Question: This far-right, anti-government American organization who supported the defendant in a trial over the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), claims a a membership of how many people?

Context articles: Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution
Oath Keepers
United States v. Snider
Undetectable Firearms Act
United States v. Olofson
National Stolen Property Act
Project Exile
Hyde Amendment (1997)
United States v. Alkhabaz
United States v. Kirschner

Also referred to as the Fugitive Felon Act (18 U.S.C. § 1073) Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution is a United States federal law.
 Though drawn as a penal statute, and therefore permitting prosecution by the Federal government for its violation, the primary purpose of the Fugitive Felon Act is to permit the Federal government to assist in the location and apprehension of fugitives from state justice.
 No prior Criminal Division approval is required to authorize unlawful flight complaints in aid of the states.
 However, the statute expressly requires "formal approval in writing" by a designated Department official before a UFAP violation can be actually prosecuted in federal court.
 (See USAM 9-69.460.)
 For information regarding use of a grand jury to locate a fugitive, see USAM 9-11.120.
 Since the primary purpose of the Act is to assist the states in apprehending fugitives from state justice, the Act should not be applied to the interstate or international flight of federal fugitives.
 Arrest warrants issued under this act are commonly referred to as "UFAP warrants".
Oath Keepers is a far-right, anti-government American organization associated with the patriot and militia movements.
 The group describes itself as a non-partisan association of current and former military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath that all military and police take in order to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
 It encourages members – some of whom are current and former U.S. military and law enforcement officers – not to obey orders which they believe would violate the United States Constitution.
 The organization claims a membership of 35,000.
"United States v. Snider," 502 F.2d 645 (1972) was a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
 It was a consolidation of two separate cases: the first was a conviction for violation of 26 U.S.C. §7205, which prohibits submitting fraudulent tax information to an employer.
 The second was a conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. §401, which prohibits "misbehavior . . . as to obstruct the administration of justice."
The United States Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. § 922(p)) makes it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm that is not as detectable by walk-through metal detection as a security exemplar containing 3.7 oz (105 g) of steel, or any firearm with major components that do not generate an accurate image before standard airport imaging technology.
United States v. Olofson, 563 F.3d 652 (2009), is an appellate decision in the case of David Olofson, who was convicted by a jury of knowingly transferring a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o).
 Olofson was sentenced to thirty months in prison, which he began serving after his appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit failed.
 The US Supreme Court declined to hear a further appeal.
 Olofson's case was, for a time, a minor cause célèbre in conservative media and among gun rights advocates, attracting support from, among others, Lou Dobbs of "CNN" and from Oath Keepers, and legal assistance from Gun Owners of America.
The National Stolen Property Act is an Act of Congress which prohibits certain offenses relating to stolen property and forgery.
 The definitions related to the Act are codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2311 and the offense are codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314–2315.
Project Exile is a federal program started in Richmond, Virginia in 1997.
 Project Exile shifted the prosecution of illegal technical gun possession offenses to federal court, where they carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in federal prison under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, rather than in state court.
 Note that federal law (18 U.S.C. sec. 922 & 924) provides for a penalty of ten years in federal prison for being a "prohibited person", i.e., a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, as well as for falsifying information in order to obtain one, or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon.
The Hyde Amendment (Pub.L.
 105-119, § 617, Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat.
 2519, codified as a note following 18 U.S.C. § 3006A) is a federal statute allowing federal courts to award attorneys' fees and court costs to criminal defendants "where the court finds that the position of the United States was 'vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.'"
 In such cases, the federal court may allow victims to recover some of the costs they incurred in fighting the government's investigation and prosecution by authorizing an award of attorneys' fees and court costs to a criminal defendant when the prosecution's evidence is so baseless as to be "frivolous."
 Compensation awarded under this statute would come out of the budget of the specific federal agency involved, typically the United States Attorney's Office.
United States v. Alkhabaz, 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir.
 1997) was a case brought against University of Michigan undergraduate Abraham Jacob Alkhabaz, a.k.a. Jake Baker, related to several incidents regarding snuff stories that he wrote while he was a student at the University of Michigan.
 Alkhabaz was charged with violation of 18 U.S.C. s 875(c), communicating via interstate or foreign commerce threats to kidnap or injure another person.
 The case raised immediate First Amendment concerns and is considered an important one in the history of cyber law.
United States v. Kirschner, 823 F. Supp.
 2d 665, was a federal criminal case in Michigan.
 The defendant had previously been indicted by a grand jury under three counts of receipt of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A).
 The government sought to use a grand jury subpoena post-indictment to acquire additional evidence: the contents of an encrypted file from the defendant's hard drive.