1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

 AT TACOMA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Docket No. CR05-5828RBL

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Tacoma, Washington 

 ) 

vs. ) March 16, 2012

 ) 

JUSTIN SOLONDZ, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

) 

TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCINGS PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

APPEARANCES: 

For the Plaintiff: THOMAS M. WOODS 

 ANDREW C. FRIEDMAN

 Assistant United States Attorneys 

 700 Stewart Street, Ste 5220

 Seattle, Washington 98101-1271 

For the Defendant: MICHAEL C. NANCE 

 Attorney at Law 

 615 2nd Ave., Suite 760 

 Seattle, Washington 98104

Probation Officer: STEVE MCNICKEL

Court Reporter: Teri Hendrix 

 Union Station Courthouse, Rm 3130 

 1717 Pacific Avenue 

 Tacoma, Washington 98402 

 (253) 882-3831

Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript 

produced by Reporter on computer. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2012 - 1:30 P.M. 

* * * 

THE COURT: Please be seated. Good afternoon. 

THE CLERK: This is in the matter of the United 

States of America versus Justin Solondz, Cause No. 

CR05-5828RBL. 

Counsel, please make their appearances. 

MR. WOODS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Tom Woods 

and Andrew Friedman on behalf of the United States. 

THE COURT: Thank you. 

MR. NANCE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Michael 

Nance for Justin Solondz. 

THE COURT: Mr. Nance, Mr. Solondz, good afternoon.

All right. This matter comes before the Court for 

imposition of sentence. I have reviewed the presentence 

report, the government's sentencing memorandum, the defense 

sentencing memorandum and attachments, the supplement to the 

defense sentencing memorandum and attachments and the second 

supplement to the defense sentencing memorandum and the plea 

agreement. 

Are there documents that I should have reviewed that I 

have not reviewed? 

MR. WOODS: I don't believe so, Your Honor. 

MR. NANCE: No, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Nance, have you had time to 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

review the presentence report with Mr. Solondz? 

MR. NANCE: I have, Your Honor, in fairly good 

detail. 

THE COURT: Mr. Solondz, do you believe you 

understand the recommendation that the presentence report 

makes? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Mr. Solondz stands convicted of Count 1, 

conspiracy; Count 5, arson. 

The presentence report gives the guideline calculation. 

The base offense level is 24. There's a 12-level increase for 

a federal crime of terrorism. The adjusted offense level is 

36, minus three levels for acceptance of responsibility. The 

total offense level is 33. The criminal history category is 

I. The range is 235 to 293 months. The recommendation is for 

120 months followed by three years supervised release and 

restitution in the amount of $6,092,649.95. 

The government recommends 84 months. The base level of 24 

is because the fire created a substantial risk of death or 

bodily injury to the fire fighters and to the destruction of a 

state facility. A federal crime of terrorism translates into 

a revised criminal history of VI. 

They note that Kolar got 60 months for two or three

arsons; Phillabaum, 36 months for one arson; and Waters, the 

parties recommend 48 months. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

The defense asks for -- agrees with 84 months. They argue 

that the criminal history is exaggerated, and they are seeking 

Bureau of Prisons management variable from the criminal 

history calculation of VI to a lesser category. 

So those are the high points. Mr. Nance, I will hear from 

you first. 

MR NANCE: Thank you. Your Honor, as the Court has

noted, the parties agree on the proper sentence here. It is 

in the plea agreement. We have a basic agreement on the facts 

of the case. 

THE COURT: Right. 

MR. NANCE: Mr. Solondz agrees that he was part of 

this conspiracy, that he participated in the arson at the 

University of Washington almost 11 years ago, that he helped 

build the incendiary devices. He agrees that he was out of 

the United States between September of 2005 and July of 2011, 

that he spent considerable time in China, including about 28 

months in a Chinese prison. 

We differ just a little, Your Honor, with the government's 

perception of his relative culpability regarding the other 

participants in this conspiracy arson. He is characterized as 

having a role greater than everyone but William Rodgers. We 

think it is appropriate to compare his actions with those of 

the co-defendants in the UW arson, and really with the five 

defendants in the companion arson of the Jefferson poplar 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

farm, the arson that occurred at the same time in Oregon. 

In essence, of these 10 people, Justin Solondz was the 

youngest of the bunch by several years; he was just 21 years 

of age at the time. He did not have their experience at prior 

arsons. He was not part of the conception of the planned 

burn, the Center for Urban Horticulture at UW, nor did he have 

the credibility with the group to even be invited to their 

planning sessions. 

