Is This the Most Libertarian Legal Opinion Ever Written?

The Texas Supreme Court strikes down a senseless regulation.


In a resounding victory last month for economic liberty, the Texas Supreme Court struck down a state licensing law that required eyebrow threaders to complete 750 hours of costly and unnecessary cosmetology training in order to receive the state's permission to charge customers for the harmless act of removing unwanted eyebrow hairs with a loop of cotton thread.

Ashish Patel, Photo by Institute for Justice

"The requirement of 750 hours of training to become licensed is not just unreasonable or harsh," the Texas Supreme Court held in Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, it is "so burdensome as to be oppressive."

No kidding. As the Texas high court pointed out, "persons licensed to apply eyelash extensions—a specialty involving the use of chemicals and a high rate of adverse reactions—are required to undergo only 320 hours of training." Eyebrow threading, by contrast, is an entirely safe occupation that involves no chemicals and requires only that practitioners follow the most rudimentary of sanitary practices, such as the regular washing of hands. To force would-be eyebrow threaders to spend as much as $9,000 on 750 hours of pointless training in order to obtain a pointless license is practically the definition of arbitrary government. We're not talking unlicensed brain surgery here.

In addition to that welcome judgment by the court's majority, Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett filed a lengthy concurring opinion of his own, in which he launched a full-throated defense of economic liberty under both the Texas and U.S. Constitutions. It is easily one of the most libertarian legal decisions I've ever read. (I'm also happy to report that Justice Willett cites my book in it.) Here's an excerpt from Justice Willett's superb concurrence:

This case concerns the timeless struggle between personal freedom and government power. Do Texans live under a presumption of liberty or a presumption of restraint? The Texas Constitution confers power—but even more critically, it constrains power. What are the outer-boundary limits on government actions that trample Texans' constitutional right to earn an honest living for themselves and their families? Some observers liken judges to baseball umpires, calling legal balls and strikes, but when it comes to restrictive licensing laws, just how generous is the constitutional strike zone? Must courts rubber-stamp even the most nonsensical encroachments on occupational freedom? Are the most patently farcical and protectionist restrictions nigh unchallengeable, or are there, in fact, judicially enforceable limits?

This case raises constitutional eyebrows because it asks building-block questions about constitutional architecture—about how we as Texans govern ourselves and about the relationship of the citizen to the State. This case concerns far more than whether Ashish Patel can pluck unwanted hair with a strand of thread. This case is fundamentally about the American Dream and the unalienable human right to pursue happiness without curtsying to government on bended knee. It is about whether government can connive with rent-seeking factions to ration liberty unrestrained, and whether judges must submissively uphold even the most risible encroachments.

The Texas Supreme Court's opinion in Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation is available here. Justice Willett's concurring opinion in Patel is available here.

Related: Top 10 Libertarian Supreme Court Decisions

NEXT: The New York Stock Exchange is Down

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Willett for Supreme Court?

    1. Never happen. He’s on the record as a radical right jurist now.

      1. President? I hear there aren’t very many people running for that.

        1. Why not? I’m considering a run just ‘cuz.

          1. I’ll be 35 in a month. I waiting to announce until all the “is he legally allowed to” questions are settled.

            1. You’ll still have to prove you weren’t born in Sealand. Long-form birth certificate only, thanks.

              1. Well, that’s just your opinion. man.

      2. So? Hardly any communists were elected but the Sixteenth Amendment of 1913 says the same thing as Communist Manifesto Plank 2 did in 1848. The case for voting and running as a libertarian is not that we get elected and THEN change the laws, but that by running and spoiling some looter’s outcome, that hawg’s platform committee has to rewrite a plank–which is a promise to try to change a law–or get the courts to change it before it spoils an election. Losing is Winning if it gets rid of bad laws.
        What took communo-fascist socialists 65 years to accomplish without an internet, we could repeal by 2037 without moving any faster than they did. True, the Senile Court are political appointees, but can you picture confirmation hearings with Senate looters questioning a de-facto libertarian judge on network telescreens?

