um Missouri Bar Association
• 9:58
  subject sunshine request committee
• 10:01
  membership and selection records records
• 10:06
  and it reads as follows.
• 10:13
  Subject sunshine request committee
• 10:16
  membership and selections. This request
• 10:18
  is submitted in preparation for public
• 10:21
  expose, an ongoing investigative
• 10:24
  reporting campaign by International
• 10:26
  Flavor, a legal and political broadcast
• 10:29
  at the time it was aired nightly. And so
• 10:30
  I talked about the nightly program.
• 10:32
  These records will be used in public
• 10:35
  facing reports and potential publication
• 10:37
  related to transparency and committee
• 10:39
  appointments within the Missouri legal
• 10:41
  system. Responses may be read on air or
• 10:45
  published. Please direct all responses
• 10:47
  to info@ internationalflavor.com
• 10:51
  and lived damradio.com.
• 10:54
  We know the process is stacked and
• 10:56
  secretive and we want to know how
• 10:58
  members of these various committees are
• 11:00
  selected. Not pie in the sky statements
• 11:03
  about how nonpartisan the process is
• 11:06
  designed to be, but the reality of how
• 11:08
  it works. For example, we alleged that
• 11:11
  the governor is actually the only
• 11:13
  potential party in the entire judicial
• 11:16
  selection process. This is the
• 11:18
  nonpartisan judicial selection with any
• 11:21
  ties to the public having been elected.
• 11:24
  But that is where any public input into
• 11:28
  judicial selection ends. There is none.
• 11:32
  The rest is completely lopsided in favor
• 11:36
  of shadowy committees appointed by the
• 11:38
  Missouri Bar. We further believe that
• 11:41
  the other programs have been used to
• 11:43
  control certain members of the bar or
• 11:45
  even destroy professional lives like
• 11:47
  mine using similar shadowy processes,
• 11:51
  sevenperson committees controlled by
• 11:54
  certain select members of the bar. As a
• 11:57
  result, we are requesting these records
• 12:00
  not just to see what exists, but to
• 12:02
  confirm what does not. We anticipate
• 12:05
  that many of the records being sought,
• 12:08
  such as competing candidate lists,
• 12:11
  internal me memos on how members of
• 12:14
  these committees are chosen, candidate
• 12:16
  scoring records, etc. may not have been
• 12:20
  preserved at all because secrecy is the
• 12:23
  foundation of how these committees
• 12:25
  operate. If you deny or ignore the
• 12:29
  request, you are simply proving the
• 12:31
  point of the investigation. The public
• 12:34
  deserves transparency and silence will
• 12:37
  be treated as an admission. That's what
• 12:39
  I do. They haven't answered since June.
• 12:42
  Uh the the governor answered, the uh uh
• 12:45
  state supreme court answered. So,
• 12:48
  pursuant to Missouri Sunshine Law RSMO
• 12:52
  chapter 610 and consistent with public
• 12:55
  transparency principles laid out in the
• 12:58
  Freedom of Information Act 5 USC 552. I
• 13:02
  formally request the following public
• 13:05
  records. a complete list of all
• 13:07
  individuals who have served on the
• 13:09
  Missouri Bars fee dispute resolution
• 13:12
  committee, client security fund
• 13:14
  committee, and any judicial appointment
• 13:17
  commission committees or panels
• 13:20
  influenced or advised by the bar from
• 13:22
  the year 2000 to the present. For each
• 13:25
  individual provide the committee members
• 13:28
  full date of service, the appointing
• 13:30
  authority who appointed him, eg bar,
• 13:33
  president, the board, internal committee
• 13:36
  that appointed such members, any
• 13:38
  advertising of any such committee
• 13:40
  vacancy. Any records of applications,
• 13:43
  solicitation of candidates, endorsement
• 13:46
  or internal advocacy regarding any such
• 13:49
  committee vacancy. Number three, a list
• 13:52
  of all candidates considered for each
• 13:54
  committee vacancy, including internal
• 13:56
  applicants or nominees, and any records
• 13:59
  of selection, recommendation, or
• 14:00
  rejection, including emails, meeting
• 14:03
  minutes or memoranda. All policies of we
• 14:07
  also requested all policies uh or
• 14:10
  written procedures governing how
• 14:11
  candidates are selected, evaluated, or
• 14:14
  appointed to these committees. If no
• 14:18
  such records exist, please confirm this
• 14:20
  in writing. If any part of this request
• 14:23
  is denied, cite each specific statutory
• 14:26
  exemption under RSMO610 and provide an
• 14:29
  index of withheld documents.
• 14:32
  All records are requested in electronic
• 14:34
  format. Please confirm receipt and
• 14:36
  provide an estimate production timeline.
• 14:41
  Zero
• 14:43
  response. They did not answer nothing.
• 14:47
  Okay, they they did nothing. And so, new
• 14:50
  requests will be going out this week
• 14:52
  from Civic Outlaws. The same thing.
• 14:55
  We'll copy the six-month ones. I already
• 14:57
  have the lawsuit drafted. I've just been
• 14:59
  waiting to hold it and trying to figure
• 15:01
  out my strategy, but uh I already know
• 15:04
  what my strategy is. We're going to have
• 15:06
  to sue these a-holes. And uh they they
• 15:10
  can then put up or shut up. They can
• 15:13
  answer whatever. They can take one of
• 15:15
  their u uh secretive
• 15:18
  appointment
• 15:20
  faces
• 15:22
  and
• 15:23
  uh you know the real power
• 15:26
  uh that is held within the bar uh by a
• 15:30
  select few and
• 15:34
  figure out how they're going to respond.
• 15:36
  And I'm not against that. I just want to
• 15:38
  be open. I just want to be able to um I
• 15:44
  don't know figure out something. They're
• 15:46
  secretive. They probably claim they're
• 15:48
  not a uh a government entity, but they
• 15:51
  are governmentf facing. They are
• 15:53
  regulatory. They have uh they're a quasi
• 15:56
  agency of the of the uh state of
• 15:59
  Missouri of the Missouri Supreme Court,
• 16:02
  but they have no oversight by the
• 16:03
  Missouri Supreme Court. They're their
• 16:05
  own independent
• 16:09
  group. In fact, it's the reverse of the
• 16:11
  Supreme Court. They select the members
• 16:16
  who will be recommended to the governor
• 16:19
  to say these three candidates. You have
• 16:22
  to pick from one of them. So, the
• 16:25
  governor doesn't even get appointed his
• 16:27
  own people. And they call this
• 16:28
  nonpartisan.
• 16:30
  And they did this because uh back in the
• 16:33
  30s uh when they discovered all this,
• 16:36
  they were worried that uh corruption
• 16:39
  was taking hold in Kansas City and in
• 16:42
  St. Louis and large mafioso types uh you
• 16:47
  know groups were controlling the whole
• 16:50
  state from either Kansas City or from
• 16:54
  St. Louis because the selection all came
• 16:57
  from there. What they did instead is
• 16:59
  they created this nonpartisan
• 17:02
  group of people and it's really the same
• 17:04
  thing as what they now control the whole
• 17:08
  system instead of St. Louis or now
• 17:11
  Jefferson City's corrupt group of
• 17:14
  a-holes, you know, that get to select
• 17:16
  all of this. There's some very powerful
• 17:18
  families in Jeff City, but they rule
• 17:20
  everything from behind the scenes,
• 17:22
  right? That's what they do. and uh they
• 17:25
  knew about it in Florida when I was
• 17:27
  trying to get my uh broker's license
• 17:29
  down there. I had to go uh and get them.
• 17:31
  And the funny part is, and this is
• 17:32
  something I have been against for a long
• 17:34
  time, is that uh you can't just go to
• 17:37
  another state and perhaps get a license.
• 17:40
  So if some guy decides to attack you as
• 17:42
  a lawyer anyway, if some guy decides to
• 17:45
  destroy you in Missouri,
• 17:48
  and he does, because that's exactly how
• 17:50
  it went down. He even told me he was
• 17:52
  going to do it. He said he was I'm going
• 17:54
  to destroy you. That's not his ex. He
• 17:56
  what he said was I'm going to see that
• 17:58
  you never practice law in the state of
• 17:59
  Missouri again. Well, it also means you
• 18:02
  never practice law anywhere else because
• 18:05
  in virtually every state there's a few
• 18:08
  uh uh different ones and but in
• 18:10
  virtually every state uh you cannot
• 18:13
  apply for lensure even until you clear
• 18:16
  up the one state. So one guy who who
• 18:20
  hates you in Missouri can screw you for
• 18:23
  life in any other place. And so I I
• 18:26
  advocate and always have I have
• 18:28
  advocated a uh because everybody knows
• 18:31
  it. All the lawyers know it too. If you
• 18:33
  want to go somewhere else, you got to
• 18:35
  kiss the ass of the people here just so
• 18:37
  you can uh be accepted somewhere else.
• 18:39
  And if you don't, they're going to send
• 18:42
  reams of paper about what an evil do you
• 18:44
  are and you don't get a you don't get a
• 18:46
  fair shot. and you never do. And uh it's
• 18:49
  nonsense because I haven't been given a
• 18:51
  fair shot. I'm not saying there wasn't
• 18:54
  uh things that I needed to be
• 18:55
  disciplined for, but I want the records
• 18:58
  of how these committees where they get
• 19:00
  their power and they won't share it. And
• 19:03
  of course, they won't share it. They
• 19:05
  have to maintain their power. the light
• 19:07
  will cause the cockroaches to scurry
• 19:11
  just like it has done in the alcohol and
• 19:14
  tobacco control fight that we've been
• 19:16
  getting in the middle of. And so, as I
• 19:19
  told you last Friday on Civic Outlaws, I
• 19:21
  have another um
• 19:25
  another article that I wrote after uh
• 19:27
  the events went like this. We wrote
• 19:30
  article number three, which is the
• 19:33
  article I shared with you on civic
• 19:34
  outlaws on Friday, and it went longer
• 19:38
  than I anticipated. And that article
• 19:43
  uh was sent specifically to each member
• 19:48
  of the committee for public safety, I
• 19:54
  think it's called. It could be, but but
• 19:55
  whatever it is, it's a law enforcement
• 19:57
  category. Okay.
• 19:59
  and we sent it out to them and then made
• 20:03
  a few well-appointed calls to uh reps
• 20:07
  reps in the area. I don't want to, you
• 20:09
  know, it's not to rat anybody out, but
• 20:11
  we want the light open, but you know, I
• 20:13
  also want to keep who we're working with
• 20:17
  a a little bit quiet because we are
• 20:18
  working with people and people are aware
• 20:20
  of of of these uh what do you call it?
• 20:25
  uh articles that I am sharing and each
• 20:27
  one of them is correct and if anybody
• 20:29
  wishes to uh school me on why they are
• 20:32
  not I'm perfectly happy to uh accept
• 20:35
  your your call at 573746820.