His overall role, even considering his involvement in 

helping make the incendiary devices, we would submit, was no 

greater than the average participant and may have been less. 

To appreciate this, it is, I think, helpful to understand the 

nature of the conspiracy and the conspirators. You can refer 

to them as the family, you can call them the Earth Liberation 

Front, the Animal Liberation Front, the Radical Underground 

Environmentalist Vanguard, whatever term you want to put on 

it. 

This was a loose, nonhierarchical group of people with a 

strong affinity for the environment, with very differing 

opinions on the severity of the proper tactics to take to 

address problems with environmental degradation. The planning 

and strategy sessions for these tactics of this loose group 

were known as so-called book club meetings. 

Now, the book club meetings, it becomes clear if you read 

through the discovery, they were the guts of the conspiracy. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

This was where open brainstorming was encouraged, where ideas 

and expertise was exchanged, where personal alliances were 

created and confirmed. It's really where conspiratorial plots 

were hatched. It was a privilege. It was a mark of 

recognition by the radical echo activists to be invited to and 

accepted into these planning sessions, these book club 

meetings. 

And with two exceptions, all of the people in the arson at 

UW and all of the people at the companion arson at Jefferson 

poplar farm in Oregon, the people who comprised the general 

conspiracy charged in the Indictment, all of these people had 

attended and participated in these book club meetings. The 

two exceptions were Briana Waters and Justin Solondz. 

If I could give just a brief overview of our perception of 

the other participants in the UW arson. The sort of 

unquestioned mastermind of this arson was William Rodgers, who 

was 36 years of age at the time of the arson. He had a long 

history of committing arsons, by one count, six arsons over a 

four-year period. He planned the UW arson, along with others, 

at the book club meetings. He recruited everyone for the UW 

arson, and he assigned them tasks. 

He personally planted the devices, the incendiary devices, 

in the Center for Urban Horticulture, together with one of the 

Jefferson poplar conspirators, Stanislas Meyerhoff. He 

coauthored the widely-distributed manual on how to construct 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

incendiary devices with timers. 

He helped -- Rodgers did -- helped write the communique 

after-the-fact of the UW arson. He recruited Mr. Solondz, a 

man 15 years his junior, to participate in the action for a 

purpose, and the purpose was to stop genetic engineering of 

poplar trees. Mr. Solondz didn't fully understand the full 

significance of the priority of that, but he accepted it. The 

decision to do the arson at the Center for Urban Horticulture 

had already been made. It was a question of filling out the 

roles, and when Rodgers recruited him, that is what he was 

doing. 

One of the other key figures here was a woman named

Jennifer Kolar, who was 27 years of age at the time. 

Remember, Mr. Solondz was 21. She's 27. She participated, 

according to her plea agreement, in three different arsons and 

one attempted arson going back as far back as July 1997, the 

Cavel West arson in Oregon, where she helped produce what was 

called vegan jello. It's a fuel mixture with glycerine soap 

and diesel. In that action, which was successful, she burned 

the place down. She acted as a lookout, poured fuel into the 

wall at the site. 

And then a year later, she was involved in the Ray Gun 

Club arson in Colorado. There, she built and set up 

incendiary devices. Fast forward to the arson at UW in May of 

2001, she's characterized as merely cutting glass. And then a 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

few months later in Susanville, California, she's an active 

participant in the BLM Wild Horse Corrals there in Susanville. 

In the fall of 2001, she set up incendiary devices there. 

She was an active participant in the book club meetings in 

at least three different states, maybe four. Certainly, 

California, Oregon and Washington. At these meetings with 

other conspirators, she was a well-educated woman. She almost 

had a Ph.D. in, I think it was, physics or something like 

physics. And she had professional work experience as well. 

Anyway, she used that technical education and that 

technical background to instruct others on computer encryption 

expertise and the like that allowed the group to communicate 

in code. And at the California book club meeting, the other 

people in attendance were the very conspirators that we're 

talking about today: William Rodgers, Lacey Phillabaum, 

Stanislas Meyerhoff and the other Jefferson poplar people, 

Danny McGowan, Joyanna Zacher, Nathan Block and Suzanne 

Savoie. 

