Join me today for Episode 943 of Bitcoin And . . .
In this episode, we uncover the grim legal battles facing the King Ranch, a multi-generational family ranch in Washington State. Toni, one of the lawyers for the King Ranch, reveals the chilling extent of state power threatening their land, legacy, and future.
Ranch Wars: The King Ranch episode links:
Fountain: https://fountain.fm/episode/4NnZPnWDlQ6vaNCkheaM
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ranch-wars-the-king-ranch/id1438789088?i=1000666938811
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7zr0jRoBJ0gRrljbIOKuiW
Overcast: https://overcast.fm/+3DEiJWvKc
Podbean: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-5yr2f-209ae7f7
The King Ranch Donation Pages:
https://www.ruralamericainaction.com/fundraising/save-king-ranch-and-agriculture-in-washington
https://www.givesendgo.com/Kingranch
Circle P:
Rev.hodl: https://primal.net/p/npub1f5pre6wl6ad87vr4hr5wppqq30sh58m4p33mthnjreh03qadcajs7gwt3z
Rev. Hodl's Applied Permaculture Class: https://primal.net/e/note1t6p47jytn4wg9ft5a4t4unm787y3jyz3drsrfgz072jjsuszpgsq2u370f
Find me on nostr
npub1vwymuey3u7mf860ndrkw3r7dz30s0srg6tqmhtjzg7umtm6rn5eq2qzugd (npub)
6389be6491e7b693e9f368ece88fcd145f07c068d2c1bbae4247b9b5ef439d32 (Hex)
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/DavidB84567
StackerNews:
stacker.news/NunyaBidness
Podcasting 2.0:
fountain.fm/show/eK5XaSb3UaLRavU3lYrI
Apple Podcasts:
tinyurl.com/unm35bjh
Mastodon:
https://noauthority.social/@NunyaBidness
Support Bitcoin And . . . on Patreon:
patreon.com/BitcoinAndPodcast
Find Lightning Network Channel partners here:
https://t.me/+bj-7w_ePsANlOGEx (Nodestrich)
https://t.me/plebnet (Plebnet)
Music by:
Flutey Funk Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
[00:00:00]
David Bennett:
Good morning. This is David Bennett, and this is Bitcoin and, a podcast where I try to find the edge effect between the worlds of Bitcoin, gaming, permaculture, podcasting, and education to gain a better understanding of all. Edge effect is a concept from ecology describing a greater diversity of life where the edges of 2 systems overlap. While species from either system can be found at the edge, it is important to note there are species in the overlap that exist in neither system, and that is what I seek to uncover. So join me in discovering the variety of things being created as Bitcoin rubs up against other systems. It is 9:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time. It's the 28th day of August 2024.
And this is episode 943 of Bitcoin and it's entitled Ranch Wars The King Ranch. Why? Well, because this is the interview I've been promising you guys forever. I'm sitting down with Tony, who is one of the lawyers for the King Ranch out in Central Washington State in the United States. We're gonna talk about all the things that I've told you about before, but this is gonna go so deep that it's going to be an eye opener as to just how much power a state, a single state that is in the union of states that makes up the United States, has and will bear on a family.
A single family. Not a whole it's not like they're doing this all over the place. As far as we can tell, these guys, the King Ranch is the only thing in the crosshairs of Washington State, at least at this moment. It's a multi generational ranch. They've been on the land for decades. They've been excellent stewards of this land. And all of a sudden for no apparent reason whatsoever they are at risk of losing everything that they have built their legacy destroyed everything they wanted for the future possibly gone It's it's an ongoing case or several cases kind of. It's there's many things going on and you're going to learn about all of them in this interview.
But first, the circle p is open for business. The circle p is the part of the show where I bring plebs like you to other plebs just like you except these plebs take Bitcoin for their goods and services. And today, it's Reverend or Rev Hoddle's applied permaculture class which is on Saturday October 12th in Baroda, Michigan. Cost 100,000 satoshis. That's right. It's actually a very very good price. And even better considering that we have now just crossed down below $58,000 for Bitcoin. Even the 58 k gang is just not even having having any of it anymore. So you can learn how to apply permaculture to any lifestyle to build sovereignty, resilience, and wealth in this one half day class.
I will detail how I apply the permaculture ethics and principles to homesteading, share how I build resilience in my wealth with the 8 forms of capital, and illuminate the connections between Bitcoin and permaculture. After the learning about applied permaculture, eat lunch prepared with fresh food grown on the homestead. After lunch, I will give a full homestead tour showcasing living examples to see the ethics and principles of permaculture in action. You will leave with a full understanding of permaculture and the inspiration to apply it to your life in any situation.
So he has lodging available for both Friday Saturday night. There's free camping, but if you don't wanna pitch a tent, you could book a house, a yurt, or even a tiny house. The yurt, or the house that he has, has 4 beds and will sleep 6 guests maximum. The yurt has 1 queen bed, there's 2 guests maximum. And the tiny house also has a queen bed and there's 2 guests maximum. You need to DM him on Nostr to get details on pricing for the lodging. You I will be giving all of the there will be links to, Rev Hoddle's Nostr account. There will also be a link directly to this particular, announcement for this show or for his, permaculture class, if you're interested. But on Friday, October 11th, that's when you check-in.
3 pm is the earliest check-in time. And at 7 pm, there's a fireside Bitcoin meetup. You gotta bring your own beer, but everybody's invited. However, Saturday, October 12th, that's the day of the class. And that starts at 10 AM with a permaculture presentation. There's a homestead lunch at 12 PM. At 1 PM, you will see permaculture in action on a tour. And then at 3 PM, there's wrap up and networking. And I'm sure that more beer will be involved. And I would assume that you have to bring your own beer for that one, too. So, check out Rev Hoddle's, applied permaculture class.
And if you tell him that you heard it on the circle p, he will cut me some sats for putting it on this show. Because why? The circle p is here to help people that don't have a marketing budget, that don't have an advertising budget, to be able to at least leverage the audience that I do have and say I have a good and service or service that I think you would like but they have to take Bitcoin for those goods and services. If they're not taking Bitcoin, they're not in the circle p. Okay. With that said, let's get into the interview with Tony. Well, Tony, welcome to the show. Thank you. Tony is the, lawyer for the King Ranch
[00:06:05] Tony:
and the King family. Correct? That's correct. And and there's actually a team of us, but I'm one of the attorneys for
[00:06:12] David Bennett:
the King Ranch and the King family. Yes. And the whole reason that I'm here is I wanted to interview you because there's an issue with what's going on with the King Ranch. And we are definitely going to get into that. But one of the things that I've identified since, not only just moving out here, but I grew up in West Texas, been around ranching, not directly, but just because you're in the area, you can't help but to be there's ranching stuff everywhere. Right? So you kind of kind of grew up with it and you just think it's a thing. Or at least I did. I just, you know, went to school, you go to the museum, they take you out for like a, you know, school field trip and hey we're gonna learn about ranching heritage and you think it's great. It's all this is all great, this is all great.
And but nobody ever tells you when you're in school, when you're doing these things that in my opinion over the last 25 years minimum, ranching seems to be under attack. And the more I look at problems and like I said we'll get into the King Ranch, the more I see problems like what's going on with the King Ranch, the more it makes me wonder what's going on. But some context into ranching, I I honestly think would be would be good. It'd be helpful for me too. And so I wanna start out with one of the most probably innocuous or or inane questions ever.
What does it mean when we say a ranch versus a farm?
[00:07:47] Tony:
What's the difference? So really, ranching's more about animal production and stewardship of our natural spaces. That's more of a ranching. Like, farmers actually farm. Like, they grow crops. And to be a farmer, you can have livestock, but to be a rancher, you are more livestock based. Your focus is your livestock, your animal husbandry, your stewardship of your property, and we're really, really, really into livestock. Like, that's something we're born and bred to do, and it's our calling.
[00:08:20] David Bennett:
Well, so how long have you because you are a rancher. You're not just a lawyer. You are a rancher. So, I mean, are you 1st generation, 2nd, 3rd? 5th. 5th generation?
[00:08:30] Tony:
Yes. That's a long that's a lot of family history. Lot of family history, and I think that's one of the main things here. Kings are the same. They have they're generational. The next generation's there, and they even have a grandchild there on the ranch. I mean, we're talking stewardship is a main issue for us because we want it to be generational. We don't talk about an exit plan. We talk about a succession plan.
[00:08:59] David Bennett:
That has come up several times. I've talked about it on even though this is this is not a ranching podcast, I've talked about the the issue of succession many times. And there was a in fact there was a conference that I went to that was a mix between, the worlds of Bitcoin and straight up ranching and farm. And it was a really interesting mix of people because you've got software coders and developers and then you've got people that are economists sitting right next to people that are pasture guys, grass management guys, you know, cattle, you know, cattle and animal husbandry in general and somehow or another it worked. It worked really well because there's there seems to be some some overlap and one of the things that was presented was the lack of succession planning in heritage ranching and farming. Like how do you how do you give over your land when it's gonna have a value like a like a I don't know. In some cases it's so much of a of a land give over to the next generation that it ends up being an inheritance tax.
And when these families get a hold when the children get a hold of these, they have to peel off sections of the land by selling it to pay the inheritance tax. So we're I think it's you're talking large sec large amounts of land like $50,000,000 is the federal I think that's the federal cutoff point. But after but I've seen ranches way more than a 150 or a 100, $50,000,000 worth. So when how how do you go about success like thinking about succession when you're talking about you might come up against that inheritance tax thing. Well, I think one of the issues with with with any,
[00:10:44] Tony:
rancher or farmer I'm gonna include farmers because I think it's an issue there too, is they've worked that land. They've built that business. They've, you know, they've they've received it from their parents and added on or done whatever. And even though they trust our children, they don't wanna give up that control, because they put their blood, sweat, and tears into that property, into that land, into that business. And one of the biggest things I see as an attorney is they don't start soon enough. If we can start soon on the succession planning, we can overcome a lot of those issues, because you have, you know, you have gift tax. You have you have ways that you can get around some of the big issues as long as you start early. Mhmm. And a lot of them don't. And a lot of them don't wanna give control over. And you you can understand that. Mhmm. They put themselves into this. They've when we're talking about ranching and farming, it's not like making the big bucks, going on, you know, $1,000,000 vacations.
Your profit's marginal. Yeah. And so when we're talking about that, it's really a labor of love, and they're not ready to give that up. And that's one of the big issues. And and I think it's something that, again, we can overcome if we start soon enough, but most people do not want to do that. Okay. Well, that that does make a lot of sense. So,
[00:12:01] David Bennett:
you know, what but one thing that I wanna make sure that that, you know, my listeners understand is that this succession issue, can be
[00:12:11] Tony:
a real heart tugger. Oh, it breaks ranches. It breaks families. It's absolutely a hardship for everybody. Absolutely, a 100%. And it's not something we're gonna overcome overnight. I talk a lot to my clients and at, you know, events, meetings, whatever, about the fact that we've gotta start early, we've gotta have a good plan, your plan's gotta be somewhat fluid. Uh-huh. But there's gotta be planning. And and having a good team, having a good account, having a good banker, having a good attorney, they're part of that that team and they're part of that plan. Well, as these as these families
[00:12:45] David Bennett:
build their ranches, in in in your case, your 5th generation, is this is the land that we're on generational land or is it, like,
[00:12:58] Tony:
did your parents do this same plot of land that you're on here or So we actually bought this triangle for my aunt and uncle Uh-huh. Because we needed to have a, a fee simple property so we could have a, you know, build a house. Right. But, yes, we got this from my aunt and uncle. It's surrounded by my aunt and uncle. My parents are adjacent to it. Okay. My parents live on one end of their property. My sister and brother-in-law live on the other end. Uh-huh. And then my grandma and grandpa lived on the other side of town. And I've got a cousin that's directly to the north of me and a cousin that's directly to the east of me, then my sister's east of that. And then I have other cousins that are on the other side of the town we're near.
[00:13:36] David Bennett:
So y'all have a very large family presence in this area. Yes. That's that's very clear. And see this is one of the things that urban people that are in in more of like living in cities that are not used to rural country, you know, rural life, country life, or even city rural fringe life, is that the nuclear you have this nuclear family but you don't really have an extended family. And I think that that that break I kinda think that that breaking apart of the extended family because people say, oh well the nuclear family is under attack. And I'm like, you missed the boat. The extended family was what was under attack. Now what we're left with is nuclear family. And while it's true that that is actually there are seem to be forces that are not really liking that and trying to do things about it, I think that when we concentrate on the nuclear family, we're not seeing the bigger picture of the extended family because that's how you build things like large large ranches that work. Large farms that actually work. You have the family support.
And watching either people not do succession planning and tearing tearing families apart, or when we get into the King Ranch issue. Watching this happen seems to be like it's an attack again on ranching. Do you think that there's an attack on ranching? Absolutely. And that's, sadly why I have job security. Oh. Yeah. Well, that's yeah. Nobody wants it for that. But do you have do you have a theory as to why? What what possible outcome would I mean, like, if I well, you gotta follow the money or you gotta follow the whatever. And I'm like, if we follow what what are we following here to go back up the chain to to why this is being done? Government overreach at its finest. Ranchers make themselves a target because
[00:15:33] Tony:
just fundamentally, we are loners. We don't talk. We don't reach out. We don't ask for help. What we ask for help is from our immediate families that are ranching with us. Mhmm. We don't go to our neighbors and tell them our problems. We don't seek government support. So by, you know, they're easy targets. What I do see though, going back to my original comment, gov government overreach at its finest, we've seen this trend that the government wants to govern everything. And one of the ways they do that is to fund, so get a money money issue. Mhmm. But you can't have a department of ecology if you don't have water issues. So even if you don't have water issues Mhmm.
I'm I'm just gonna say it. I mean, I think it's pretty suspect that you have the, the government agency that isn't doing enforcement as the same government agency that's finding the issues. You and if you look at their budgets, I think you'll find that I'm right.
[00:16:36] David Bennett:
It's there's a lot of people and I'm I'm almost I'm almost one of them. Because I don't know yet. I mean, it's one of those things where it's like, there's there's things that I want to believe, there's things that that that sound like they're fun to believe in, but I don't really know. But there's quite a few people that think it's also an attack on nutrition. Because let's let's look at meat, let's look at like, let's just look at beef. One of the most if done right, one of the most nutritious and like not only is it gonna be calorie packed because this low fat thing needs to go away.
Animal protein and animal fat. And between those 2, you get full nutrition. You can start cutting out the fat, you get problems. And if you start replacing the animal protein with something like vegetable protein, you get problems. It's almost as if there's a certain amount of people that wanna keep us sick. And I can't help but to notice that the main people and this is I'm getting a tinfoil hat here just a little bit. But the main people that really bring the attention to the fact that ranching is bad, cattle are bad, cattle burps are bad because methane and and there's so there's just this unending amount of ignorance that's just pouring out of mainstream media who just happens like 80% of all their advertising revenue comes from Pfizer.
And again, I even I will be the 1st to admit, complete tinfoil hatchery because I can't prove any of it. But it just seems suspect. If you can keep people sick, well of course the pharmaceutical company would actually be the ones to benefit.
[00:18:15] Tony:
Is that completely out of line, do you think? Or I don't know. I've never thought of it that way. I do think that there's some interesting points that you're making. I think it bears some research. I would say, especially on the methane production, when you look at the numbers, cattle are so low, they're almost insignificant on methane production. Oh, yeah. Yet, they're the ones everyone blames. It's it's crazy, and it's it's nonsensical.
[00:18:38] David Bennett:
It it is. And I was I did a I've mentioned methane production yesterday, and what people don't realize is that methane is a fairly heavy molecule. And generally speaking, when when ruminants burp, they're burping fairly close to the ground. And it also so happens that in the soil are methanophores, and they eat methane. And they harvest that I mean it's it's almost as if it's like purpose built because that's the whole ruminant thing, the whole the whole construction of the thing that is the ruminant seems to solve so many different problems at once.
And when I look at the tack on ranching, and possibly because of nutrition or for whatever reason, and I see the removal of ruminants on land,
[00:19:25] Tony:
All I see is the loss of soil. Absolutely. But that's you're looking at a holistic ecosystem approach, which is also how ranchers think. It's about stewardship. And what what you're talking about is that very that very subject. I mean, we've gotta talk about they talk about nitrogen in water. Well, you've gotta feed you've gotta feed livestock, and you've gotta feed wildlife. Mhmm. It's not just about livestock. It's also about wildlife. Right. And one of the main things we do as ranchers is we support wildlife populations by our practices.
And when we're talking about water quality, if you actually look at scientific studies, cattle, if they are used correctly, actually pull pollutants out of water bodies and move them upland. They do not actually damage that riparian area. When we take that holistic ranching approach, we are solving environmental issues, not creating them.
[00:20:21] David Bennett:
Well most of the most actually every single rancher that I've ever talked to has more of an ecology bent, not just a background. Either they, you know, they might have gotten ecology like if they went to ag school or something like that but their their ecology oh, like they're all ecologists, every single one that I've met. And it's either coming from school and then reinforced by their their direct association with the land over years years for experience, or just straight up experience. But I've never talked to a rancher that said I don't care about my soil, I don't care about like one guy in particular was is very particular, he goes, when I'm grazing, it's a third, a third, a third.
They crop a third, they trample a third, they leave a third. And he's like, you know, if if I get into if I get and I see that they're like have eaten it down to half, I get nervous. And and, you know, when you think about all the other things that these, you know, self guided mowers do, you know, it it's it the amount of carbon that they're able to sequester into the soil itself, it just it that's where I'm getting that's where I'm having a real problem with the this government overreach. I'm having a real problem with this attack on ranching because every single thing that these people say, ranchers are ranchers are bad for the environment because of this.
Like no, it's exactly the opposite. So again, I go back to the whole tinfoil hat thing. I'm like oh and you know better. And unless they just don't. I mean is it is it possible that so many of these people in such in such positions of power to make people's lives miserable are really that ignorant? Or is there I think there's something else behind it, but what do you have to say? I, you know, I I question that as well.
[00:22:16] Tony:
I caution myself on a regular basis not to have higher expectations of people than they can reach. Mhmm. I can't imagine that the people in power are that ignorant. There has to be some other motivation. Mhmm. I I just can't imagine that there's that many people out there that don't understand how the world works and how economics work.
