You mean a vague, anonymous, and unsubstantiated claim from Chicago?
Changing your threshold with every post?
There you go projecting again. My threshold is the same as it was previously - that your slander upon Merrick by accusing him of being a confederate sympathizer is unsubstantiated. You, on the other hand, have attempted to alter that claim from being a confederate sympathizer to being a suspected confederate sympathizer to being accused in an anonymous and equally unsubstantiated letter of having vaguely described knowledge of a confederate plot in Maryland.
What is is going to be next? He wasn't convicted in a court?
That is true, but also unnecessary as he wasn't even accused of anything specific. Lincoln's henchment simply harassed him because they didn't like the way he was ruling.
"... falsely accusing him of being a confederate agent or sympathizer or something without even so much as a single shred of evidence!"
Here is your #402 threshold:
"... so much as a single shred of substantiated evidence against Judge Merrick."
What is it going to be next? "Substantiated credible evidence?" "Substantially substantiated evidence?" "Evidently substantiated evidence?" You are a game-player.
By the way, the letter wasn't "anonymous." The name was redacted.