    2. He surely must qualify for the Supreme Court if he agrees with commenters. A definite clinch. Now we will only have to await his nomination and the inevitable confirmation, once he cites Damon Root’s book, which is surely standard issue in Alabama courthouse libraries and probably Bob Jones Law School.

  2. Somewhat OT: Instead of having a horrid experience dealing with a police office, I had a decent experience. Of course, I didn’t expect much.

    Someone stole my back license plate. I doubt it fell off. I called up the local cops to report it. I’m using my front plate as my back plate. The officer warned me if someone runs my plates, they’ll see my front plate as “lost or stolen” and it might arouse suspicion. It’ll have to do until I get back to NH. So far, nothing else has happened.

    1. that’s positive? Because he warned you that people are dumb?

      Positive would have been helping you solve your problem- not warning you that there might be a problem.

      how low are our standards?!

      1. Because he warned you that people cops and dispatchers are dumb?

        1. oh, are they not even people now?

          1. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But There are lots of non-stupid people. Very few non-stupid cops.

            1. That’s just like your opinion, man

      2. Positive would have been helping you solve your problem- not warning you that there might be a problem.

        how low are our standards?!

        Are you new here or is my sarcasm detector broken? The cop didn’t shoot me or tase me.

        1. I know- occasionally I still get upset about what we take as a win. Not getting killed is the standard for success, I know… but it’s too much for me to take some days.

      3. In my little burg in Massholestan there are a couple of our cops that would have made sure my car didn’t move until I’d (walked?) to the DMV for new plates. Never thought much about cops one way or the other until we started hanging around with a couple of the town drunks and the pigs started harassing my wife and I. At first they gave us “friendly” warnings to stay away from them. We allowed as how we could pick our own friends and then the harassment started. It ended when my wife stormed into the Chief’s office and complained (an advantage of a small town – she knew the Chief’s dad).

    2. “… So far, nothing else has happened ….”

      If govt were effective and efficient, you shouldn’t be able to drive a block or two WITHOUT being stopped by “peace officers”.

      Also points out the effectiveness of the vaunted surveillance state maybe?
      Once you come under the microscope, you cannot hide for long; but there is just too much background noise for total observation of every individual.

      But the trick is to stay out from under microscope

  3. ” We’re not talking unlicensed brain surgery here.”

    Which, by the way, I’m offering a 2 for 1 deal on Lobe-Buffing this week.

    1. Considering that Bo and shreek are your prized patients, no thank you.

      1. I wnet to Glmiroe for my cberearl fuslh and tneurd out fnie…

        1. I’d rather have a bottle in front of me,
          than a frontal lobotomy!

        2. Pretty nifty. Cured you and gave everyone else dyslexia. That’s some top shelf surgery.

    2. I get me brain meds from the Nation’l ‘Elf!

    3. Acid works better.

  4. Well, you have to admit I’m sure, 750 hours wouldn’t be enough time to train any government employee to do something as useful as plucking eyebrows.

    1. I think you’re onto something…before becoming a government employee you must be required to fork over $9,000 on 750 hours of training. What would that training consist of?
      – staring mindlessly at computers
      – practice telling people they reached the wrong department
      – handing out forms that don’t do what they are intended to do
      – How to hand out fines to innocent citizens
      Much of the training would probably be about never questioning superiors even if you know the procedures & orders you are following are back-asswards/unethical.

      1. “- staring mindlessly at computers”

        I think you mean watching porn.

    2. Or to train libertardians how to not rationalize their way out of the most hypocritical position on the political spectrum.

    3. its like how many yuppies does it take to change a lightbulb? Doesn’t matter.. the lightbulb has to WANT to change……

  5. We shall grant Judge Willett the Golden Chipper Award for Excellence in Judging Things!

    1. awesome. I bet if we bought a woodchipper and sent it to him in thanks we would all be gag ordered and grand jury summonsed.

      1. Once the Great Woodchipper Rebellion of 2015 has ran it’s course…

      2. Not really. We’d just be SWATted.

    2. Gold paint right? I can’t see plating a woodchipper in gold for this.

      1. we’ll just buy a yellow one. it’s close enough.

