S.D. Maude theft of federal property case bound for court
Charles and Heather Maude, indicted separately with felony criminal charges of theft of federal property will attend their first court hearing Nov. 19, 2024, in federal court in Rapid City, S.D.
Criminal proceedings are public unless otherwise ordered by the court.
The official wording on the grand jury indictment against the Caputa, S.D., farm and ranch couple, said that the couple both “did knowingly steal, purloin and convert to their own use, National Grasslands managed by the United States Department of Agriculture… approximately 25 acres of National Grasslands for cultivation and approximately 25 acres of National Grasslands for grazing cattle, having a value in excess of $1,000, and did aid and abet each other, all in violation of U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2.”
Cheyenne, Wyo., attorney and former Department of the Interior Deputy Solicitor for Parks and Wildlife Karen Budd-Falen said the Maude situation could have easily 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 of those laws to accommodate for imperfect surveys conducted with primitive equipment, said Budd-Falen. “Especially out here in the West, they were dealing with mountains and rough terrain. There were errors — federal land fenced in with private land and vice versa. Now with GPS, we find out that fencelines are sometimes wrong,” she said.
Budd-Falen said that under the two laws mentioned, people can either buy or lease the land in question.
“Normally in cases like this, the Forest Service or BLM (Bureau of Land Management), depending on who manages that land, will go to the landowners and say ‘We’ve discovered a trespass. Here is the correct boundary based on current survey methods. You either need to move your improvements in xxx amount of time or we can sell you that land at market value.'” Budd-Falen said the land purchase is “a long, drawn-out process,” but she said it’s “perfectly doable.”
“I’ve done these Small Tract Act and Title cases. I’ve never had one go to trial. Every time I’ve ever done one, we’ve always been able to settle it. For those ranchers who have a permanent structure like a barn, they’ve been able to buy the land,” she said.
ALLOWANCE FOR TRADING
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act allows for land trades in cases where there are similar parcels of private land and federal land available for trade, explains Budd-Falen.
“A land trade could be another option that allows for an amicable land trade without sending out armed marshals and going to court. I’ve never heard of that angle,” she said.
Neighbor and fellow U.S. Forest Service National Grasslands allotment owner Scott Edoff agreed, saying this is a court hearing that shouldn’t be happening.
“The Forest Service took away the Maudes’ right to appeal this. They should have had the right to appeal this to their home office in Hot Springs. If that didn’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, ultimately reaching agreeable terms when the Denver forester traveled to South Dakota to meet with him.
Edoff also pointed out that Charles and Heather continue to operate under a signed grazing agreement with the USFS. “If they are convicted under this indictment, it essentially renders every grazing agreement null and void. If the USFS investigator can supercede the agreement, the agreements are no good.”
Another neighbor of the Maude family, Frank Bloom, witnessed what he assumed to be a USFS survey on his property weeks after the Maudes were indicted.
While he can’t offer specific comment on his situation, he said it appears that the USFS may be signaling that they want to work with landowners once again.
Budd-Falen said there is plenty of precedent for USFS working amicably with allotment owners.
“I think the point is that Congress passed statute so that you can handle this in a fair civil manner and that’s not what the Forest Service did, which is why it’s so shocking to me. They could have easily handled this in another manner. I’ve seen far worse situations where the agency tried to handle it in a civil manner,” she said.
Alison J. Ramsdell, the United States Attorney who signed the summons, declined to comment on the case.
The USFS has declined to comment on the case.
Charles and Heather Maude declined to comment on the case.
