Indictment: Ranch couple faces criminal charges over federal property boundary

[corbe]

Indictment: Ranch couple faces criminal charges over federal property boundary

News | Aug 9, 2024

Carrie Stadheim
cstadheim@tsln-fre.com



The cut and baled land and the untouched land in this photo represent where survey markers indicate property boundaries exist between Maude private property and USFS property. Charles Maude and Heather Maude were indicted separately for theft of federal property, and each must retain their own attorney – doubling their legal costs. Courtesy photo
image-23

Charles and Heather Maude, a western South Dakota farm and ranch couple, have been indicted for theft of federal property. The summons, served June 24, 2024, charged that the Maudes, “Beginning at a time unknown, but no later than December, 2020…did knowingly steal, purloin and convert to their own use National Grasslands managed by the United States Department of Agriculture, a department and agency of the United States, namely, 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 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2.”

The summons, signed by Alison J. Ramsdell, United States Attorney, charges them separately, which means they must retain two attorneys and they could each be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison and fined up to $250,000.

At issue is a property boundary between the Maudes and the U.S. Forest Service. The fence in question and the management practices the USFS is alleging are “theft” have been in place for generations.

MAUDE FAMILY HISTORY

According to longtime neighbor Scott Edoff, Charles’ great-great-grandparents, Thomas and Rose Maude bought the land adjacent to the USFS land in question in 1910 and a member of the Maude family has operated that land, and the USFS property adjacent, since then.

<..snip..>

https://www.tsln.com/news/indictment-ranch-couple-faces-criminal-charges-over-federal-property-boundary/

[Smokin Joe]

Countersue the Feds for adverse possession (Squatter's Rights) and title to the land in question

Some disputes could be settled nicely if people were not slapped with criminal charges right out the gate, but if there has been a long history of use, and even better, if there is record of paying taxes on the land, they might have a real good shot. If the land is measured from a body of water for survey purposes, that may throw in an additional wrinkle, because streams and rivers commonly change course. Note the land which has been grazed/hayed is likely in much better shape as ecosystems go than the Federal land which has not. We saw with CRP, that the effect of 5 years of nonproduction meant those parcels were overrun with noxious weeds and had little that provided actual food value for wildlife.

[roamer_1]

Countersue the Feds for adverse possession (Squatter's Rights) and title to the land in question

Some disputes could be settled nicely if people were not slapped with criminal charges right out the gate, but if there has been a long history of use, and even better, if there is record of paying taxes on the land, they might have a real good shot. If the land is measured from a body of water for survey purposes, that may throw in an additional wrinkle, because streams and rivers commonly change course. Note the land which has been grazed/hayed is likely in much better shape as ecosystems go than the Federal land which has not. We saw with CRP, that the effect of 5 years of nonproduction meant those parcels were overrun with noxious weeds and had little that provided actual food value for wildlife.

As a matter of inquiry, the question arises, when it comes to open range, is SODAK 'fence in'  or 'fence out'?

For the reader:
In MT for instance, we are a fence out state. If you are concerned about your property and don't want trespass, be it animal or hooman, YOU must erect a barrier and note the condition at any entry point with a sign. That is 'fence out'. You are responsible for reasonably keeping people and animals off your property. This, to my knowledge, is the norm on the open range.

Other states require the land owner to control his animals by keeping his stock within their own land. That is 'fence in', and uncommon for open range.

[Cyber Liberty]

As a matter of inquiry, the question arises, when it comes to open range, is SODAK 'fence in'  or 'fence out'?

For the reader:
In MT for instance, we are a fence out state. If you are concerned about your property and don't want trespass, be it animal or hooman, YOU must erect a barrier and note the condition at any entry point with a sign. That is 'fence out'. You are responsible for reasonably keeping people and animals off your property. This, to my knowledge, is the norm on the open range.

Other states require the land owner to control his animals by keeping his stock within their own land. That is 'fence in', and uncommon for open range.

We have fence in and fence out rules in my Rural County. Works well when everybody understands it.