SD Maude’s theft of federal property case is in court

Charles and Heather Maude, separately charged with theft of federal property, will attend their first court hearing on November 19, 2024 in federal court in Rapid City, SD

Criminal proceedings are public unless the court orders otherwise.

The official wording of the grand jury indictment against the Caputa, SD, farm and ranch couple stated that both “knowingly stole, misappropriated and exploited for their own use the National Grasslands administered by the United States Department of Agriculture…approximately 25.” acres of National Grasslands for cultivation and approximately 25 acres of National Grasslands for livestock grazing valued at more than $1,000 and aided and abetted each other, all in violation of USC §§ 641 and 2.”

Karen Budd-Falen, a Cheyenne, Wyoming, attorney and former assistant attorney for parks and wildlife at the Interior Department, said the Maude situation could easily have been handled as a civil matter rather than in criminal court.

“They could have handled this under the Color of Title Act or the Small Tracts Act,” Budd-Falen said.

Congress passed both laws to address poor investigations conducted with primitive equipment, Budd-Falen said. “Especially here in the west, they had to deal with mountains and difficult terrain. There were mistakes – federal land was fenced off by private land and vice versa. Now, using GPS, we find that sometimes the fence lines are wrong,” she said.

Budd-Falen said that under the two laws mentioned, people can either buy or lease the land in question.

“Typically in cases like this, the Forest Service or the BLM (Bureau of Land Management), depending on who manages the land, goes to the landowners and says, ‘We’ve discovered a trespass.’ Here is the correct boundary based on current surveying methods. Either you have to make your improvements in xxx time, or we can sell the land to you at market value.'” Budd-Falen said the land purchase was “a long, tedious process,” but she said it was “totally doable.” .”

“I handled these Small Tract Act and title cases. I’ve never had one in court. Every time I’ve done one, we’ve always been able to work it out. For those ranchers who have a permanent structure like a barn, they were able to purchase the land,” she said.

TRADE ADVICE

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act allows land trading in cases where similar tracts of private land and federal land are available for trade, Budd-Falen explains.

“A land deal could be another option that allows for an amicable land deal without sending out armed marshals and going to court. I’ve never heard of that aspect,” she said.

Scott Edoff, a neighbor and colleague at the U.S. Forest Service National Grasslands, agreed and said this is a court hearing that should not take place.

“The Forest Service has taken away the Maudes’ right to appeal. They should have had the right to appeal to their main office in Hot Springs. If that doesn’t work, they should be able to appeal to Chadron and then to Denver.” Edoff said his uncle once appealed a USFS decision all the way to the Denver office and ultimately reached a satisfactory settlement when the Förster traveled from Denver to South Dakota to meet with him.

Edoff also noted that Charles and Heather continue to work under a grazing agreement signed with the USFS. “If they are convicted on this charge, essentially any grazing agreement will be void. If the USFS investigator can override the agreement, the agreements are not good.”

Another neighbor of the Maude family, Frank Bloom, witnessed what he said was a USFS survey on his property weeks after the Maudes were charged.

While he can’t provide specific comment on his situation, he said it seems like the USFS may be signaling that they want to work with landowners again.

Budd-Falen said there is plenty of precedent for USFS working amicably with allotment owners.

“I think the point is that Congress passed a law that allows this matter to be handled fairly and civilly, and that’s not what the Forest Service did, which is why it shocks me so much.” They could have done this slightly differently can solve. I’ve seen far worse situations where the agency has tried to handle it politely,” she said.

Alison J. Ramsdell, the U.S. attorney who signed the subpoena, declined to comment on the case.

The USFS declined to comment on the case.

Charles and Heather Maude declined to comment on the case.