Then there was a later book club meeting in Olympia, in 

which the same people showed up who would commit the other 

half there. Of course, Mr. Solondz was not present at that 

meeting -- at either meeting -- or at any other book club 

meeting ever because he just didn't have the credentials 

within the -- as a proven underground activist. He was too 

young. He was too inexperienced. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

There's a reference in the discovery to the so-called new 

people, and that would be Briana Waters and Mr. Solondz as new 

people. They were above-ground activists, people that just 

had not yet been fully vetted or trusted enough to participate 

in the book club meetings where the real strategizing 

occurred. 

THE COURT: Sounds like the development of the Crips 

and the Bloods. 

MR. NANCE: Well -- 

THE COURT: Initiation and getting your resume in 

shape. 

MR NANCE: You have to kind of prove yourself to even 

participate. You've got to make the grade. 

Jennifer Kolar was really one of the co-leaders at the UW 

arson. She filled a critically important role that we think 

it is unfair to compartmentalize as, simply, she cut the 

glass. She was experienced enough to be trusted with what 

really was a critical task in this mission. This was a 

high-anxiety sort of thing. A rookie like Mr. Solondz 

wouldn't have been trusted to do that because the person 

cutting the glass had to maintain their poise, not lose their 

cool, had to avoid leaving fingerprints, footprints, fiber, 

hair evidence. 

If she failed in the moment, the mission would fail, and 

if she left telltale evidence at the scene, they would all be 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

caught. She had the experience and the expertise for this 

major role. Justin Solondz did not have that. 

The same is true for Lacey Phillabaum. She had a long 

activist involvement. She hadn't done as many arsons as 

Jennifer Kolar. In fact, she pled to a single arson. But she 

had been to a number of these planning sessions, these book 

club meetings in several different states. She testified at 

the Briana Waters trial two or three years ago, and she 

testified to the nature of the book club meetings and her 

conspiratorial nature, and according to her testimony, they 

discussed things such as what are we going to do now to 

inspire the movement and what directions of movement should we 

take next. 

By the second or third book club meeting, the entire group 

was receiving special training from characters like Meyerhoff 

and a woman named Chelsea Gerlach on how to construct 

incendiary devices, and the whole group would practice, and 

Phillabaum in her testimony describes soldering to make the 

devices. 

So at the scene, to bring us back to the UW arson, she's 

sort of compartmentalized. She's merely the person that 

handed the stuff to Rodgers after he went into the place. But 

again, this is a critical role. She's right there in the 

moment, and only the experienced and trusted need apply for 

this sort of thing, stuff that -- experience and trust that 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

Justin Solondz did not have. 

Immediately afterwards, or within a day or so of this, she 

helped write the communique about what had happened, 

announcing to the world the horrible nature of what was going 

on at the UW, et cetera, and she admitted that she's written 

other communiques at other actions. 

Well, Mr. Solondz did not have that experience. He hadn't 

earned the trust yet to do the hands-on stuff at the very site 

of the arson and certainly not to compose a statement that 

purports to speak for the group. Yes, he did help make the 

devices, but he had help in doing that. He did so offsite at 

a so-called clean room. He did it in advance so that his work 

could be checked and monitored and fixed if it wasn't up to 

snuff. 

They really didn't need Justin Solondz to make an 

incendiary device. They were the experts. Remember, Rodgers 

and Meyerhoff had written the manual on how to do it, and the 

other members had been to the book club meetings where, again, 

they were specifically trained in the project -- in the 

subject. Justin Solondz was told to build the devices, to 

help with that, because the others needed for him to get his 

hands dirty. That is why he was assigned this role. 

Now, he accepts responsibility for what he did. He helped 

commit this terrible crime. He helped construct the device to 

make it happen. He believed what he was told, that this was a 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

limited action. It may seem crazy to think you can start a 

small fire in the office and the fire fighters are going to 

come and put it out, but he believed that. He also believed 

that no person would be endangered. 

THE COURT: Ever hear of the Pang fire, the warehouse 

fire? 

MR NANCE: I certainly have. 

THE COURT: Did he know it? Was he smart enough to

figure out that firemen were going to be in jeopardy? 

MR NANCE: In hindsight, it is obvious, that's the 

reason arson is such a terrible thing, one of the things. 

What he did, constructing the device and serving as the 

get-away driver, I would suggest would have been more easily 

replicated than finding willing accomplices who were able to 

competently break glass at the scene and hand devices to 

Rodgers. 

Under these circumstances, it is not accurate to say that 

Mr. Solondz, Justin Solondz, played a greater role than most 

others at this arson. 

