And you think that's worth a 30 year sentence? I think the founders of the US would disagree.
Also worth noting that the husband did not conceal evidence of the wife committing a crime. Having political zines isn't illegal. The zines were circumstantial evidence that the prosecution wanted to use to characterize her general political views. They had no direct relation to the events at the ICE detention center.
Im somehow more reminded of the loyalists in the revolutionary wars. 80.000 people who fled to canada, when it became obvious they where no longer wanted or needed by the new administration. Trying to do a Che Guverra against the expressed will of the people - seems kind of extremist.
If I were transporting copies of this magazine, am I concealing evidence? What is special about this guy? Is there anything he could have legally transported, or is everything she's written banned?
The irony of The Intercept requiring my identity is funny.
she called her husband, from jail, and asked him to move them so they couldn't be used in court against her. she said "do whatever you have to do". the cops listened to the phone call, watched him load them into the car and arrested him on the drive. i think it's pretty straightforward that she was asking for his help in obstructing the investigation by hiding potential evidence against her.
Lawful investigation and prosecution would of course not hinge upon the contents of political publications. As such, any obstruction was purely aimed at the inevitable two minute hate by the addled autocrat about how antifa is hiding everywhere, making his coffee too cold and his food not taste as good as it used to.
I am asking those questions in good faith, to explore the new limits on free speech, and don't see any direct answers. What happens to this guy specifically is only interesting as far as it affects everyone else in the US.
How would possession of political material be evidence one way or the other? She can own, read, share, publish, disseminate all the revolutionary literature she wants
The wife was charged with: Rioting with the intent to commit an act of violence,
providing support to terrorists, and conspiracy to use and carry explosives.
In what way would a box of magazines be evidence of any one of those crimes? I very much doubt there was an article called "My plan to commit an act of violence by Maricela Rueda" in any of them. The ones they choose to photograph for inclusion in their criminal complaint (likely because they were the most scary looking ones) appear to have been written many years ago. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Literatu...
Two of those pictured are on archive.org and War in the streets : the story of urban combat from Calais to Khafji is available at amazon.com
It sounds to me like she was just making arrangements with her husband from jail to handle their property. She told him to have her car towed because it was left on the street by someone else's house and she told him to "move whatever you need to from the house" which is a pretty sensible heads up to give someone when you know that their house will likely be ransacked later by police who could take or destroy anything.
"The government showed that there were items in the box that were the same items found in the Soto’s residence, tying Sanchez and Rueda to the Sotos, and similar items found amongst the other defendants. It also showed materials in the box contained handwritten notes on them, specifically the name “Ines,” and “Ines in bc” [Ines in book club].
This further drew the connection between Sanchez, Rueda, and the Sotos. This connection was important for purposes of Pinkerton liability and showing they all shared the same motive, intent, knowledge, and foreseeability."
No lawyer, today is the day I learned about Pinkerton Liability, but apparently under it you can be held liable for the actions of your co-conspirators.