[00:22:40] David Bennett:
And this I want I want to step off of that and go to the King Ranch, and the issues there because this is there's the issue behind the King Ranch and what's going on is an ecological issue. Or at least that's what it's that's what it it seems to have been motivated by. But me and you both know better but I want the audience to understand what the King Ranch is in Central Washington
[00:23:10] Tony:
and it's a 7 generation ranch? Yeah. 5 Yeah. I was thinking 5 but sure we can go with 7. Can you, what other background? What kind of operation is that ranch? It's a cow calf operation straight up. There's no there's very limited farming. Uh-huh. Where they're at, there's no irrigation water. It is desert, arid, desolate ground Mhmm. That the only purpose is to run cattle and support wildlife populations. So 8 inches of rain annually. So Sure. Maybe. Maybe. Yeah. Probably depends on the year. Yeah.
[00:23:47] David Bennett:
And, so the kings have been on that particular piece of land and it's it's if I remember right, there's a section of it that's privately owned, but then there's like a large lease. But they've leased it for decades. Right? Correct. Okay.
[00:24:01] Tony:
So what happened? What what's going on? Well, we can tell you what we pieced together, but we've never been given a straight answer from the, government entities that are persecuting them. And this is state entities. Is this federal at all? Not yet. And and that's a concern that we have. We've actually received emails through public records requests that the state has asked the feds to step in, and the feds so far have declined. But but that is a that is a concern we have. I mean, when you're talking about the allegations that have been made against the Kings, DNR and DOE are absolutely out to get the Kings at all costs and are asking for
[00:24:41] David Bennett:
help from these federal entities. And Department of Natural Resources is DNR and then DOE is Department of Ecology? Yes. Okay. Because that's really weird. I've I've never seen a Department of Ecology in any other state. I'm sure they exist but this is the first I'd ever heard about a state run department of ecology.
[00:24:58] Tony:
So And do and do look. I think you should look at the budget for department of ecology and how many employees that department of ecology has. It's huge. Really? And when you go over to Olympia, it's got this huge building Uh-huh. That's just for DOE. Really? Huge. Okay. So So they need funding, I guess, is what I'm saying, David.
[00:25:17] David Bennett:
Yeah. I I I I guess. See, this is in this is the we're gonna follow the money again at least a couple more times during this discussion. But so the DOE and DNR working together have levied what charge against the Kings?
[00:25:33] Tony:
It's really interesting because I'm gonna start at the beginning, and then we'll talk about the pivot. Because it's kind of it's kinda gone multiple ways here through through the time. So okay. So originally, it started and department of ecology came out and sent Kings a letter and said that they had harmed alkali wetlands. And we found out that they this this whole thing stems from an aerial photograph that they pulled off of Google Earth. They hadn't been out. They hadn't seen it. Whatever. We do public records requests. We found out that there were, interoffice memos, emails going back and forth.
They did a rush to judgment. We have an email where Jeremy Sykes says, I'm not rusty. I'm full of rust when it comes to wetland delineation. However, I'm going to recommend this for prosecution. I mean, and it went fast. And, Russ, that that gentleman's name is the with the DA or He's with Department of Ecology. Okay. Okay. Yep. And so they actually started trying to pull another entities, and they pulled in what's called the Environmental Protection Division, which frankly, we didn't know anything about. Yeah. This is a creation of Bob Ferguson to literally prosecute criminally environmental crimes.
But at the time, we didn't know they'd been pulled in. So Kings get this letter, December 21st, right before Christmas, telling them that they have done all this damage to these alkali wetlands. What year was that? I think it was 2021.
[00:27:13] David Bennett:
So this has been on going on for a while. This isn't what you're planning. Pull the letter though because it might be that it was 2023.
[00:27:20] Tony:
Sorry about that.
[00:27:22] David Bennett:
No. I'm thinking that it was from
[00:27:26] Tony:
the communications that I've gotten. It seems like it's much much older. Well, they knew about it. I'm just trying to figure out when they told Kings. Yeah. December 23, 2021.
[00:27:37] David Bennett:
Okay. So they get this letter and then what?
[00:27:40] Tony:
Well, they get it to me, and my first response is, this this can't be right. Let's go talk to them, and let's figure out what's going on. Let's get a response out. Let's get this figured out. Like, you know, my first response is, we'll get this taken care of. No big deal. Mhmm. You know? Because at this point, I believe that, you know, for for years, I've been working on my relationship with Department of Ecology. Never see eye to eye on, but at least, you know, you can have communications, have transparency in action, you know, have some type of relationship to try and figure out things that make sense.
Common sense. Let's use a little bit of it. Right? So we go, and we're like, okay. What are you basing this on? You know, what's your evidence? What have you done? And they're like, make a public records request, because we're not gonna share it with you.
[00:28:29] David Bennett:
And I'm like, what the heck? And before this, they had kind of been communicative
[00:28:34] Tony:
with you in other times past? Yeah. Not necessarily about King's, but other cases. Right. You know, King's had never had an issue before this. They had had great relationship with Department of Ecology. They had a great relationship with DNR. They'd never been in trouble, never had issues, had had these DNR leases for, again, generations.
[00:28:52] David Bennett:
Uh-huh.
[00:28:53] Tony:
They're considered to be excellent stewards. They do everything possible to care for this ground, you know, wildlife populations. They're just amazing ranchers. This came out of left field. This was a shock. So we proceed forward. They say, no. We're not gonna share any information with you. And so we're like, okay. So we start making public records requests. We try and figure out what's going on. We try and figure out the basis. We try to figure out how this got so out of control so quickly. And we we begin to receive documents that they've sent in our office. We begin to see this pattern. We begin to see the narrative.
It's scary. Very scary. At this point, we do not know there's a criminal investigation. We still think this is just civil. DOE comes out and finds King's $267,000. This is them a letter saying you will be responsible to put these wetlands back into their original condition. We're not gonna give you any evidence to what you did, but you need to agree to do this, or we're going to move forward. We're gonna go after you, yada yada yada. Kings are again like, what do we do? What do we do? But at that point, we realized we can't just cave in because we don't even know what they're basing anything on. And so we sit down and we decide the first step we need to do is hire experts, get people out there. Is this even an alkali wetland?
What are they talking about? So we do. We hire experts. We get people out there, and we don't just hire, you know, Joe Blow down the street. We go and we figure out who are the best experts in this area, and we get them. They come out. And and keep in mind, during this time, DOE is not backing down. Again, they fined them $267,000. DNR has come out and said, year end default on your lease. We've unilaterally declared us default. You are kicked off.
[00:30:47] David Bennett:
Get your cattle off of our ground. Now did they say they were a default of their lease because of a different reason or because they were being fined $267,000?
[00:30:56] Tony:
Because of the damage to the alkali wetlands, they were in default on their lease, and they also declared that all of King's improvements, personal property, were forfeited to Department of Natural Resources. Did that mean that the like, we're talking their private land? We're talking no. We're talking their fencing that they've put on DNR ground. So when you get these DNR leases, they're long term. They're 10 years at a time, and you plan on you you put base your improvements on a, you know, you prorate that out. Mhmm. So you you put in fence. You upgrade that fence. You have corrals. You necessarily have water troughs or watering holes. Whatever you need to sustain your operation during that 10 year time. Okay.
[00:31:34] David Bennett:
Well, I wanna I I just wanna back up just for a second and stick on the point that we're talking about this thing called an alkali wetland, which for me doesn't make a lot of sense in an area that gets 5 inches to 8 inches of rain a year, if they're lucky. Right. So what and I was talking to the to the water, the water expert. What's that gentleman's name? We were talking to him at the at the, hearing. We were having coffee. I can't remember his name right now. So we had John Stumiller with us, and he's not the water expert. He's he actually worked for the Washington Farm Bureau for a long time. Okay. And so he's he's but he's part of the team. Yes. Okay. So these these alkali wetlands which I've never heard of an alkali wetland ever.
And then and then add on top of that, is in in the one of the driest places that I've ever been to, you know, I've been to a lot of them. Eastern New Mexico. I grew up in West Texas. I mean, I'm used to dry. I'm I'm used to the desert southwest. There ain't a whole lot of water, you know, and it's like and unless you're in a gully, there's not a whole lot of wetlands going on. And, I mean, I guess I can see that this is probably out more alkaline soil but this this just seems weird and it gets worse because the wetlands that they just quote unquote destroyed which is bs, is is is in fact watering holes. Right? Man made stock ponds. Yeah. So over the course of the,
[00:33:12] Tony:
let's say, 70 years or however long that they've been on this land So they've been on the ground about 6 years, but there were ranchers before them. Mhmm. So those stock ponds have been there for a long time. Okay. They're the only source of water. Right.
[00:33:26] David Bennett:
Because we live in or well, I I live in a wetter area, but than you do, but still it's it's it can get pretty dry in the blues. Very arid. But, these were the everything that we're talking about was man made. This isn't a natural environment that we're talking about that the king supposedly disrupted. Correct. And these stock ponds are vital to the operations of the cattle ranching business because you need to water your animals, otherwise they're not going to survive. And wildlife. And the destruction or And I I don't I don't even I don't mean to say destruction, but the alleged disturbance, I'm just gonna call it, was the fact that they dredged the silt.
[00:34:11] Tony:
Allegedly. Allegedly. Remember there's been no proof offered that anything even happened.
[00:34:16] David Bennett:
Allegedly. Because if I was a rancher I get okay. I got I I mean this is I I have a house in Colorado that I own with like several family members. It has a stream that bisects its front yard and the people that built the house in put in a pond to capture that stream. Well every single time that a rain event happens, the water turns muddy. That mud is not going to exit that pond, it's going to settle. And the more it settles, and it's been settling for the past, the house was built in 1984, I'm going to have to get a backhoe to dredge that pond. Because if that silt gets up to the top, there is no pond.
Now I got a marsh and all of a sudden, ducks aren't going to land in it. I mean, I've got all kinds of I got all kinds of wildlife around just a scenic pond. And it's not that big. And I can imagine that if I was a rancher and now that pond is way more is worth a lot more to me to water my animals, I'm going to want to make sure that it can hold the maximum amount of water that it can. I would imagine that I would be saying at one point or another I've got to maintenance these. I've got to pull some of the silt out. And again, there's a let you know they that's what they allegedly did, but still like if it was me I'd be like I have to do this. I can't go you won't let me dig a new one. Well remember they can dig new ones because
[00:35:47] Tony:
904405 O allows ranchers to dig stock ponds without a permit in Washington state. Oh really? Yes.
[00:35:54] David Bennett:
Okay. But wouldn't it just be easier? Well that's that's neither here nor there. So let's let's I just wanted to make sure that the listeners understood that we are talking about something that began with the making of by humans, these things. Yeah. And it was allegedly that these things were disturbed. How how is it that that's not like well they were made by man so therefore it's not a natural occurrence? What what's the thinking here? I have no idea what their thinking is. I think it's insane.
[00:36:23] Tony:
Oh, for god's sake. So let's go back to that. So then we have the experts go out. There's no characteristics of alkali wetlands in this area at all. Oh, real? Okay. There's no characteristic of a wetland. There's a scientific you have to do you know, you have to follow certain steps to establish something's a wetland. Mhmm. Those those steps were completed by our experts, and these are not wetlands, and they're not alkali wetlands. And the,
[00:36:50] David Bennett:
opposition, have they sent experts out to say that they are wetlands? Not that we know of. So the only people that have actually examined this thing is you guys? Correct. Okay.
[00:37:02] Tony:
It's it's really interesting.
[00:37:04] David Bennett:
Okay. So this is sort of now now we're we're at the point where we've established even though we don't know what they're thinking, we've established what the fine is, who's doing it, and now what we go to court? I mean, what what what what where are we at? Okay. So in Washington state, when Department of Ecology
[00:37:25] Tony:
goes after somebody and there are 2 separate instances, there's a there's an order requiring them to restore the wetlands and a fine, and those are 2 separate. Mhmm. And that's true with the pollution control hearings board, the PCHB. So that's an agency ran court. Okay. K? So that's so the first thing Kings had to do was they had to go and appeal that. That's just on the environmental side. Right? So the the next thing they had to do was they then had to go and file a lawsuit in Grant County against Department of Natural Resources to try and get their their leasehold back because, again, they weren't in default. So why should DNR declare them in default? Mhmm. So that's the second thing.
The third thing they've had to do was we then found out that the environmental protection division, the EPD, was going after them criminally. Criminal. Going to put them in jail. So they've had to fight that. That's the third thing. Mhmm. The fourth thing is they then have done, a lawsuit against DOE for an APA action saying that you haven't followed your own rules. Like, you haven't done what you're supposed to do. You have to take these steps. Like, these are the things you have to do. So there's a 4th lawsuit for that. Then fun fun fun little fact here.
DNR also canceled their Douglas County leases.
[00:38:57] David Bennett:
Out of another county? Yeah. When did when did that occur? Because I don't remember
[00:39:03] Tony:
us talking about that part. That was more recent. Okay. But they also did that. So now we have 5 separate lawsuits. Five separate actions that Kings are having to fight. Was was the Douglas cancellation, did that come after the public hearing, which we're we'll get into? No. That was that was before the public hearing. Okay. But it all seems to stem from the same events. And in fact, the judge and the criminal criminal EPD action made some references about the suspect of the timing here. Mhmm. Because it is. It's suspect.
[00:39:39] David Bennett:
Everything about this is suspect. Absolutely. And and they Nothing makes sense, and nothing adds up. And the, the lack of information coming out of any of these departments at all is beyond
[00:39:50] Tony:
concerning. Absolutely. And we've even had elected officials have sent a letter in support of Kings to these agencies to say, what are you guys doing? And again, we're we're just seeing them pursue. They just continue to pursue this. Mhmm.
[00:40:06] David Bennett:
So right before, we get into, the public hearing that I went to Right. That that I wasn't, that got to That was the criminal. That was the criminal side. Right bef that that one it and hopefully you'll be able to clear this up, it seems like that one was about a twist in events where a RICO charge was made.
[00:40:34] Tony:
So it's it's really interesting. Again, we didn't know about the criminal investigation to begin with. Uh-huh. But the, Environmental Protection Division began their investigation in a super secret manner and they did it under an organized crime statute. Okay. So they started pursuing Kings with a special hearing that they could do under seal. Uh-huh. So we cannot get any of the evidence. We cannot see what they're even pursuing. And they continue to tell us every time we'd go to court that they didn't have to. Right. So because it was a it was a super secret special criminal proceeding Uh-huh. They had a judge assigned to them in Grant County, judge Nodell. Uh-huh. And, originally, when we went to the first hearing well, let me back up a little bit. So how we found out about it Uh-huh. Is the EPD actually subpoenaed King's only employee. Okay. And we're requiring him to come to court to testify against King's
[00:41:28] David Bennett:
for these alleged activities. Okay. I want to stop right there because can you I mean under normal circumstances the United States, given our bill of rights, can can somebody force me to testify against somebody else? Wait the 5th, I mean See that, see that's where I'm going with this is that the 5th amendment gives us a special right to say, I don't know if this is gonna incriminate me or not. Therefore,
[00:41:54] Tony:
I'm not saying anything. But here's the issue. So you can plead the 5th but if they give you a free pass, meaning they they're saying, well, we won't go after you, you can be compelled to still testify.
[00:42:07] David Bennett:
Okay. But under testimony, wouldn't you be able to say,
[00:42:10] Tony:
I plead the 5th amendment? And that's where we get to the hearing that you went to. Okay. That was why that hearing occurred. Okay.
[00:42:17] David Bennett:
So let's is there anything that you wanna say before we talk about the hearing because there was some chicanery that happened at that place too? I think I need to go through how we got there. Okay. Please do. So
[00:42:28] Tony:
again, we find out about this investigation, not because of any other way, but because they subpoenaed this employee. Okay. And, of course, he's like, what? You know, he's freaking out. Like, he's been subpoenaed under this special proceeding. We can't find anything out about it. We can't see the original petition. We can't see anything. Mhmm. We try and get a hold of the court, and they're like, that's under seal. We can't share that with you. So at this point, kings are not even a party to this. So It's a completely separate issue. Yeah. Completely separate issue.
So this employee, honoring what you said earlier about no names, this employee gets gets an attorney, a really good criminal attorney, and we proceed to start going to hearings. And the first hearing, judge Nodell was like, well, they have the right to do this. And we're like, how? They're using an organized crime statute. This is not an organized crime. Mhmm. And so then judge Nodell is like, okay. I have these questions. You need to brief these questions. We produce, like, so many it's hundreds of pages of briefing in response to this, which leads to more questions. So we go back for another hearing. It continues to question. Like, this continues on. And, again, we get no information out of the state. They basically say, we have the right to do this, and there's nothing you can do about it.
And the judges, you know, the judges kinda get into this point, like, we're continuing to to inform them. We're continuing to talk about RCWs, stock water rights, like, all these things. Mhmm. And the judge is getting pretty sick of EPD's lack of cooperation. Mhmm. Like, in court a couple times, he would say, how are they expected to fight this when they don't even know what you're doing? And the EPD is like, that's alright. We don't have to share that information. It it was it was so crazy. You felt like you were not even in in America. Mhmm.
So it comes out that the judge sends out this letter, and he says in this letter, like like, I can't tell you what the allegations are. But if it were this allegation, the statute of limitations would be this. If it's this allegation, the statute of limitations would be this. I think they're on a fishing expedition, but I'm going to make this employee come in and testify. Mhmm. Because we need to close the record on this. So we go to this hearing. And in this hearing, the attorneys for this employee cannot be in the courtroom. They kick us out into the hallway. Now this is the one that I went to. No. This is the one before that. They did it again? Yes. Oh, god. So this employee, this young man I mean, he's, like, in his twenties. He has a family, young kids, great human being, amazing human being. He's in the courtroom alone with a judge and 2 attorneys from the state of Washington, from the attorney general's office, through the EPD.
So these 2 prosecutors are basically questioning him, and he has no attorney in there with him. None. So the judge allows him to come out into the hall and talk to his criminal attorney, who I'm sitting next to, and ask if he can answer the question or not. So we go through this procedure, like, you know, and and he can answer easy questions. Like, what's your name? What's your occupation? Where do you all these things. And then they start asking him about specific events. And he comes out into the hall, and he's like, I don't wanna answer. I'm like, okay. Plead the 5th amendment. So he goes back and he says, I'm not gonna answer.