• 20:40
  Well, after the article, the fourth one
• 20:44
  went out. Well, no, no, no, that's not
• 20:45
  true. After the third one went out, uh I
• 20:49
  was sitting in the office and the phone
• 20:51
  rang and uh picked it up and it was a
• 20:54
  representative
• 20:56
  uh by the name of
• 20:59
  uh see if I can remember Benny Cook.
• 21:02
  Benny Cook is the rep. And he called the
• 21:04
  office.
• 21:06
  We got several calls from several
• 21:08
  different uh reps into the office asking
• 21:11
  to speak, asking for more details, blah
• 21:13
  blah blah. and cuz we sent it out to
• 21:15
  every single one of them and it's it's
• 21:18
  really a I mean the the the articles are
• 21:21
  act are very informative and and and I'm
• 21:24
  kind of you know breaking my arm patting
• 21:26
  myself on the back but they're correct.
• 21:28
  You know these articles are correct.
• 21:31
  They the the analysis in them is
• 21:33
  correct. What the ATC is doing is
• 21:36
  correct. My rant for five minutes on the
• 21:39
  Missouri bar 10 on the Missouri bar just
• 21:41
  now is correct. These are these are true
• 21:45
  issues. These aren't Samuel Traps uh
• 21:49
  spilt milk, you know, uh nonsense
• 21:52
  because I was disciplined in Missouri. I
• 21:55
  don't mind the discipline. I support the
• 21:59
  discipline. I think it was extreme, but
• 22:02
  I support it. I think that every lawyer
• 22:04
  in the state, well, not every lawyer,
• 22:07
  government lawyers are untouchable. They
• 22:09
  don't aren't even subject to any rules.
• 22:12
  They got nothing. And nobody can touch
• 22:15
  them. You can't go into the government
• 22:17
  and say and try to get a lawyer for
• 22:19
  something, you know, good luck. And uh
• 22:22
  but the solo practitioner or the small
• 22:25
  firm guy is disproportionately targeted
• 22:28
  because large firms, they're they're
• 22:30
  golden, too. you know, they have schools
• 22:32
  of accountants and they've got all the
• 22:34
  things that uh a smaller law firm
• 22:37
  doesn't have to worry about. And if
• 22:38
  somebody chooses to target you, they
• 22:41
  will like Sam Phillips from the uh
• 22:44
  office of chief disciplinary can coun
• 22:46
  counsel did to me. He targeted me
• 22:49
  specifically. He said, "I'm going to
• 22:51
  take you down." It was because, in my
• 22:54
  opinion, I wouldn't help him go after
• 22:56
  Greg Williams, a lawyer at the lake. And
• 22:59
  I and I told him where he could put it.
• 23:01
  And uh he did not like that. And so he
• 23:04
  chose to make an example of me. Kiss the
• 23:08
  ass of the Missouri bar or will Sam trap
• 23:11
  you. You know, we'll Sam trap you. Watch
• 23:13
  out. You know, so that's exactly what
• 23:15
  they do. And that's what the ATC does.
• 23:18
  That's what bureaucratic overreach does.
• 23:20
  And so these articles when we sent it
• 23:22
  out, we got a call from a guy named um
• 23:25
  Benny Cook who's up at the up at the
• 23:28
  capital. He's a state rep and I forget
• 23:30
  which district. He's down south
• 23:31
  somewhere. Um Texas County maybe, I
• 23:34
  don't remember, but he but he's down
• 23:35
  there. He he's down there in uh south
• 23:38
  southern Missouri.
• 23:40
  And he happens to be law enforcement. I
• 23:42
  looked him up a little bit afterward.
• 23:43
  And and it was kind of a weird call
• 23:45
  because it wasn't me that sent the sent
• 23:48
  my article to everyone, but I wrote the
• 23:51
  article and we have nothing to hide. So,
• 23:53
  he called asking for the guy who sent
• 23:54
  him the letter and said, you know, I
• 23:57
  want to talk to him. Uh, and I said,
• 23:59
  "Well, um, he's not here right now. He
• 24:02
  had a somewhere to go." And, uh, but I'm
• 24:07
  the guy who wrote the letter. I'd be
• 24:09
  happy to or wrote the article. I would
• 24:11
  be happy to talk to you. And he, uh,
• 24:15
  he clearly didn't want to talk to me.
• 24:18
  Let's put it that way. He was not
• 24:20
  interested in talking to me. And it was
• 24:22
  really kind of odd. Uh if you're calling
• 24:25
  about the article and he he asked a
• 24:27
  question and said something like um um
• 24:29
  and I'm you know paraphrasing of course
• 24:31
  I did I don't record them or nothing but
• 24:34
  uh he um when he called up he said well
• 24:37
  is this about any current legislation on
• 24:41
  the floor? Is this about anything you
• 24:44
  know that's going on? And he said uh I
• 24:47
  said I said Calvin will want well now
• 24:50
  I've ratted him out but uh uh he's
• 24:52
  another member of our uh of our board
• 24:54
  here at Civic Outlaws. And I said he's
• 24:56
  he that's who sent these letters all
• 24:58
  out. And he said
• 25:01
  I said well what what should I tell tell
• 25:03
  him this is about and he said well uh I
• 25:07
  was just wondering if the article was in
• 25:09
  reference to any particular effort on
• 25:12
  the floor or anything like that. And uh
• 25:15
  he said, "But I said,"Well, I I'd be
• 25:17
  happy to talk to you about that stuff."
• 25:19
  And um you know, and I wrote the letter,
• 25:21
  so you know, he goes, "No, no, no. I'll
• 25:24
  I'll wait." And it was really kind of a
• 25:26
  a weird deal. So I took his number um to
• 25:30
  took a message and let him go. Well,
• 25:33
  immediately
• 25:35
  I started looking. We started looking if
• 25:37
  there was a bill out on the floor of the
• 25:39
  house. And come to find out, there is.
• 25:42
  And it's a bill sponsored by Benny Cook
• 25:45
  and the the article's out there. And you
• 25:48
  know, um I I asked around about him.
• 25:51
  Everybody said he's a great guy, you
• 25:52
  know, he he's he's good and you know,
• 25:54
  and he's he's a decent guy. I'm I'm
• 25:57
  assuming that's the case. I got nothing
• 25:58
  against man. You know, I I don't even
• 26:01
  know him, but uh apparently he's he's
• 26:03
  well thought of and well respected in
• 26:05
  the uh in the uh House of
• 26:08
  Representatives, which is great. You
• 26:09
  know, I'm for that. But he had a bill
• 26:11
  out there and this bill is uh a bill uh
• 26:16
  let's see I got the number here because
• 26:18
  I immediately wrote an article on this
• 26:21
  bill and shared it like a day later. I
• 26:23
  was on a tear after reading this bill
• 26:26
  because of what it did. And it's uh uh
• 26:29
  House Bill 2378.
• 26:33
  And so I wrote an article. I wrote an
• 26:36
  article and I'm going to share that
• 26:38
  article with you. But first, I am going
• 26:41
  to go take care of some uh coffee
• 26:44
  business and give a little bit of a
• 26:46
  break. But in after this wonderful song
• 26:49
  plays and this song is only um it's not
• 26:53
  very long at all. 3 minutes and 57
• 26:56
  seconds. I'm going to share it with you.
• 26:58
  But I really like this type of music and
• 27:01
  I like having this on in the background
• 27:03
  uh whilst I'm at work. And this one is
• 27:05
  called Magna
• 27:07
  and the song is called Rasha. And uh I
• 27:11
  like this type of music and I hope that
• 27:14
  you do too.
• 27:48
  Heat. Heat.
• 27:56
  Heat.
• 28:40
  Yeah.
• 28:43
  Heat.
• 28:55
  Be
• 29:01
  my
• 29:12
  lucky We miss your body.
• 29:39
  Heat. Heat.
• 30:10
  Oh,
• 30:19
  Yeah.
• 30:24
  Heat.
• 30:48
  Why
• 31:09
  Alrighty then. That was Magnacanta and
• 31:13
  the song is Rasha. And uh I've always
• 31:16
  liked that sort of music. I I there's
• 31:18
  another one that I want to find from
• 31:19
  Mongolian throat music, but I got to
• 31:21
  find the specific stuff. You got to be
• 31:23
  uh selective when you get that. And uh
• 31:25
  but I like Mongolian throat music. So, I
• 31:28
  had to get some readers cuz I can't uh
• 31:30
  read without them. And I turned on the
• 31:32
  the lights in here cuz it was dark and
• 31:33
  so it's even worse. I have horrible
• 31:35
  eyesight and uh uh well, I don't have
• 31:38
  horrible eyesight. I have decent
• 31:39
  eyesight, but I got floaters in my eyes.
• 31:41
  It's nonsense. You know, sometimes you
• 31:43
  think you see a spider somewhere, but
• 31:45
  it's not. your eyeballs being uh uh uh
• 31:48
  all jacked up like mine. So, at any
• 31:50
  rate, before our beautiful music break,
• 31:53
  uh we were speaking about or I was
• 31:54
  speaking about uh Venny Cook, the phone
• 31:58
  call he made and the uh resulting
• 32:01
  afterwards of that, what I did, and so
• 32:04
  here's what I did. I went and I checked
• 32:06
  uh the legislative tracking and went and
• 32:09
  looked through it and found what do you
• 32:11
  know? I found a bill being sponsored by
• 32:13
  Benny Cook and I saw it and it was uh
• 32:18
  basically what the and I didn't pull a
• 32:20
  copy of it. I meant to, but I didn't
• 32:21
  have time in my little break to go and
• 32:23
  print a copy cuz I thought it would be
• 32:25
  nice to have a copy. But it's House Bill
• 32:27
  House Bill 2378.
• 32:30
  And I'm going to share with you an
• 32:32
  article on House Bill 2378 that I wrote
• 32:35
  immediately. And uh I I went I went in
• 32:38
  and sat down a couple hours later came
• 32:39
  up with this article and uh it's it's uh
• 32:43
  a thought process that I had that I put
• 32:46
  in to motion and I I I tell you what I'm
• 32:51
  I'm against government creep at all
• 32:53
  levels and whether it's done by a uh an
• 32:56
  agency or a bureaucrat. And remember I
• 33:00
  think bureaucrat's a bad word.
• 33:02
  Administrator is one thing. Bureaucrat
• 33:04
  no quite another. And uh uh you know,
• 33:07
  you can honor the people who do their
• 33:08
  jobs, and I do, but the people that love
• 33:12
  the overreach, love the part that
• 33:14
  they're building more power is, uh,
• 33:19
  you know, is
• 33:21
  irritating to me. I don't like it. And I
• 33:24
  I think those people should be exposed.
