First, they didn't set fire to their land. It was federal land. They set the fires. They never denied it. They are in no way involved in these protest. Again, they are in no way involved in these protest. Maybe one more time, they are not involved in these protest.

This is a group of people trying to use their case as a reason to fight the government. They group is oissed that the government will not renew leases or is cancelling leases on FEDERAL land. They ranchers consider it their land. But, they have no ownership interest in it.

A federal judge did not "decide" they needed more time. The trial judge gave them an illegal, liberal soft on crime, below the manditory minumum sentence set by congress. The law required a 5 year sentence. He gave them less than one year.

As a result of the illegal sentence, the government appealed. The 9th circuit court of appeals, first as a 3 judge panel and then en banc (all judges on the court) ruled the original sentence was not allowed by law and that the law required them to serve 5 years. They appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied their appeal. That means they agreed with the 9th circuit. So the case was sent back to the trial judge with an order to give them a sentence that compiled with the law.

Look at it like this, a judge gives a child molestor probation when the law clearly says he has to get 10 years. Are all you guys okay with the judge sentencing him to less than the law requires? Or is it just when you like the people, or sympathize with them?

I've read several times that they were setting back fires during a burn ban. I understand if that's what they were doing but, Oregon don't play when it comes to burning during a ban. We lost like 450,000 acres last year to fires, several man made.

That was the excuse they gave for the second fires the son set. Only the son set those fires. I think the evidence was those fires were set on land they owned but quickly spread to BLM land. Contrary to that "article", according to the evidence, they had to pull firefighters off the original fire to come fight the fire he set.

The first fires in 2001 are the ones that were, according to the evidence, set to cover up the deer killing. The father and so were charged with that fire. They claimed they set that one on their land as well to kill invasive species. However, the evidence showed the fires were set on BLM land, not land they owned.