I think that the "judicial reform advocate" angle was not a red herring but instead it was part of the article's intent to suggest that the judge in this case w

I think that the "judicial reform advocate" angle was not a red herring but instead it was part of the article's intent to suggest that the judge in this case was not merely wrong about whether court filings are considered public information, but was in fact actively attempting to persecute this man. The fact that you, me, and most everyone else knows that throughout the United States unsealed court records are considered public information makes it strain the credulity that this judge (a professional) would not know that fact. Combine that with a plausible motive (that this man's political activism had just strengthened the judicial oversight body which had censured this judge numerous times) and we have the appearance of judicial impropriety.