I mentioned the communique that was written a day or so 

later. It appears that Lacey Phillabaum and Daniel McGowan 

were the two principal authors of the communiques. It's hard 

to tell for sure, but it sounds like there were two different 

communiques written. They were sent to the so-called press 

office or press agent of the ELF, and it was modified either 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

there or by Rodgers. I don't believe anybody really knows for 

sure. But Mr. Solondz, Justin Solondz, had no role in 

writing, formulating or editing any communique. 

Of the four participants in that arson, the one that he's 

most similar to, we submit, is Briana Waters. Briana Waters 

is four years his senior. She was 25 years old at the time. 

She didn't help build incendiary devices, but she did help 

provide the cover for it, and she certainly knew about it. If 

you view her situation prior to her cooperation, she was very 

late coming to the table on this, as you well know. 

At her first sentencing, after she put the government to 

the test at trial -- and she's openly admitted this -- she 

openly perjured herself at that trial, refused to accept 

responsibility for her actions, and instead posturing as a 

martyr for the cause who was targeted and convicted by a 

corrupt legal system. She got six years. Six years. 

Justin Solondz hasn't perjured himself. He's admitted 

guilt and responsibility. He has not played the martyr. He's 

in a more favorable position than Briana Waters was at the 

time of her sentencing. She got six years. Although he 

shouldn't get any more than that, we've agreed to ask for 

seven, and that is what we are asking for today. 

If we broaden the comparison for just a moment to include 

the other conspirators in the events of May 21st, the 

Jefferson poplar farm people, all of those participants -- 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Block, Zacher, Savoie, McGowan and Meyerhoff -- were all 

radical echo activists with multiple arsons to their credit. 

All had attended multiple book club meetings. I singled out 

Danny McGowan for comparison in my brief because he received 

seven years, and that's the recommendation the government and 

the defense is making in this case. 

We would submit that McGowan's conduct was far more

aggravated than Justin Solondz' conduct because McGowan also 

helped construct incendiary devices, including the very 

incendiary devices that were used at UW in this arson. 

He was convicted of two arsons. He was five years older 

than Mr. Solondz. He was more seasoned than he was. He had 

experience writing communiques after various arsons. He had 

attended several book club meetings and, as late as 2005, some 

four years after the arson, at a time when Mr. Solondz had 

clearly moved on to other aspects of life, Mr. McGowan, Danny 

McGowan, is out obstructing -- talking about it at least -- 

obstructing Grand Jury investigations. 

McGowan did not cooperate. He got seven years. Justin 

Solondz, who never attended a book club meeting and is here 

for a single arson, and who left this life behind again in 

2001, shouldn't get a day more than Daniel McGowan who got 

seven years. 

Justin Solondz does not see himself as a martyr for any 

cause. He does not speak for any group, the ELF or anyone 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

else, and they don't speak for him. His participation in this 

crime was a very expensive lesson on how to conduct himself, 

how to relate to others, and it drove him into a long, 

probably lifelong search for self-understanding and meaning. 

There's talk about others have provided cooperation and he 

hasn't. None of the other four UW codefendants came forward 

until after they were formally charged. The earliest was four 

years, almost four and a half years after the arson. Of 

course, for Briana Waters it was ten years after the arson. 

Mr. Solondz doesn't fault them for doing that. He's not 

in a position to cooperate. By the time he returned to U.S. 

soil last July, the arson and his connections to the 

surrounding characters were ten years old. Most of the other 

participants in the Waters conspiracy have been prosecuted, 

located. He doesn't have any useful information to give the 

government about anyone or thing. And he's frankly more 

comfortable working on his own self-awareness, his own 

relationship to the world than in trying to improve his 

position by taking down others. 

Incidentally, he wishes the very best to his former

conspirators, hopes for the very best, including Briana Waters 

who I think will be sentenced later. He hopes for the very 

best for her. 

Who is Justin Solondz? Well, I think you get a flavor 

from reading the letters that I submitted, and I didn't mean 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

to overwhelm the Court with them, but they were overwhelming 

me, and I just passed them along. He's obviously made a very 

deep impression on almost everyone that has ever known him 

from a very young age. 

