BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984 

GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

ethan.knight@usdoj.gov

geoffrey.barrow@usdoj.gov 

craig.gabriel@usdoj.gov

1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

Telephone: (503) 727-1000 

Attorneys for United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 v. 

SEAN ANDERSON, 

 Defendant. 

3:16-CR-00051-BR-12

GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANT ANDERSON’S MOTION 

FOR PRETRIAL RELEASE

The United States of America, by Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the 

District of Oregon, and through Ethan D. Knight, Geoffrey A. Barrow, and Craig J. Gabriel, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, provides its response in opposition to defendant Anderson’s 

Motion for Pretrial Release (ECF No. 489). For the reasons outlined below and that will be 

presented at the review of detention hearing, the government is recommending that defendant 

Anderson remain in custody pending trial, as he is a flight risk and he presents a danger to the 

community. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 507 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 8
Government’s Opposition to Defendant Anderson’s Motion for 

Pretrial Release 

Page 2 

I. Procedural History

On January 29, 2016, Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman authorized a Complaint 

charging defendant with Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States from Discharging 

Their Duties Through the Use of Force, Intimidation, or Threats in violation of Title 18, United 

States Code, Section 372. On February 3, 2016, a grand jury in the District of Oregon charged 

defendant with a single count of 18 U.S.C. § 372. 

Defendant was arrested by the FBI on February 11, 2016. The following day, he made 

an initial appearance before the Honorable John V. Acosta. At defendant’s request, his 

detention hearing was set for February 19, 2016, and he was ordered detained. On February 17, 

2016, the court granted defendant’s request to strike the previously scheduled detention hearing. 

On March 8, 2016, the grand jury returned a Superseding Indictment charging defendant 

with Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States from Discharging Their Duties Through 

the Use of Force, Intimidation, or Threats in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 

372 (Count 1); Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities in violation 

of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 930(b) and 2 (Count 2); Use and Carry of a Firearm in 

Relation to a Crime of Violence in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 

924(c)(1)(A) and 2 (Count 3); and Depredation of Government Property in violation of Title 18, 

United States Code, Sections 1361 and 2 (Count 6). Defendant is not named in Counts 4 and 5. 

Defendant was arraigned on March 9, 2016. 

On April 28, 2016, defendant filed a Motion for release from custody (ECF No. 489). 

On May 2, 2016, the Honorable John V. Acosta heard argument on defendant’s Motion. Judge 

Acosta ordered defendant to be released on conditions. The government sought a stay of Judge 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 507 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 8
Government’s Opposition to Defendant Anderson’s Motion for 

Pretrial Release 

Page 3 

Acosta’s Order and moved to seek review with this Court. Judge Acosta agreed to stay his 

Release Order until May 4, 2016, at noon. Defendant’s Motion is set for a hearing before this 

Court on Wednesday, May 4, 2016, at noon. 

II. Defendant Should Be Detained Both As a Risk of Flight and a Danger 

 to the Community 

Under the Bail Reform Act, the court shall order a defendant detained if, after a hearing, 

it finds that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of 

the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3142(e). Detention is appropriate where a defendant is either a flight risk or a danger to the 

community. It is not necessary to prove both. See United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 

1406 (9th Cir. 1985). The United States bears the burden of establishing danger to the 

community by clear and convincing evidence; risk of flight need only be proved by a 

preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Aitken, 898 F.2d 104, 107 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Where, as here, there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a 

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(c), there exists a rebuttable presumption 

that “no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance 

of the person as required and the safety of the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(B). 

Defendant has not and cannot rebut the presumption of detention in this case. A careful 

analysis of all four factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) supports an order from this Court that 

defendant Anderson be detained pending trial. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 507 Filed 05/03/16 Page 3 of 8
Government’s Opposition to Defendant Anderson’s Motion for 

Pretrial Release 

Page 4 

A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense 

The unique nature of the underlying offense supports detention. Defendant participated 

in a sustained, armed occupation of a public area that by its definition was intended to prevent 

federal employees from accessing their workplace. Count 1 of the Indictment is a crime of 

violence for purposes of the Bail Reform Act because it “has as an element of the offense the 

use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another” 

and it is a felony that, “by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the 

person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3156(a)(4)(A). As previously noted, Count 3 carries a statutory presumption that no 

condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant 

and the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(B). 

Defendant’s conduct on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) causes the 

government great concern for the community. During the occupation, defendant and his wife, 

Sandra Anderson, came and went from the MNWR on multiple occasions. He repeatedly 

inserted himself into a dangerous situation. In January, defendant’s son contacted law 

enforcement because he was concerned for the welfare of his father. He reported that on 

January 9, 2016, defendant sent him a text message that read, “in case I never see you again, I 

love you and tried my best . . . we are in Burns, Oregon.” Defendant’s son reported that his 

father had previously told him that he was willing to die for his cause. 

As the armed occupation continued, the Andersons elected to stay at the Refuge while 

others chose to leave. In two videos the government intends to offer as exhibits at the detention 

hearing, defendant criticized those occupiers who made the decision to leave the MNWR. The 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 507 Filed 05/03/16 Page 4 of 8
Government’s Opposition to Defendant Anderson’s Motion for 

Pretrial Release 

Page 5 

first video depicts Anderson carrying his rifle while a coconspirator operates an excavator in the 

background. The occupiers were digging defensive trenches on the MWNR in anticipation of a 

government raid to remove them from the compound. In the video, defendant Anderson says 

that the media had been waiting for a bloodbath and “now there’s going to be one and they’re 

[fellow occupiers] running!” He says that the “American people better wake up and get here 

and fight for your country right now! It is on!” In the second video, Anderson declares that 

there “are no laws in this United States now. This is a free for all Armageddon.” He declares 

that any law enforcement officers or military who do not abide by their oath are the enemy. 