• 33:27
  And uh I I I just don't like it. Um but
• 33:31
  I saw while while I was on the break,
• 33:33
  too. Well, no. I'm not going to change
• 33:35
  topics because that'll make me go
• 33:36
  somewhere else and I'm not going to. But
• 33:38
  the damn TVs are on and I saw something
• 33:40
  that uh that uh reminded me of another
• 33:43
  topic I want to take. So, what I'm going
• 33:44
  to share with you is an article that I
• 33:47
  wrote last week and I shared with you
• 33:49
  article 3. So, on Friday, I said I was
• 33:51
  going to try to get to both of them, but
• 33:52
  they're too long. Uh the articles are
• 33:55
  too long and and they're hard to
• 33:56
  paraphrase, but I'm going to try to
• 33:58
  because I really don't like the reading
• 33:59
  part. Um I don't think it's as smooth. I
• 34:02
  don't think it's as right. I can't see
• 34:04
  very well anyway and trying to read
• 34:06
  things on the air is a frustration of
• 34:08
  mine. But I'm going to share with you an
• 34:10
  article that I wrote. It's called
• 34:12
  HB2378's
• 34:14
  quiet legislative creep. The upgrade of
• 34:18
  alcohol tobacco control into a police
• 34:21
  force. Okay. What have I been talking
• 34:23
  about in the last three articles where
• 34:26
  these uh agents
• 34:30
  licensing agents all they are are
• 34:34
  licensing agents and I don't mean all
• 34:36
  they it's not a bad thing you know it's
• 34:38
  now they're all turning into bureaucrats
• 34:40
  and seizing power they haven't been
• 34:42
  given so I believe there's something
• 34:44
  behind the scenes to increase that power
• 34:47
  so that people like me shut up but I
• 34:50
  don't think that
• 34:52
  Licensing agents should become
• 34:55
  policemen. They should be have arrest
• 34:58
  authority because it takes you out of
• 35:00
  the administrative licensing process and
• 35:03
  into law enforcement where they all wish
• 35:06
  they were anyway. And we talked about
• 35:09
  them identifying themselves as a police
• 35:12
  department. Nonsense. And uh they don't
• 35:15
  have the authority to do that, but they
• 35:17
  have been for quite a few years now.
• 35:20
  denying us uh any reasonable request at
• 35:24
  Sunshine uh openness and I I sent some
• 35:27
  in my own name yesterday which I'll uh
• 35:30
  share with you also but uh uh if I can
• 35:33
  and I think I can on my phone but I
• 35:35
  better get trucking or I'll never get
• 35:37
  through this article. Uh let's see. So
• 35:41
  let's talk about what happened in in uh
• 35:44
  House Bill 2378. And basically what it
• 35:47
  says was one line they want to add to
• 35:50
  311.630
• 35:52
  and uh 311.630 is the authority of an
• 35:55
  investigator and it tells what they can
• 35:57
  do and what they you know things that
• 35:59
  they have the right to do and they can
• 36:00
  arrest for violations of 311
• 36:04
  or 407 the specific
• 36:09
  statutes that give them uh uh power
• 36:13
  under wrongdoing. they can serve
• 36:15
  subpoenas and stuff, but it's very very
• 36:18
  limited in, uh, 311.630.
• 36:22
  And so, uh, Benny Cook wanted to expand
• 36:27
  that, and I'm interested in how that
• 36:30
  came out. So, I wrote sunshine requests
• 36:32
  to his office yesterday and to the ATC
• 36:35
  yesterday asking for any communication
• 36:38
  between the two because I'm interested.
• 36:41
  And uh I think it should be uh you know,
• 36:44
  turn on the lights. And if there are no
• 36:46
  uh cockroaches, they won't scurry, will
• 36:48
  they? If you turn on the lights and
• 36:50
  everything is on the up and up, you got
• 36:52
  nothing to worry about. And so, life is
• 36:54
  good, right? And Sam's just asking a
• 36:56
  question that needs to be asked. I'm
• 36:59
  not, you know, I don't want to take
• 37:00
  anybody down, you know. I'm not trying
• 37:02
  to do that. I'm trying to make
• 37:04
  government better. That's what I'm
• 37:06
  trying to do. And I'm trying to make
• 37:07
  people or get people to understand that
• 37:10
  as an American, I have the right to do
• 37:12
  so. And that I I I just want answers.
• 37:16
  And everybody wants answers, but there
• 37:18
  are specific ways you have to go get
• 37:19
  these answers. And I'm following those
• 37:22
  rules. Of course, the Missouri bar, they
• 37:25
  just don't answer. And they're waiting
• 37:27
  for me to sue them. and and I will, but
• 37:29
  I'm going to try that avenue one more
• 37:31
  time before I do sue and uh you know,
• 37:34
  hopefully with a little more vocal, you
• 37:36
  know, on on on this program and
• 37:38
  everywhere else because what I'm doing
• 37:39
  is correct and civic outlaws exists to
• 37:42
  attack these type of things to to attack
• 37:45
  the bureaucrat to attack laws that come
• 37:48
  up and I want information so that I can
• 37:50
  find out, you know, as a as a public
• 37:54
  prosecutor of whatever whether or not
• 37:56
  it's uh uh you know, correct or if it's
• 38:02
  full of cockroaches. We're going to find
• 38:03
  out, right? So, here's the article.
• 38:07
  House Bill 2378, quiet legislative
• 38:10
  creep, the upgrade of alcohol, tobacco
• 38:12
  control, and police department. In
• 38:13
  article 3, I laid out a problem Missouri
• 38:15
  has been pretending it doesn't have.
• 38:17
  Alcohol and tobacco control is supposed
• 38:19
  to be a licensing regulator. Yet, it has
• 38:22
  steadily adopted the posture and
• 38:23
  practice of a police unit. badges,
• 38:26
  undercover tactics, secret
• 38:28
  investigations, and police style
• 38:30
  reporting while still enjoying the
• 38:33
  political cover of we're just
• 38:34
  administrators.
• 38:36
  Now, House Bill 23788
• 38:39
  turns that problem from cultural drift
• 38:42
  into a legislative choice. If an agency
• 38:45
  already talks and walks like a police
• 38:47
  unit inside a licensing framework, the
• 38:49
  next move is predictable. expand
• 38:52
  authority,
• 38:54
  statutory authority in a way that sounds
• 38:56
  reasonable, especially if you bury it
• 38:58
  inside some kind of emergency language.
• 39:01
  And that's how a licensing bureau
• 39:03
  becomes a police force in practice. One
• 39:05
  amendment at a time until one day
• 39:08
  everybody shrugs and says, "Well, we've
• 39:10
  always done it that way." Uh, this
• 39:13
  article is pretty blunt on purpose. It
• 39:15
  is not a personal attack, but it's a
• 39:17
  demand for accountability. If someone
• 39:19
  wants to upgrade a regulator into a
• 39:21
  broad police actor, they should be able
• 39:23
  to defend that choice in the daylight
• 39:25
  with facts, limits, and oversight, not
• 39:28
  with vague language and a wink. The
• 39:30
  history box, how Missouri got
• 39:33
  postlicensed
• 39:35
  and regulator with guns. 1934, Missouri
• 39:39
  established the post prohibition era
• 39:42
  liquor control system in 1934 is the
• 39:45
  first uh version. I suppose you'd call
• 39:49
  it of alcohol tobacco control. 1974
• 39:52
  liquor control was reorganized under and
• 39:56
  into the department of public safety. So
• 39:59
  they're subject to the department of
• 40:00
  public safety as 74 50 years 52 years
• 40:05
  whatever. In 1988
• 40:08
  Missouri established peace officer
• 40:11
  standards and training post commission.
• 40:13
  This is how officers get trained. And in
• 40:16
  1995,
• 40:18
  Missouri moved liquor control agents
• 40:21
  into the post world,
• 40:25
  making postcertification for agents at
• 40:28
  the discretion of the head of ATC,
• 40:32
  which I I think this is I think that is
• 40:35
  a horrible mistake right there because
• 40:37
  you've taken them out of administration
• 40:40
  even there, and turned them arguably
• 40:42
  into law enforcement for and requiring
• 40:45
  postcertification. These are police
• 40:47
  officers by training and so they want to
• 40:50
  be police officers but they're limited
• 40:52
  in an administrative arm of the
• 40:54
  government which is where they are. So
• 40:56
  in the early 2000s, the division of um
• 41:00
  liquor control, whatever it was called,
• 41:02
  became alcohol and tobacco control. And
• 41:05
  the statutory framework in chapter 311
• 41:08
  tied peace officer ATC status to holding
• 41:11
  a valid peace officer license under
• 41:13
  Missouri's chapter 590 which is the
• 41:16
  postcertification thing with the
• 41:18
  supervisor of ATC
• 41:21
  selecting or designating which employees
• 41:24
  are to be police officers or peace
• 41:27
  officers or require postcertification.
• 41:31
  Now, they have basically said all of
• 41:35
  them need to be. They've put them, but
• 41:37
  that's not what the statute reads. The
• 41:38
  statute says select or or certain or
• 41:42
  discretionary according to the
• 41:44
  discretion of the ATC. Well, the
• 41:46
  discretion is, of course, we want all of
• 41:47
  them to be post-certified. And when they
• 41:50
  get there, they all want to be police
• 41:51
  officers. They don't want to be
• 41:52
  licensing agents. They want to be
• 41:54
  undercover cops. They want to wear their
• 41:56
  SWAT stuff. You know, this is what they
• 41:57
  really want to do. And so, we turn them
• 41:59
  into a police department. Anyway, uh the
• 42:01
  article continues, "This matters because
• 42:03
  it proves one simple point.
• 42:05
  Postllicensed regulatory agent isn't
• 42:08
  some unavoidable relic from the 30s,
• 42:11
  which kind of I thought it was when I
• 42:13
  started researching." It's like, well,
• 42:15
  you know, back then there's mafia.
• 42:17
  There's all this stuff that you're
• 42:18
  changing in Missouri. In Kansas City,
• 42:20
  and St. Louis, you're changing judicial
• 42:22
  structure so that uh uh you know, the
• 42:25
  the mafia doesn't run everything, you
• 42:28
  know, from one city or the other. Um,
• 42:30
  and that's how the ATC ended up with
• 42:32
  these weapons stuff. But that's not
• 42:33
  true. The weapons just keeps growing
• 42:35
  over time, right? They all carry
• 42:37
  weapons. Why is a licensing regulator
• 42:39
  carrying a weapon? I mean, that's not
• 42:42
  threatening, is it? No, no, no. Anyway,
• 42:45
  modern policy choices should come with
• 42:47
  modern oversight. Uh, what the law says
• 42:49
  today and why the police posture isn't
• 42:52
  imaginary. Missouri's current statute
• 42:54
  declares the ATC supervisor and whatever
• 42:57
  employees the supervisor selects as
• 42:59
  peace officers with the full power and
• 43:02
  authority to make arrest and search and
• 43:04
  seizures only.
• 43:06
  Arrest, search and seizures only for
• 43:09
  violation of Missouri liquor laws,
• 43:11
  chapter 311 and certain tobacco laws
• 43:15
  section 40 or chapter 407 924 to 934.