I plead the 5th. And so at that point, the judge said, you know, they're they're saying, well, we can get him for contempt. We can do these things. We can do these things to him. We can throw him in jail. And we told him that they're probably gonna do that. Like, we knew they would do that. And the judge is like, okay. At this point under the statute, we will hold a public hearing and allow people to come in and testify, weighing his right to plead the 5th with the state's right to pursue these charges. So the judge would then come up with with what he thought should happen based on this public hearing, which is the one you went to. Okay. Because the one I'm talking about was still under seal. No public could be there. We were not even supposed to talk about it.
The EPD investigators actually said that they could throw this employee in jail because he told people about that subpoena. And the judge said, I'm not going to entertain that. Mhmm. But I'm sure they would have if they could have. It was crazy. Crazy. Yeah. So moving forward, then we set this public hearing. We rally all these individuals to come, call everybody under the sun to come to this this hearing, and talk about the importance of ranching, the importance of stock water, how no poor employee should be subpoenaed to come in and testify against their employer, especially when they don't want to.
And the other part of it is nothing has ever been shown that the Kings did anything wrong. Right. We still have nothing. No evidence. Nothing. At all. Nothing. Yeah. And that's been a real a real cross to bear because people people will say, well, they had to have done something wrong. They had to have. Mhmm. The state's not just gonna pursue this. They didn't do anything wrong. But They are. Yeah. They are. That's exactly what's they are. And they have nothing. They released nothing that they're showing you. Right. And again, we've got all these public records that we've gotten through this public records request that show nothing other than we've got these emails about the guy being rusty, not rusty, full of rust, but he's gonna pursue it anyway.
We've got other emails where they talk about supporting their narrative. I mean, all these emails that add up to they're out to go after a rancher because they want a change in the law, and they cannot get it any other way. They're gonna get it through the court system. That's why we believe this has happened.
[00:48:14] David Bennett:
Okay. Does this have something to do with the supreme court did an action, earlier this year or was it last year that said we're not doing EPA stuff and kicked it back down to the states. Is is that where this is coming from?
[00:48:32] Tony:
Yeah. So yeah. So that that does have a little bit to do with it. You're talking about the Sacket decision. That's it. Yeah. Yeah. So that does come into play because in each state gets to gets to go. So I think you're confusing it a little bit. Okay. So what the what the SACA decision actually held was that the EPA doesn't have jurisdiction over all all water. They only have jurisdiction over federal water, and then the states have jurisdiction over all other water in that state. So the states can choose to exercise that jurisdiction or not. And in Washington, they choose to exercise that jurisdiction.
[00:49:05] David Bennett:
Okay.
[00:49:06] Tony:
So the state takes that very seriously. And one of our arguments has been, is it watcher or watchers? Meaning, is it a single raindrop that comes out of the sky that our state can have jurisdiction over, or does it need to actually be a water body? The state's position is, if it's not a navigable water, meaning under federal jurisdiction, they have jurisdiction over it, meaning a single raindrop. Any water. If there's a mud puddle out in my driveway, that would be under state jurisdiction. If I polluted that that mud puddle in my driveway, they could go after me. That's their stance. Mhmm.
And it's crazy. Yeah. Again, it lacks common sense. And I'm gonna say to you again, follow the money. Well,
[00:49:48] David Bennett:
I know in in, I've never lived in Colorado, but since we have a house there, I you know, and we have a stream coming through the property well aware of some of the weirdest ways of looking at water I've ever seen.
[00:50:03] Tony:
To the point that I don't even own the rain that falls on top of the house. That's correct here too. Is it so we Yeah. So you can't collect rainwater either. But, yeah, I'm sure there's I've never looked into that because we don't get enough rain to collect it. True. But you don't own water. You own a water right. You own a right to use water. Okay. So this is so convoluted. Where where are we at now? Okay. So now we're going to the public hearing that you attended. Okay. So we rally all these individuals. I mean, we have people coming from all over, from other states, from everywhere, because this is so bogus. This is so insane. Right. And we find out the night before, from a source, that the EPD has filed something that we don't get. We don't see.
We only find out about it through this source. They filed something with the court. And our understand I'm gonna back up a second. At the hearing prior, when the judge took decided to have this public hearing, he was requiring the head of the EPD to come to the next hearing and be questioned by the criminal attorney for this employee. Mhmm. And so we had actually asked EPD during dependency before the between the two hearings, if they were gonna move forward or if they were gonna quash their subpoena and and stop this criminal this criminal process. Okay. And they they they basically said nothing. So They said nothing either way. Right. So the night before we find out they filed something with the judge that we cannot see, we do not have, we do not know what it is. We speculated that they did not want the head of the EPD to have to come in and be questioned by the criminal attorney.
Makes sense. They don't want their their guy on the stand. So that's where you come in. So we started calling people and saying, we don't think the hearing's gonna go forward. You know, please, if you're coming from a long way away, don't don't drive this far. But we still had quite a few people come. It was a standing room only in that courtroom. It was just an amazing showing of support. Right. And so we got there, and you will you will agree with me, David. It was crazy. It was. So we get in there. We sit down. The judge is like, believe. We're gonna close this courtroom. We're not gonna let you guys hear this motion. I'm not giving you,
[00:52:27] David Bennett:
criminal attorney and and me, this copy of this motion. So this this motion is what was filed the night before? Yeah. And okay, so we all came for a public hearing and somebody threw something to the dogs the very last minute and all of a sudden it changed the 10th. That's someone. DPD'd it. Yep.
[00:52:44] Tony:
So it changed the tenor of what was going to occur, yet we were still it it was still supposed to be a public hearing. Yeah. And if you recall, the criminal attorney argued. He said, they haven't given us this. We haven't been shown this. This is not due process. This is not right. You should not move forward with this, your honor. And the the judge said, yeah. Great. Get out of the courtroom. It got to the point, if you recall, David, that we almost got escorted out because we were we were vigorously defending the right to Americans in this country Mhmm. To have due process.
[00:53:19] David Bennett:
Right. And we were there in force. When you say standing room only, that's not hubris. I was one of the ones that had to stand up. Yeah. And then I got to sit down when we were
[00:53:30] Tony:
Brought back. Given permission to come back into a public room. Yeah. But but do recall. So we have all these people out in the hallway Mhmm. Including the clerk of the court. That's the The clerk of the court. That's the weird thing. Because it's like,
[00:53:44] David Bennett:
why isn't the clerk in the court? Because you couldn't record the proceeding, it was under secret seal. And for those who don't know the clerks, one of the clerks job is to basically take down what's happening, what's being said, who's saying it,
[00:53:59] Tony:
and none of that was now recorded. Right. We did there was a transcriptionist in there. Okay. And but we can't get that record.
[00:54:07] David Bennett:
So we still don't know what was said. No. Not really. We can only speculate. Okay. But it did result in in a change. So or something changed because when we were allowed back into this public court,
[00:54:23] Tony:
well you say it. Well we were brought back in and the judge said that the EPD has agreed to quash their subpoena.
[00:54:31] David Bennett:
Against the King's employee? Yes. Yep.
[00:54:34] Tony:
And again, we argued vigorously for the right to see the petition, the right to open the file. You know, at the at the worst case scenario, like, at least tell the state that they can't proceed with criminal charges
[00:54:48] David Bennett:
later. And that was the question that that was posed. And it wasn't you. It was, the criminal attorney said, is this subpoena being quashed with prejudice? That's correct. And that would have meant that there was no way, shape, or form that this that these particular people would be able to ever bring that subpoena again? Correct. And it was not quashed with prejudice? It was not. The judge was very specific. He said they can still bring their motion. They can still proceed
[00:55:13] Tony:
with their criminal investigation. This subpoena is quashed. See, this is where we all got really upset. Well, of course. Because then we're we're the kings are still under criminal jeopardy. I mean, they're still faced with this this looming threat
[00:55:30] David Bennett:
Mhmm.
[00:55:31] Tony:
To throw them in jail. Right. And For a felony. Yeah. This isn't a traffic ticket. This is a felony allegation.
[00:55:38] David Bennett:
Yeah. And and the fact that they can I mean it's not just the kinks because this young man is still in jeopardy too? Absolutely. You know everybody here, nothing was solved. Nothing. And and what I found the most of one of the most offensive things that I found was when the judge looked at the criminal attorney who was arguing about all this and he said why can't you just take the win? Yeah. He absolutely said that. It was crazy. I I have never been able to reconcile what I saw that day with what I supposedly have been taught is the United States judicial system. And due process. And due process. Absolutely. And the I mean, I was still I was still chewing on the fact that they made it a RICO issue. It was, you know, the, an organized crime issue.
Who organized I what you're not stealing lumber. You're not conspiring to go, you know, shake down businesses in Main Street for a $1,000 a week for protection money. This has nothing to do with organized crime. And and who would have been organized? You have a a couple, the Kings Yeah. And their employee.
[00:56:49] Tony:
How is that organized crime? Like, again, we don't even we yeah. We've questioned that as well. Like, how do you even bring these charges under an organized crime statute so you can keep it super secret? Yeah. Again,
[00:56:59] David Bennett:
totally un American. So so that that happened a few months back. The this court case that I went to a few months back, and then me and you went back and forth, and we weren't able to to hook up. So I'm sure that more stuff has happened since then. Of course. It's been insane. I feel like every day is a new day. Right? And since and I I am pretty much at this point, ladies and gentlemen, I am out completely out of my depth in in what I know about this case. I I'm coming right now like you as clean slate listener. What's going on now?
[00:57:37] Tony:
Well, that's when I talked earlier about the pivot. Remember we started with alkali wetlands. Mhmm. The Department of Natural Resources filed a preliminary injunction against the Kings stating that Kings had disturbed cultural resources. Cultural resources. We pivoted to cultural resources. So now it's a burial ground. Yeah. Great. And they got some some of their experts out there and proceeded to say that they'd found bones, which there are cattle out there. There's gonna be and and wildlife. There's deer. There's all kinds of wildlife out there. Posited what what type of animal bones they might be? Did not identify. So the assumption
[00:58:17] David Bennett:
is human, cultural, anthropological type things, but just because there's bones and it's it's and I mean, animals are gonna die in the field. Yeah. And they're gonna get picked clean and their bones are gonna be I mean, I'm not gonna go clean up bones. It's, you know, I'd actually want the calcium in the soil, so I'm definitely gonna leave them there. Right. And there's coyotes. I mean, there's there's
[00:58:42] Tony:
lots of animals out there that including birds that they're scavengers. That's how they survive is on things that that that die. And so they have identified bones, which makes no sense, and other indicators of cultural resources. But here's the fun part. Uh-huh. Through this property used to be one of the main roads before highway 17 that was used in that area. Uh-huh. And there's also a trail through there that was used when people moved cattle back when we, you know, we had to to literally herd cattle to market. So there are 2 massive systems through there that probably do have some some indicators of cultural resources for ranchers.
Right. For our culture.
[00:59:39] David Bennett:
Exactly.
[00:59:40] Tony:
And so when they've identified these alleged cultural resources, they're not talking about the American rancher. They're talking about
[00:59:48] David Bennett:
prior to that. Right. Yeah. Native Americans Yeah. Or or whatever. Mesoamericans. Who knows? But and I I mean, here's here's my thing is that my question now is, when you say pivot,
[01:00:00] Tony:
have they left the alkali wetlands thing to die and twist in the wind, or is that still open? It's still open, but they haven't been pursuing it. So Okay. So let me get back to this preliminary injunction because this is entertaining to me. So they identify these certain spots with these cultural resources. They don't give us any indicators of what they are, and they don't have to under statute. They don't tell us where they're at. They don't tell us what they are. If you're not somebody that's DHAP certified, you can't get into the records on the website, yada yada. And, of course, I do it under quick timing. Like, we have very little time to to respond.
So we get some response, but part of our issue is, okay, your preliminary injunction seeks to evict kings from a 12,000 acre lease when these spots are identifying are 0.0038 percent of that total lease area. And guess what? Judge enters it.
[01:00:57] David Bennett:
Yeah.
[01:00:58] Tony:
So now it's the thing. So now we've appealed it to we've filed a motion for discretionary review to the court of appeals. Now let me tell you about the other case that we're fighting on. The Douglas County case that we talked about, because King got kicked off their Douglas County leasehold. Right. And we, of course, had to appeal that. How many acres is that leasehold? That's a smaller one. I'm gonna say it's, like, 900, but don't don't quote. I mean, approximately. Okay. K. It's still it's still important. It's still an integral piece of this ranching operation. Yeah. I can put a lot of head on 900, a 1000, 1200 acres. Well and keep in mind, when we're talking about these lease holds, what King's Own and Fee Simple, it's checkerboard patterns. So they can't access some of their ground that they own without the leasehold property.
So it's it's very important. Right. So so the Douglas County case, the DNR actually argued that it had to be held in Thurston County and the judge agreed. So we've also appealed that.
[01:02:01] David Bennett:
I don't wait. I'm now I'm really confused. So Thurston County is now in play. Yeah. So did there they're saying that the lease in Douglas County has to be held in Thurston County? The the any of our legal
[01:02:16] Tony:
Oh, the legal the paperwork. Yep. The the like, here's my lease. Well, no. They're saying the legal like, our challenge has to be in Thurston County. So our our clients that live here Uh-huh. On this side of the state would have to pursue legal recourse in Thurston County. How far away is that? That's a long ways away. It's on the other side of the mountains. It's in Olympia. Oh, that's a long way. That's like, what, another 2 hours away from Keep in mind, you don't have judges that understand this environment. You don't have judges that are elected by the people here. You don't have judges that are you know, we're supposed to have judges that their job is to enforce law, but you always worry about what that judge is really doing.
And so a concern would be, why are we having to go to Thurston County? The the added cost of that, the added inconvenience of that. You're now telling ranchers that have to work 7 days a week, that they're gonna have to take time off and go to Thurston County.
[01:03:12] David Bennett:
And you're having judges that may or may not understand the issues because they haven't been over here. Well, they're they have no context. Yeah. They have no context. It rains all the time. There there was a lot of people that said, oh, you live at you live in Washington. It must rain there all the time. No. Seattle, baby. Tacoma, Olympia, you know, like on that side of the mountain chain, yes it rains all the time because the mountains trap that that moisture and it just continuously falls. But out here, I mean I'm I'm I'm looking around and I I see eastern New Mexico and anybody who's ever been out to eastern New Mexico knows it is as crispy and brittle as it comes and this reminds me a lot of that. There's no way you can have context as a judge who gets rain all the time to what it looks like out here unless they've lived out here or come out here. And I've gathered that they don't.
[01:04:00] Tony:
And we wouldn't know which judge would get it, but I would also think that that your your statement's probably true. Oh, okay. So
[01:04:07] David Bennett:
so now they now they're saying that it has to be in Thurston County, so the now there's a threat that these people would have to get up and continuously rotate to, what, another 150 miles? Sure. I have a map question it, but I mean it's a drive. Yeah. It's at least 2 and a half hours from here. Oh, no. It's farther than that. Is it farther than that? Yeah. Okay. Because I I mean, it's yeah. Yeah. I guess I guess it would be. But the
[01:04:34] Tony:
But the other thing when you think this through is anytime you wanna challenge a government entity that's that owns land I shouldn't say that that they don't own it. They manage it for the citizens of the state of Washington. Mhmm. But the jurisdiction of that land, the challenge should be where the land is. Right. It shouldn't be in Thurston County. Right. It should always be where the land is located.
[01:04:57] David Bennett:
Right. And and and I I definitely not definitely not arguing that, But it also needs to be that I for for me there's two reasons and one is more important than the other one. One is this is where the rancher is. Right. This is where the this is where the people who are involved with whatever situation pops up are going to be, it is incumbent upon the state to provide resources for that person not to have to fly across the country, across the state, whatever. But also, the second thing was that there's no context. The person that's like, may adjudicating or whatever the word might be, any of these issues doesn't know what it's like out here. And cost.
[01:05:34] Tony:
Added cost. Tremendously added cost. Because the clients can't just go in. They have to go a day before whatever. Mhmm. Having attorneys from this side of the state go over to that side of the state added cost. I mean, just the added cost. When we talk about due process, that to me is a huge factor. It is. Can you have due process if you can't afford to pursue these challenges, these allegations, and protect your rights?
[01:06:01] David Bennett:
I don't think you can. I was talking to my sister the other day. She was a, did a lot of legal work for, like, you know, large large firms for anywhere from real estate to, mergers and acquisitions, all the whole gambit of corporate law. She said the first time that she came up against something and it was that that really scared her about the judicial system and the the legal fees involved was that American Airlines was suing, and I can't remember the name of the airline. They were brand new. And they found something. And they just rode them into the ground on legal cost. And that airline was only open for 2 years because American Airlines said, you know what?
We're just going to outspend you. And that's I mean, it's kinda like what, you know, for the older folks in the audience, that's what Reagan did to the USSR. That's why we have the Russian Federation now and not the USSR, because he just outspent them. Well But this, that's between two countries. This is between our own citizenry.
[01:06:59] Tony:
Well, let me tell you about the the hearing for the for the Learner injunction. We had the attorney for Department of Natural Resources repeatedly say in that hearing, hey. If I'm wrong, we'll just write him a check. We have an open checkbook.
[01:07:12] David Bennett:
Oh, my. That's just that's disturbing.
[01:07:17] Tony:
Repeatedly. He didn't say it once. He said it repeatedly.
[01:07:21] David Bennett:
Oh, that's awful. What an awful well, I mean, the Well, it was like here stop this. Attitude is like we just don't care about anything. Well, and here's the thing. Like, as a rancher,
[01:07:31] Tony:
a check's not going to compensate me for the loss of my cattle, for the loss of my livelihood, for the loss of my operation, for the loss of my genetics. A check is just a check. Money's great. Don't get me wrong. Love money. Wish I had more. Whatever. But we, as ranchers, clearly don't do it for the money, or we wouldn't be doing it. We're doing it because of our love for the land, our love for our livestock, and our love for our way of life.
[01:07:57] David Bennett:
You can't compensate for that. And when you say genetics, I want people to understand that, you know, because some of my audience are becoming more and more interested in in getting away from cities. And, you know, they they all will say something like, hey, I'm gonna get it I'm gonna buy when I get rich, I'm gonna buy a ranch. I'm like, I don't think even I don't I I talk to to ranchers all the time and even I don't understand this, which is one of the reasons why I continuously talk to ranchers about how does this work. And one of the ways this works is when you say your genetics, you're not talking about your genetics, you're talking about your animal's genetics. Absolutely. And that's a hard fought thing.
