I love the idea that the people defending this nutjob are "libertarian anti government involvement".
When what this guy is demanding is government subsidies to fund his lifestyle. If he had done ANY of the stuff he's done over the last 20 years - from not paying for grazing rights, to arson, to poaching (stealing) to a private company or indvividal he'd be sued, bankrupt & gone. He's only got away with it because the government half accept they have to subsidize this morons life.
9 times out of 10 when someone in the US says "I'm a libitarian!" they mean "I'm susidized to all fuck but too retarded to realise!"
I think you've nailed it.
The Harney County ranchers are paying the BLM $400,000 for the costs of fighting fires the BLM claims they set. [...]
(Father and son) were found guilty of two counts â€“ the two fires they readily admitted to starting on their own property.
In order to draw the original court case to a close, the two men, in a plea deal, agreed that they would not appeal the 2012 sentence.
The Department of Justice news release said arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. Judge Michael Hogan, however, did not give the two men the minimum sentence called for under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, saying it would have been â€œgrossly disproportionateâ€ to the crime. He added that a longer sentence would not meet any idea he has of justice and that he didnâ€t believe congress intended that act to be applied in cases like the Hammond one. A longer sentence than the few months he gave them would â€œshock his conscienceâ€ he said.
The Department of Justice appealed for a full sentence.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a review of the case and District Chief Judge Ann Aiken went ahead with a full sentence â€“ five years in federal prison for both men.
Throw the book at them.
Starting a brushfire on your own property, pay for the damages when it gets out of control, jesus-christ, that 70-year-old property owner richly deserves 5 years in the slammer as a "terrorist." It makes complete sense, and is really difficult to fathom why anybody -- even the original judge (bolded above, hoo-boy, says he has a "conscience," what a wingnut) might think it a "disproportionate" and excessive penalty. Doesn't this libertarian wacko realize they're the Fifth Column domestic arm of Al Qaeda? It's a damn shame they're not being waterboarded in Gitmo. Shurely this terrorist-sympathizer judge hasn't forgotten the Twin Towers. It's probably past time Federal Agents investigated him while they's at it.
Link: Where there's smoke.