[BobbyJo]

> "but what about.."

I don't know.

> Did he even have a warrant issued to him related to these documents?

Yes. A zine put together by a group that later goes on to commit a crime together, that promotes the ideologies underlying the crime, feels like the kind of thing a search warrant/subpoena would apply to. The fact that the person involved in the crime asked that they be hidden makes it pretty obvious that they saw it that way as well.

> Are these zines even relevant evidence?

Yes.

> Is everyone who has these magazines also now a criminal?

No. Things can be legal and evidence of ill intent at the same time.

> What about other radical anti-government political pamphlets like Common Sense?

If the editor(s) of that pamphlet went on to commit a crime of a political nature, no doubt their relationship with the pamphlet would be evidence used against them. It would also still be perfectly legal to have, and legal for others to continue publishing.

> Seems like quite a different thing than moving some political pamphlets.

It is, but I think the core idea of involving yourself in the crime by way of trying to hide evidence etc. is similar at least.

> What's the relevance again for the ownership of political pamphlets to committing crimes?

Depends on the crime. If they had robbed a Wendy's, probably no relevance. If they attacked an ICE building and the pamphlets established ill intent toward ICE, probably a lot of relevance.

[vel0city]

If these zines were like "here's how to attack an ICE facility" or directly promoting imminent violence against officers I'd understand.

Is that what these zines were about? From the zines I've seen they're all pretty general anarchist kind of materials. One of the zines was arguing the morality of squatting a residence. Is that evidence of committing violence against an ICE facility?

If there really was materials directly related to promoting imminent violence against ICE officers or materials directly related to planning the attack, please do point it out. I haven't seen anything like that yet though. I'd agree that would be evidence of the crimes involved. Just random anarchist ramblings though?

Then, finally on top of that 30 years for this seems incredibly excessive. We let child sexual abusers in Texas walk free after only 30 days in a county jail while moving some magazines gets you 30 years. Tell me again how this is justice.

This is the modern Republican party. 30 years for moving political magazines. 30 days for sexually assaulting a child.

[BobbyJo]

> Is that evidence of committing violence against an ICE facility?

Again, the zines relevance isn't proving they did it. It's providing context and intent. If you can't see the connection between anarchist pamphlets and trying to raid a government facility, then I don't know what else to say.

The "imminent violence" only matters if the pamphlets were themselves the crime, and they were not. To go back toy earlier example, If I buy a criminal a bus ticket to help them escape, I can be charged with a crime even though bus tickets are perfectly legal.

> Then, finally on top of that 30 years for this seems incredibly excessive.

It is, but if it's in the statutes, then its up to the judge. Obviously they wanted to make an example out of these people.

> We let child sexual abusers in Texas walk free after only 30 days

Sounds like a completely separate problem that needs solving IMO.

> This is the modern Republican party. 30 years for moving political magazines. 30 days for sexually assaulting a child.

I think sentencing is mostly left to judges, which are not elected political officials.

[vel0city]

> If you can't see the connection between anarchist pamphlets and trying to raid a government facility, then I don't know what else to say.

My point is, its not illegal to just generally be an anarchist. Generally being an anarchist shouldn't be related to evidence of one assaulting a government facility. Once again, if these zines were like "how to raid a government facility", sure I'd see it. But it doesn't seem like these zines were that kind of material. Once again, if they are then by all means let me know.

Let's change some facts here for a different perspective. Instead of an ICE facility, its an abortion provider. Instead of anarchist, its a group of Christian extremists targeting the facility. Would owning bibles be evidence of a crime? Clearly it shows a connection to the group, they all read this stuff! Extremists which have previously bombed abortion clinics have cited the bible in justification for their actions. Would moving those bibles be trying to hide evidence? And once again, evidence of what? That you attended the same book club as others who went on to commit crimes? That you're a Christian or that you're an anarchist? Is it illegal to be these things, to think these thoughts?

Also, this then implies the books you keep on your bookshelf will be used as evidence against you, even if they don't directly pertain to the crimes you're charged with. Is that really the world you want to live in? I know that's not the world I'd like to live in. And it seems like that's the world one political party is moving towards, continuing to march towards a world where ownership of certain books implicate you as a criminal.

> Sounds like a completely separate problem that needs solving IMO.

We can solve it by voting out those who pushed for that outcome and offered the plea deal. They happen to be Republicans these days and are running for a US Senate seat in Texas.

> sentencing is mostly left to judges, which are not elected political officials.

39 states have elected judges, several of which are directly partisan elections. I do agree in this case this is federal court which means they aren't directly elected. However, they are appointed and confirmed by elected political officials. This happens to be a judge appointed by Donald Trump in 2019. So once again, yes, this is an outcome of voting for Republicans.

[BobbyJo]

> My point is, its not illegal to just generally be an anarchist. Generally being an anarchist shouldn't be related to evidence of one assaulting a government facility.

Let's say someone is obsessed with classic cars, and their neighbor's classic car goes missing. It then turns up in a storage unit owned by the guy obsessed with classic cars. Do you think their obsession with classic cars is relevant to the case? Keep in mind there is nothing wrong with loving classic cars.

[vel0city]

> Do you think their obsession with classic cars is relevant to the case?

I'd say no, just generally liking classic cars isn't material to the case. I've got tons of classic cars on my fridge from Rock Auto. Does that mean I'm likely to steal a car? Would someone removing those magnets from my fridge and giving it to a friend be hiding evidence if I were to steal a car?

Are people having a bible likely to bomb an abortion center? What percentage of people that have also read those zines likely to shoot ICE agents?

The car being in his garage is evidence. The messages of him telling his friend "check out this car I stole from that dude" is evidence. Generally being a fan of classic cars isn't.

If you're charged with illegally smoking marijuana is having a Dr. Dre CD in your car evidence? If your friend takes that CD out of your car to give to another friend is that a crime? Is that crime worth 30 years?? Wake up my dude.

[BobbyJo]

> I'd say no, just generally liking classic cars isn't material to the case.

Every lawyer would disagree, but you do you.