argued in the district court she was not properly convicted of this charge for two reasons st clear ledge threats were not real threats and that's because they were conditioned upon forest service officers going on to her property  interfering with her property rights that part of the problem they said they didn't know where she thought the property boundary was they weren't exactly sure but when she approached all of these officers they were a half mile away from  property and although they all testified that they weren't completely sure exactly where her property was they also knew that her property was roughly a half mile away from where this confrontation occurred you think that they knew it you think arnie as they do you think they knew it the reason i ask you that is because the record shows that they didn't do it they didn't go on to the property at all did they well they didn't on that particular day  there was evidence through ms havens anyway that they she testified that the forest service officers had come onto our property that cut down trees they moved her boundary markers and that was the reason why she was so angry at them and that was the reason why she approached them and so she went up to him when they were at this location that was roughly a half mile away from her property and she told them if you guys come on to my property if you guys cut down my trees if you can start fires on my property i have an fifteen and i know how to use it do you think that so that's a justified threat of legal force but her shooting a prison in the in montana can can a person use diddly force to prevent the cutting down of tree well you can use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony i think is what the last face in the eye does not your defense is to answer judge by his question i understood your st content tend to be  time i just raised that say her commission of a forcible felony but that force against a tree is a forcible felony that justifies the use of deadly shooting also talking about starting fires on a property which i guess could be an arson but again i think i think i am correct i think her whole statement was this don't come on to my property don't want my property don't burn things down so it was condition lawful duties with respect to national forest service land she wasn't telling them don't don't do it you're doing on forest service land she told them don't come on to my property and cut down my trees and move my boundary markers doesn't sound like an argument that you'd make on appeal it sounds like an argument you lost as a matter of fact in the trial court that she had a trial and that judge found differently right right out and about what she in fact intended but i don't know how you can divorce that intent from what she actually told them what she actually told them was don't come onto my property but does that mean your argument is that jackson argument is that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that at bottom yes yes your honor that's what it is a judge didn't have enough and i think that that's the judge didn't have enough circumstantial evidence or direct evidence because he took testimony from several of the witnesses to conclude that she intended the threat or to include that she intended to actually hurt somebody well the the the argument with respect to what i'm talking about has to do that even if even if she made the threat even assuming this was a threat it wasn't a conditional threat or anything it was what she told him was don't come on my property don't found a lies my property that's that's what she told him now vandalizing a private citizens property starting fires on a private citizens land moving their boundary markers can't be something that's related to legitimate forest service activity so it was never her intent to stop them from taking care of the national forest lands it was her intent to ask them to please stay off her property into not vandalize her property what do we do with the testimony which i think was uniform that she came tearing up on her truck and slammed on the brakes and skidded fifty feet or something and is quite upset that context is important here isn't it well she says she was angry course of course the other side of that coin is too is no one ever saw gone she didn't indicate that she had a gun she didn't go to grab anything so i think that has to be added into the mix as well that and also with respect to she wasn't telling  again don't do what you're doing out here the half mile from my property but just don't come onto my property that that was what her so called threat was conditional on so so it's our position it has been our position that although this is somewhat of a jackson argument it also is legally she should never have been convicted of these so called threats and that's because they were conditioned they weren't something that she was  and in even beyond that they were not made with an intent to impede legitimate for service duties so for those reasons mr havens should be acquitted and this court should reverse the district court's decision that was unless there's no other questions sit down thank you very much thank you good morning may please the court my name is chaired cobell i represent the united states in essence what we have here is a woman with a land ownership dispute with the national forest service and she's the enforcing her version of that boundary dispute her version of what property is hers not calling me ask your question is it an element of the conviction of the charge which she was convicted that her actions actually interfere with the duties of a federal officer or is it sufficient simply to threaten for a federal officer while your honor it would be sufficient to threaten a federal officer that the magistrate court found that she had violated statute in three ways by threatening intimidating and interfering so for the the portion of that finding that she interfered it would be necessary to conclude that she did actually interfere with the official duties of the forest service but it be the forest service boundaries are she says that she's received letters telling her that part of her property is encroaching on that land she has an outhouse a fence that her grandfather built in one thousand nine hundred and two she's received letters that told her that that's encroaching on forest service property and if she doesn't remove it she's going to be charged for the removal of it so she's aware of the force the responders she's gone out and seen the markers and she knows what the forest service says through their small to pull surveys is for service property and so when she makes this threat and tells the officers if you said if you effort or set foot on my property i'm going to shoot and i will shoot and that's the threat that she made to nicholas shiner the st of the trial through the testimony of these officers were that they knew where the property boundaries were they had a map they knew a private property was hers and they were only doing burned work the fire mitigation work cutting down making slash piles burning doing this important work on for service property rights but with a half a mile away they were at that time and so when she came up and said if you burn any of the piles on my property and then she also said you cut down eighty of my trees and you're going to pay for it so on this day we're there burn piles on her property i mean piles of stuff waiting to be burned over on her there were and according to her her property it was in writing nineteen but you know what i'm saying i'm trying to figure out if the scene was such that it looked like they were there the trees had been cut down there was a dispute about whether some of those were hers they were if there were slash piles waiting to be burned as part of this project during the trial maps were brought up and pointed to where the slash piles were located the forest service officers all said that they were only doing this work in national forests they had no agreements with private landowners to do anything so here they are they're doing their work cutting is a question about whether they were going to get to them yes so in the record the four service officers who testified they were in unit twenty and the disputed portion of properties in unit nineteen and that's where they were going and because of these threats they did not go and burn and still to this day those piles are left unburned i think thank you the when when viewed when the evidence in this case is viewed in the light most favorable to the government this court should affirm as the district court did affirm the magistrate court's verdict i would argue one point of disagreement with counsel for the government that is that i think the elements of this c f r provision do require that the threat is has something to do with the official duties or with an intent to prevent a forest service officer from engaging in her facial duties a threat just in and of itself that may violate some other statute but i don't think you file it's the c f r position that the defendant threatened resisted intimidated or interfered with to a forest service officer three who is engaged in and i would add and that's an on account of their official duties in the protection  forest so a mere threat that has nothing to do with what that that officers official duties are in protecting the national forest i don't think would satisfy the elements of this statute it may satisfy elements of some other statute but not this one when you have any response to that question or the explanation that there were these last piles even there half a mile away some of them that there were other slash piles waiting to be burned in the area where she thought it was her property is that is it  do you agree with that representation of the record i think i disagree in some respects part of that's maybe because i've actually been up on our property on this or things where but so this the slush  were half mile away and then they had these other slashed there's of road that runs along i think the west side of her property and there were other slash piles across that forest service road i don't think that miss havens believes or ever ever argued that those slash piles were actually on her property she did force concern about them burning them because she said i had called nine hundred and eleven once or twice because these fires like they're getting out of control but what she was more concerned about is these trees that she alleges the forest service cut down on her property and she was concerned they'd come down cut more trees and then come on her property and pile up these trees and burn him so i think that's what she was mostly concerned about thank