• 43:20
  The statute also requires those
• 43:22
  designated officers to hold a valid
• 43:25
  peace officer license under 590. That so
• 43:27
  the that that only matters that
• 43:30
  designates the lane of what they are
• 43:33
  saying. It's the legislators saying you
• 43:35
  are not general police. You are not
• 43:37
  specialized enforcement actors tied to a
• 43:40
  specific law enforcement mission. The
• 43:43
  same statute requires credentials and a
• 43:45
  special badge for those peace officers
• 43:47
  and makes their name a matter of public
• 43:49
  record. That is not the language of a
• 43:52
  mere licensing clerk. It's the language
• 43:54
  of an armed credentialed enforcement
• 43:56
  unit. So when people say why are they
• 43:59
  acting like police, the answer is
• 44:01
  because the statute already built police
• 44:04
  posture into the licensing agency. The
• 44:06
  question is whether Missouri should
• 44:08
  expand that posture into a broader
• 44:10
  police authority. Frankly, I think it
• 44:12
  should be taken away and they ought to
• 44:14
  be doing only licensing issues, but
• 44:16
  we'll continue. Article has several
• 44:18
  pages and I want to make sure to get
• 44:19
  through them all. House Bill 2378 adds a
• 44:22
  new trigger that blows a hole in the
• 44:24
  lane line. It authorizes, this is what
• 44:26
  Benny uh almost said Benny Hill, Benny
• 44:30
  Cook is trying to do. It authorizes ATC
• 44:33
  officers to make arrests and perform
• 44:36
  search and seizure when exigent
• 44:39
  circumstances exist, presenting an
• 44:42
  immediate threat of bodily harm. The
• 44:44
  bill adds similar authority for state
• 44:46
  fire marshals.
• 44:49
  Why are fire marshals going to be police
• 44:51
  officers and armed and arresting people?
• 44:53
  Uh, now I'm I'm much more for that if
• 44:56
  you're inspecting an arson or something
• 44:58
  like that and you find something out.
• 45:00
  And I'm I'm still against it. I don't
• 45:02
  like it. I think if you got a police
• 45:04
  issue, call it a police department. The
• 45:06
  fire marshal doesn't have any regulation
• 45:08
  of police stuff either, just like ATC
• 45:11
  does not, and they're an administrative.
• 45:12
  And it's an important distinction, which
• 45:14
  we're going to get to and uh uh explain
• 45:16
  to you.
• 45:18
  So, even the public summaries of the
• 45:20
  bill describe these ATC employees
• 45:22
  already as police officers. That wording
• 45:25
  alone should make the lawmakers pause
• 45:28
  before voting for this bill. Unless you
• 45:31
  are comfortable with an agency becoming
• 45:33
  a police unit by statute instead of only
• 45:36
  in practice like it was before. They
• 45:38
  just they've taken all these authorities
• 45:41
  and now through a backdoor they're
• 45:43
  trying to actually cover it and put it
• 45:45
  into a legislative document. Uh so the
• 45:47
  bill will be sold as common sense. Of
• 45:51
  course, a postcertified officer should
• 45:53
  be able to act as an officer in an
• 45:56
  emergency. Fine. Emergencies exist. The
• 45:59
  question is not whether someone can act.
• 46:02
  The question is who acts under what
• 46:05
  limits, with what oversight, and with
• 46:07
  what remedies when that power is abused.
• 46:10
  That isn't put there. All it says is
• 46:13
  exigent circumstances. That's not a
• 46:15
  measuring stick. It's a permission slip.
• 46:18
  It's elastic. It expands when pressure
• 46:21
  is applied and once it's in the statute,
• 46:24
  it will be used because statutes are
• 46:28
  written for use.
• 46:30
  Why I'm skeptical about the timing of
• 46:33
  this uh document or of this amendment
• 46:37
  and why lawmakers should be too. I'm not
• 46:40
  curious about the timing of this bill. I
• 46:43
  am skeptical, not because I claim to
• 46:45
  know the sponsor's motive, but because
• 46:47
  the timing is too convenient to ignore.
• 46:50
  For months, Missouri's public
• 46:51
  conversation has been moving in the
• 46:53
  opposite directions. Agencies do not get
• 46:56
  to expand their own authority by
• 46:57
  interpreting statutes into new powers.
• 46:59
  The courts are not supposed to rubber
• 47:02
  spa stamp agency creativity as though
• 47:05
  regulators themselves are lawmakers.
• 47:07
  Missouri went even further than most
• 47:09
  states. And I'm talking about after uh
• 47:12
  uh Loper Bright overturned the Chevron
• 47:14
  doctrine. Its administrative review
• 47:16
  statute now expressly tells courts not
• 47:19
  to defer to agency interpretation and to
• 47:22
  decide any remaining doubt in favor of
• 47:25
  limiting agency power and maximizing
• 47:28
  individual le liberty. At the federal
• 47:31
  level, the same tide has been running.
• 47:33
  The US Supreme Court decision in Loper
• 47:35
  Brightite rejected Chevron style
• 47:37
  judicial deference and reaffirmed that
• 47:39
  judges not agencies say what the law
• 47:42
  means and Missouri statute 536.140
• 47:46
  and the federal trend point in the same
• 47:49
  direction less agencies self-ruule more
• 47:52
  judicial control so against that
• 47:54
  backdrop a bill that shifts the power
• 47:56
  from statutory limits to officer
• 47:59
  discretion exigent circumstances is uh
• 48:04
  doesn't read like a coincidence, at
• 48:06
  least to me. It reads like adaptation.
• 48:09
  I'm not claiming that I know who asked
• 48:11
  for this, but I want to find out why.
• 48:13
  Thus, the Sunshine Law request that went
• 48:15
  out yesterday. I am saying the timing
• 48:18
  raises an obvious question. What problem
• 48:20
  is this bill really trying to solve and
• 48:24
  for whose benefit? Sure isn't the
• 48:27
  benefit of the license holder. So, from
• 48:29
  judges interpreting statutes to officers
• 48:31
  declaring emergencies, that's what this
• 48:34
  bill will do. Post amendment to RSMO
• 48:36
  536.140, which was effective August 28th
• 48:40
  to 2025, Missouri's administrative law
• 48:42
  framework, is supposed to keep judges in
• 48:45
  the driver's seat on what law means. The
• 48:48
  whole point of judicial review is to
• 48:50
  prevent agencies from being
• 48:53
  investigator, prosecutor, judge, and
• 48:56
  jury over the scope of their own power.
• 48:58
  There's got to be some kind of
• 49:00
  oversight. And there isn't. There's
• 49:02
  none.
• 49:03
  But a bill like this changes that
• 49:05
  battlefield entirely. Instead of an
• 49:07
  agency having to justify its
• 49:09
  interpretation of a statute in court,
• 49:12
  the bill hands the officer a
• 49:14
  discretionary trigger and turns legal
• 49:17
  meaning into a factual claim by the
• 49:19
  officer. I felt it was an emergency. So
• 49:22
  if he thought it's an emergency, he can
• 49:24
  do whatever he wants.
• 49:27
  If this bill passes, it will be because
• 49:30
  the legislature intends to provide a
• 49:33
  licensing regulator with police
• 49:35
  enforcement discretion. Once the statute
• 49:38
  is rewritten that way, the court is no
• 49:40
  longer reviewing agency interpretation
• 49:42
  so much as it is reviewing the officer's
• 49:45
  discretion. Was it within his discretion
• 49:47
  to act? That is a dramatic shift about
• 49:50
  who controls the outcome. Especially
• 49:53
  because emergency policing is the kind
• 49:55
  of discretion courts routinely hesitate
• 49:59
  to second guessess after the fact. I
• 50:01
  wasn't there. If it appeared like an
• 50:03
  emergency to him, well, you know, it was
• 50:05
  within his discretion and therefore you
• 50:08
  don't get to sue him because it's a
• 50:10
  discretionary matter, right? So he can
• 50:12
  go arrest he can go arrest a uh you know
• 50:16
  in the examples I gave a a speeder
• 50:19
  someone who is speeding if he goes in
• 50:21
  and claims some emergency he can arrest
• 50:23
  him put him in jail and then what I
• 50:26
  don't know who he reports to but this is
• 50:27
  how you turn a lane limited regulator
• 50:30
  into a roaming police actor without ever
• 50:33
  having to admit that you did so. And uh
• 50:36
  I I really question why this is. What
• 50:38
  bothers me the most is how conveniently
• 50:41
  this bill changes who gets to decide
• 50:44
  that question. We've been insisting that
• 50:46
  agencies don't get to expand their own
• 50:48
  power by interpretation and that courts
• 50:51
  are supposed to enforce those limits.
• 50:53
  Then this appears and effectively turns
• 50:55
  the question into did the officer say it
• 50:57
  was an emergency or not. That is not
• 51:00
  oversight. That's outsourcing legal
• 51:03
  meaning to an onseen discretion call
• 51:06
  with no oversight of any kind. Today,
• 51:09
  the lane is pretty clear. Authority is
• 51:11
  tied to a specific statute and specific
• 51:14
  regulatory purpose, alcohol, tobacco.
• 51:18
  This bill adds a broad subjective
• 51:21
  permission slip to operate outside that
• 51:25
  line whenever the officer says the right
• 51:27
  words. If you can reframe an encounter
• 51:30
  as exigent, you can always reach back in
• 51:33
  your pocket and grab the police power.
• 51:35
  And the old licensing only lane limit
• 51:38
  stops being any sort of limit at all.
• 51:41
  And why is this important? Uh immunity,
• 51:44
  why this bill is an accountability
• 51:46
  vacuum waiting to happen. And
• 51:48
  legislators need to understand this. And
• 51:50
  and you know, it sounds great on its
• 51:53
  face. Oh, gee, these officers, if an
• 51:55
  emergency exists, they got to arrest
• 51:56
  somebody. They they're postcertified
• 51:59
  anyway. Well, I wonder why in the hell
• 52:00
  they're post-certified. They don't need
• 52:02
  to be to regulate a license. They don't
• 52:04
  need to carry a weapon. They don't need
• 52:05
  to go undercover. I mean, this is
• 52:07
  nonsense. Um, and this is uh the
• 52:10
  accountability vacuum waiting to happen.
• 52:12
  If you want to understand what House
• 52:13
  Bill 2378 will do in real life, stop
• 52:17
  thinking like a legislator reading a
• 52:19
  bill and start thinking like a citizen
• 52:21
  calling a lawyer after the damage is
• 52:23
  already done. At the federal level,
• 52:26
  something called qualified immunity
• 52:28
  heavily protects discretionary on the
• 52:30
  spot judgment calls unless a right was
• 52:33
  clearly established in a very specific
• 52:35
  way. At the Missouri level, official
• 52:38
  immunity shields discretionary acts
• 52:40
  unless you can prove something like bad
• 52:42
  faith or malice. Threat assessment,
• 52:45
  emergency decision, and onseen arrests
• 52:48
  are textbook discretionary. So, House
• 52:50
  Bill 2378 doesn't just expand authority.