And when you lose that because of you've been you've been called away so there is there is an amount of neglect that is being forced upon you to do to your animals because you can't be there. And when these will like if your sire that's carrying the majority of your genetics just keels over because something happens because you weren't there,
[01:08:58] Tony:
people say, oh, you should have a backup. Well, that it doesn't work that way here. Well, and let me let me back you up. It's not that. I'm not talking about the kings not taking care of their livestock. I'm talking about the fact that if they don't have a ranch to run them on Right. They have nowhere to put them. They have to sell them. They're gone.
[01:09:12] David Bennett:
You're not getting them back. That's a completely I didn't even think about that because I was thinking about animal death. But, yeah. I mean, you gotta take them to the sale bar because you gotta Huge loss. Huge loss. Not just monetary,
[01:09:23] Tony:
emotional, the whole gambit. I mean, I can't even describe to you the devastation that this would cause to a rancher. It it's it's really probably comparable
[01:09:33] David Bennett:
I I don't even know. I I actually can't compare it. It's crazy. It would it would almost be the the I I I think I'd like for the guys over that, you know, that are gear heads like Ferrari. If they suddenly lost
[01:09:47] Tony:
all of their design schematics from I have to think it's deeper than that. I would actually more be like a loss of a lamb. I can see that. Because it's it's more than I mean, those Ferrari guys, that's fine. But that's job or whatever. Right. This is a livelihood. Yeah. Start designing again. Yeah. You can you can't. Like Mhmm. Even when we're we're talking about, like, oh, our ranchers that have been devastated by fire. I've got a really good friends, Latt Ranchers, that are in Eastern Washington, and they just lost a huge portion of their ranch to fire. Yeah. And just listening to him, he's he's doing a little bit better now, but they're gonna have to sell the majority of their herd. They have nowhere to run it. We have had some other ranchers and other farmers reach out and say, bring your cattle over here. So he's gonna be able to keep a core group. Okay. But just that devastation, and this isn't that. This is a permanent devastation. This is not a time, you know, a time frame where that they can overcome.
[01:10:40] David Bennett:
This is them losing their ranch. Yeah. And that's sort of like where I wanna take this next is that even if the Kings win everything, it like, to the point that it embarrasses the state of Washington As it should. Are they going to still be able to survive given the amount of cost that's been racked up? They've been forced to rack up. Yeah. No. It it's it's it's hard. And I really don't have an answer to that. I can tell you that they're gonna do everything within their power to survive,
[01:11:09] Tony:
but the cost of this fight are astronomical. And like you talked about, just overspending. Mhmm. The kings are don't have taxpayers to rely on. No. They can't print their own money. No. They don't have a money tree. Yeah. And and and and state governments,
[01:11:24] David Bennett:
especially that caught into in my this is again my opinion, but states that state administrations that caught into the admin like the current administration, that we have in Washington right now, probably gonna be able to get get money. Whereas other states, maybe not so much. Unless you're just intensely powerful in industry like like the state of Texas. Right. Generally conservative, completely against the the policies in Washington DC right now. Yet, they're like, well, you know, without our oil, without our manufacturing, I mean, Elon Musk has pulled completely out of California now. He he announced like a couple of days ago even that that x, you know, what used to be Twitter, it now the headquarters is gonna go out to California. He's already done it for Tesla. He's he's did it for SpaceX.
I mean, California I mean, at that point and I'm not even that much of a fan of of Elon Musk, but, I mean, if I was a state, I would be a fan of that tax base and they're all even. Yeah. You know, and it's like, and I've seen like in in the city that I live on way Eastern Washington, one of the building supply, places is closing down and the movie theater is closing down because of property tax rises and they've changed the, the amount of money that you are required to pay for minimum wage. And the owners are like we can't afford it. And they have in both of these places have the exact same store right across the border in uh-uh Idaho, and they're fine. Yep. They're completely fine. When I go from, from Eastern Washington to Western Idaho, between these two cities, all of the commerce is over in Idaho. Because you're actually able to do commerce.
And I mean this, you know, I'm not gonna ask you what you, you know, why you think that's occurring but this just seems to be part of this of a larger problem. This this thing with the kings is like, we don't want any industry. Anybody doing well, we don't want anybody producing anything ever, and we're never gonna tell you why. That's what it looks like to me. And that doesn't make any sense which causes me a great deal of confusion because I'm like, how are you gonna get how are you gonna get your money to pay your people? I mean, unless you literally are planning on the federal government just printing money and they will. I mean, when Jerome Powell dropped the, announced like a couple of days ago that he was dropping the, interest rates at the, Federal Reserve, all that really means is that the money printer is about to turn on. That's what that means.
But that's not a long that's not a long term plan for something as large as a state, whether it's Washington or New Mexico, it doesn't really matter. That's not that's not a long term way of survival. And at this point I can own I I can't even conjecture why you would destroy the economy of of a state. And it's Washington's not the only one. Oregon's not exactly doing well either. No. Oregon's almost as liberal as we are. And California? I mean they're well, they're losing everything. I mean it's just everything is everything is moving west and now you've got half of Oregon and half of Washington wanna go over to Idaho, which I think is actually a a great idea. Is there even a mechanism for that? I don't think so. I didn't think so either.
[01:14:55] Tony:
And we continue to talk about this new state called liberty, and Mhmm. I just don't think it's it doesn't make any sense, again, back to Follow the Money Mhmm. With all of our energy production, our dams, our alleged green energy over here Mhmm. It just wouldn't make sense to allow our half of the state to to leave.
[01:15:12] David Bennett:
I know. It it it doesn't make any sense at all. So I don't think that that will happen either. It's just that when you get sentiment built up to the fact that you've got half of the whole state wanting to join another state, I'm not sure that that's happened in recent memory. No. I mean, unless you know about another story of something like like West Virginia wanting to get back together with Virginia because I haven't heard about it. This is the only place where I've heard about this even being talked about. And that, even though it won't happen, and I really don't think it'll happen, it does beg the question, what the hell happened that this conversation even exists?
And we when I see what's being done to the kings, it's very clear why this conversation exists. And at one point or another, I I I don't know where it's gonna go but let's get back to the kings cause that's way too much philosophical stuff. So we get back to the kings. What happens now? Is there any a is there anything else that we need to know, before we start wrapping this up,
[01:16:18] Tony:
that you haven't been able to impart yet? Well, we do have the 2 motions before the the court of appeals. Okay. The motion is for discretionary review. And they're going to be held, one of them September September 19th, and the other one is October 3rd. Okay. And they revolve around that preliminary injunction Okay. And the jurisdiction going to Thurston County. Okay. So other things that are happening right now, we also have a stay before the PCHB, and the reason we have a a motion for stay is because of the criminal jeopardy. Mhmm. We haven't been able to get anything out of the attorney general's office to say we're done, we're not pursuing this. Nothing.
[01:17:00] David Bennett:
I do have a voice mail that they say they're not pursuing charges for now, but that still leaves criminal jeopardy on the table. Yeah. It does. Because it's like you can't just take that recording to the judge and say see they said it because Well, it said for now. For now. Oh oh they they actually said for now. Well then why even make the statement? Why even why even form the sentence? It's almost like it's a threat. Yeah. Pretty much. Okay so so are we pretty much,
[01:17:26] Tony:
at the end of what we can talk about with the King Ranch as to what we know is gonna occur or or like legally anyway? Yeah. Probably. I mean, there there these other cases are just kinda pending because of this criminal jeopardy element. Until we get this criminal jeopardy taken care of, the Kings are put at a lot. Like, how can they defend themselves if statements they use can be misconstrued Right. To pursue criminal charges against them? It just it it really leads us, again, as attorneys and kings as potentially having these allegations. It just it puts us at a disadvantage, and it's very frustrating.
[01:18:03] David Bennett:
Mhmm.
[01:18:04] Tony:
And we would like to see due process actually occur. Right. And to to move forward, we've got to understand where the state sits on the criminal charges. We'd like to know what the heck they even are. Mhmm. We'd like to know what they stem from. And until we can get answers and, you know, allow ourselves to feel like that criminal jeopardy has passed, we're really stuck. Right.
[01:18:29] David Bennett:
Okay. So there is a donation, page for the King Ranch. Do you remember what that URL is, the name of that thing? No, I know no. I know it's it's in my show notes of every show that I do. Oh, thank you. So every single time that I release a show whether it's, you know, no matter what it's about, the King Ranch donation page is in there. So I will I will go back and and make sure that well, it's it automatically gets populated whenever I release an episode so it's always going to be there. Is there any other way that people can help? I mean, how
[01:19:03] Tony:
how does like, if anybody out there, you know, is there's probably some people out there, like, going, tell me what to do. Yeah. No. And we appreciate that. And Western Justice, which is a really great organization based out of Idaho, has stepped up and they're also supporting the Kings. And and they, if you recall, had, video at the criminal hearing. They're they're trying to, you know, maybe work on a documentary. Those are the guys that you were introducing me to. Yep. Oh, I I for some reason, I thought that they were I didn't realize that they were out of Idaho. I thought that they were somewhere else. So Yeah. Dave Duquette runs Western Justice. He's been involved in the ag industry for a long time. Mhmm. So we're we're hoping to get some funding for that documentary to just talk about government overreach and and the fight against agriculture, the battle that we were having to fight to stay to stay alive. Yeah.
So that's a big part of it. We also Western Justice also has a fundraising portion on their website. We also have had some port from Citizens Action Defense Fund, CADIF. Okay. They're a non profit that has been very, very helpful. They helped, write some amicus briefs on these motions for discretionary review that are going to the Court of Appeals. And and talking to elected officials, talking to people that have some influence, talking to, these these people that could hypothetically help us with, the attorney general's office and just in general, just putting some pressure on DOE and DNR to to stop to stop this this outrageous these outrageous accusations.
Mhmm. To stop going after a rancher for ranching.
[01:20:37] David Bennett:
Is there is are there any other instances of this in Washington? Or is it pretty much just all centered around the Kings right now? Right now, it's centered around the Kings, but I don't know if you've been following
[01:20:47] Tony:
there's 3 there's 3 actions in Idaho that are pretty suspect, and there's one in South Dakota that's very similar to this where the government is going after a a very young ranching couple for ranching practices. State or federal? I believe it's state, but I'd have to go back and look. It's but it's pretty concerning. So I I feel like this might be a trend. I would say that the the the decisions out of our US Supreme Court have been amazing. The overturn of Chevron, you know, deference to agencies is gonna be very helpful. The fact that we have these decisions coming out of our US Supreme Court, we don't know how impactful they'll be, but we believe we believe we have to have some belief in something. Right? We believe that they will be impactful and and we're very hopeful for that.
[01:21:34] David Bennett:
Sorry. I I ended up getting a text that I had I just like one of those wife texts. You don't ever leave your wife hanging no matter where you're at. So No, I agree. As a wife I totally agree. Yeah. Is there here well here's one of the things that I keep thinking about, I keep coming up against this. No matter where I am, if I have the opportunity to talk to a rancher, like at the you know, I went down we were out at at Pullman to go to the lentil festival, which they do like every, you know, for like the last 37 years. And there's, you know, ranchers out there selling, you know, meat or, you know, other things. And I will always go and talk to these people. And, Bosco Farmers Market, lots of ranchers out there.
And every single one that I've talked to since I've met you,
[01:22:20] Tony:
I've asked them, do you know what's going on with the King Ranch? Nobody knows a thing. Because we couldn't talk about it because of the criminal investigation. We were all afraid to to say anything where, you know, this employee has a subpoena that specifically says on it he's not allowed to talk about it. Mhmm. We were very afraid that he was gonna get thrown in jail. So now we're trying to, you know, combat that, go out, talk about the case. Safe Family Farms has done some stuff on the case. You've been really great about helping us get word out about the case. It's been in the capital press.
We've been really trying to overcome that void. Mhmm. But it's difficult, especially when DOE had that original smear campaign. Right off the get go, they had press releases about this $267,000, the alkali wetland damage. I mean, they went they just came out swinging. Yeah. And, again, instead of combating that, we said, let's get experts. Let's let's do this right. We don't want it being a he said she said. Mhmm. We wanna we want to be able to offer proof.
[01:23:20] David Bennett:
We want to be able to prove the innocence of these clients. Mhmm. Because that's how you really win. And let me guess, none of these publications have asked you to, you know, for what your researchers came up with.
[01:23:32] Tony:
Are the publications that we're talking about have asked for a little bit, but they're more interested in the court battle. Yeah. Okay. Okay.
[01:23:40] David Bennett:
What here this the the thing about I don't think it was just about the fact that you guys couldn't talk about it. Because here's one of the things that I don't think people understand about the ranchers that they go meet is that it correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that the type of person that is a rancher is exactly the kind of person that doesn't
[01:24:06] Tony:
not really all that interested in talking to massive amounts of people. No. I agree. That's why we make ourselves easy targets. We don't Yep. We don't we don't care. Like, we're self motivated. We're we're isolated. We're Yeah. But you're independent. Yeah. We're independent. It's like it's the independence
[01:24:21] David Bennett:
here that which should never ever be like let go of. But I didn't like for ranches to be able to I think it's important ranchers might identify that without talking to each other a lot, maybe a lot more than than they do right now, that they're setting themselves up for shit like this all the time because they these people know. And, of course, again, pure conjecture on my part. Know that it's like none of the other ranchers are gonna know. We're gonna go after these guys. I guarantee you. Maybe their neighbors will figure it out. Yep. You know, but there's not gonna be any help. Right. Because these people are they're independent and and they've got all this other stuff that they gotta do. Yeah. We're busy. We're just flat busy. And it's like so has the I mean you would think that the cattlemen's association would rally a cry and say everybody needs to come together so that we can present this. I heard it at during the Whitman, heard about it because I got an email from Whitman County cattle cattlemen association.
But I haven't we we were con we were talking about the Kings thing when on our last meeting and it was evident that the Washington Cattlemen's Association
[01:25:31] Tony:
hasn't said or by the at that time hadn't said anything. Well, they they they have signed on to an amicus brief in support of stock water. Okay. Good. But it it you know, I've been able to put in their monthly publication, you know, about the stock watering issues and stuff. But but we have to be pretty careful because, again, ranchers don't wanna target themselves. Mhmm. And so there's been, you know, there's been some resistance to just flat out especially with the criminal charges. Everybody's really afraid of the criminal aspect of it. I imagine why. So that's been a big a big hurdle to overcome. And, again, every time I talk about it, I'm like, they haven't done anything wrong. There's these criminal charges are bogus. Like, they're just another pressure point, another way to to run King's money out, another stressor on them, another way to get them to cave. Yeah.
[01:26:22] David Bennett:
We, do this. Is there anything else, something that we haven't touched on, something that you really think is important to get out, final thoughts? Just that we have had a really great rally of our ag our ag agency or ag commodity groups.
[01:26:38] Tony:
On those amicus briefs, we had support from a Washington Farm Bureau, the Dairy Federation, Cattle Producers of Washington has been awesome. Mhmm. The Washington Cattle Feeders has been awesome. You know, there's some really great groups out there that have absolutely supported the King's Stevens County Cattlemen. So the the people that are in the know, the people that understand Kings and understand what's going on, have supported them wholeheartedly, and we thank them for that.
[01:27:07] David Bennett:
Alright. Well, Tony, I really appreciate you spending all your time with us today to kinda lie. I've talked about this on the podcast a couple of times, but I've been waiting for this to really get into the details before I started running my mouth. So thank you so much. Thank you, David. We appreciate you. So we appreciate you. I mean, just helping to get the word out,
[01:27:27] Tony:
It's it's invaluable.
[01:27:29] David Bennett:
Alright, Tony. We'll talk to you later. Thank you. If you did not think that there was a war on ranching, then you were wrong. It's okay. I didn't realize how bad it was. And I've had many discussions with Texas Slim. I've had many discussions with other ranchers. But I've never ever thought that it was this bad that they would do these kinds of things to a single family in the middle of nowhere central Washington simply for carrying on their life, their business. Sure, some people call it a lifestyle. Even Tony called it a lifestyle. It's their business. This is how they make money.
If your lifestyle is, you know, going to a job and having a couple of kids, then yeah, it's a lifestyle. But we don't really think about it that way. We don't think about our own lives as a lifestyle. We don't think about when we go to our job that it's a lifestyle. This is the business of a ranching family. It's under attack. And I would hope that people would be able to pull together and help not only fellow ranchers helping out their other ranchers, but if you go and you eat meat, if you're if you're like me and like just I love beef, then it's incumbent upon us to try to help.
I'm gonna give you 2 ways to help. 1 is a website called ruralamericanaction dotcom. That's ruralamericanaction.comforward/fundraisingforward/you know, save King Ranch in Agriculture in Washington. They have a search bar in rural in ruralamericanaction.com. Their, the link will be in the show notes. They are like, you know, well, like any kind of fundraising site. And they're trying to raise $50,000 is their goal. And this goes essentially to just cover a bunch of legal costs and probably travel and whatnot like that. They are one of 2 fundraising pages that you can go to if you want to help these guys out. If you want to help save some aspect of American ranching, then we need to start with the one place that we can go start at.
The King Ranch is a good example. Even if you're not a even if you're not a Washington citizen, a Washingtonian as they call it. If you're in Texas, if you're in Idaho, if you're in South Dakota, because as Tony told you, there are actions going on in those states as well, then then help a brother out. Go out and do, you know, or give some money to the ruralamericanaction.com page for the King Ranch. And just search the King Ranch. Or, you can actually probably just say, search save King Ranch into agriculture in Washington. And you're gonna get to that page. Again, I will have the direct URL in the show notes. The other fundraising website is givesendgo.com/kingranch.
That's give send go.com/kingranch. They seem to have more of a Christian bent. So, if you want to exercise that part of your faith or however it is that you're thinking about it, then go to givesendgo.com/kingranch. And that URL will take you directly will be in the show notes and it will take you directly to this one. I don't think they actually have. I don't it doesn't look like they have an actual goal, but it was started by John Stuhlmiller, which is the gentleman that Tony and I were talking about at the very first front of the show. The guy that's not the water expert, but he's part of the team that is trying to help the King Ranch out and he's helped them out to the point that he's started a fundraiser for them. Please do that and again the same thing that I said in the show yesterday was this particular show I ask you to spread spread the word about the Bitcoin NAND podcast far and wide. But this one, this one's special. Because it's not just it's not just for me. It's not just for the Bitcoin NAND podcast.