He strikes most of the people as the kind of person that 

you would want to have as a personal friend. He's 

considerate. He's thoughtful. He's honest about his 

feelings. He's kind hearted, compassionate. And this goes 

back a long way. He remembered as a young child on vacation 

looking out for the welfare of the under-privileged hotel 

help, and that was striking to me. He's remembered as making 

socially awkward classmates feel welcome, brokering peace on 

his high school soccer team among competing cliques. He's 

respectful of his elders. I can tell you, he's one of the few 

clients I have, present or past, that calls me Mr. Nance. 

He's the guy everybody wanted to be friends with. In fact, 

one writer said he was "a bright shining light wherever he 

went." 

THE COURT: Have you tried to analyze, draw the 

connection between those descriptors and the conduct? Because 

it is tough to see somebody who does something like that, has 

to put -- he's either got a low empathy quotient or he just 

disregards his own belief about people in support of some 

moral -- 

MR NANCE: I don't think it is for any lack of 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

empathy. I mean, I was on the phone with him a day or two ago 

talking, and he was concerned about cutting into the time of 

the other inmates talking to their lawyers and, therefore, we 

needed to cut our conversation. 

He is -- that is not where I think he's coming from at 

all. I think it is more of in his youthful sort of vigor -- 

he's an idealistic guy. He still is. 

THE COURT: Sure. 

MR NANCE: He still is. He still is now, but he was 

maybe even more so then, and there's a tendency -- if you take 

anything to its absolute logical extreme, you start seeing the 

world in black and white. And I think it was this notion -- I 

am just sort of playing parlor psychologist here -- but it is 

the idea of, you know, this is our little above-ground 

political protest, they are getting a little attention but 

they aren't really getting the effect we want, nothing is 

really changing. The wilderness is being savaged, and nothing 

is being done to stop it. Nobody seems to really care. We 

have to make a statement. We have to do something. It is the 

idea of sort of a Marley righteous blinders that --

THE COURT: Moral superiority. 

MR. NANCE: Yep, I think he would agree -- 

THE COURT: It is the same Kool-aid that the 

constitutionalists drink from. They are parallel. 

MR NANCE: I wouldn't quarrel with you on that a bit. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

He has to act now, he has to save the planet, this has to 

happen, and it is acting without recognizing the practical 

realities of property rights and severe collateral 

consequences, what can happen here. 

He's had a lot of time to think about this. There has 

been a lot of water under the bridge. It's been 11 years -- 

almost 11 years, over half of it spent traveling, living in 

foreign cultures, talking to different people. 

Justin Solondz is a different person now, a more mature 

person now by far than he was 11 years ago. He's still 

idealistic. He's more mature. He's more grounded. He's 

actually less interested now in political matters. I think 

even above-ground protests are something he wouldn't care to 

really do now. 

He prefers -- I am not making this up -- he actually 

prefers reading the great philosophers about leading a good 

life. He knows he's got prison time to do here. He accepts 

that. We ask you to heed the words of one of his supporters 

to "hold him accountable for what he did but don't crush him."

The carefully-negotiated plea agreement with its agreed 

recommendation of seven months, we would submit does hold him 

accountable. It is a very stiff sentence. It meets all the 

requirements of the law, and it should be the Court's 

sentence. 

THE COURT: Thank you very much, Mr. Nance. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Mr. Woods? 

MR. WOODS: Your Honor, may it please the Court. 

Today marks one of the final chapters in a long saga that has 

stretched back all the way back to May 2001, and you really 

cannot overstate the terrible nature of the crime that 

occurred on that night. 

This was a crime that threatened the lives of the first 

responders who arrived to find just a towering inferno, an 

entire building engulfed in flames. It is a crime that 

destroyed years of research. People who had just put their 

heart, their energy, their money and their career into this 

research only to see it literally go up in flames. 

It is a crime that caused terror and fear for the people 

who used that building, who didn't know what was next, what 

else might be targeted. It was a crime that caused fear for 

the university and certainly for the community in which this 

building was. It was a crime that was senseless in every 

respect. I mean, we all hold beliefs that are dear and true 

to our heart, but however noble those may or may not be, it is 

never a justification to do a crime such as this. 

Today also marks a sad day because the man who appears 

before you today was a man who had great opportunity and 

promise. Many of the defendants who appear in this very 

courtroom, they didn't have a chance to go to college, let 

alone an elite one. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Many defendants come from broken homes, not ones with two 

loving parents. Many times the courtroom is empty or there's 

no, or few, letters of support. This defendant had that 

support network. Those letters, the wonderful letters -- 

THE COURT: Right. 