• 52:53
  It expands authority inside a legal
• 52:55
  environment that already tends to
• 52:57
  forgive a reasonable officer on the
• 52:59
  scene perception and punishes citizens
• 53:02
  for not being able to disprove those
• 53:04
  things. When a statute itself authorizes
• 53:07
  action based on immediate threat, it
• 53:10
  supplies the exact vocabulary that later
• 53:13
  becomes a defense. I acted reasonably.
• 53:16
  legislature told me I could and I
• 53:19
  thought it might be an emergency or
• 53:22
  dangerous.
• 53:23
  What is an emergency or dangerous? While
• 53:26
  you're investigating a liquor license or
• 53:29
  you're verifying whether someone has
• 53:31
  their license up a licensing and why
• 53:34
  don't we do it for any other business? I
• 53:37
  mean, geez, if a doctor if a why why
• 53:40
  aren't uh medical uh doctors in, you
• 53:44
  know, under armed threat, you know, it's
• 53:47
  only bars. It's only people that have a
• 53:49
  liquor license. Why is that? Makes no
• 53:52
  sense. You can call the police if you
• 53:54
  think there's something wrong. Why in
• 53:55
  the world do you need to be able to
• 53:57
  arrest? Well, it's because they want to
• 53:58
  get out of this. Well, we can't arrest
• 54:00
  cuz it's only 311. But if you give it to
• 54:02
  them like Benny Cook wanted to do of all
• 54:04
  cases, they can arrest on anything. But
• 54:06
  that's a huge problem as it goes
• 54:08
  further. In practice, this bill takes
• 54:11
  decision-making power out of the courts
• 54:13
  and hands it to the officer on the
• 54:15
  scene.
• 54:17
  So later lawsuits become less about
• 54:19
  whether the agency extended its
• 54:21
  statutory lane and more about whether
• 54:23
  the officer's asserted perception was
• 54:26
  reasonable. It's a very low
• 54:28
  accountability standard and it's exactly
• 54:30
  how discretionary power becomes durable
• 54:33
  power. Now, let's talk about the fourth
• 54:35
  amendment and the end run around this
• 54:37
  because this is huge. This is a big
• 54:40
  deal. The article that I shared with you
• 54:42
  uh on Friday told why and uh and I'll
• 54:46
  paraphrase some of that, but I really
• 54:48
  want to make sure we get through this
• 54:49
  article today. So, uh there's another
• 54:51
  problem that should alarm anyone who
• 54:53
  worries about Fourth Amendment and takes
• 54:55
  it seriously. On virtually every
• 54:57
  occasion, a licensing agent enters a
• 54:59
  licensing premise lawfully for
• 55:02
  regulatory reasons. Check a posted
• 55:05
  license, verify age verification
• 55:08
  practice, observe compliance in public
• 55:11
  areas, review required records. That
• 55:13
  administrative access is not the same
• 55:17
  thing as probable cause for a criminal
• 55:20
  action. But if you combine
• 55:23
  administrative access with a broad
• 55:25
  emergency arrest, search and seizure
• 55:27
  hook like this bill is trying to do, you
• 55:30
  get an end run around normal police
• 55:33
  investigation warrant culture. They're
• 55:36
  above that. They're suddenly above
• 55:38
  something's going on, you need a warrant
• 55:40
  to I don't need a warrant. All I got to
• 55:42
  do is claim it's an emergency while I'm
• 55:44
  in there. Under this new proposed model,
• 55:46
  the officer would already be legal
• 55:48
  legally present in the establishment
• 55:50
  under ai defined regulatory mission. But
• 55:52
  the bill supplies a fast pivot into
• 55:55
  police action based on any claimed
• 55:58
  exigency or emergency, real or
• 56:01
  imaginary. In real life, that's a
• 56:03
  warrant avoidance mechanism. You don't
• 56:05
  have to satisfy normal criminal
• 56:08
  procedure if you can reccharacterize
• 56:11
  that situation as an immediate threat or
• 56:14
  an emergency or an exit circumstance and
• 56:17
  act first. Let's be clear, House Bill
• 56:19
  2378 doesn't repeal the Fourth
• 56:22
  Amendment. Courts can still suppress
• 56:25
  evidence, but it sure as hell is an end
• 56:27
  run around if he's already there
• 56:29
  legally, isn't it? So, some of the
• 56:31
  examples I shared with you last week
• 56:33
  where the officer went in as a spy, left
• 56:36
  his ID outside, he w he went into that
• 56:40
  investigating a crime. He should have
• 56:42
  had a warrant in that example. If he's
• 56:45
  going in on the somebody because he even
• 56:48
  said it in his report, somebody reported
• 56:50
  X. He didn't bother to get a warrant. He
• 56:52
  knew he didn't need to. He could go in
• 56:54
  and do it, but he couldn't arrest
• 56:55
  anybody if he found anything because he
• 56:57
  didn't have that power. he would had to
• 56:59
  come out, tell a real cop what was going
• 57:01
  on and invite that cop in to uh check
• 57:03
  out what he did. But the even the
• 57:05
  investigation is a breach of the fourth
• 57:07
  amendment. Right? That's how
• 57:09
  constitutional guard rails get eroded in
• 57:11
  practice. Not by abolishing rights on
• 57:14
  paper, but by designing a system that
• 57:16
  makes rights expensive to enforce and
• 57:19
  very easy for the officer to bypass. Um
• 57:22
  so retribution is real for license
• 57:25
  holders even before this bill. Let's add
• 57:28
  the human reality that doesn't show up
• 57:30
  in statutory text. License holders are
• 57:33
  already intimidated. Many will not speak
• 57:36
  publicly. Remember me telling about the
• 57:38
  the officer uh who told the license
• 57:41
  holder that lady is showing pubic hair
• 57:44
  coming out the side of her bathing suit.
• 57:46
  You need to remove her or it's a
• 57:48
  licensing violation.
• 57:50
  That's BS. What in the world was he
• 57:52
  doing looking at the crotch of a woman
• 57:53
  anyway? But that guy doesn't necessarily
• 57:56
  want to come forward. He said he would
• 57:58
  if it became, you know, a huge issue.
• 58:01
  But they're already intimidated. These
• 58:03
  guys already hold their license in their
• 58:07
  hand anyway. And they can shut them down
• 58:10
  as they've done in several examples.
• 58:12
  Cost them hundreds of thousand dollars.
• 58:14
  Huge reputation things. And uh they
• 58:18
  they're allowed to shut them down and
• 58:20
  and take them out. These people are
• 58:22
  afraid to speak. afraid afraid to not.
• 58:24
  This isn't a a a colleial uh review of a
• 58:28
  license holder. License holders are
• 58:30
  intimidated. They won't come on a
• 58:32
  program and express concern. On the
• 58:34
  record, they will not criticize the
• 58:37
  regulator or his or her actions. They're
• 58:39
  afraid of retribution in the form of
• 58:42
  extra inspections, selective
• 58:44
  enforcement, administrative hassle, and
• 58:46
  the ultimate threat, loss of the liquor
• 58:49
  license, which is for most of them their
• 58:52
  entire business. That fear alone should
• 58:55
  make legislators cautious about
• 58:57
  expanding coercive power in this space.
• 59:01
  When a regulator controls your
• 59:03
  livelihood, yeah, Sam Phillips, and my
• 59:05
  livelihood as a lawyer, not just in
• 59:07
  Missouri, but everywhere in the country,
• 59:10
  voluntary cooperation is already not
• 59:12
  voluntary. And silence is not proof that
• 59:15
  everything is fine. Silence is often
• 59:18
  self-defense. You know, you're not going
• 59:20
  to say anything because you don't want
• 59:22
  the consequences. If I had everything to
• 59:23
  do again, uh, from from 12 years ago
• 59:26
  now, Jesus, uh, I would I would be
• 59:29
  licking Sam Phillips ass from here to, I
• 59:32
  don't know, wherever, whatever vacation
• 59:35
  spot you want to go to. And, uh, you
• 59:37
  know, in an effort to, uh, keep the
• 59:39
  license, you know, but I was I was doing
• 59:41
  what I thought was right. And and by the
• 59:43
  way, it uncovered a bunch of crap that
• 59:45
  isn't, but nobody will listen to it. So,
• 59:47
  you got to you got to build civic
• 59:49
  outlaws in order to get that done. So
• 59:52
  retribution is very real for a license
• 59:55
  holder and uh you know HB2378
• 59:58
  doesn't land in a neutral environment.
• 1:00:01
  It lands in an environment where the
• 1:00:03
  regulated community already believes
• 1:00:05
  that speaking up will make them a
• 1:00:07
  target. Expanding arrest, search and
• 1:00:09
  seizure discretion in that environment
• 1:00:12
  is gasoline, not governance.
• 1:00:16
  Three scenarios I'm going to give you
• 1:00:17
  that show how this amendment would play
• 1:00:19
  out in reality from the mild to the
• 1:00:22
  ugly. If supporters want to defend House
• 1:00:25
  Bill 2378, they should be willing to
• 1:00:27
  discuss realworld scenarios, not just
• 1:00:30
  sanitized hypotheticals about emergency
• 1:00:33
  and heroism. Number one, a compliance
• 1:00:36
  visit, lwdness, and a pivot to exigency.
• 1:00:40
  An ATC agent enters a venue. Here's an
• 1:00:43
  example. Enter this. This is how you
• 1:00:45
  learn in law school. They give you
• 1:00:46
  examples and then you talk about them.
• 1:00:48
  And our legislators should have all gone
• 1:00:50
  to law school in my view or at least
• 1:00:52
  through a class that gives them critical
• 1:00:54
  thinking skills like this because law
• 1:00:57
  school is generally socratic. You know,
• 1:01:00
  there's you could there are different
• 1:01:01
  answers in the law. There are different
• 1:01:03
  arguments to be made. And what you need
• 1:01:05
  to do is learn how to make an argument
• 1:01:07
  based on the facts as a lawyer and
• 1:01:10
  either side of the argument. You could
• 1:01:12
  read a set of facts and the the the law
• 1:01:14
  school professor go all right trap uh
• 1:01:16
  give um give uh the point of view from a
• 1:01:19
  license holder. All right. Or that could
• 1:01:21
  be Mr. Trap give it on the point of view
• 1:01:24
  of the agent. Okay. So that's why I'm
• 1:01:27
  reading these this Socratic method for
• 1:01:29
  you. An ATC agent enters a venue for a
• 1:01:32
  routine compliance check of the licenses
• 1:01:35
  posted. Age verification required
• 1:01:37
  signage. During the visit, the agent
• 1:01:40
  sees what the agent believes to be lewd,
• 1:01:43
  like the lady with a a pubic hair
• 1:01:47
  showing out the side of her outfit, or a
• 1:01:50
  server's costume that shows too much uh
• 1:01:53
  boob in his independent view, or
• 1:01:56
  anything that he decides is lewd. Say a
• 1:02:00
  server's costume slips and they see a
• 1:02:02
  bit of a butt cheek or a patron's
• 1:02:04
  swimsuit shows pubic hair. But by
• 1:02:07
  itself, that's not an immediate bodily
• 1:02:09
  harm, but it could be an an exigent
• 1:02:12
  circumstances and crowds are
• 1:02:14
  unpredictable. Let's say the agent
• 1:02:16
  claimed that the room is getting heated,
• 1:02:18
  that the uh license holder refused to
• 1:02:20
  remove remove the pubic hair lady and
• 1:02:23
  voices rise. Somebody shoves a chair.