This one is for the King Ranch. And by extension ranching in the United States in general I'm not gonna save ranching in the United States that's that's not part of what it is that I'm doing all I can do is the smallest part that I can do to try to help. It was very disturbing that all of the ranchers that I've been talking to have never heard of the King Ranch and what's been going on. And now this crap has spread over to Idaho and possibly South Dakota I know that there's problems in Texas this is going on all over the place and it's getting worse If you want to help, then spread this particular episode out to all if you have ranching friends, you need to email it to them. You need to text them the link. I don't care how you get it to them, but also tell them that they need to listen to this because even if they don't live in Washington, at one point or another, this shit's coming for them too.
I'll see you on the other side. This has been Bitcoin and and I'm your host David Bennett. I hope you enjoyed today's episode and hope to see you again real soon. Have a great day.
Good morning. This is David Bennett, and this is Bitcoin and, a podcast where I try to find the edge effect between the worlds of Bitcoin, gaming, permaculture, podcasting, and education to gain a better understanding of all. Edge effect is a concept from ecology describing a greater diversity of life where the edges of 2 systems overlap. While species from either system can be found at the edge, it is important to note there are species in the overlap that exist in neither system, and that is what I seek to uncover. So join me in discovering the variety of things being created as Bitcoin rubs up against other systems. It is 9:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time. It's the 28th day of August 2024.
And this is episode 943 of Bitcoin and it's entitled Ranch Wars The King Ranch. Why? Well, because this is the interview I've been promising you guys forever. I'm sitting down with Tony, who is one of the lawyers for the King Ranch out in Central Washington State in the United States. We're gonna talk about all the things that I've told you about before, but this is gonna go so deep that it's going to be an eye opener as to just how much power a state, a single state that is in the union of states that makes up the United States, has and will bear on a family.
A single family. Not a whole it's not like they're doing this all over the place. As far as we can tell, these guys, the King Ranch is the only thing in the crosshairs of Washington State, at least at this moment. It's a multi generational ranch. They've been on the land for decades. They've been excellent stewards of this land. And all of a sudden for no apparent reason whatsoever they are at risk of losing everything that they have built their legacy destroyed everything they wanted for the future possibly gone It's it's an ongoing case or several cases kind of. It's there's many things going on and you're going to learn about all of them in this interview.
But first, the circle p is open for business. The circle p is the part of the show where I bring plebs like you to other plebs just like you except these plebs take Bitcoin for their goods and services. And today, it's Reverend or Rev Hoddle's applied permaculture class which is on Saturday October 12th in Baroda, Michigan. Cost 100,000 satoshis. That's right. It's actually a very very good price. And even better considering that we have now just crossed down below $58,000 for Bitcoin. Even the 58 k gang is just not even having having any of it anymore. So you can learn how to apply permaculture to any lifestyle to build sovereignty, resilience, and wealth in this one half day class.
I will detail how I apply the permaculture ethics and principles to homesteading, share how I build resilience in my wealth with the 8 forms of capital, and illuminate the connections between Bitcoin and permaculture. After the learning about applied permaculture, eat lunch prepared with fresh food grown on the homestead. After lunch, I will give a full homestead tour showcasing living examples to see the ethics and principles of permaculture in action. You will leave with a full understanding of permaculture and the inspiration to apply it to your life in any situation.
So he has lodging available for both Friday Saturday night. There's free camping, but if you don't wanna pitch a tent, you could book a house, a yurt, or even a tiny house. The yurt, or the house that he has, has 4 beds and will sleep 6 guests maximum. The yurt has 1 queen bed, there's 2 guests maximum. And the tiny house also has a queen bed and there's 2 guests maximum. You need to DM him on Nostr to get details on pricing for the lodging. You I will be giving all of the there will be links to, Rev Hoddle's Nostr account. There will also be a link directly to this particular, announcement for this show or for his, permaculture class, if you're interested. But on Friday, October 11th, that's when you check-in.
3 pm is the earliest check-in time. And at 7 pm, there's a fireside Bitcoin meetup. You gotta bring your own beer, but everybody's invited. However, Saturday, October 12th, that's the day of the class. And that starts at 10 AM with a permaculture presentation. There's a homestead lunch at 12 PM. At 1 PM, you will see permaculture in action on a tour. And then at 3 PM, there's wrap up and networking. And I'm sure that more beer will be involved. And I would assume that you have to bring your own beer for that one, too. So, check out Rev Hoddle's, applied permaculture class.
And if you tell him that you heard it on the circle p, he will cut me some sats for putting it on this show. Because why? The circle p is here to help people that don't have a marketing budget, that don't have an advertising budget, to be able to at least leverage the audience that I do have and say I have a good and service or service that I think you would like but they have to take Bitcoin for those goods and services. If they're not taking Bitcoin, they're not in the circle p. Okay. With that said, let's get into the interview with Tony. Well, Tony, welcome to the show. Thank you. Tony is the, lawyer for the King Ranch
[00:06:05] Tony:
and the King family. Correct? That's correct. And and there's actually a team of us, but I'm one of the attorneys for
[00:06:12] David Bennett:
the King Ranch and the King family. Yes. And the whole reason that I'm here is I wanted to interview you because there's an issue with what's going on with the King Ranch. And we are definitely going to get into that. But one of the things that I've identified since, not only just moving out here, but I grew up in West Texas, been around ranching, not directly, but just because you're in the area, you can't help but to be there's ranching stuff everywhere. Right? So you kind of kind of grew up with it and you just think it's a thing. Or at least I did. I just, you know, went to school, you go to the museum, they take you out for like a, you know, school field trip and hey we're gonna learn about ranching heritage and you think it's great. It's all this is all great, this is all great.
And but nobody ever tells you when you're in school, when you're doing these things that in my opinion over the last 25 years minimum, ranching seems to be under attack. And the more I look at problems and like I said we'll get into the King Ranch, the more I see problems like what's going on with the King Ranch, the more it makes me wonder what's going on. But some context into ranching, I I honestly think would be would be good. It'd be helpful for me too. And so I wanna start out with one of the most probably innocuous or or inane questions ever.
What does it mean when we say a ranch versus a farm?
[00:07:47] Tony:
What's the difference? So really, ranching's more about animal production and stewardship of our natural spaces. That's more of a ranching. Like, farmers actually farm. Like, they grow crops. And to be a farmer, you can have livestock, but to be a rancher, you are more livestock based. Your focus is your livestock, your animal husbandry, your stewardship of your property, and we're really, really, really into livestock. Like, that's something we're born and bred to do, and it's our calling.
[00:08:20] David Bennett:
Well, so how long have you because you are a rancher. You're not just a lawyer. You are a rancher. So, I mean, are you 1st generation, 2nd, 3rd? 5th. 5th generation?
[00:08:30] Tony:
Yes. That's a long that's a lot of family history. Lot of family history, and I think that's one of the main things here. Kings are the same. They have they're generational. The next generation's there, and they even have a grandchild there on the ranch. I mean, we're talking stewardship is a main issue for us because we want it to be generational. We don't talk about an exit plan. We talk about a succession plan.
[00:08:59] David Bennett:
That has come up several times. I've talked about it on even though this is this is not a ranching podcast, I've talked about the the issue of succession many times. And there was a in fact there was a conference that I went to that was a mix between, the worlds of Bitcoin and straight up ranching and farm. And it was a really interesting mix of people because you've got software coders and developers and then you've got people that are economists sitting right next to people that are pasture guys, grass management guys, you know, cattle, you know, cattle and animal husbandry in general and somehow or another it worked. It worked really well because there's there seems to be some some overlap and one of the things that was presented was the lack of succession planning in heritage ranching and farming. Like how do you how do you give over your land when it's gonna have a value like a like a I don't know. In some cases it's so much of a of a land give over to the next generation that it ends up being an inheritance tax.
And when these families get a hold when the children get a hold of these, they have to peel off sections of the land by selling it to pay the inheritance tax. So we're I think it's you're talking large sec large amounts of land like $50,000,000 is the federal I think that's the federal cutoff point. But after but I've seen ranches way more than a 150 or a 100, $50,000,000 worth. So when how how do you go about success like thinking about succession when you're talking about you might come up against that inheritance tax thing. Well, I think one of the issues with with with any,
[00:10:44] Tony:
rancher or farmer I'm gonna include farmers because I think it's an issue there too, is they've worked that land. They've built that business. They've, you know, they've they've received it from their parents and added on or done whatever. And even though they trust our children, they don't wanna give up that control, because they put their blood, sweat, and tears into that property, into that land, into that business. And one of the biggest things I see as an attorney is they don't start soon enough. If we can start soon on the succession planning, we can overcome a lot of those issues, because you have, you know, you have gift tax. You have you have ways that you can get around some of the big issues as long as you start early. Mhmm. And a lot of them don't. And a lot of them don't wanna give control over. And you you can understand that. Mhmm. They put themselves into this. They've when we're talking about ranching and farming, it's not like making the big bucks, going on, you know, $1,000,000 vacations.
Your profit's marginal. Yeah. And so when we're talking about that, it's really a labor of love, and they're not ready to give that up. And that's one of the big issues. And and I think it's something that, again, we can overcome if we start soon enough, but most people do not want to do that. Okay. Well, that that does make a lot of sense. So,
[00:12:01] David Bennett:
you know, what but one thing that I wanna make sure that that, you know, my listeners understand is that this succession issue, can be
[00:12:11] Tony:
a real heart tugger. Oh, it breaks ranches. It breaks families. It's absolutely a hardship for everybody. Absolutely, a 100%. And it's not something we're gonna overcome overnight. I talk a lot to my clients and at, you know, events, meetings, whatever, about the fact that we've gotta start early, we've gotta have a good plan, your plan's gotta be somewhat fluid. Uh-huh. But there's gotta be planning. And and having a good team, having a good account, having a good banker, having a good attorney, they're part of that that team and they're part of that plan. Well, as these as these families
[00:12:45] David Bennett:
build their ranches, in in in your case, your 5th generation, is this is the land that we're on generational land or is it, like,
[00:12:58] Tony:
did your parents do this same plot of land that you're on here or So we actually bought this triangle for my aunt and uncle Uh-huh. Because we needed to have a, a fee simple property so we could have a, you know, build a house. Right. But, yes, we got this from my aunt and uncle. It's surrounded by my aunt and uncle. My parents are adjacent to it. Okay. My parents live on one end of their property. My sister and brother-in-law live on the other end. Uh-huh. And then my grandma and grandpa lived on the other side of town. And I've got a cousin that's directly to the north of me and a cousin that's directly to the east of me, then my sister's east of that. And then I have other cousins that are on the other side of the town we're near.
[00:13:36] David Bennett:
So y'all have a very large family presence in this area. Yes. That's that's very clear. And see this is one of the things that urban people that are in in more of like living in cities that are not used to rural country, you know, rural life, country life, or even city rural fringe life, is that the nuclear you have this nuclear family but you don't really have an extended family. And I think that that that break I kinda think that that breaking apart of the extended family because people say, oh well the nuclear family is under attack. And I'm like, you missed the boat. The extended family was what was under attack. Now what we're left with is nuclear family. And while it's true that that is actually there are seem to be forces that are not really liking that and trying to do things about it, I think that when we concentrate on the nuclear family, we're not seeing the bigger picture of the extended family because that's how you build things like large large ranches that work. Large farms that actually work. You have the family support.
And watching either people not do succession planning and tearing tearing families apart, or when we get into the King Ranch issue. Watching this happen seems to be like it's an attack again on ranching. Do you think that there's an attack on ranching? Absolutely. And that's, sadly why I have job security. Oh. Yeah. Well, that's yeah. Nobody wants it for that. But do you have do you have a theory as to why? What what possible outcome would I mean, like, if I well, you gotta follow the money or you gotta follow the whatever. And I'm like, if we follow what what are we following here to go back up the chain to to why this is being done? Government overreach at its finest. Ranchers make themselves a target because
[00:15:33] Tony:
just fundamentally, we are loners. We don't talk. We don't reach out. We don't ask for help. What we ask for help is from our immediate families that are ranching with us. Mhmm. We don't go to our neighbors and tell them our problems. We don't seek government support. So by, you know, they're easy targets. What I do see though, going back to my original comment, gov government overreach at its finest, we've seen this trend that the government wants to govern everything. And one of the ways they do that is to fund, so get a money money issue. Mhmm. But you can't have a department of ecology if you don't have water issues. So even if you don't have water issues Mhmm.
I'm I'm just gonna say it. I mean, I think it's pretty suspect that you have the, the government agency that isn't doing enforcement as the same government agency that's finding the issues. You and if you look at their budgets, I think you'll find that I'm right.
[00:16:36] David Bennett:
It's there's a lot of people and I'm I'm almost I'm almost one of them. Because I don't know yet. I mean, it's one of those things where it's like, there's there's things that I want to believe, there's things that that that sound like they're fun to believe in, but I don't really know. But there's quite a few people that think it's also an attack on nutrition. Because let's let's look at meat, let's look at like, let's just look at beef. One of the most if done right, one of the most nutritious and like not only is it gonna be calorie packed because this low fat thing needs to go away.
Animal protein and animal fat. And between those 2, you get full nutrition. You can start cutting out the fat, you get problems. And if you start replacing the animal protein with something like vegetable protein, you get problems. It's almost as if there's a certain amount of people that wanna keep us sick. And I can't help but to notice that the main people and this is I'm getting a tinfoil hat here just a little bit. But the main people that really bring the attention to the fact that ranching is bad, cattle are bad, cattle burps are bad because methane and and there's so there's just this unending amount of ignorance that's just pouring out of mainstream media who just happens like 80% of all their advertising revenue comes from Pfizer.
And again, I even I will be the 1st to admit, complete tinfoil hatchery because I can't prove any of it. But it just seems suspect. If you can keep people sick, well of course the pharmaceutical company would actually be the ones to benefit.
[00:18:15] Tony:
Is that completely out of line, do you think? Or I don't know. I've never thought of it that way. I do think that there's some interesting points that you're making. I think it bears some research. I would say, especially on the methane production, when you look at the numbers, cattle are so low, they're almost insignificant on methane production. Oh, yeah. Yet, they're the ones everyone blames. It's it's crazy, and it's it's nonsensical.
[00:18:38] David Bennett:
It it is. And I was I did a I've mentioned methane production yesterday, and what people don't realize is that methane is a fairly heavy molecule. And generally speaking, when when ruminants burp, they're burping fairly close to the ground. And it also so happens that in the soil are methanophores, and they eat methane. And they harvest that I mean it's it's almost as if it's like purpose built because that's the whole ruminant thing, the whole the whole construction of the thing that is the ruminant seems to solve so many different problems at once.
And when I look at the tack on ranching, and possibly because of nutrition or for whatever reason, and I see the removal of ruminants on land,
[00:19:25] Tony:
All I see is the loss of soil. Absolutely. But that's you're looking at a holistic ecosystem approach, which is also how ranchers think. It's about stewardship. And what what you're talking about is that very that very subject. I mean, we've gotta talk about they talk about nitrogen in water. Well, you've gotta feed you've gotta feed livestock, and you've gotta feed wildlife. Mhmm. It's not just about livestock. It's also about wildlife. Right. And one of the main things we do as ranchers is we support wildlife populations by our practices.
And when we're talking about water quality, if you actually look at scientific studies, cattle, if they are used correctly, actually pull pollutants out of water bodies and move them upland. They do not actually damage that riparian area. When we take that holistic ranching approach, we are solving environmental issues, not creating them.
[00:20:21] David Bennett:
Well most of the most actually every single rancher that I've ever talked to has more of an ecology bent, not just a background. Either they, you know, they might have gotten ecology like if they went to ag school or something like that but their their ecology oh, like they're all ecologists, every single one that I've met. And it's either coming from school and then reinforced by their their direct association with the land over years years for experience, or just straight up experience. But I've never talked to a rancher that said I don't care about my soil, I don't care about like one guy in particular was is very particular, he goes, when I'm grazing, it's a third, a third, a third.
They crop a third, they trample a third, they leave a third. And he's like, you know, if if I get into if I get and I see that they're like have eaten it down to half, I get nervous. And and, you know, when you think about all the other things that these, you know, self guided mowers do, you know, it it's it the amount of carbon that they're able to sequester into the soil itself, it just it that's where I'm getting that's where I'm having a real problem with the this government overreach. I'm having a real problem with this attack on ranching because every single thing that these people say, ranchers are ranchers are bad for the environment because of this.
Like no, it's exactly the opposite. So again, I go back to the whole tinfoil hat thing. I'm like oh and you know better. And unless they just don't. I mean is it is it possible that so many of these people in such in such positions of power to make people's lives miserable are really that ignorant? Or is there I think there's something else behind it, but what do you have to say? I, you know, I I question that as well.
[00:22:16] Tony:
I caution myself on a regular basis not to have higher expectations of people than they can reach. Mhmm. I can't imagine that the people in power are that ignorant. There has to be some other motivation. Mhmm. I I just can't imagine that there's that many people out there that don't understand how the world works and how economics work.
[00:22:40] David Bennett:
And this I want I want to step off of that and go to the King Ranch, and the issues there because this is there's the issue behind the King Ranch and what's going on is an ecological issue. Or at least that's what it's that's what it it seems to have been motivated by. But me and you both know better but I want the audience to understand what the King Ranch is in Central Washington
[00:23:10] Tony:
and it's a 7 generation ranch? Yeah. 5 Yeah. I was thinking 5 but sure we can go with 7. Can you, what other background? What kind of operation is that ranch? It's a cow calf operation straight up. There's no there's very limited farming. Uh-huh. Where they're at, there's no irrigation water. It is desert, arid, desolate ground Mhmm. That the only purpose is to run cattle and support wildlife populations. So 8 inches of rain annually. So Sure. Maybe. Maybe. Yeah. Probably depends on the year. Yeah.
[00:23:47] David Bennett:
And, so the kings have been on that particular piece of land and it's it's if I remember right, there's a section of it that's privately owned, but then there's like a large lease. But they've leased it for decades. Right? Correct. Okay.
