Friday saw the filing of a Motion to Reconsider the motion to modify Conditions of James “James Freeman” Springer made by attorney Ryan LaMaster based on improper procedure under the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and the lack of response from the Pima County Attorney’s Office.
LaMaster wrote:
The Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and the law require a trial court to impose the least onerous conditions of release that are reasonable and necessary to protect other persons or the community. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 7.2(a); Samiuddin, 404 P.3d at 239. Due process demands that “the trial court make an individualized determination in setting discretionary pretrial release conditions that restrict parents’ access to their minor non-victim children.” Samiuddin, 404 P.3d at 240.
Here, the Court engaged in no such individualized determination, and accordingly the restriction placed on Mr. Springer that barred him from seeing his four minor children who are not victims in this case violated his due process rights. The transcript of the hearing held on Mr. Springer’s Motion to Modify Conditions of Release is clear on this issue. The State initially offered no position on Mr. Springer’s motion, deferring to the Court. Ex. A, 4:21-25. The Court then went on to describe that due to “protocol” the Court would not allow in-person contact between Mr. Springer and Mrs. Springer “because of the nature of the charges.” Id. at 5:16-23. The Court gave this explanation, at least partially, for the benefit of Mrs. Springer, who had personally appeared to request that Mr. Springer be allowed to have contact with her, and to say that she did not wish to keep the children from him. Id. at 4:4-20. The Court went on to clarify that the no-contact restriction extended to the four minor children who are not victims in the case. Id. at 7:16-23. The Court’s decision on this aspect of Mr. Springer’s pretrial release conditions was based only on a blanket application of familial no-contact restrictions in cases involving allegations of domestic violence. Accordingly, the Court’s decision was not based on an individualized determination based on the facts or circumstances of Mr. Springer’s case, and the ruling must be reconsidered for that reason.
Mr. Springer poses no threat to his wife or any of his children. Mr. Springer is accused of making verbal threats towards his wife and 16-year-old daughter, damaging property in his own home, and “shoving” his 16-year-old daughter, an event that has been consistently described as the two of them colliding as they walked in opposite directions through a doorway. While the alleged conduct here may be undesirable, it falls short of clearly demonstrating that Mr. Springer poses such a risk to his family that he should be restricted from all in-person contact with them, especially his four young children who are not alleged victims. The events underpinning the charges in this case occurred in the context of Mr. Springer suffering an acute mental health crisis that has since resolved. Mrs. Springer surely recognizes the transient nature of the mental instability that visited her husband and would not be seeking to have him present in her life, and the lives of their children, if she believed he posed a threat to their safety.
LaMaster goes on to complain that the Pima County Attorney’s Office has refused to answer e-mails and voicemails when contacted about the case.
Springer is seeking the ability to contact his wife and daughter along with his four minor children who are not listed as victims in the case.
A hearing to hear Springer’s motion to reconsider has been scheduled for Monday, August 24, 2026.
Springer was originally jailed following a domestic incident at his home in May. He was held on $40,000.00 bond which brought about an outpouring of support from the First Amendment Auditing community. To date, $72,000.00 has been raised to the GoFundMe set up to support Springer.
While Springer’s bond was significantly reduced at a bond hearing and Springer has been freed from jail, strict conditions on contacting his family remain in place after a denial of a previous motion to change his release conditions.
Attention to Springer’s cause has brought about sporadic contributions to his on-going GoFundMe campaign as organized by friend Roy Tripoloni.
Springer saw $24.00 in new donations on Sunday, to place third in the crowd sourcing race. Our own On-Going Expenses campaign placed first with $133.00 in new donations. Lane Myers’ GiveSendGo campaign brought in $100.00 in new donations to place second for the day.
Third place went to SeanPaul “Long Island Audit” Reyes, who brought in a combined $20.00 in new donations, split between $10.00 to his We the People vs. Police Union Power and Support The Fight Against Tyranny and Corruption campaign.
Monday saw no new contributions to Springer’s fund as Aidan “Turtleboy” Kearney won the day with $80.00 in new donations to his Help Turtleboy defend Free Speech campaign. Reyes followed with a $20.00 donation to his We the People vs. Police Union Power campaign.
No other campaigns that we follow saw donations for either day.
This is a continuing news story.