MR. WOODS: -- from good people. And yet he chose 

the wrong course. This is a person with a great mind, yet he 

chose the wrong course. It is someone who has spent nearly 

his entire 20s and now into his 30s either on the run or in 

jail. It is sad. 

We stand before you asking the Court to impose a sentence 

of 84 months. This was a sentencing recommendation that I 

assure the Court we did not make lightly. It is one that we 

spent countless hours, both within the U.S. Attorney's Office 

and, frankly, with Mr. Nance as to what was the just sentence 

in this case. 

When you look at the 3553 factors and you start with the 

nature and circumstances of the offense, there really are 

three things that stand out. First, this was not a rash 

decision. It wasn't a heat-of-the-moment mistake. It wasn't 

something that was a split second of poor decision-making. 

This is something that the defendant lived with for about a 

month. Whether it was the time when he was first approached 

by this plan, whether it was the time he spent in the clean 

room constructing the devices, whether it was on the drive up 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

from Olympia all the way up to Seattle, whether it was the 

walk down to the university building, at each and every one of 

those moments, those countless moments, he had the chance to 

step back and say: What am I doing? What can this cause? 

All the consequences that can happen from this terribly 

reckless act, and yet he proceeded. 

The second factor is his role in this offense. Mr. Nance 

uses words such as whether his role was greater, whether his 

role was more important. Here's one thing that I think is the 

most appropriate word: serious. Because if we put aside Bill 

Rodgers, who we all recognize was the leader of this 

conspiracy, when your role is to actually construct the 

devices, when you sit there in that clean room assembling the 

very materials that are going to start a fire, you can't 

divorce what the consequences are of that action. 

Maybe if you were the lookout; maybe if your role is to 

cut the glass and help make entry; maybe if your role is to 

walk down the items. It certainly doesn't excuse for one 

second and certainly doesn't minimize for one second what 

those people did. But perhaps you can somehow tell yourself I 

am more on the periphery. But boy, when you are constructing 

the actual devices, you know what you are doing and you live 

with the consequences of what might happen. 

Finally, you cannot divorce, of course, when you talk 

about the nature and circumstances of the offense, of just the 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

terrible nature of this crime. 

The sentence is also appropriate when you put it in the 

context of the other sentences that have been imposed in this 

case. The fact is, the other three surviving defendants all 

provided substantial assistance to the government. Lacey 

Phillabaum and Jennifer Kolar testified in this courthouse. 

THE COURT: Right. 

MR. WOODS: Briana Waters' cooperation is perhaps one 

of the reasons that the case resolved in the manner in which 

it did. Mr. Nance also mentioned Daniel McGowan. Daniel 

McGowan is -- let me put it this way. The U.S. Attorney's 

Office in Oregon credited him with cooperation. They filed a 

5K motion, and I understand why Mr. Nance characterized that 

as not cooperating because it was an unusual situation in 

which he provided information without identifying other 

specific people who helped him. But it was cooperation that 

was recognized by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Oregon. 

Finally, when we look at the 3553 factors, we look at the 

history and characteristics of this defendant. We are not 

blind that the person who sits in this courtroom today is 

someone who is different than when he came into this offense. 

With age comes maturity. 

But Mr. Solondz must atone for what he did, and so for 

those reasons, we ask the Court to impose a sentence of 

84 months. The amount of restitution, which is not in 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

dispute, is $6,092,649.95, joint and several, and $200 in 

special assessments. 

Thank you. 

THE COURT: Thank you. 

MR. NANCE: I neglected to call attention to 

Mr. Solondz' supporters in the courtroom, including his 

parents who came from New Jersey, Paul and Bianca. 

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. McNickle, anything you 

want to add to your report? 

PROBATION OFFICER: Unless Your Honor has any 

questions beyond what's listed in our report, I will just 

stand by what's in our justification. 

THE COURT: Thank you. 

Mr. Solondz, anything you want to say to the Court before 

the Court imposes sentence?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor, I have nothing 

further to say. 

THE COURT: The offense level is 33. The criminal 

history category is VI. The range is 235 to 293 months. The 

recommendation is 84 months. 

My judicial philosophy is when in doubt, trust the 

lawyers. You've done a good job of handling this case. I 

cannot take fault with the recommendation that you've made, 

and I will accept the recommendation for 84 months.