[00:24:01] Tony:
So what happened? What what's going on? Well, we can tell you what we pieced together, but we've never been given a straight answer from the, government entities that are persecuting them. And this is state entities. Is this federal at all? Not yet. And and that's a concern that we have. We've actually received emails through public records requests that the state has asked the feds to step in, and the feds so far have declined. But but that is a that is a concern we have. I mean, when you're talking about the allegations that have been made against the Kings, DNR and DOE are absolutely out to get the Kings at all costs and are asking for
[00:24:41] David Bennett:
help from these federal entities. And Department of Natural Resources is DNR and then DOE is Department of Ecology? Yes. Okay. Because that's really weird. I've I've never seen a Department of Ecology in any other state. I'm sure they exist but this is the first I'd ever heard about a state run department of ecology.
[00:24:58] Tony:
So And do and do look. I think you should look at the budget for department of ecology and how many employees that department of ecology has. It's huge. Really? And when you go over to Olympia, it's got this huge building Uh-huh. That's just for DOE. Really? Huge. Okay. So So they need funding, I guess, is what I'm saying, David.
[00:25:17] David Bennett:
Yeah. I I I I guess. See, this is in this is the we're gonna follow the money again at least a couple more times during this discussion. But so the DOE and DNR working together have levied what charge against the Kings?
[00:25:33] Tony:
It's really interesting because I'm gonna start at the beginning, and then we'll talk about the pivot. Because it's kind of it's kinda gone multiple ways here through through the time. So okay. So originally, it started and department of ecology came out and sent Kings a letter and said that they had harmed alkali wetlands. And we found out that they this this whole thing stems from an aerial photograph that they pulled off of Google Earth. They hadn't been out. They hadn't seen it. Whatever. We do public records requests. We found out that there were, interoffice memos, emails going back and forth.
They did a rush to judgment. We have an email where Jeremy Sykes says, I'm not rusty. I'm full of rust when it comes to wetland delineation. However, I'm going to recommend this for prosecution. I mean, and it went fast. And, Russ, that that gentleman's name is the with the DA or He's with Department of Ecology. Okay. Okay. Yep. And so they actually started trying to pull another entities, and they pulled in what's called the Environmental Protection Division, which frankly, we didn't know anything about. Yeah. This is a creation of Bob Ferguson to literally prosecute criminally environmental crimes.
But at the time, we didn't know they'd been pulled in. So Kings get this letter, December 21st, right before Christmas, telling them that they have done all this damage to these alkali wetlands. What year was that? I think it was 2021.
[00:27:13] David Bennett:
So this has been on going on for a while. This isn't what you're planning. Pull the letter though because it might be that it was 2023.
[00:27:20] Tony:
Sorry about that.
[00:27:22] David Bennett:
No. I'm thinking that it was from
[00:27:26] Tony:
the communications that I've gotten. It seems like it's much much older. Well, they knew about it. I'm just trying to figure out when they told Kings. Yeah. December 23, 2021.
[00:27:37] David Bennett:
Okay. So they get this letter and then what?
[00:27:40] Tony:
Well, they get it to me, and my first response is, this this can't be right. Let's go talk to them, and let's figure out what's going on. Let's get a response out. Let's get this figured out. Like, you know, my first response is, we'll get this taken care of. No big deal. Mhmm. You know? Because at this point, I believe that, you know, for for years, I've been working on my relationship with Department of Ecology. Never see eye to eye on, but at least, you know, you can have communications, have transparency in action, you know, have some type of relationship to try and figure out things that make sense.
Common sense. Let's use a little bit of it. Right? So we go, and we're like, okay. What are you basing this on? You know, what's your evidence? What have you done? And they're like, make a public records request, because we're not gonna share it with you.
[00:28:29] David Bennett:
And I'm like, what the heck? And before this, they had kind of been communicative
[00:28:34] Tony:
with you in other times past? Yeah. Not necessarily about King's, but other cases. Right. You know, King's had never had an issue before this. They had had great relationship with Department of Ecology. They had a great relationship with DNR. They'd never been in trouble, never had issues, had had these DNR leases for, again, generations.
[00:28:52] David Bennett:
Uh-huh.
[00:28:53] Tony:
They're considered to be excellent stewards. They do everything possible to care for this ground, you know, wildlife populations. They're just amazing ranchers. This came out of left field. This was a shock. So we proceed forward. They say, no. We're not gonna share any information with you. And so we're like, okay. So we start making public records requests. We try and figure out what's going on. We try and figure out the basis. We try to figure out how this got so out of control so quickly. And we we begin to receive documents that they've sent in our office. We begin to see this pattern. We begin to see the narrative.
It's scary. Very scary. At this point, we do not know there's a criminal investigation. We still think this is just civil. DOE comes out and finds King's $267,000. This is them a letter saying you will be responsible to put these wetlands back into their original condition. We're not gonna give you any evidence to what you did, but you need to agree to do this, or we're going to move forward. We're gonna go after you, yada yada yada. Kings are again like, what do we do? What do we do? But at that point, we realized we can't just cave in because we don't even know what they're basing anything on. And so we sit down and we decide the first step we need to do is hire experts, get people out there. Is this even an alkali wetland?
What are they talking about? So we do. We hire experts. We get people out there, and we don't just hire, you know, Joe Blow down the street. We go and we figure out who are the best experts in this area, and we get them. They come out. And and keep in mind, during this time, DOE is not backing down. Again, they fined them $267,000. DNR has come out and said, year end default on your lease. We've unilaterally declared us default. You are kicked off.
[00:30:47] David Bennett:
Get your cattle off of our ground. Now did they say they were a default of their lease because of a different reason or because they were being fined $267,000?
[00:30:56] Tony:
Because of the damage to the alkali wetlands, they were in default on their lease, and they also declared that all of King's improvements, personal property, were forfeited to Department of Natural Resources. Did that mean that the like, we're talking their private land? We're talking no. We're talking their fencing that they've put on DNR ground. So when you get these DNR leases, they're long term. They're 10 years at a time, and you plan on you you put base your improvements on a, you know, you prorate that out. Mhmm. So you you put in fence. You upgrade that fence. You have corrals. You necessarily have water troughs or watering holes. Whatever you need to sustain your operation during that 10 year time. Okay.
[00:31:34] David Bennett:
Well, I wanna I I just wanna back up just for a second and stick on the point that we're talking about this thing called an alkali wetland, which for me doesn't make a lot of sense in an area that gets 5 inches to 8 inches of rain a year, if they're lucky. Right. So what and I was talking to the to the water, the water expert. What's that gentleman's name? We were talking to him at the at the, hearing. We were having coffee. I can't remember his name right now. So we had John Stumiller with us, and he's not the water expert. He's he actually worked for the Washington Farm Bureau for a long time. Okay. And so he's he's but he's part of the team. Yes. Okay. So these these alkali wetlands which I've never heard of an alkali wetland ever.
And then and then add on top of that, is in in the one of the driest places that I've ever been to, you know, I've been to a lot of them. Eastern New Mexico. I grew up in West Texas. I mean, I'm used to dry. I'm I'm used to the desert southwest. There ain't a whole lot of water, you know, and it's like and unless you're in a gully, there's not a whole lot of wetlands going on. And, I mean, I guess I can see that this is probably out more alkaline soil but this this just seems weird and it gets worse because the wetlands that they just quote unquote destroyed which is bs, is is is in fact watering holes. Right? Man made stock ponds. Yeah. So over the course of the,
[00:33:12] Tony:
let's say, 70 years or however long that they've been on this land So they've been on the ground about 6 years, but there were ranchers before them. Mhmm. So those stock ponds have been there for a long time. Okay. They're the only source of water. Right.
[00:33:26] David Bennett:
Because we live in or well, I I live in a wetter area, but than you do, but still it's it's it can get pretty dry in the blues. Very arid. But, these were the everything that we're talking about was man made. This isn't a natural environment that we're talking about that the king supposedly disrupted. Correct. And these stock ponds are vital to the operations of the cattle ranching business because you need to water your animals, otherwise they're not going to survive. And wildlife. And the destruction or And I I don't I don't even I don't mean to say destruction, but the alleged disturbance, I'm just gonna call it, was the fact that they dredged the silt.
[00:34:11] Tony:
Allegedly. Allegedly. Remember there's been no proof offered that anything even happened.
[00:34:16] David Bennett:
Allegedly. Because if I was a rancher I get okay. I got I I mean this is I I have a house in Colorado that I own with like several family members. It has a stream that bisects its front yard and the people that built the house in put in a pond to capture that stream. Well every single time that a rain event happens, the water turns muddy. That mud is not going to exit that pond, it's going to settle. And the more it settles, and it's been settling for the past, the house was built in 1984, I'm going to have to get a backhoe to dredge that pond. Because if that silt gets up to the top, there is no pond.
Now I got a marsh and all of a sudden, ducks aren't going to land in it. I mean, I've got all kinds of I got all kinds of wildlife around just a scenic pond. And it's not that big. And I can imagine that if I was a rancher and now that pond is way more is worth a lot more to me to water my animals, I'm going to want to make sure that it can hold the maximum amount of water that it can. I would imagine that I would be saying at one point or another I've got to maintenance these. I've got to pull some of the silt out. And again, there's a let you know they that's what they allegedly did, but still like if it was me I'd be like I have to do this. I can't go you won't let me dig a new one. Well remember they can dig new ones because
[00:35:47] Tony:
904405 O allows ranchers to dig stock ponds without a permit in Washington state. Oh really? Yes.
[00:35:54] David Bennett:
Okay. But wouldn't it just be easier? Well that's that's neither here nor there. So let's let's I just wanted to make sure that the listeners understood that we are talking about something that began with the making of by humans, these things. Yeah. And it was allegedly that these things were disturbed. How how is it that that's not like well they were made by man so therefore it's not a natural occurrence? What what's the thinking here? I have no idea what their thinking is. I think it's insane.
[00:36:23] Tony:
Oh, for god's sake. So let's go back to that. So then we have the experts go out. There's no characteristics of alkali wetlands in this area at all. Oh, real? Okay. There's no characteristic of a wetland. There's a scientific you have to do you know, you have to follow certain steps to establish something's a wetland. Mhmm. Those those steps were completed by our experts, and these are not wetlands, and they're not alkali wetlands. And the,
[00:36:50] David Bennett:
opposition, have they sent experts out to say that they are wetlands? Not that we know of. So the only people that have actually examined this thing is you guys? Correct. Okay.
[00:37:02] Tony:
It's it's really interesting.
[00:37:04] David Bennett:
Okay. So this is sort of now now we're we're at the point where we've established even though we don't know what they're thinking, we've established what the fine is, who's doing it, and now what we go to court? I mean, what what what what where are we at? Okay. So in Washington state, when Department of Ecology
[00:37:25] Tony:
goes after somebody and there are 2 separate instances, there's a there's an order requiring them to restore the wetlands and a fine, and those are 2 separate. Mhmm. And that's true with the pollution control hearings board, the PCHB. So that's an agency ran court. Okay. K? So that's so the first thing Kings had to do was they had to go and appeal that. That's just on the environmental side. Right? So the the next thing they had to do was they then had to go and file a lawsuit in Grant County against Department of Natural Resources to try and get their their leasehold back because, again, they weren't in default. So why should DNR declare them in default? Mhmm. So that's the second thing.
The third thing they've had to do was we then found out that the environmental protection division, the EPD, was going after them criminally. Criminal. Going to put them in jail. So they've had to fight that. That's the third thing. Mhmm. The fourth thing is they then have done, a lawsuit against DOE for an APA action saying that you haven't followed your own rules. Like, you haven't done what you're supposed to do. You have to take these steps. Like, these are the things you have to do. So there's a 4th lawsuit for that. Then fun fun fun little fact here.
DNR also canceled their Douglas County leases.
[00:38:57] David Bennett:
Out of another county? Yeah. When did when did that occur? Because I don't remember
[00:39:03] Tony:
us talking about that part. That was more recent. Okay. But they also did that. So now we have 5 separate lawsuits. Five separate actions that Kings are having to fight. Was was the Douglas cancellation, did that come after the public hearing, which we're we'll get into? No. That was that was before the public hearing. Okay. But it all seems to stem from the same events. And in fact, the judge and the criminal criminal EPD action made some references about the suspect of the timing here. Mhmm. Because it is. It's suspect.
[00:39:39] David Bennett:
Everything about this is suspect. Absolutely. And and they Nothing makes sense, and nothing adds up. And the, the lack of information coming out of any of these departments at all is beyond
[00:39:50] Tony:
concerning. Absolutely. And we've even had elected officials have sent a letter in support of Kings to these agencies to say, what are you guys doing? And again, we're we're just seeing them pursue. They just continue to pursue this. Mhmm.
[00:40:06] David Bennett:
So right before, we get into, the public hearing that I went to Right. That that I wasn't, that got to That was the criminal. That was the criminal side. Right bef that that one it and hopefully you'll be able to clear this up, it seems like that one was about a twist in events where a RICO charge was made.
[00:40:34] Tony:
So it's it's really interesting. Again, we didn't know about the criminal investigation to begin with. Uh-huh. But the, Environmental Protection Division began their investigation in a super secret manner and they did it under an organized crime statute. Okay. So they started pursuing Kings with a special hearing that they could do under seal. Uh-huh. So we cannot get any of the evidence. We cannot see what they're even pursuing. And they continue to tell us every time we'd go to court that they didn't have to. Right. So because it was a it was a super secret special criminal proceeding Uh-huh. They had a judge assigned to them in Grant County, judge Nodell. Uh-huh. And, originally, when we went to the first hearing well, let me back up a little bit. So how we found out about it Uh-huh. Is the EPD actually subpoenaed King's only employee. Okay. And we're requiring him to come to court to testify against King's
[00:41:28] David Bennett:
for these alleged activities. Okay. I want to stop right there because can you I mean under normal circumstances the United States, given our bill of rights, can can somebody force me to testify against somebody else? Wait the 5th, I mean See that, see that's where I'm going with this is that the 5th amendment gives us a special right to say, I don't know if this is gonna incriminate me or not. Therefore,
[00:41:54] Tony:
I'm not saying anything. But here's the issue. So you can plead the 5th but if they give you a free pass, meaning they they're saying, well, we won't go after you, you can be compelled to still testify.
[00:42:07] David Bennett:
Okay. But under testimony, wouldn't you be able to say,
[00:42:10] Tony:
I plead the 5th amendment? And that's where we get to the hearing that you went to. Okay. That was why that hearing occurred. Okay.
[00:42:17] David Bennett:
So let's is there anything that you wanna say before we talk about the hearing because there was some chicanery that happened at that place too? I think I need to go through how we got there. Okay. Please do. So
[00:42:28] Tony:
again, we find out about this investigation, not because of any other way, but because they subpoenaed this employee. Okay. And, of course, he's like, what? You know, he's freaking out. Like, he's been subpoenaed under this special proceeding. We can't find anything out about it. We can't see the original petition. We can't see anything. Mhmm. We try and get a hold of the court, and they're like, that's under seal. We can't share that with you. So at this point, kings are not even a party to this. So It's a completely separate issue. Yeah. Completely separate issue.
So this employee, honoring what you said earlier about no names, this employee gets gets an attorney, a really good criminal attorney, and we proceed to start going to hearings. And the first hearing, judge Nodell was like, well, they have the right to do this. And we're like, how? They're using an organized crime statute. This is not an organized crime. Mhmm. And so then judge Nodell is like, okay. I have these questions. You need to brief these questions. We produce, like, so many it's hundreds of pages of briefing in response to this, which leads to more questions. So we go back for another hearing. It continues to question. Like, this continues on. And, again, we get no information out of the state. They basically say, we have the right to do this, and there's nothing you can do about it.
And the judges, you know, the judges kinda get into this point, like, we're continuing to to inform them. We're continuing to talk about RCWs, stock water rights, like, all these things. Mhmm. And the judge is getting pretty sick of EPD's lack of cooperation. Mhmm. Like, in court a couple times, he would say, how are they expected to fight this when they don't even know what you're doing? And the EPD is like, that's alright. We don't have to share that information. It it was it was so crazy. You felt like you were not even in in America. Mhmm.
So it comes out that the judge sends out this letter, and he says in this letter, like like, I can't tell you what the allegations are. But if it were this allegation, the statute of limitations would be this. If it's this allegation, the statute of limitations would be this. I think they're on a fishing expedition, but I'm going to make this employee come in and testify. Mhmm. Because we need to close the record on this. So we go to this hearing. And in this hearing, the attorneys for this employee cannot be in the courtroom. They kick us out into the hallway. Now this is the one that I went to. No. This is the one before that. They did it again? Yes. Oh, god. So this employee, this young man I mean, he's, like, in his twenties. He has a family, young kids, great human being, amazing human being. He's in the courtroom alone with a judge and 2 attorneys from the state of Washington, from the attorney general's office, through the EPD.
So these 2 prosecutors are basically questioning him, and he has no attorney in there with him. None. So the judge allows him to come out into the hall and talk to his criminal attorney, who I'm sitting next to, and ask if he can answer the question or not. So we go through this procedure, like, you know, and and he can answer easy questions. Like, what's your name? What's your occupation? Where do you all these things. And then they start asking him about specific events. And he comes out into the hall, and he's like, I don't wanna answer. I'm like, okay. Plead the 5th amendment. So he goes back and he says, I'm not gonna answer.
I plead the 5th. And so at that point, the judge said, you know, they're they're saying, well, we can get him for contempt. We can do these things. We can do these things to him. We can throw him in jail. And we told him that they're probably gonna do that. Like, we knew they would do that. And the judge is like, okay. At this point under the statute, we will hold a public hearing and allow people to come in and testify, weighing his right to plead the 5th with the state's right to pursue these charges. So the judge would then come up with with what he thought should happen based on this public hearing, which is the one you went to. Okay. Because the one I'm talking about was still under seal. No public could be there. We were not even supposed to talk about it.
The EPD investigators actually said that they could throw this employee in jail because he told people about that subpoena. And the judge said, I'm not going to entertain that. Mhmm. But I'm sure they would have if they could have. It was crazy. Crazy. Yeah. So moving forward, then we set this public hearing. We rally all these individuals to come, call everybody under the sun to come to this this hearing, and talk about the importance of ranching, the importance of stock water, how no poor employee should be subpoenaed to come in and testify against their employer, especially when they don't want to.
And the other part of it is nothing has ever been shown that the Kings did anything wrong. Right. We still have nothing. No evidence. Nothing. At all. Nothing. Yeah. And that's been a real a real cross to bear because people people will say, well, they had to have done something wrong. They had to have. Mhmm. The state's not just gonna pursue this. They didn't do anything wrong. But They are. Yeah. They are. That's exactly what's they are. And they have nothing. They released nothing that they're showing you. Right. And again, we've got all these public records that we've gotten through this public records request that show nothing other than we've got these emails about the guy being rusty, not rusty, full of rust, but he's gonna pursue it anyway.
