Paul P. wrote: "What Scott did was legally wrong."

Paul P., thank you for sacrificing yourself to substantiate what I earlier wrote:
"Most people don't understand that there is a vast difference between what is morally wrong, and that which is legally wrong."

Scott got caught up in the judicial process and being abandoned by his lawyer who simply appears to have wanted to dump a pro bono case, Scott was forced to go without proper representation. It already appears clear that he pleaded guilty to violating 36 CFR Sec. 261.16 in which he was clearly innocent of as he was never even close to a National Forest Wilderness area. He simply didn't know better in his plea because he was never given proper representation.

Who knows how much more he was LEGALLY innocent of because he was never given his due process of proper representation and a proper trial.

Yes, you may hate Scott. You obviously are happy to see Scott convicted like Scott Peterson on simply circumstantial evidence because he disgusts you so. But you are not judge and jury. Heck, you don't even seem to understand how the law works.

Wouldn't it be marvelous if many religious people are correct, that God will judge you upon your own judgment standards. I'm sure that there must be enough circumstantial evidence in your life to send you someplace where you don't want to go.