The reasons for the sentence, apart from the obvious 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

seriousness of the offense, also deal with the personal 

characteristics of the defendant, a work in progress, I 

suppose. But more than any other factor is the respect for 

the rule of law. People who have deep passions about 

political events sometimes permit themselves to view 

themselves as above the law. I have had a number of cases in 

the last couple of months when I have talked about 

vigilanteism and people who don't trust the law -- the rule of 

law any more. 

Last year I went to Albania, and they have got -- they 

like Americans, they don't like Russians, but their culture is 

so corrupt. Parents of a third grade student have to bribe to 

get the third grader grades and so forth, and one of the 

things that bind us as a civilized people is the adherence to 

the rule of law. And what I said parallels between the 

radical left and the radical right, there's very little 

difference between their motives and their aims. 

I would tell you that in my life, I have seen the power of 

the rule of law, to make right in justice, in time sometimes, 

not immediate, not instantaneous. It is a process, but it is 

the only code that binds civilized people together. You have 

attacked that belief, that system, and that is perhaps the 

most reprehensible thing about your conduct. 

Now, you are a bright person. You are a young person. 

Your life is not over. You will no doubt be reading and 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

contemplating serious questions about the nature of man, the 

relationship of man to man and spiritual issues. I hope that 

you will take some solace from the many blessings that you 

have been bestowed with: two parents who care for you, you 

inherited a good mind, a keen mind. 

Everybody in this courtroom right now has to live with 

some regret. I do. I know all the people I work with here, 

we discuss it. They have things that they have done in life 

that causes them pain, but you get on with it. You get on 

with it. Think of those people who lost the research and 

their career. Ponder the rules that we ascribe to, adhere to. 

You will be out, and I doubt you will do anything but be a 

healthy, happy individual, I hope. 

So Mr. Solondz, as to Counts 1 and 5, you will be 

committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of 

Prisons for a term of 84 months. 

Upon release from imprisonment, you will serve a 

three-year term of supervised release subject to the standard 

conditions, as well as the following special conditions: 

1. Cooperate in the collection of DNA; 

2. You will be prohibited from possessing a firearm or 

destructive device; 

3. You will submit to one drug and/or alcohol test within 

15 days of placement on probation or release from 

imprisonment, and at least two periodic drug and/or alcohol 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

tests thereafter, not to exceed eight valid tests per month. 

You will participate as instructed by the U.S. Probation 

Office in a program approved by the probation office for 

treatment of narcotic addiction, drug dependency, or substance 

abuse, which may include testing to determine if you've 

reverted to the use of drugs or alcohol. 

The defendant shall also abstain from the use of alcohol 

and/or other intoxicants during the term of supervision. You 

must contribute toward the cost of any programs, to the extent 

you are financially able to do so. 

You will submit your person, residence, office, safety 

deposit box, storage unit, property, or vehicle to a search 

conducted by a U.S. Probation Officer or any other law 

enforcement officer at a reasonable time and in a reasonable 

manner, based upon reasonable suspicion of contraband or 

evidence of a violation of a condition of supervision. 

Failure to submit to a search may be grounds for 

revocation, and you will notify any other residents that the 

premises may be subject to searches pursuant to this 

condition. 

Restitution in the amount of $6,092,649.95 is due 

immediately. Any unpaid amount is to be paid during the 

period of supervision in monthly installments of not less than 

10 percent of your gross monthly household income. Interest 

on the restitution shall be waived. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

You will provide the probation officer with access to any 

requested financial information, including authorization to 

conduct credit checks and obtain copies of your federal income 

tax returns. 

You will not obtain or possess any driver's license, 

Social Security number, birth certificate, passport or any 

other form of identification in any other name other than your 

true legal name, without the prior written approval of the 

defendant's probation officer. 

You will not have contact with co-conspirators in 

Washington and Oregon or members of any group or individuals 

whose purpose is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of 

violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a 

government or civilian population in furtherance of political 

or social objectives. 

The Court finds the defendant does not have the ability to 

pay a fine. However, he shall pay a special assessment in the 

amount of $200 for Counts 1 and 5, $100 each, respectively. 

So is there any reason why judgment comporting with that 

order isn't appropriate now? 

MR. WOODS: No. 

MR NANCE: Your Honor, I would ask the Court to make 

a finding or state as a basis on the record, or at least a 

partial basis, that the Court's departure variance is the 

criminal history category VI, overstating Mr. Solondz' 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

criminal history and/or propensity to commit future crimes. 

Additionally, and this is in our briefing -- 

THE COURT: Right. 

