The Curious Case of Austin Steinbart-
Failings of the Federal Judicial System from the Judges to the Kitchen
Written by B. Wright
• Austin Steinbart had “curated Wikileaks” files in his Amorphous Archive stored with “Company B”, a data storage company, whom he paid to store his information under the belief that “Company B” would follow their own Privacy Policies described on their own website.
• “Company B” removed Austin Steinbart’s “Amorphous Archive” and revoked access to his account, that he paid said company to have access to. Aside from the “Amorphous Archive”, Steinbart also had other data stored with “Company B” such as business information and contacts, information for his tax filings, and other personal information.
• 4th Amendment: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Considering there does not appear to be a warrant in any of the court documents listed, this would fall under a violation of Austin Steinbart’s 4th Amendment Rights.
• But if not for the actions of “Company B”, arbitrarily disregarded the 4th Amendment rights of a US Citizen, the removal of access and deletion of the Amorphous Archive, then Austin Steinbart would not have further engaged in the manner in which he did. Any evidence gained by “Company B’s” actions would not be admissible in a court proceeding under the rule of “The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”
Due to those actions, Austin Steinbart has also had other Constitutional Rights violated.
• 1st Amendment rights: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Steinbart was prohibited under his Pre-Trial release conditions to use Internet/Social Media for 3 months; without being charged, arraigned, or indicted.
• 2nd Amendment rights: The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. This right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home and also with proper permitting, to carry weapons on their persons. All weapons from the home, Austin’s or not were seized when the FBI raided the home he shared with his wife.
• 5th Amendment rights: …. nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. He has not been arraigned, indicted, or charged; yet he has been subject to house arrest, Pre-Trial Services monitoring, an ankle monitor and drug testing.
• 6th Amendment Rights: The Sixth Amendment grants criminal defendants the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury consisting of jurors from the state and district in which the crime was alleged to have been committed…Austin Steinbart was arrested on 3/31/2020, he has not been formally charged, arraigned, or indicted. The court has allowed 4 motions to extend time to indict to be approved by Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle.
• 8th Amendment Rights: The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. Austin Steinbart has been remanded to custody of the Core Civic Detention center where they are improperly equipped to handle his particular medical condition. The food they serve is being served with cross contaminated kitchen utensils that serve items containing gluten, which can and will carry catastrophic results for Steinbart.
• Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA): The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that AMMA does not conflict with Arizona’s AMMA because the federal law does not contain an exception that allows medicinal use of Marijuana. The State argued that the probation conditions required the probationer to follow all laws, and that “all laws” included Federal Laws. There is also case law to back up the matter as well. However, Austin is not even yet a probationer. He has not even yet been charged with a crime. All that has been done is that the court has decided that what has been done is enough to proceed based on circumstantial evidence.
• As explained in court on 9/8/2020, Austin suffers advanced Celiac Disease, wherein his intestinal lining becomes inflamed and he runs the risk of it perforating. The continued disregard of his well-being by the court is indeed cruel and unusual punishment considering he has not yet even been charged.
• Additionally, in the hearing on 4/27/2020, Magistrate Judge Deborah Fine issued the following: The Court finds that the defendant has not violated conditions of Pretrial Release. NOT IN VIOLATION means the court is to act as though it did not happen, just as if they were in court and the Judge requested something to be stricken from the record.
• During the hearing on 9/8/2020, Magistrate Judge Michelle Burns stated that this was not the first time that she has seen that Steinbart had been back in court for violations. Technically speaking, yes it is. There was not a violation in April because Judge Fine found there to be no violation. Therefore, Judge Burns is potentially committing fraud upon the court and has become biased against Austin Steinbart and cannot continue her role in his case as an unbiased party to adjudicate properly.
• The court keeps approving the Motion to Extend Time to Indict, citing that the Grand Jury has not come together since March due to Covid-19. As the last Motion to Extend filed dated 8/21/2020, the number in positive cases of Covid-19 were on a decline according to the Maricopa County Covid-19 tracker.