We've got other emails where they talk about supporting their narrative. I mean, all these emails that add up to they're out to go after a rancher because they want a change in the law, and they cannot get it any other way. They're gonna get it through the court system. That's why we believe this has happened.
[00:48:14] David Bennett:
Okay. Does this have something to do with the supreme court did an action, earlier this year or was it last year that said we're not doing EPA stuff and kicked it back down to the states. Is is that where this is coming from?
[00:48:32] Tony:
Yeah. So yeah. So that that does have a little bit to do with it. You're talking about the Sacket decision. That's it. Yeah. Yeah. So that does come into play because in each state gets to gets to go. So I think you're confusing it a little bit. Okay. So what the what the SACA decision actually held was that the EPA doesn't have jurisdiction over all all water. They only have jurisdiction over federal water, and then the states have jurisdiction over all other water in that state. So the states can choose to exercise that jurisdiction or not. And in Washington, they choose to exercise that jurisdiction.
[00:49:05] David Bennett:
Okay.
[00:49:06] Tony:
So the state takes that very seriously. And one of our arguments has been, is it watcher or watchers? Meaning, is it a single raindrop that comes out of the sky that our state can have jurisdiction over, or does it need to actually be a water body? The state's position is, if it's not a navigable water, meaning under federal jurisdiction, they have jurisdiction over it, meaning a single raindrop. Any water. If there's a mud puddle out in my driveway, that would be under state jurisdiction. If I polluted that that mud puddle in my driveway, they could go after me. That's their stance. Mhmm.
And it's crazy. Yeah. Again, it lacks common sense. And I'm gonna say to you again, follow the money. Well,
[00:49:48] David Bennett:
I know in in, I've never lived in Colorado, but since we have a house there, I you know, and we have a stream coming through the property well aware of some of the weirdest ways of looking at water I've ever seen.
[00:50:03] Tony:
To the point that I don't even own the rain that falls on top of the house. That's correct here too. Is it so we Yeah. So you can't collect rainwater either. But, yeah, I'm sure there's I've never looked into that because we don't get enough rain to collect it. True. But you don't own water. You own a water right. You own a right to use water. Okay. So this is so convoluted. Where where are we at now? Okay. So now we're going to the public hearing that you attended. Okay. So we rally all these individuals. I mean, we have people coming from all over, from other states, from everywhere, because this is so bogus. This is so insane. Right. And we find out the night before, from a source, that the EPD has filed something that we don't get. We don't see.
We only find out about it through this source. They filed something with the court. And our understand I'm gonna back up a second. At the hearing prior, when the judge took decided to have this public hearing, he was requiring the head of the EPD to come to the next hearing and be questioned by the criminal attorney for this employee. Mhmm. And so we had actually asked EPD during dependency before the between the two hearings, if they were gonna move forward or if they were gonna quash their subpoena and and stop this criminal this criminal process. Okay. And they they they basically said nothing. So They said nothing either way. Right. So the night before we find out they filed something with the judge that we cannot see, we do not have, we do not know what it is. We speculated that they did not want the head of the EPD to have to come in and be questioned by the criminal attorney.
Makes sense. They don't want their their guy on the stand. So that's where you come in. So we started calling people and saying, we don't think the hearing's gonna go forward. You know, please, if you're coming from a long way away, don't don't drive this far. But we still had quite a few people come. It was a standing room only in that courtroom. It was just an amazing showing of support. Right. And so we got there, and you will you will agree with me, David. It was crazy. It was. So we get in there. We sit down. The judge is like, believe. We're gonna close this courtroom. We're not gonna let you guys hear this motion. I'm not giving you,
[00:52:27] David Bennett:
criminal attorney and and me, this copy of this motion. So this this motion is what was filed the night before? Yeah. And okay, so we all came for a public hearing and somebody threw something to the dogs the very last minute and all of a sudden it changed the 10th. That's someone. DPD'd it. Yep.
[00:52:44] Tony:
So it changed the tenor of what was going to occur, yet we were still it it was still supposed to be a public hearing. Yeah. And if you recall, the criminal attorney argued. He said, they haven't given us this. We haven't been shown this. This is not due process. This is not right. You should not move forward with this, your honor. And the the judge said, yeah. Great. Get out of the courtroom. It got to the point, if you recall, David, that we almost got escorted out because we were we were vigorously defending the right to Americans in this country Mhmm. To have due process.
[00:53:19] David Bennett:
Right. And we were there in force. When you say standing room only, that's not hubris. I was one of the ones that had to stand up. Yeah. And then I got to sit down when we were
[00:53:30] Tony:
Brought back. Given permission to come back into a public room. Yeah. But but do recall. So we have all these people out in the hallway Mhmm. Including the clerk of the court. That's the The clerk of the court. That's the weird thing. Because it's like,
[00:53:44] David Bennett:
why isn't the clerk in the court? Because you couldn't record the proceeding, it was under secret seal. And for those who don't know the clerks, one of the clerks job is to basically take down what's happening, what's being said, who's saying it,
[00:53:59] Tony:
and none of that was now recorded. Right. We did there was a transcriptionist in there. Okay. And but we can't get that record.
[00:54:07] David Bennett:
So we still don't know what was said. No. Not really. We can only speculate. Okay. But it did result in in a change. So or something changed because when we were allowed back into this public court,
[00:54:23] Tony:
well you say it. Well we were brought back in and the judge said that the EPD has agreed to quash their subpoena.
[00:54:31] David Bennett:
Against the King's employee? Yes. Yep.
[00:54:34] Tony:
And again, we argued vigorously for the right to see the petition, the right to open the file. You know, at the at the worst case scenario, like, at least tell the state that they can't proceed with criminal charges
[00:54:48] David Bennett:
later. And that was the question that that was posed. And it wasn't you. It was, the criminal attorney said, is this subpoena being quashed with prejudice? That's correct. And that would have meant that there was no way, shape, or form that this that these particular people would be able to ever bring that subpoena again? Correct. And it was not quashed with prejudice? It was not. The judge was very specific. He said they can still bring their motion. They can still proceed
[00:55:13] Tony:
with their criminal investigation. This subpoena is quashed. See, this is where we all got really upset. Well, of course. Because then we're we're the kings are still under criminal jeopardy. I mean, they're still faced with this this looming threat
[00:55:30] David Bennett:
Mhmm.
[00:55:31] Tony:
To throw them in jail. Right. And For a felony. Yeah. This isn't a traffic ticket. This is a felony allegation.
[00:55:38] David Bennett:
Yeah. And and the fact that they can I mean it's not just the kinks because this young man is still in jeopardy too? Absolutely. You know everybody here, nothing was solved. Nothing. And and what I found the most of one of the most offensive things that I found was when the judge looked at the criminal attorney who was arguing about all this and he said why can't you just take the win? Yeah. He absolutely said that. It was crazy. I I have never been able to reconcile what I saw that day with what I supposedly have been taught is the United States judicial system. And due process. And due process. Absolutely. And the I mean, I was still I was still chewing on the fact that they made it a RICO issue. It was, you know, the, an organized crime issue.
Who organized I what you're not stealing lumber. You're not conspiring to go, you know, shake down businesses in Main Street for a $1,000 a week for protection money. This has nothing to do with organized crime. And and who would have been organized? You have a a couple, the Kings Yeah. And their employee.
[00:56:49] Tony:
How is that organized crime? Like, again, we don't even we yeah. We've questioned that as well. Like, how do you even bring these charges under an organized crime statute so you can keep it super secret? Yeah. Again,
[00:56:59] David Bennett:
totally un American. So so that that happened a few months back. The this court case that I went to a few months back, and then me and you went back and forth, and we weren't able to to hook up. So I'm sure that more stuff has happened since then. Of course. It's been insane. I feel like every day is a new day. Right? And since and I I am pretty much at this point, ladies and gentlemen, I am out completely out of my depth in in what I know about this case. I I'm coming right now like you as clean slate listener. What's going on now?
[00:57:37] Tony:
Well, that's when I talked earlier about the pivot. Remember we started with alkali wetlands. Mhmm. The Department of Natural Resources filed a preliminary injunction against the Kings stating that Kings had disturbed cultural resources. Cultural resources. We pivoted to cultural resources. So now it's a burial ground. Yeah. Great. And they got some some of their experts out there and proceeded to say that they'd found bones, which there are cattle out there. There's gonna be and and wildlife. There's deer. There's all kinds of wildlife out there. Posited what what type of animal bones they might be? Did not identify. So the assumption
[00:58:17] David Bennett:
is human, cultural, anthropological type things, but just because there's bones and it's it's and I mean, animals are gonna die in the field. Yeah. And they're gonna get picked clean and their bones are gonna be I mean, I'm not gonna go clean up bones. It's, you know, I'd actually want the calcium in the soil, so I'm definitely gonna leave them there. Right. And there's coyotes. I mean, there's there's
[00:58:42] Tony:
lots of animals out there that including birds that they're scavengers. That's how they survive is on things that that that die. And so they have identified bones, which makes no sense, and other indicators of cultural resources. But here's the fun part. Uh-huh. Through this property used to be one of the main roads before highway 17 that was used in that area. Uh-huh. And there's also a trail through there that was used when people moved cattle back when we, you know, we had to to literally herd cattle to market. So there are 2 massive systems through there that probably do have some some indicators of cultural resources for ranchers.
Right. For our culture.
[00:59:39] David Bennett:
Exactly.
[00:59:40] Tony:
And so when they've identified these alleged cultural resources, they're not talking about the American rancher. They're talking about
[00:59:48] David Bennett:
prior to that. Right. Yeah. Native Americans Yeah. Or or whatever. Mesoamericans. Who knows? But and I I mean, here's here's my thing is that my question now is, when you say pivot,
[01:00:00] Tony:
have they left the alkali wetlands thing to die and twist in the wind, or is that still open? It's still open, but they haven't been pursuing it. So Okay. So let me get back to this preliminary injunction because this is entertaining to me. So they identify these certain spots with these cultural resources. They don't give us any indicators of what they are, and they don't have to under statute. They don't tell us where they're at. They don't tell us what they are. If you're not somebody that's DHAP certified, you can't get into the records on the website, yada yada. And, of course, I do it under quick timing. Like, we have very little time to to respond.
So we get some response, but part of our issue is, okay, your preliminary injunction seeks to evict kings from a 12,000 acre lease when these spots are identifying are 0.0038 percent of that total lease area. And guess what? Judge enters it.
[01:00:57] David Bennett:
Yeah.
[01:00:58] Tony:
So now it's the thing. So now we've appealed it to we've filed a motion for discretionary review to the court of appeals. Now let me tell you about the other case that we're fighting on. The Douglas County case that we talked about, because King got kicked off their Douglas County leasehold. Right. And we, of course, had to appeal that. How many acres is that leasehold? That's a smaller one. I'm gonna say it's, like, 900, but don't don't quote. I mean, approximately. Okay. K. It's still it's still important. It's still an integral piece of this ranching operation. Yeah. I can put a lot of head on 900, a 1000, 1200 acres. Well and keep in mind, when we're talking about these lease holds, what King's Own and Fee Simple, it's checkerboard patterns. So they can't access some of their ground that they own without the leasehold property.
So it's it's very important. Right. So so the Douglas County case, the DNR actually argued that it had to be held in Thurston County and the judge agreed. So we've also appealed that.
[01:02:01] David Bennett:
I don't wait. I'm now I'm really confused. So Thurston County is now in play. Yeah. So did there they're saying that the lease in Douglas County has to be held in Thurston County? The the any of our legal
[01:02:16] Tony:
Oh, the legal the paperwork. Yep. The the like, here's my lease. Well, no. They're saying the legal like, our challenge has to be in Thurston County. So our our clients that live here Uh-huh. On this side of the state would have to pursue legal recourse in Thurston County. How far away is that? That's a long ways away. It's on the other side of the mountains. It's in Olympia. Oh, that's a long way. That's like, what, another 2 hours away from Keep in mind, you don't have judges that understand this environment. You don't have judges that are elected by the people here. You don't have judges that are you know, we're supposed to have judges that their job is to enforce law, but you always worry about what that judge is really doing.
And so a concern would be, why are we having to go to Thurston County? The the added cost of that, the added inconvenience of that. You're now telling ranchers that have to work 7 days a week, that they're gonna have to take time off and go to Thurston County.
[01:03:12] David Bennett:
And you're having judges that may or may not understand the issues because they haven't been over here. Well, they're they have no context. Yeah. They have no context. It rains all the time. There there was a lot of people that said, oh, you live at you live in Washington. It must rain there all the time. No. Seattle, baby. Tacoma, Olympia, you know, like on that side of the mountain chain, yes it rains all the time because the mountains trap that that moisture and it just continuously falls. But out here, I mean I'm I'm I'm looking around and I I see eastern New Mexico and anybody who's ever been out to eastern New Mexico knows it is as crispy and brittle as it comes and this reminds me a lot of that. There's no way you can have context as a judge who gets rain all the time to what it looks like out here unless they've lived out here or come out here. And I've gathered that they don't.
[01:04:00] Tony:
And we wouldn't know which judge would get it, but I would also think that that your your statement's probably true. Oh, okay. So
[01:04:07] David Bennett:
so now they now they're saying that it has to be in Thurston County, so the now there's a threat that these people would have to get up and continuously rotate to, what, another 150 miles? Sure. I have a map question it, but I mean it's a drive. Yeah. It's at least 2 and a half hours from here. Oh, no. It's farther than that. Is it farther than that? Yeah. Okay. Because I I mean, it's yeah. Yeah. I guess I guess it would be. But the
[01:04:34] Tony:
But the other thing when you think this through is anytime you wanna challenge a government entity that's that owns land I shouldn't say that that they don't own it. They manage it for the citizens of the state of Washington. Mhmm. But the jurisdiction of that land, the challenge should be where the land is. Right. It shouldn't be in Thurston County. Right. It should always be where the land is located.
[01:04:57] David Bennett:
Right. And and and I I definitely not definitely not arguing that, But it also needs to be that I for for me there's two reasons and one is more important than the other one. One is this is where the rancher is. Right. This is where the this is where the people who are involved with whatever situation pops up are going to be, it is incumbent upon the state to provide resources for that person not to have to fly across the country, across the state, whatever. But also, the second thing was that there's no context. The person that's like, may adjudicating or whatever the word might be, any of these issues doesn't know what it's like out here. And cost.
[01:05:34] Tony:
Added cost. Tremendously added cost. Because the clients can't just go in. They have to go a day before whatever. Mhmm. Having attorneys from this side of the state go over to that side of the state added cost. I mean, just the added cost. When we talk about due process, that to me is a huge factor. It is. Can you have due process if you can't afford to pursue these challenges, these allegations, and protect your rights?
[01:06:01] David Bennett:
I don't think you can. I was talking to my sister the other day. She was a, did a lot of legal work for, like, you know, large large firms for anywhere from real estate to, mergers and acquisitions, all the whole gambit of corporate law. She said the first time that she came up against something and it was that that really scared her about the judicial system and the the legal fees involved was that American Airlines was suing, and I can't remember the name of the airline. They were brand new. And they found something. And they just rode them into the ground on legal cost. And that airline was only open for 2 years because American Airlines said, you know what?
We're just going to outspend you. And that's I mean, it's kinda like what, you know, for the older folks in the audience, that's what Reagan did to the USSR. That's why we have the Russian Federation now and not the USSR, because he just outspent them. Well But this, that's between two countries. This is between our own citizenry.
[01:06:59] Tony:
Well, let me tell you about the the hearing for the for the Learner injunction. We had the attorney for Department of Natural Resources repeatedly say in that hearing, hey. If I'm wrong, we'll just write him a check. We have an open checkbook.
[01:07:12] David Bennett:
Oh, my. That's just that's disturbing.
[01:07:17] Tony:
Repeatedly. He didn't say it once. He said it repeatedly.
[01:07:21] David Bennett:
Oh, that's awful. What an awful well, I mean, the Well, it was like here stop this. Attitude is like we just don't care about anything. Well, and here's the thing. Like, as a rancher,
[01:07:31] Tony:
a check's not going to compensate me for the loss of my cattle, for the loss of my livelihood, for the loss of my operation, for the loss of my genetics. A check is just a check. Money's great. Don't get me wrong. Love money. Wish I had more. Whatever. But we, as ranchers, clearly don't do it for the money, or we wouldn't be doing it. We're doing it because of our love for the land, our love for our livestock, and our love for our way of life.
[01:07:57] David Bennett:
You can't compensate for that. And when you say genetics, I want people to understand that, you know, because some of my audience are becoming more and more interested in in getting away from cities. And, you know, they they all will say something like, hey, I'm gonna get it I'm gonna buy when I get rich, I'm gonna buy a ranch. I'm like, I don't think even I don't I I talk to to ranchers all the time and even I don't understand this, which is one of the reasons why I continuously talk to ranchers about how does this work. And one of the ways this works is when you say your genetics, you're not talking about your genetics, you're talking about your animal's genetics. Absolutely. And that's a hard fought thing.
And when you lose that because of you've been you've been called away so there is there is an amount of neglect that is being forced upon you to do to your animals because you can't be there. And when these will like if your sire that's carrying the majority of your genetics just keels over because something happens because you weren't there,
[01:08:58] Tony:
people say, oh, you should have a backup. Well, that it doesn't work that way here. Well, and let me let me back you up. It's not that. I'm not talking about the kings not taking care of their livestock. I'm talking about the fact that if they don't have a ranch to run them on Right. They have nowhere to put them. They have to sell them. They're gone.
[01:09:12] David Bennett:
You're not getting them back. That's a completely I didn't even think about that because I was thinking about animal death. But, yeah. I mean, you gotta take them to the sale bar because you gotta Huge loss. Huge loss. Not just monetary,
[01:09:23] Tony:
emotional, the whole gambit. I mean, I can't even describe to you the devastation that this would cause to a rancher. It it's it's really probably comparable
[01:09:33] David Bennett:
I I don't even know. I I actually can't compare it. It's crazy. It would it would almost be the the I I I think I'd like for the guys over that, you know, that are gear heads like Ferrari. If they suddenly lost
[01:09:47] Tony:
all of their design schematics from I have to think it's deeper than that. I would actually more be like a loss of a lamb. I can see that. Because it's it's more than I mean, those Ferrari guys, that's fine. But that's job or whatever. Right. This is a livelihood. Yeah. Start designing again. Yeah. You can you can't. Like Mhmm. Even when we're we're talking about, like, oh, our ranchers that have been devastated by fire. I've got a really good friends, Latt Ranchers, that are in Eastern Washington, and they just lost a huge portion of their ranch to fire. Yeah. And just listening to him, he's he's doing a little bit better now, but they're gonna have to sell the majority of their herd. They have nowhere to run it. We have had some other ranchers and other farmers reach out and say, bring your cattle over here. So he's gonna be able to keep a core group. Okay. But just that devastation, and this isn't that. This is a permanent devastation. This is not a time, you know, a time frame where that they can overcome.