      2. The likeness shall be on the new flag.

        1. Don’t tread in me!!!

            1. Don’t chip me, bro!

      3. What about mounting one of these on a plaque with a nice gold-plated inscription?

        1. Nice! We could spray it down with some gold Rust-oleum.

          1. yes. let’s get on this- but we will need to send it anonymously, I’m afraid.

    3. I like it!

      Is the purpose of this Golden Chipper to shred unreasonable/unconstitutional laws?

      I am sure we can come up with a very long list of regs to throw into that chipper….

      First up, Obamacare!

    4. The Golden Chipper Award. I like this idea.

      1. Nanny of the month receives this award.

  6. Some days, especially in the summer months when it gets too hot to go outside and you see shit like is happening in Hood county and the power religion has over people and the state here, I need to be reminded of Texas’ greatness.

    Thank you for that reminder, good sir. Thank you.

  7. No, this is not the most libertarian court decision. Cuz it didn’t say anything about pot, or Mexicans or ass sex, or food trucks, or abortions,or infrastructure boondoggles.

    Well I was high, the day my partner
    crossed the border
    and I went, to pick him up in the rain
    but before I could get to the clinic in my tacooo truck
    he got run over by a high speed train

    And I’ll hang around as long as you will let me…

    1. to be fair, i’m willing to bet you didn’t follow the link and read the WHOLE thing.

      1. Im guessing you’re not a David Alan Coe fan?

        1. as a texan I resent that implication.

          1. Coe sang. it. Steve Goodman and John Prine wrote it. Coe’s critique of it inspired Goodman to write the final verse.

            Kevin R

    2. +1 bottle of Jack Daniels (if you please)

    3. No, but the same reasoning could be applied to at least 3 of those things.

    4. +1 Texas Lullaby

    5. Can I call you Darlin?

    6. +1 Nigger Fucker

  8. We’re not talking unlicensed brain surgery here

    What’s the problem with that, assuming that the surgeon isn’t fraudulently claiming to be licensed?

    1. Exactly. I think there are other parties who have a greater interest in ensuring the surgeon is competent than some bureaucrat or politician.

  9. And right on cue, Slate writes something on this that is remarkably retarded.

    1. It isn’t just retarded. They lie right out of the gate. End of first paragraph: “For that reason, Texas required threaders to undergo 750 hours of training in order to practice their craft professionally, the same amount of training that other cosmetology specialists must receive.”

      Fuckin’ commies lie. It’s what they do.

      1. Apologies, “retarded and dishonest.”

      2. Yes. they lie. They wrap themselves in the lies of good intentions and pure motives.

        Then they sell us to the glue factory.

      3. “For that reason, Texas required abortion clinics to adhere to strict health and safety regulations, the same requirements that other medical establishments must follow.”

      4. LOL, someone in the comments argued that this is hypocritical because of Texas’ abortion regulations and seriously argued that eyebrow threading is MORE DANGEROUS than abortion.

        Yeah, having some hair plucked out is way more dangerous than an actual surgical procedure that could cause blood clots and pelvic infections.

      5. The derp is off the charts:

        “The startling decision revives a dangerous, widely discredited doctrine that gives judges authority to strike down economic regulations that interfere with the free market.”

        Or to strike down ones that are blatantly unnecessary and a symptom of regulatory capture.

      6. Huh? Just because commies believe in taking stuff that doesn’t belong to them you rush ahead and generalize that they also say things that ain’t true?

    2. My gods, Slate must be a satire site. I know I shouldn’t be surprised by now, but fuck me!

      1. Whatever you do, don’t read Salon. I’m not sure your sanity could take it.

        1. I’ll see your Slate and Salon and raise you a Vox and New Republic. Slate and Salon had good runs as kings of derp, but it was only a matter of time before they were usurped. I can’t wait for what emerges now to make TNR look reasonable. It’s derp all the way down.

          1. This is why I hate it when people start talking about something being ‘the worst’. It’s like a challenge for the idiots to start blasting when we all think they’ve hit rock bottom.