Finally, he says, “If they [law enforcement or military] stop you from getting here, kill them!” 

In a video that was posted to the Internet, defendant Anderson shot at an aircraft. The 

video was taken on January 27, 2016. Defendant Anderson is seen carrying his rifle. He 

walks off screen and someone says, “There it is.” Four shots are heard. In the same video, the 

occupiers talk about trying to shoot a drone down. Defendant Anderson subsequently admitted 

to an FBI negotiator that he shot in to the air, and he was concerned there would be criminal 

charges for that conduct. There was an FBI surveillance airplane in the air at the time. The 

pilot reported seeing shots fired from the ground. The airplane was not hit. 

B. The Weight of the Evidence 

The weight of the evidence against defendant at this stage is strong. Defendant’s role in 

the offense was public and was marked by persistent defiance of the orders of local and federal 

law enforcement. Defendant was repeatedly photographed carrying a rifle on the MNWR, and 

he made his intentions clear through videos and Internet postings. 

/ / /

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 507 Filed 05/03/16 Page 5 of 8
Government’s Opposition to Defendant Anderson’s Motion for 

Pretrial Release 

Page 6 

C. The History and Characteristics of Defendant 

The history and characteristics of defendant militate against release. Defendant has no 

ties to Oregon. He lived in Wisconsin for 25 years. He then moved to Iowa for eight months. 

In April of 2015, he moved to Riggins, Idaho. Nine months later, he headed to Oregon to join 

the occupation. Defendant is unemployed. He previously ran an outdoor store that failed. 

He also reported earning money from cutting wood. His only current income source is from his 

wife’s employment and Pretrial Services has not confirmed an amount or source for that income. 

Defendant’s criminal history includes multiple misdemeanor convictions that involved 

domestic violence. He also had an outstanding warrant for failing to appear on charges of 

resisting arrest, possession of THC, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Before Judge 

Acosta, through counsel, defendant admitted that he deliberately decided not to report for court 

on those charges. 

Defendant has strong anti-government views and has demonstrated his willingness to act 

on those views. By his own admission, he founded a militia group in Wisconsin. In a 

post-arrest statement, he reported that he and his wife came to the MNWRC to protest the 

re-sentencing of two Oregon ranchers convicted of arson. He admitted to occupying the 

MNWR in order to bring attention to the “cause.” He brought firearms to the MNWR and he 

was frequently observed carrying firearms on the MWNR. Following his arrest, the 

government recovered the camouflaged Mini 14 rifle and a .45 caliber pistol that Anderson was 

photographed with at the MNWR. 

Defendant is unlikely to be amenable to federal supervision. In his post-arrest 

statement, defendant made clear his view that the FBI and federal agents do not have any 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 507 Filed 05/03/16 Page 6 of 8
Government’s Opposition to Defendant Anderson’s Motion for 

Pretrial Release 

Page 7 

jurisdiction within the state of Oregon or ten miles outside of Washington, D.C. He also 

explained that he believes the right to carry firearms is God-given and that another man does not 

have the right to judge whether or not a person should be allowed to possess and carry firearms. 

Defendant commissioned a risk assessment. The risk assessment notes that defendant 

does not suffer from mental illness. The defense psychologist opines that defendant poses a 

low risk of danger to the community. The government urges the Court to discount the risk 

assessment. The psychologist opines that defendant is “likely only to act violently or encourage 

violence when he feels threatened or overwhelmed.” The risk assessment is based on the 

psychologist’s pure guess that defendant will not feel threatened or overwhelmed if released. 

He states, “[t]his factor is presently absent, and I anticipate that it would remain absent if he were 

in a non-custodial environment.” His risk mitigation strategies are equally flawed. The 

defendant is urged to avoid affiliation with “patriot movement groups,” the very cause that he 

has declared a willingness to die for. It suggests that his relationship with his wife will keep 

him from posing a danger, but ignores the fact that defendant traveled to the MNWR with his 

wife and they both stayed at the Refuge to the bitter end. It proscribes employment to maintain 

defendant’s self-esteem and keep him busy, but ignores the fact that defendant is unemployed. 

D. The Nature and Seriousness of the Danger to any Person or the Community 

 if the Defendant Were Released 

Defendant poses a significant danger to the community. As set forth above, he responds 

to events that he disagrees with by calling for an armed response. Through his words and by 

his actions, he has repeatedly demonstrated his disregard for the law and his willingness to take 

matters into his own hands. He has called on others to kill law enforcement officers and 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 507 Filed 05/03/16 Page 7 of 8
Government’s Opposition to Defendant Anderson’s Motion for 

Pretrial Release 

Page 8 

members of the military, and he fired upon surveillance aircraft. The risk defendant would pose 

if released is therefore not speculative; it is supported by defendant’s words and his actions. 

III. Conclusion 

 This Court should deny defendant’s Motion to for Pretrial Release because he is a flight 

risk and a danger to the community. Defendant has not rebutted the statutory presumption that 

no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure his appearance and 

the safety of the community. He should be detained. 

 Dated this 3rd day of May 2016. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

 United States Attorney 

 s/ Geoffrey A. Barrow 

 ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984 

 GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

 CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571 

 Assistant United States Attorneys 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 507 Filed 05/03/16 Page 8 of 8