• 1:02:25
  The agent suddenly feels threatened or
• 1:02:26
  an emergency or an exit circumstance.
• 1:02:29
  And now under House Bill 2378, the agent
• 1:02:32
  has a statutory trigger to escalate into
• 1:02:34
  arrest search and seizure authority
• 1:02:36
  because an immediate threat exists. And
• 1:02:38
  now he gets criminal inspection criminal
• 1:02:41
  rights attached where they are not
• 1:02:44
  present now. Okay. What happens next in
• 1:02:47
  real life? The agent detains people. The
• 1:02:49
  agent orders staff into back rooms. The
• 1:02:51
  agent seizes cameras or phones from
• 1:02:53
  people present to preserve the evidence
• 1:02:56
  evidence. The agent demand he he hides
• 1:02:59
  liquor bottles in the in the back of his
• 1:03:01
  truck and logs them as evidence down at
• 1:03:03
  the station house. The agent demands
• 1:03:05
  names, records, IDs. The owner, who
• 1:03:07
  hasn't committed a violent act, gets
• 1:03:09
  cuffed or detained as the responsible
• 1:03:11
  party because the agent says the scene
• 1:03:14
  is unstable. And in the end, even if
• 1:03:16
  criminal charges go nowhere, the
• 1:03:18
  administrative consequence is
• 1:03:19
  devastating. And if somebody sues, the
• 1:03:22
  case collapses as a reasonable officer
• 1:03:24
  on the scene. And the qualified or or
• 1:03:28
  official immunity argument that I
• 1:03:30
  brought up before, you get into these
• 1:03:32
  immunity fights. And usually the patron
• 1:03:34
  or the person making the complaint
• 1:03:36
  against the officer loses.
• 1:03:39
  Scenario two, a bar fight and the
• 1:03:42
  regulator plus guy uh comes in and
• 1:03:45
  squeezes a situation. A fight breaks
• 1:03:47
  out, two patrons, then five, then 10.
• 1:03:50
  This is the scenario supporters will use
• 1:03:53
  because it's emotionally persuasive.
• 1:03:55
  Somebody should be arrested, somebody
• 1:03:57
  should intervene. But here's the
• 1:03:59
  question. Do you want the intervention
• 1:04:00
  to be performed by a licensing regulator
• 1:04:04
  or a policeman? Is he somebody who holds
• 1:04:06
  a license in his hands? Under House Bill
• 1:04:08
  2378, the ATC officer can treat the
• 1:04:11
  scene as exigent, make arrest, search
• 1:04:13
  and seize, and in the very next breath,
• 1:04:16
  pivot to a regulatory enforcement
• 1:04:17
  against the business owner, citations,
• 1:04:20
  uh, accusations to disorder, threats to
• 1:04:22
  the license, compliance, failure that
• 1:04:25
  become a bargaining chip against the
• 1:04:27
  owner of the establishment or the
• 1:04:30
  license holder. This is not how limited
• 1:04:32
  government is supposed to work. We
• 1:04:34
  separate policing from licensing.
• 1:04:37
  Precisely because combining them creates
• 1:04:41
  coercion. When the same actor can arrest
• 1:04:44
  you and regulate your livelihood, due
• 1:04:47
  process becomes something you beg for,
• 1:04:51
  not something you receive. It's gone.
• 1:04:54
  Scenario three, a serious allegation.
• 1:04:56
  Now, the ugly scenario described by the
• 1:04:58
  assistant AG in the hearing in Cole
• 1:05:01
  County on December 3rd. A patron reports
• 1:05:04
  a sexual assault in a restroom or a back
• 1:05:06
  area, a rape. A real emergency exists.
• 1:05:09
  Immediate response matters. Under House
• 1:05:12
  Bill 2378, the ATC officer can claim
• 1:05:15
  exigency and escalate into arrest,
• 1:05:17
  search, and seizures. Fine. Except now
• 1:05:19
  the officer is both the regulatory
• 1:05:21
  gatekeeper and the police actor
• 1:05:23
  operating from administrative lawful
• 1:05:25
  presence and then expanding into a
• 1:05:27
  deeper uh investigation based on his
• 1:05:31
  claimed emergency. The officer locks
• 1:05:33
  down the premises. The searches are he
• 1:05:36
  searches areas that would normally
• 1:05:38
  trigger warrants.
• 1:05:40
  The officer sees devices, footage,
• 1:05:42
  records, and names. And here's the
• 1:05:44
  kicker. The business owner may not be
• 1:05:46
  guilty of the crime, but the owner is
• 1:05:48
  still treated as a suspect, detained,
• 1:05:50
  interrogated, punished administratively.
• 1:05:52
  The encounter becomes the full
• 1:05:54
  government takeover of the premises on
• 1:05:57
  the spot because the statute empowers it
• 1:06:01
  and the officer said the magic words
• 1:06:03
  exigent circumstances. Supporters will
• 1:06:06
  say, but that is an emergency. Critics
• 1:06:08
  will say like I do yes that's exactly
• 1:06:11
  why real police officers should be
• 1:06:13
  called and take control because real
• 1:06:16
  police would esta have established
• 1:06:18
  criminal procedure evidence protocol
• 1:06:20
  accountability mechanisms. A licensing
• 1:06:23
  agency should not be upgraded into a
• 1:06:26
  general emergency police force by
• 1:06:28
  statutory shortcuts.
• 1:06:30
  undercover work when the agency becomes
• 1:06:32
  its own investigator, enforcer, and
• 1:06:34
  judge of exigency like the guy who uh we
• 1:06:37
  have the police report on on what he
• 1:06:39
  did. That would be should be thrown out
• 1:06:42
  by any court if anybody did anything. If
• 1:06:44
  but only if only if somebody's charged
• 1:06:46
  with a crime, but they don't do that.
• 1:06:48
  They go in, they act like police
• 1:06:49
  officers, they go undercover, they take
• 1:06:51
  criminal sorts of actions, all without a
• 1:06:54
  warrant, and they then use the
• 1:06:57
  possibility of them going and filing a
• 1:07:00
  criminal charge against a license
• 1:07:01
  holder, which is an administrative
• 1:07:03
  function. And he doesn't want to lose
• 1:07:05
  his license. So, he will bend over and
• 1:07:07
  kiss the rear end of this investigator
• 1:07:10
  all day long so he doesn't lose his
• 1:07:14
  life, his livelihood.
• 1:07:16
  That's a big deal. So undercover work is
• 1:07:19
  a horror story for in fact they ought to
• 1:07:22
  take that away and take the guy who's do
• 1:07:24
  who's who's done it in a licensing
• 1:07:26
  scenario and fire him. That's what I
• 1:07:29
  think. Uh supporters of House Bill 2378
• 1:07:32
  would say this act lets them or this
• 1:07:34
  just lets them act when somebody might
• 1:07:36
  get hurt. But that's not how it will
• 1:07:38
  function on the ground. As the three
• 1:07:40
  examples I gave you already says, ATC
• 1:07:42
  agents already have reason and method to
• 1:07:45
  enter, observe and conduct compliance
• 1:07:47
  activity. In the real world, they can
• 1:07:49
  include undercover style observation to
• 1:07:53
  detect a licensing violation. The
• 1:07:56
  problem isn't that observation. The
• 1:07:58
  problem is what happens when observation
• 1:08:00
  turns into policing with no normal
• 1:08:03
  criminal guard rail.
• 1:08:06
  So this new bill risks creating a closed
• 1:08:08
  loop. The agency authorizes the entry
• 1:08:12
  because it's a regulation. The agency
• 1:08:14
  decides what it saw because it's
• 1:08:17
  investigative. The same agent decides
• 1:08:19
  that the situation is exigent because
• 1:08:22
  that's under his discretion. The same
• 1:08:24
  agent acts with arrest, search, and
• 1:08:26
  seizure power because the new statute
• 1:08:29
  says so. And the agency then uses the
• 1:08:32
  encounter to pressure licensing outcomes
• 1:08:35
  because the regulator says so or the
• 1:08:38
  statute says so in this regulatory
• 1:08:41
  license. It regulates the license. That
• 1:08:44
  loop is the exact opposite of any checks
• 1:08:47
  and balances. If you want to see why
• 1:08:49
  this matters, ask a simple question.
• 1:08:52
  Where is the neutral referee in the
• 1:08:55
  loop? The answer is only the officer's
• 1:08:58
  discretion reviewed later under
• 1:09:01
  differential reasonleness wrapped in
• 1:09:04
  immunity. That is not a system designed
• 1:09:06
  for maximizing individual liberty as
• 1:09:09
  required under RSMO, the new version
• 1:09:12
  536.140.
• 1:09:15
  It is a system designed for
• 1:09:18
  administrative victory. That's what it
• 1:09:21
  is. House Bill 2378 is sponsored by
• 1:09:24
  Representative Benny Cook. His biography
• 1:09:27
  matters because it tells you how he
• 1:09:29
  likely sees the world. He maintained a
• 1:09:32
  commission with Texas County Sheriff's
• 1:09:33
  Department dating back to 2005,
• 1:09:36
  reporting roughly 19 years of law
• 1:09:39
  enforcement, has served as a 911 board
• 1:09:41
  member and county emergency management
• 1:09:44
  director. He has a criminal justice
• 1:09:46
  administration degree. He is not naive
• 1:09:48
  about emergency response. That
• 1:09:51
  background makes the bill
• 1:09:53
  understandable, but it also makes it
• 1:09:56
  more dangerous. A law enforcement
• 1:09:59
  mindset naturally leans toward let the
• 1:10:01
  officer on the scene act first.
• 1:10:05
  In true policing context, that can save
• 1:10:08
  lives. In a regulatory licensing
• 1:10:11
  context, that can become mission creep
• 1:10:14
  and coercion against a license holder.
• 1:10:18
  So, here is the fair question for the
• 1:10:20
  sponsor, uh, Benny Cook, and that he
• 1:10:23
  should answer in public. Who asked for
• 1:10:26
  this bill? What incidents drove this
• 1:10:29
  bill? What licensing gap exists that
• 1:10:33
  local law enforcement couldn't cover?
• 1:10:36
  Why can't an agent call the police? I
• 1:10:38
  mean, he can stay there, secure the
• 1:10:40
  scene even while the while the police
• 1:10:42
  are called. And in practice, you know,
• 1:10:45
  they can do that anyway. what that
• 1:10:47
  nothing would change. Call the police.