[01:10:40] David Bennett:
This is them losing their ranch. Yeah. And that's sort of like where I wanna take this next is that even if the Kings win everything, it like, to the point that it embarrasses the state of Washington As it should. Are they going to still be able to survive given the amount of cost that's been racked up? They've been forced to rack up. Yeah. No. It it's it's it's hard. And I really don't have an answer to that. I can tell you that they're gonna do everything within their power to survive,
[01:11:09] Tony:
but the cost of this fight are astronomical. And like you talked about, just overspending. Mhmm. The kings are don't have taxpayers to rely on. No. They can't print their own money. No. They don't have a money tree. Yeah. And and and and state governments,
[01:11:24] David Bennett:
especially that caught into in my this is again my opinion, but states that state administrations that caught into the admin like the current administration, that we have in Washington right now, probably gonna be able to get get money. Whereas other states, maybe not so much. Unless you're just intensely powerful in industry like like the state of Texas. Right. Generally conservative, completely against the the policies in Washington DC right now. Yet, they're like, well, you know, without our oil, without our manufacturing, I mean, Elon Musk has pulled completely out of California now. He he announced like a couple of days ago even that that x, you know, what used to be Twitter, it now the headquarters is gonna go out to California. He's already done it for Tesla. He's he's did it for SpaceX.
I mean, California I mean, at that point and I'm not even that much of a fan of of Elon Musk, but, I mean, if I was a state, I would be a fan of that tax base and they're all even. Yeah. You know, and it's like, and I've seen like in in the city that I live on way Eastern Washington, one of the building supply, places is closing down and the movie theater is closing down because of property tax rises and they've changed the, the amount of money that you are required to pay for minimum wage. And the owners are like we can't afford it. And they have in both of these places have the exact same store right across the border in uh-uh Idaho, and they're fine. Yep. They're completely fine. When I go from, from Eastern Washington to Western Idaho, between these two cities, all of the commerce is over in Idaho. Because you're actually able to do commerce.
And I mean this, you know, I'm not gonna ask you what you, you know, why you think that's occurring but this just seems to be part of this of a larger problem. This this thing with the kings is like, we don't want any industry. Anybody doing well, we don't want anybody producing anything ever, and we're never gonna tell you why. That's what it looks like to me. And that doesn't make any sense which causes me a great deal of confusion because I'm like, how are you gonna get how are you gonna get your money to pay your people? I mean, unless you literally are planning on the federal government just printing money and they will. I mean, when Jerome Powell dropped the, announced like a couple of days ago that he was dropping the, interest rates at the, Federal Reserve, all that really means is that the money printer is about to turn on. That's what that means.
But that's not a long that's not a long term plan for something as large as a state, whether it's Washington or New Mexico, it doesn't really matter. That's not that's not a long term way of survival. And at this point I can own I I can't even conjecture why you would destroy the economy of of a state. And it's Washington's not the only one. Oregon's not exactly doing well either. No. Oregon's almost as liberal as we are. And California? I mean they're well, they're losing everything. I mean it's just everything is everything is moving west and now you've got half of Oregon and half of Washington wanna go over to Idaho, which I think is actually a a great idea. Is there even a mechanism for that? I don't think so. I didn't think so either.
[01:14:55] Tony:
And we continue to talk about this new state called liberty, and Mhmm. I just don't think it's it doesn't make any sense, again, back to Follow the Money Mhmm. With all of our energy production, our dams, our alleged green energy over here Mhmm. It just wouldn't make sense to allow our half of the state to to leave.
[01:15:12] David Bennett:
I know. It it it doesn't make any sense at all. So I don't think that that will happen either. It's just that when you get sentiment built up to the fact that you've got half of the whole state wanting to join another state, I'm not sure that that's happened in recent memory. No. I mean, unless you know about another story of something like like West Virginia wanting to get back together with Virginia because I haven't heard about it. This is the only place where I've heard about this even being talked about. And that, even though it won't happen, and I really don't think it'll happen, it does beg the question, what the hell happened that this conversation even exists?
And we when I see what's being done to the kings, it's very clear why this conversation exists. And at one point or another, I I I don't know where it's gonna go but let's get back to the kings cause that's way too much philosophical stuff. So we get back to the kings. What happens now? Is there any a is there anything else that we need to know, before we start wrapping this up,
[01:16:18] Tony:
that you haven't been able to impart yet? Well, we do have the 2 motions before the the court of appeals. Okay. The motion is for discretionary review. And they're going to be held, one of them September September 19th, and the other one is October 3rd. Okay. And they revolve around that preliminary injunction Okay. And the jurisdiction going to Thurston County. Okay. So other things that are happening right now, we also have a stay before the PCHB, and the reason we have a a motion for stay is because of the criminal jeopardy. Mhmm. We haven't been able to get anything out of the attorney general's office to say we're done, we're not pursuing this. Nothing.
[01:17:00] David Bennett:
I do have a voice mail that they say they're not pursuing charges for now, but that still leaves criminal jeopardy on the table. Yeah. It does. Because it's like you can't just take that recording to the judge and say see they said it because Well, it said for now. For now. Oh oh they they actually said for now. Well then why even make the statement? Why even why even form the sentence? It's almost like it's a threat. Yeah. Pretty much. Okay so so are we pretty much,
[01:17:26] Tony:
at the end of what we can talk about with the King Ranch as to what we know is gonna occur or or like legally anyway? Yeah. Probably. I mean, there there these other cases are just kinda pending because of this criminal jeopardy element. Until we get this criminal jeopardy taken care of, the Kings are put at a lot. Like, how can they defend themselves if statements they use can be misconstrued Right. To pursue criminal charges against them? It just it it really leads us, again, as attorneys and kings as potentially having these allegations. It just it puts us at a disadvantage, and it's very frustrating.
[01:18:03] David Bennett:
Mhmm.
[01:18:04] Tony:
And we would like to see due process actually occur. Right. And to to move forward, we've got to understand where the state sits on the criminal charges. We'd like to know what the heck they even are. Mhmm. We'd like to know what they stem from. And until we can get answers and, you know, allow ourselves to feel like that criminal jeopardy has passed, we're really stuck. Right.
[01:18:29] David Bennett:
Okay. So there is a donation, page for the King Ranch. Do you remember what that URL is, the name of that thing? No, I know no. I know it's it's in my show notes of every show that I do. Oh, thank you. So every single time that I release a show whether it's, you know, no matter what it's about, the King Ranch donation page is in there. So I will I will go back and and make sure that well, it's it automatically gets populated whenever I release an episode so it's always going to be there. Is there any other way that people can help? I mean, how
[01:19:03] Tony:
how does like, if anybody out there, you know, is there's probably some people out there, like, going, tell me what to do. Yeah. No. And we appreciate that. And Western Justice, which is a really great organization based out of Idaho, has stepped up and they're also supporting the Kings. And and they, if you recall, had, video at the criminal hearing. They're they're trying to, you know, maybe work on a documentary. Those are the guys that you were introducing me to. Yep. Oh, I I for some reason, I thought that they were I didn't realize that they were out of Idaho. I thought that they were somewhere else. So Yeah. Dave Duquette runs Western Justice. He's been involved in the ag industry for a long time. Mhmm. So we're we're hoping to get some funding for that documentary to just talk about government overreach and and the fight against agriculture, the battle that we were having to fight to stay to stay alive. Yeah.
So that's a big part of it. We also Western Justice also has a fundraising portion on their website. We also have had some port from Citizens Action Defense Fund, CADIF. Okay. They're a non profit that has been very, very helpful. They helped, write some amicus briefs on these motions for discretionary review that are going to the Court of Appeals. And and talking to elected officials, talking to people that have some influence, talking to, these these people that could hypothetically help us with, the attorney general's office and just in general, just putting some pressure on DOE and DNR to to stop to stop this this outrageous these outrageous accusations.
Mhmm. To stop going after a rancher for ranching.
[01:20:37] David Bennett:
Is there is are there any other instances of this in Washington? Or is it pretty much just all centered around the Kings right now? Right now, it's centered around the Kings, but I don't know if you've been following
[01:20:47] Tony:
there's 3 there's 3 actions in Idaho that are pretty suspect, and there's one in South Dakota that's very similar to this where the government is going after a a very young ranching couple for ranching practices. State or federal? I believe it's state, but I'd have to go back and look. It's but it's pretty concerning. So I I feel like this might be a trend. I would say that the the the decisions out of our US Supreme Court have been amazing. The overturn of Chevron, you know, deference to agencies is gonna be very helpful. The fact that we have these decisions coming out of our US Supreme Court, we don't know how impactful they'll be, but we believe we believe we have to have some belief in something. Right? We believe that they will be impactful and and we're very hopeful for that.
[01:21:34] David Bennett:
Sorry. I I ended up getting a text that I had I just like one of those wife texts. You don't ever leave your wife hanging no matter where you're at. So No, I agree. As a wife I totally agree. Yeah. Is there here well here's one of the things that I keep thinking about, I keep coming up against this. No matter where I am, if I have the opportunity to talk to a rancher, like at the you know, I went down we were out at at Pullman to go to the lentil festival, which they do like every, you know, for like the last 37 years. And there's, you know, ranchers out there selling, you know, meat or, you know, other things. And I will always go and talk to these people. And, Bosco Farmers Market, lots of ranchers out there.
And every single one that I've talked to since I've met you,
[01:22:20] Tony:
I've asked them, do you know what's going on with the King Ranch? Nobody knows a thing. Because we couldn't talk about it because of the criminal investigation. We were all afraid to to say anything where, you know, this employee has a subpoena that specifically says on it he's not allowed to talk about it. Mhmm. We were very afraid that he was gonna get thrown in jail. So now we're trying to, you know, combat that, go out, talk about the case. Safe Family Farms has done some stuff on the case. You've been really great about helping us get word out about the case. It's been in the capital press.
We've been really trying to overcome that void. Mhmm. But it's difficult, especially when DOE had that original smear campaign. Right off the get go, they had press releases about this $267,000, the alkali wetland damage. I mean, they went they just came out swinging. Yeah. And, again, instead of combating that, we said, let's get experts. Let's let's do this right. We don't want it being a he said she said. Mhmm. We wanna we want to be able to offer proof.
[01:23:20] David Bennett:
We want to be able to prove the innocence of these clients. Mhmm. Because that's how you really win. And let me guess, none of these publications have asked you to, you know, for what your researchers came up with.
[01:23:32] Tony:
Are the publications that we're talking about have asked for a little bit, but they're more interested in the court battle. Yeah. Okay. Okay.
[01:23:40] David Bennett:
What here this the the thing about I don't think it was just about the fact that you guys couldn't talk about it. Because here's one of the things that I don't think people understand about the ranchers that they go meet is that it correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that the type of person that is a rancher is exactly the kind of person that doesn't
[01:24:06] Tony:
not really all that interested in talking to massive amounts of people. No. I agree. That's why we make ourselves easy targets. We don't Yep. We don't we don't care. Like, we're self motivated. We're we're isolated. We're Yeah. But you're independent. Yeah. We're independent. It's like it's the independence
[01:24:21] David Bennett:
here that which should never ever be like let go of. But I didn't like for ranches to be able to I think it's important ranchers might identify that without talking to each other a lot, maybe a lot more than than they do right now, that they're setting themselves up for shit like this all the time because they these people know. And, of course, again, pure conjecture on my part. Know that it's like none of the other ranchers are gonna know. We're gonna go after these guys. I guarantee you. Maybe their neighbors will figure it out. Yep. You know, but there's not gonna be any help. Right. Because these people are they're independent and and they've got all this other stuff that they gotta do. Yeah. We're busy. We're just flat busy. And it's like so has the I mean you would think that the cattlemen's association would rally a cry and say everybody needs to come together so that we can present this. I heard it at during the Whitman, heard about it because I got an email from Whitman County cattle cattlemen association.
But I haven't we we were con we were talking about the Kings thing when on our last meeting and it was evident that the Washington Cattlemen's Association
[01:25:31] Tony:
hasn't said or by the at that time hadn't said anything. Well, they they they have signed on to an amicus brief in support of stock water. Okay. Good. But it it you know, I've been able to put in their monthly publication, you know, about the stock watering issues and stuff. But but we have to be pretty careful because, again, ranchers don't wanna target themselves. Mhmm. And so there's been, you know, there's been some resistance to just flat out especially with the criminal charges. Everybody's really afraid of the criminal aspect of it. I imagine why. So that's been a big a big hurdle to overcome. And, again, every time I talk about it, I'm like, they haven't done anything wrong. There's these criminal charges are bogus. Like, they're just another pressure point, another way to to run King's money out, another stressor on them, another way to get them to cave. Yeah.
[01:26:22] David Bennett:
We, do this. Is there anything else, something that we haven't touched on, something that you really think is important to get out, final thoughts? Just that we have had a really great rally of our ag our ag agency or ag commodity groups.
[01:26:38] Tony:
On those amicus briefs, we had support from a Washington Farm Bureau, the Dairy Federation, Cattle Producers of Washington has been awesome. Mhmm. The Washington Cattle Feeders has been awesome. You know, there's some really great groups out there that have absolutely supported the King's Stevens County Cattlemen. So the the people that are in the know, the people that understand Kings and understand what's going on, have supported them wholeheartedly, and we thank them for that.
[01:27:07] David Bennett:
Alright. Well, Tony, I really appreciate you spending all your time with us today to kinda lie. I've talked about this on the podcast a couple of times, but I've been waiting for this to really get into the details before I started running my mouth. So thank you so much. Thank you, David. We appreciate you. So we appreciate you. I mean, just helping to get the word out,
[01:27:27] Tony:
It's it's invaluable.
[01:27:29] David Bennett:
Alright, Tony. We'll talk to you later. Thank you. If you did not think that there was a war on ranching, then you were wrong. It's okay. I didn't realize how bad it was. And I've had many discussions with Texas Slim. I've had many discussions with other ranchers. But I've never ever thought that it was this bad that they would do these kinds of things to a single family in the middle of nowhere central Washington simply for carrying on their life, their business. Sure, some people call it a lifestyle. Even Tony called it a lifestyle. It's their business. This is how they make money.
If your lifestyle is, you know, going to a job and having a couple of kids, then yeah, it's a lifestyle. But we don't really think about it that way. We don't think about our own lives as a lifestyle. We don't think about when we go to our job that it's a lifestyle. This is the business of a ranching family. It's under attack. And I would hope that people would be able to pull together and help not only fellow ranchers helping out their other ranchers, but if you go and you eat meat, if you're if you're like me and like just I love beef, then it's incumbent upon us to try to help.
I'm gonna give you 2 ways to help. 1 is a website called ruralamericanaction dotcom. That's ruralamericanaction.comforward/fundraisingforward/you know, save King Ranch in Agriculture in Washington. They have a search bar in rural in ruralamericanaction.com. Their, the link will be in the show notes. They are like, you know, well, like any kind of fundraising site. And they're trying to raise $50,000 is their goal. And this goes essentially to just cover a bunch of legal costs and probably travel and whatnot like that. They are one of 2 fundraising pages that you can go to if you want to help these guys out. If you want to help save some aspect of American ranching, then we need to start with the one place that we can go start at.
The King Ranch is a good example. Even if you're not a even if you're not a Washington citizen, a Washingtonian as they call it. If you're in Texas, if you're in Idaho, if you're in South Dakota, because as Tony told you, there are actions going on in those states as well, then then help a brother out. Go out and do, you know, or give some money to the ruralamericanaction.com page for the King Ranch. And just search the King Ranch. Or, you can actually probably just say, search save King Ranch into agriculture in Washington. And you're gonna get to that page. Again, I will have the direct URL in the show notes. The other fundraising website is givesendgo.com/kingranch.
That's give send go.com/kingranch. They seem to have more of a Christian bent. So, if you want to exercise that part of your faith or however it is that you're thinking about it, then go to givesendgo.com/kingranch. And that URL will take you directly will be in the show notes and it will take you directly to this one. I don't think they actually have. I don't it doesn't look like they have an actual goal, but it was started by John Stuhlmiller, which is the gentleman that Tony and I were talking about at the very first front of the show. The guy that's not the water expert, but he's part of the team that is trying to help the King Ranch out and he's helped them out to the point that he's started a fundraiser for them. Please do that and again the same thing that I said in the show yesterday was this particular show I ask you to spread spread the word about the Bitcoin NAND podcast far and wide. But this one, this one's special. Because it's not just it's not just for me. It's not just for the Bitcoin NAND podcast.
This one is for the King Ranch. And by extension ranching in the United States in general I'm not gonna save ranching in the United States that's that's not part of what it is that I'm doing all I can do is the smallest part that I can do to try to help. It was very disturbing that all of the ranchers that I've been talking to have never heard of the King Ranch and what's been going on. And now this crap has spread over to Idaho and possibly South Dakota I know that there's problems in Texas this is going on all over the place and it's getting worse If you want to help, then spread this particular episode out to all if you have ranching friends, you need to email it to them. You need to text them the link. I don't care how you get it to them, but also tell them that they need to listen to this because even if they don't live in Washington, at one point or another, this shit's coming for them too.
I'll see you on the other side. This has been Bitcoin and and I'm your host David Bennett. I hope you enjoyed today's episode and hope to see you again real soon. Have a great day.
Introduction and Episode Overview
Interview with Tony: Background on King Ranch
Ranching vs. Farming: Definitions and Differences
Succession Planning in Ranching
Government Overreach and Ranching
The King Ranch Case: Initial Allegations
Legal Battles and Expert Opinions
Criminal Investigation and RICO Charges
Public Hearing and Legal Proceedings
Cultural Resources Allegation
Impact on King Ranch and Future Outlook
Community Support and How to Help
Conclusion and Final Thoughts