MR NANCE: -- the statute actually invites the Bureau 

of Prisons to designate and to consider the Court's statements 

concerning the purpose for which the sentence to imprisonment 

was determined to be warranted and/or recommending a type of 

penal or correctional facility as appropriate. 

We believe and would like to see Mr. Solondz placed back 

near his family in the New York/New Jersey region. Maybe it 

is asking for too much, but I think his family found this New 

York based Bard Prison Institute, and apparently there's a 

statutory basis -- there's discretion within the Bureau of 

Prisons to permit that sort of thing. One of the factors they 

consider is any court commentary on that. 

THE COURT: Mr. Woods? 

MR. WOODS: Your Honor, we have no opposition to any 

of those recommendations being made. 

THE COURT: Well, I guess he has benefited in some 

way from being on the run so long and maturing. I don't judge 

him to be a serious threat to commit violence in the future. 

I don't get much of a picture of himself because he doesn't 

want to speak, so everybody else has spoken for him, I guess. 

But I will say that the criminal history category of VI is 

not justified by the conduct that I have seen from the record, 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

from his last six or seven years of his life. And anything 

more than that, if you want to make a specific recommendation 

for the New York facility, I'd go along with that. If you 

want, put it in the judgment. 

Do you want the facility? 18 U.S.C. 3621(b) -- 

MR NANCE: It's 18 -- that's right, 3621(b), that's

the authority for it. There are five particular state prison 

systems in New York. 

THE COURT: New York based Bard Prison Initiative? 

MR NANCE: Yes, I don't have the -- I can provide 

those to the Court. If not immediately, I can get them in the 

very near future. It is five state facilities within New York 

State and, as an alternative to that, if for some reason the 

Bureau of Prisons cannot agree to that, we would ask for FCI 

Otisville, which I believe is in New York, in the area. 

MR. WOODS: Your Honor, if I may offer a suggestion, 

which is that I believe a placement recommendation can also be 

made as an order, that the Court would make recommendations. 

I wonder, just in light of getting the precise language 

down, whether that might not be better done after the specific 

facilities are identified. 

THE COURT: We can certainly do that, if Mr. Solondz 

waives his presence and you can work on that and give it back 

to me to sign the judgment if you want, in short order. 

MR. WOODS: Your Honor, perhaps we also can turn the 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

judgment in and a proposed order that just sets forth 

recommendations on placement. I believe the authority is that 

placement recommendations are just recommendations. 

THE COURT: Yes. You want categorical 

recommendations instead of a specific place. 

MR. NANCE: We would be willing to waive his presence 

if there's a hearing required for that. 

THE COURT: If you guys agree with it, I will sign 

it. Sometimes -- there are some offenses that we talk about 

that -- a possession of a drug in Texas gets 30 months, and we 

give them a ticker tape parade. So I recognize that place 

matters, and I don't want to give Mr. Solondz a ticker tape 

parade. I just want him to know he's got a future, and I 

don't want anybody to suffer paralysis because of their past 

conduct. That is all. But you've got to do the time. Okay? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes. 

MR. WOODS: May I approach Mr. Nance? 

THE COURT: Yes. 

MR NANCE: It looks to be in order. 

MR. WOODS: May I approach? 

THE COURT: What are we going to do? You are ready

for me to sign this, the categorical -- 

MR. WOODS: We would ask you to sign it and the 

parties would come forward with a proposed order on placement 

recommendations, I believe is what we would suggest. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

MR. NANCE: That would supplement this? 

THE COURT: Yes. With that condition, the judgment

conforms to the order of the Court, and I am signing the 

judgment at this time. 

Mr. Solondz, at paragraph 11 of the plea agreement, if you 

are sentenced to a custodial term within or below the 

guidelines, which I have done now, you have waived your right 

to appeal the sentence imposed by this Court. 

Do you understand that?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, I do. 

THE COURT: That means the only collateral attack you 

can take against the judgment is in the unlikely event of 

ineffective assistance of counsel. 

THE DEFENDANT: Okay. 

THE COURT: Anything further? I will await the 

supplemental order. Anything further? 

MR. WOODS: No. 

MR. NANCE: No. 

THE COURT: Court is at recess. 

(Proceedings concluded at 2:25 p.m.)

 * * * * * 

 C E R T I F I C A T E 

 I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from 

the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 

/S/ Teri Hendrix __________ March 29, 2012

Teri Hendrix, Court Reporter Date