            1. Well, to be fair, Nicole is the Worst!

    3. Got a few paragraphs into that derpfest, and abandoned. Holy fuck, the smug authoritarianism burns.

      1. If the author truly believes it takes 750 hours to learn how to sanitize a cotton thread then I don’t know how he even learned to use a keyboard. Maybe Slate has invested in good voice-recognition software?

        1. From the comment’s section:
          “You can get a license to remove lead paint after 8 hours of training. Work an ambulance as an EMT-B after 120 hours. Draw blood as a phlebotomist after 400.
          750 hours of training for threading eyebrows is absolutely ridiculous, and has much, much more to do with entrenched interests buying legislative votes than with public safety.”

          1. You’re qualified on a .50 cal in a few minutes.

            1. And it’s much more fun.

        2. the author does not believe it takes 750 hours…. but he DOES believe that they who feed him have a vested interest in requiring that “training” (read: bribe, mordita, baksheesh, permission fees) only for the purpose of keeping others out. I’ll lay fairly high stakes at long odds there was some kind of “grandfather clause’ in the law setting the standards such that anyone who had been doing it prior to some certain date is deemed qualified WITHOUT spending the money and wasting the time. OR, the folks who run the schools that charge the 9K for the “training” are the ones that drafted the requirement. Either way, following the money trail will reveal who bought whom.

    4. No matter how hard I try, I just can’t understand people who unabashedly love regulation. I can maybe understand accepting some regulation as a necessary evil, or an inconvenience to be tolerated in certain situations… but to outright LOVE regulation in the way these people do? Seriously?

      It really takes an individual with zero sense of self worth and a misanthropic streak a mile long to actively cheer for all-encompassing regulation like this. Bizarre.

      1. Yeah, he really seems to believe that everyone else is an idiot who must have their lives micro-managed 24/7 by TOP MEN.

      2. It really takes an individual with zero sense of self worth and a misanthropic streak a mile long to actively cheer for all-encompassing regulation like this.

        I’d say a person with really high self-esteem could want stuff like this because those … others … need help to be as good and wise as they see themselves. And they could love other enlightened people exactly like themselves, so more like selective misanthropism.

        1. But the thing is, THEY want to live under these regulations too. They honestly believe that their own lives are better off when Big Daddy Government is giving them a nice neat set of rules to live by.

          Sure, there are some statists who somehow can’t imagine that most of the regulations they advocate will ever touch them, but there is a very large contingent who very sincerely believe that their own lives should be as regulated as tightly as possible also.

          Like that guy in Seattle a few days ago who felt like he was freeloading because he drove an electric car and didn’t pay any gas tax, so he volunteered to have his car’s mileage tracked and taxed accordingly so he could finally pay his ‘fair share’ into highway repair.

      3. In my experience, most people don’t give a hoot about mundane regulations like this. It doesn’t affect them and they don’t care…………….until their ox is gored. Then they become your new, BFF and part of the team to roll back the onerous regs.

      4. It takes a rent-seeking payoff. Just that simple.

    5. “To prevent bakery owners from straining their workers, New York barred bakers from working more than 10 hours a day or 60 hours a week.”

      No, dipshit, that’s not why the law was enacted. White, protestant, unionized workers for larger bakeries got the law enacted to protect themselves from competition from smaller, immigrant-run shops.

      But we can’t let facts get in the way of narrative. All regulation is to protect helpless workers!

      1. Progressives are blind to the fact that all of their “forward-thinking” policies were initially created to fuck immigrants and blacks over.

      2. Workers are not helpless. Nope. They’re just plain stupid. Only their union bosses can save them from the robber baron capitalists!

    6. They are NUTS! Anyone with a little common sense could see that if hygiene and infections were the real only concern, you would need at most an hour or so of training. What do the 750 hours of training include? It doesn;t take much to teach somene to wash their hands or use a hand sanitizer.

      1. Well, I mean… most of those people who do that kind of thing *lowers voice to a whisper* they’re immigrants. I mean… you can’t really expect them to be so fast on the uptake.