• 1:10:49
  Police will be there, you know,
• 1:10:51
  especially if requested by another
• 1:10:52
  post-certified dude, right? Um what
• 1:10:56
  licensing gap exists really? Why wasn't
• 1:10:59
  a solution uh a mandatory call out and
• 1:11:02
  handoff protocol to the real police
• 1:11:05
  instead of expanding arrest, search, and
• 1:11:07
  seizure language for a licensing agency?
• 1:11:10
  Could it be to avoid the Fourth
• 1:11:12
  Amendment?
• 1:11:14
  We wonder. And why does the bill contain
• 1:11:17
  search and seizure at all instead of a
• 1:11:20
  narrowly authorized limited scene
• 1:11:23
  security action until the real police
• 1:11:26
  arrive? If the answers are good to those
• 1:11:29
  questions, maybe we can amend this bill
• 1:11:31
  into something narrow that's
• 1:11:33
  accountable. If the answers are evasive
• 1:11:35
  or worse, don't show up at all. Public
• 1:11:38
  suspicion about timing and motive will
• 1:11:40
  only grow because the structure of the
• 1:11:42
  bill itself invites that suspicion.
• 1:11:46
  And in conclusion, a free state does not
• 1:11:48
  build regulator police plus units. House
• 1:11:52
  Bill 2378 is a quiet upgrade. It takes a
• 1:11:57
  licensing regulatory agency already
• 1:12:00
  staffed unnecessarily in my view with
• 1:12:03
  postlicensed peace officers and adds a
• 1:12:07
  broad emergency based justification to
• 1:12:09
  arrest search and seize power triggered
• 1:12:12
  a power trigger defined by the officer
• 1:12:15
  on the scene and protected by immunity
• 1:12:18
  doctrine after the fact. This is not a
• 1:12:21
  minor tweak. It's a shift into who gets
• 1:12:23
  to decide. It takes it away from courts
• 1:12:26
  interpreting a statute and gives the
• 1:12:27
  officer the power to declare emergencies
• 1:12:30
  whenever he feels like it, away from
• 1:12:32
  warrants and toward exceptions, away
• 1:12:34
  from limited lanes and toward
• 1:12:36
  discretionary power of the officer on
• 1:12:38
  the scene. And it lands in an
• 1:12:40
  environment where license holders
• 1:12:42
  already fear retaliation for speaking
• 1:12:45
  up. If Missouri wants licensing
• 1:12:48
  enforced, let licensing be enforced. If
• 1:12:52
  emergency wants emergencies handled,
• 1:12:55
  call the police. And if Missouri wants
• 1:12:57
  to turn regulators into police, then it
• 1:13:00
  should say so openly and impose policera
• 1:13:04
  oversight. Anything else is government
• 1:13:07
  creep. Anything less is a backdoor
• 1:13:09
  entry. And anything less is the quiet
• 1:13:12
  growth of the police state. And that
• 1:13:16
  ends my article. And I'm glad I made it
• 1:13:19
  through the whole thing. If you would
• 1:13:20
  like a copy of that, you can go out to
• 1:13:22
  civicoutlaws.com.
• 1:13:24
  I believe it is out there. And I think
• 1:13:26
  it's important. I really do. I think
• 1:13:30
  turning the
• 1:13:32
  alcohol tobacco control into a police
• 1:13:34
  force is a huge mistake.
• 1:13:37
  I'd like to see somebody propose a bill
• 1:13:39
  in the opposite direction. Say, say what
• 1:13:43
  I say. Why in the world
• 1:13:47
  does a Why what I already say this
• 1:13:52
  enough about regular police? Why in the
• 1:13:55
  world are they so militarized? Why in
• 1:13:57
  the world does everybody running around
• 1:13:59
  in SWAT gear? If you need a SWAT team,
• 1:14:01
  call the SWAT team. Everybody doesn't
• 1:14:04
  have to be a SWAT member. Now, I
• 1:14:07
  understand and fully support several
• 1:14:10
  things with respect to police
• 1:14:12
  departments. I understand body armor and
• 1:14:15
  I think they should wear it. That's what
• 1:14:17
  I think. I think it should be issued to
• 1:14:19
  them, but I don't think they should some
• 1:14:23
  of the crap that they put in there. I
• 1:14:25
  don't think they should have militarized
• 1:14:26
  vehicles. I don't think so. I don't
• 1:14:29
  think everybody should u um should be a
• 1:14:33
  SWAT member. I really don't. I'd like to
• 1:14:36
  see a police officer be a police
• 1:14:37
  officer, especially at the community
• 1:14:39
  level. you should have to call in the
• 1:14:41
  big dogs if the big dogs are in. But I
• 1:14:44
  would leave wearing body armor to the
• 1:14:46
  discretion of the policeman whether he
• 1:14:49
  would wear it or not and just curious to
• 1:14:51
  see how many wouldn't. I think it's a
• 1:14:53
  safety concern that most of them does.
• 1:14:55
  They don't know what they're going to
• 1:14:56
  run up against every day. I support
• 1:14:58
  that. That doesn't mean you militarize
• 1:15:00
  them. You know, I don't like that. I
• 1:15:02
  don't think people like that in general.
• 1:15:04
  And I sure as hell don't like it when
• 1:15:06
  you're reg when all you are is a
• 1:15:08
  regulator.
• 1:15:10
  I want to know how many times a
• 1:15:12
  regulator of a liquor license has uh
• 1:15:15
  been shot at going to investigate the
• 1:15:18
  license.
• 1:15:20
  You know there's already a method for
• 1:15:22
  them to arrest under the opaces of 311
• 1:15:28
  chapter 311 for uh alcohol chapter 407
• 1:15:32
  for tobacco. They can arrest for
• 1:15:34
  violations of those laws,
• 1:15:38
  but where do they go with the evidence
• 1:15:40
  that they collect?
• 1:15:43
  The local police. They should call
• 1:15:45
  somebody on side. Frankly, I don't think
• 1:15:47
  they should have it anyway. I I I don't
• 1:15:49
  think they should be postcertified even.
• 1:15:51
  I think it's I think that we need to go
• 1:15:53
  the opposite direction. If you're just a
• 1:15:56
  or or make every license investigator
• 1:16:00
  for every license
• 1:16:03
  of every kind an armed
• 1:16:06
  postcertified guy inspecting why in the
• 1:16:09
  world does a liquor license
• 1:16:10
  postcertified? Why? You want to save
• 1:16:13
  money legislature? You got your
• 1:16:14
  appropriations committee coming up. You
• 1:16:16
  want to save it? Take away
• 1:16:18
  postcertification. That's what you ought
• 1:16:19
  to do. you ought to do the reverse and
• 1:16:22
  that no there is no necessity for an ATC
• 1:16:26
  officer to be postcertified. I'd love to
• 1:16:29
  hear that argument on the floor of the
• 1:16:31
  house. That's what I would like to see.
• 1:16:34
  And instead of Benny Cook trying to
• 1:16:36
  expand it and probably, you know, he
• 1:16:38
  probably remembers a circumstance or
• 1:16:40
  something that occurred, but you know,
• 1:16:42
  my suspicion is that that's not the
• 1:16:45
  case. My suspicion is that the timing of
• 1:16:48
  this is way off. My suspicion is is that
• 1:16:52
  there was communication between the two.
• 1:16:55
  And so yesterday, because I'm a
• 1:16:58
  suspicious a-hole,
• 1:17:00
  I sent Benny Cook a Sunshine Law
• 1:17:06
  request. And uh I've invited people on
• 1:17:08
  the show. You can come on in the morning
• 1:17:10
  and chat. It doesn't bother me. I I And
• 1:17:13
  tell me I'm wrong. I'd be happy to be
• 1:17:15
  proven wrong. Okay, that would be just
• 1:17:18
  fine by me. I was wrong once or twice
• 1:17:20
  before and I would love to be told that
• 1:17:23
  I'm wrong here or explain to me why I'm
• 1:17:27
  wrong. And so I sent out two sunshine
• 1:17:30
  requests. One to Kristen Templeton, the
• 1:17:33
  head of ATC yesterday. Now, they've been
• 1:17:36
  giving us, the ATC's been giving us, I
• 1:17:38
  believe, the runaround on um some of the
• 1:17:41
  things that we have requested, sending
• 1:17:43
  us $300,000 bills and crap like that. Um
• 1:17:47
  and saying it'll take 44.3 years to
• 1:17:49
  respond. I already think they're in
• 1:17:52
  ridiculous land. And uh the latest one
• 1:17:55
  was something we got back a week ago,
• 1:17:57
  which says they can't search these
• 1:17:59
  documents and it might contain
• 1:18:01
  somebody's tax ID number. And so they'd
• 1:18:04
  have to take it off. Okay. But I looked
• 1:18:07
  at it. It's not a uh it's the only tax
• 1:18:09
  ID number is a state number for their uh
• 1:18:14
  sales tax number, their sales tax ID. So
• 1:18:16
  they have to have the sales tax ID put
• 1:18:18
  in there. And so the sales tax ID,
• 1:18:20
  wouldn't that be public record anyway?
• 1:18:22
  That's the way I I think it is. You
• 1:18:24
  know, see if people have it, I think
• 1:18:26
  they have to tell you what their tax ID
• 1:18:28
  is. Anybody can request it. You know,
• 1:18:30
  I'm a charitable C3, 501c3.
• 1:18:34
  If somebody asks for my status, I got to
• 1:18:36
  give it up. And any license holder would
• 1:18:39
  have to give up their uh uh state
• 1:18:41
  license number anyway and probably their
• 1:18:45
  state uh tax number, their tax ID number
• 1:18:48
  in the state, and which isn't your
• 1:18:50
  social security number. And so, uh,
• 1:18:52
  those documents, I believe, could be
• 1:18:54
  given to us and they wouldn't take 53
• 1:18:56
  weeks and $8,000 or whatever the amount
• 1:19:00
  was. So, I'm going to share with you
• 1:19:02
  because I'm running out of time, uh,
• 1:19:04
  Civic Outlaw's request to Kristen
• 1:19:07
  Templeton, the head of DPS. I'm sorry,
• 1:19:09
  the head of ATC. Um, she reports to the
• 1:19:12
  head of DPS, Department of Public
• 1:19:13
  Safety.
• 1:19:15
  Kristen Templeton, Missouri Division of
• 1:19:17
  Alcohol Tobacco Control. Re civic
• 1:19:20
  outlaws transer transparency outreach
• 1:19:23
  and Missouri sunshine law requests
• 1:19:25
  December 3 to 2005 to the president and
• 1:19:29
  uh Ms. Templeton I'm reaching out in a
• 1:19:32
  cooperative spirit. Civic Outlaws is a
• 1:19:36
  Missouri based 501c3 public charity
• 1:19:39
  focused on transparency and public
• 1:19:41
  education helping citizens understand
• 1:19:44
  how policy decisions take shape by
• 1:19:47
  relying on the public record. My goal
• 1:19:49
  here is straightforward to make sure the
• 1:19:51
  record is complete and accurate. If
• 1:19:53
  there's an efficient way for your office
• 1:19:55
  to handle this request, I'm happy to
• 1:19:57
  work with you on logistics. And if you'd
• 1:19:59
  prefer, I'm also open to a brief call
• 1:20:02
  after production just to ensure we're
• 1:20:05
  interpreting what's produced correctly.
