The article attempts to frame this as a speech issue but isn't it actually some sort of obstruction or concealing violation? But what was even the point? The pamphlets were never going to be the smoking gun.

Also since when does obstruction net you 30 years? And apparently the judge openly made a statement indicating unconstitutional bias on his part in court. So I guess the entire thing is a farce meant to intimidate the average joe.

Here's an older article, talking about how the reason the authorities found this person was because one of the other defendants called him from jail to ask him to remove things: https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-busted-anti-government-anti-t...

I would expect that at that point it ought to stop mattering whether the evidence being hidden actually would have been useful evidence.

> And apparently the judge openly made a statement indicating unconstitutional bias on his part in court. So I guess the entire thing is a farce meant to intimidate the average joe.

Yeah, the judge is well aware that every court this case can be appealed to already agrees with him. The legal arguments and the facts of the case are causally disconnected from the outcome.