      2. I loved the blithe way the columnist on GLBT-Q issues distinguished between liberties that are “fundamental” & those that are not, like eyebrow threading. Ever think activists like that are afraid there’s only so much liberty to go around, & if too much of it is afforded the eyebrow threaders, they’ll clamp down on GLBT stuff to even things out?

    7. This line from the comments…so true and so funny (commenting on the author of the article) “Can you imagine? Mark Joseph Stern with a law degree – it’s like a chimp with a machine gun!”

      The arguments made in that article are completely nonsensical. They also ignore the fact that these regulations are not about ‘safety’ or ‘health’. These regulations are always lobbied by the industry it is regulating and effectively written by them.

      Look no further than Article 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code. It has been adopted by every state. It regulates how banks interact with customers. If you read through it, it sounds like it was written entirely by the banks….that’s because it was. They literally excuse themselves from following any other rule anywhere else in the UCC.

      Regulation protects nothing but the self serving interests of the industry it seeks to regulate.

  10. A few years ago, a couple of people I sorta knew wanted to get married during our Texas-Ranger’s Pre-Opening Day tailgate party. Somehow, Mr. Willett found out about it and offered to come to our part of the parking lot to perform the service. So, surrounded by semi-drunk Ranger fans, he performed a sweet and funny ceremony, laced with baseball terms. A good man.

    1. OK, that’s frakin awesome. If he and Judge AndyNaps could someone form a superhero team of jurisprudence, there would be no stopping us libertarians!!

      1. Hold off a bit- his bio lists what church he attends. that is a sign that he might be no true friend of libertarianism when it comes to something his church might disagree with.

        (I’m not saying it’s true, but it’s a sign of it.

        1. Not a sign of anything. The vast majority of people in the country, and especially politicians (which Willett is), engage with some kind of organized religion. There is nothing I have read on his Twitters or Facebooks to indicate he’s anything but principled in the name of liberty.

        2. WTF? Religious witch hunting, really?

          1. you must be new here! Religious witch hunting is a favorite tactic of about 10 or 12 regulars in the commentariat.

            1. Count me in. I like to kill religious witches, no matter which superstition they adhere to..

          2. I assumed it was sarcasm. Maybe I was wrong.

          3. Yes, there are some people here who think freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion mean the same thing. Sometimes it’s cute; sometimes it’s irritating because it’s not very consistent with libertarianism.

            But hey, they’re only human.

            1. I still don’t trust that damnable Kennedy, what the fact he is almost certainly taking orders from the Vatican.

            2. Subhuman. FIFY.

    2. He also quoted Frederick Douglass in his opinion.

    1. Full. of. win.

      Supreme Court Justice & Tweeter Laureate of Texas. Former rodeo bull rider. Fluent in legalese. Extravagantly blessed husband & cofounder of 3 wee Willetts.

    2. Seriously.

      The Most Interesting Law Clerks in the World (Especially the guy in the tux. He’s legitimately amazing.) #SCOTX

      ? Justice Don Willett (@JusticeWillett) July 8, 2015

      1. Keep ’em coming. I’m still under a self-imposed Twitter ban.

        1. Scroll through now – there’e gold in them thar hils.

          1. If my ban ever lifts, this will be the first person I follow.

    3. Props to @United Airlines for grounding all planes in honor of @KevinBacon‘s birthday! ??

      ? Justice Don Willett (@JusticeWillett) July 8, 2015

    4. The cat, wearing a James Meowdison collar, was not feline it, purring, “These debate rules arch my back.”

      ? Justice Don Willett (@JusticeWillett) July 8, 2015

      1. This was in reply to:

        A cat just wandered into Carly Fiorina’s morning event at Geno’s in Portsmouth, made its way through the crowd, and then wandered back out.

    5. My ISIS strategy: ?? legalize cloning ?? clone Jack Bauer ?? release the Jacks! (Disclaimer?This is my go-to strategy for everything.)