• 1:20:07
  To keep everything clear, this letter is
• 1:20:09
  a new request under Missouri Sunshine
• 1:20:12
  Law, RSMO chapter 610. I'm keeping it
• 1:20:16
  intentionally narrow. Missouri Sunshine
• 1:20:19
  Law Request time period. I'm looking for
• 1:20:22
  records created or received on or after
• 1:20:26
  December 3rd, 2025.
• 1:20:29
  That's the date of this hearing uh in uh
• 1:20:33
  Cole County in front of Judge Stumpy.
• 1:20:36
  Custodians are limited to Kristen H.
• 1:20:40
  Templeton and any direct administrative
• 1:20:42
  support staff who communicate externally
• 1:20:45
  on your behalf if any. And what I want
• 1:20:49
  are the legislative recipients. They're
• 1:20:51
  also limited any senders. I want to know
• 1:20:54
  whether there's been any any
• 1:20:55
  representative Benny Cook or his
• 1:20:58
  legislative staff communications between
• 1:21:01
  them. members of and staff council for
• 1:21:04
  the Missouri House Committee on Crime
• 1:21:06
  and Public Safety, including committee
• 1:21:08
  or staff or council and any House staff
• 1:21:13
  council directly involved in drafting,
• 1:21:15
  revising or negotiating bill language or
• 1:21:18
  amendments related to House Bill 3154
• 1:21:22
  because there's another one out there
• 1:21:23
  and I'm writing an article on that and
• 1:21:25
  or House Bill 2378.
• 1:21:28
  The bill and topic limitation. We want
• 1:21:30
  to talk about communications that
• 1:21:32
  concern either House Bill 3154
• 1:21:36
  or House Bill 2378 or any other bill
• 1:21:40
  amendment that discusses, references,
• 1:21:43
  incorporates or is substantively related
• 1:21:47
  to those bills limited to communications
• 1:21:50
  about any of the following subjects as
• 1:21:52
  they connect to those bills. background
• 1:21:55
  screening requirements, including
• 1:21:57
  ownership interests, use of criminal
• 1:22:00
  history information and licensing, any
• 1:22:03
  expansion of ATC authority or licensing
• 1:22:07
  enforcement discretion tied to those
• 1:22:10
  bills, records requested. What I
• 1:22:12
  specifically want emails,
• 1:22:15
  messages used for ATC business like
• 1:22:18
  text, iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, Team,
• 1:22:21
  Slack or similar draft language, red
• 1:22:24
  lines, bills, drafts, amendments, one p
• 1:22:27
  one-page papers, talking points,
• 1:22:30
  summaries, issue briefs, or proposed
• 1:22:32
  edits exchanged with legislative
• 1:22:34
  personnel.
• 1:22:36
  calendar invitations or meeting requests
• 1:22:38
  reflecting meetings or calls about the
• 1:22:40
  above bill topic included in any
• 1:22:43
  attachment if maintained.
• 1:22:46
  Search guidance now is uh minimal by
• 1:22:50
  design.
• 1:22:52
  You may limit search to the terms
• 1:22:55
  because they can search these emails and
• 1:22:56
  stuff like that to terms HB 3154 HB2378.
• 1:23:02
  If ATC Communications use shorthand or
• 1:23:05
  alternate labels for those bills, please
• 1:23:08
  include those records as well. If no
• 1:23:10
  records are located,
• 1:23:13
  if your search does not locate
• 1:23:15
  responsive records, please confirm that
• 1:23:17
  in writing and briefly describe the
• 1:23:20
  scope of the search uh conducted
• 1:23:23
  custodians date range and general
• 1:23:26
  location search such as email and stored
• 1:23:29
  documents.
• 1:23:30
  Redaction withholding. If any portion is
• 1:23:33
  withheld or redacted
• 1:23:36
  like the uh um license uh your your
• 1:23:40
  state tax license number, please produce
• 1:23:43
  the remainder and identify the statutory
• 1:23:46
  basis for redaction or withholding.
• 1:23:49
  Frankly, I don't think there is one for
• 1:23:51
  a tax ID, but I haven't looked yet. I
• 1:23:53
  haven't checked out any case law
• 1:23:55
  delivery. Please provide records
• 1:23:57
  electronically to samu
• 1:23:59
  t@civivicoutlaws.com
• 1:24:01
  email or download link. If records are
• 1:24:04
  electronic, please produce
• 1:24:05
  electronically native format where
• 1:24:08
  feasible or a searchable PDF fees.
• 1:24:11
  Before incurring costs, please provide a
• 1:24:13
  written cost estimate and use the lowest
• 1:24:15
  cost method. Rolling production is
• 1:24:18
  appreciated if feasible. Thank you for
• 1:24:20
  your time and help in keeping the public
• 1:24:22
  record complete and accurate. Please
• 1:24:25
  confirm receipt and estimated production
• 1:24:28
  date. Samuel Trap, director of
• 1:24:30
  operations, Civic Outlaws Incorporated,
• 1:24:34
  our charity 501c3.
• 1:24:37
  I wanted to share that stuff with you
• 1:24:39
  today because it's not like we're not
• 1:24:42
  engaging. I hope we're engaging
• 1:24:45
  sufficiently professionally because I
• 1:24:48
  have some very heated topics sometime.
• 1:24:51
  This has affected me dramatically.
• 1:24:54
  this type of activity in state
• 1:24:56
  overreach, but that just because I'm not
• 1:24:59
  licensed doesn't mean that I'm wrong.
• 1:25:04
  I'm right. I have been right the whole
• 1:25:06
  time. And uh that that speech needs to
• 1:25:08
  go along and and I do plan and intend to
• 1:25:12
  send my uh uh sunshine request out to
• 1:25:18
  the Missouri bar again attach the first
• 1:25:21
  one and attach uh you know say hey if
• 1:25:24
  you claim you don't have to answer and
• 1:25:27
  hell I'll have somebody go serve them
• 1:25:29
  with that to make sure they get it and
• 1:25:31
  it goes to the right person. I want to
• 1:25:33
  guarantee that, you know, cuz they could
• 1:25:35
  just be blocking. I I served it by email
• 1:25:38
  and by mail. I mailed a copy of it, but
• 1:25:40
  I didn't do certified back in June 30th.
• 1:25:43
  I know it got to them because it didn't
• 1:25:45
  get bounced back, nothing like that. And
• 1:25:47
  it got to the governor's office. It got
• 1:25:50
  to the uh Supreme Court and they both
• 1:25:52
  responded. Missouri bar, not so. And
• 1:25:56
  basically, they're either just saying,
• 1:25:57
  "Huh, that trap, you know, look what we
• 1:26:00
  did to him." and uh you know, we're
• 1:26:03
  going to continue just ignoring him.
• 1:26:05
  Why? Because he's a
• 1:26:09
  he's an instigator. He these agitators
• 1:26:14
  he's an agitator. And uh maybe I am.
• 1:26:17
  Maybe that's what I was chosen for in my
• 1:26:20
  lot in life is to be an agitator. I'm an
• 1:26:22
  agitator. And uh uh but I I tell you
• 1:26:25
  what, I want to get to the bottom of
• 1:26:26
  this. I think what they did to me is BS.
• 1:26:30
  I think they were very selective in in
• 1:26:32
  how they did it. Sam Phillips targeted
• 1:26:34
  me directly and I believe that license
• 1:26:37
  holders under this new House bill, Benny
• 1:26:40
  Cook, would be just as
• 1:26:44
  devastating to the lives and livelihood
• 1:26:47
  of people who depend on an alcohol
• 1:26:51
  license, on a license to sell retail or
• 1:26:56
  buy the drink. They depend on that for
• 1:26:59
  their very livelihoods and lives. And if
• 1:27:02
  you're taking that away, it shouldn't be
• 1:27:05
  by circumventing the Fourth Amendment,
• 1:27:07
  by doing an end run around procedure
• 1:27:11
  because you get away with it. And you
• 1:27:14
  always have. Civic Outlaws exists to
• 1:27:18
  attack such overreach. And I'm telling
• 1:27:20
  you, I'm committed.
• 1:27:23
  This is not going um this is not going
• 1:27:27
  uh to end w with me just quietly
• 1:27:30
  petering out somewhere. I'm not going to
• 1:27:32
  do it. And uh I will go as far as needs
• 1:27:35
  to go. I invite anyone who has a
• 1:27:38
  contrary opinion to contact me. Samuel T
• 1:27:43
  at internationalflavor.com,
• 1:27:45
  Samuel Tcivicoutlaws.com,
• 1:27:47
  Samuel Tmodernlaw
• 1:27:50
  Ecosystem.com,
• 1:27:53
  and I any one of those three and uh I
• 1:27:56
  can be reached, you know, I will talk to
• 1:27:59
  you and I would love to talk to you,
• 1:28:01
  especially if you have a different point
• 1:28:02
  of view. I'd like you to convince me.
• 1:28:06
  Benny Cook, come on in. I am not anti-
• 1:28:10
  police.
• 1:28:13
  Not remotely. I I have strong opinions
• 1:28:16
  on a lot of it on the police department.
• 1:28:18
  I have strong opinions about uh what do
• 1:28:21
  you call it? Uh immunity and that's a BS
• 1:28:25
  prospect for most of the part that
• 1:28:27
  people don't get you don't get to take
• 1:28:29
  out bad actors that are bad actors
• 1:28:32
  because of qualified and official
• 1:28:34
  immunity. A lot of times you can't even
• 1:28:37
  sue them because the question isn't
• 1:28:39
  about what damages were created and done
• 1:28:42
  by an individual actor. It's about
• 1:28:44
  whether or not they had the discretion
• 1:28:47
  to do it. Lives get destroyed that way
• 1:28:51
  by one person having discretion to
• 1:28:54
  destroy a life and livelihood like Sam
• 1:28:57
  Phillips at the office of chief
• 1:28:59
  disciplinary counsel. Hell, he revels in
• 1:29:01
  it. and I believe there are a lot of
• 1:29:03
  licensing people who do. That's the end
• 1:29:06
  of International Flavor today. Um, I'm
• 1:29:09
  very glad you joined us. Please join me
• 1:29:11
  every morning uh from uh 7:30 to 9:00
• 1:29:15
  a.m. at damradio.comlive.
• 1:29:17
  You can listen to all of past shows at
• 1:29:21
  internationalflavor.com.
• 1:29:23
  And I hope you do. Uh, we're trying to
• 1:29:26
  open the door, open the window, open the
• 1:29:29
  eyes of people. And I hope you uh keep
• 1:29:34
  supporting us and join in the queries to
• 1:29:39
  people who dictate what you will do in
• 1:29:42
  life. Have a very good day.