      ? Justice Don Willett (@JusticeWillett) July 8, 2015

    6. “Daddy, why did you shout, ‘WHOO-HOO!’ when they introduced Calvin Coolidge in the Hall of Presidents?” ?11YO

      ? Justice Don Willett (@JusticeWillett) July 7, 2015

    7. When Jefferson heard Franklin played hooky from the Declaration debate to play w/ electricity, he was like, “WATT?”

      ? Justice Don Willett (@JusticeWillett) July 5, 2015

    8. Don’t sweat your diet on #July4. BBQ is in the Declaration of Independence?under “pursuit of happiness!”

      ? Justice Don Willett (@JusticeWillett) July 4, 2015

    9. Dammit Kristen! Another day of time wasting thanks to your links.

      His feed is a gift.

      1. I’d say it’s up there with some good ‘uns, like Iowahawk.

        1. He’s actually tweeted a picture of himself and Iowahawk before. He “swore” Iowahawk in as an honorary Texan.

    10. Thanks for the link…definitely worth following.

  11. Rationality- and Liberty 1, Rent-seekers 0.

    1. You started keeping score late. The rent seekers are winning by a few orders of magnitude.

      1. One can only hope for a comeback. After all, it isn’t even-half time yet.

  12. An eyebrow whatter, now? When did this become a thing?

    1. Several thousand years ago, in India.

      1. So when did it become a thing in America?

        1. No idea, I don’t do girly shit like that to my face.

    2. Full disclosure: I see sidewalk sandwich signs advertising “eyebrow threading”. I had no idea of what that was. And, I was too afraid to ask my wife. Until I read this article. Now I am enlightened.

      You have to allow, I live in CA and all sorts of weird, unnatural processes are considered acceptable here and available at any local strip mall.

      This in the granola state. Why wouldn’t people just keep the eyebrows that God gave them?

      1. Because women don’t like to be compared unfavorably to Groucho Marx.

        1. Or Frieda Kahlo.

  13. His dissent has at least one golden quote per page.

    1. It was a concurrence, but yes, it is gold. Even better than Scalia’s recent O-care dissent.

      1. Yeah, I realized I used the wrong term when I came back to the thread.

  14. Deserves quoting:

    This case raises constitutional eyebrows…

  15. “spend as much as $9,000 on 750 hours of pointless training”

    I’m assuming that $9000 doesn’t count the opportunity cost of the 750 hours of “training”.

  16. As happy as TX is to use Ol’ Sparky, they have produced some excellent justice-y heroes.

    1. The ultimate electrolysis..

  17. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    1. “You got a license for that?” /slate

      1. Yes. 007.

        1. And a CDL.

  18. The link to the decision text appears to be in an administrative part of the website. I cannot access it.

  19. JUSTICE GUZMAN filed a dissenting opinion.

    What kind of asshole would vote against striking down this bullshit regulation?


    1. Justice Guzman, apparently.

      1. He or she cares about your eyebrow health.

        1. Mine are all just scars from boxing. Can you transplant some from my pubic area?

  20. Man, that concurring opinion is a fun read (ok, I skimmed some parts, I admit it). Is it just me, or does it seem like the judge is (very intentionally) hammering on SCOTUS for its recent opinions, particularly around the PPACA?

    1. One can hope.

      A glimmer of light in a very dark space.

  21. “This case raises constitutional eyebrows…………………….”. Very punny! LOL

  22. I wonder if I can use this ruling as a cleaver for the completely onerous and unjustified manner in which Architects have to get licensed.

  23. Mark Joseph Stern of Slate had a quite different viewpoint of this case and it’s rather interesting.

    “Texas Could Become an Even More Dangerous Place”:…..rn_to.html

  24. “The “United States” are a new nation, or political society, formed at first by the declaration of independence, out of those “British subjects” in “America,” who were thrown out of royal protection by act of parliament, passed in “December,” 1775.

    A citizen of the “United States,” means a member of this new nation. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people was also changed from subjects to citizens.

    The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin word, “sub” and “jacio,” and means one who is “under” the power of another; but a citizen is a “unit” of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.

    Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another. In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of noblemen. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure; but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.”…..amsay-1789

  25. Good

  26. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ??????

  27. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ??????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.