‘Attorney’ Lane Myers, representing client Lane Myers, on behalf of the Lane Myers Nonviolent Army organization, headed by “El Presidente” Lane Myers had an active holiday weekend in which he filed a new motion in an old court case, revised a lawsuit out of New Mexico and even started a new YouTube channel.
Myers started the weekend with his new channel, Lane’s Law Office, which has 113 subscribers and two videos as of press time. The description of the channel reads: Welcome to Lane’s Law Office. This is the official YouTube channel for Lanes Legal Consulting. Lane Myers is a Pro Se litigant with extensive experience in Pro Se litigation in State and Federal court, as well as both Civil and Criminal litigation.
This channel is intended to provide- Free legal advice to Pro Se litigants Discuss Access to Justice for Pro Se Litigants Provide step by step instructions on how Pro Se litigants can advocate for themselves Do’s and dont’s of Pro Se litigation Breakdown successful and unsuccessful Pro Se filings plus much more
Myers has identified himself as an attorney in phone conversations to Merb34st, though would later claim that he only plays an attorney “on the internet.” The new channel would be an interesting experiment as Myers is indeed not licensed in any state.
The long-winded YouTuber also stated that he was seeking ways to make money off of YouTube as he currently was spending most of his money on filing multiple lawsuits and filing motions against various targets. However, it is unclear if possible monetization of one or both of his channels will allow Myers the freedom to continue in his current format while retaining monetization.
On Monday, Myers filed an amended complaint to his recent state level New Mexico lawsuit over what Myers called “the campground incident.” While we have not seen the amended complaint, brief screen shots from Myers indicated that Myers added the New Mexico Department of Public Safety to the lawsuit.
Myers also filed for a change of Judge in his attempt to modify his bond conditions from a plea deal he took last year when he was found guilty of a single charge of aggravated harassment.
The filing was done under Arizona’s Rule of Criminal Procedure 10.2(c)(1)(C), which generally allows each side in a criminal case one change of judge as a matter of right.
While Myers did not include his reasoning for the change of judge, he did indicate that he wanted his hearing moved up from its July 24, 2026, date and avowed: Mr. Myers hereby avows that this Notice of Change of Judge is made in good faith and not for an improper purpose or delay. In fact, Mr. Myers wishes the hearing was much sooner so that he can get his rights back and stop being unlawfully restricted from matters of public interest, and talking to his own friends.
Judge Griffin had previously ruled against Myers in a case made famous by Merb34st’s review in a video entitled “Happy Cesar Chavez Day. Watching and commenting on Lane Myers hearings.”
Judge Griffin had denied on Monday a motion by Jason Jenson to file an Amicus Brief in the case after the motion was opposed by both Myers and the prosecutor’s office. Griffin noted that the rules of the court do not allow for the filing of an amicus curiae brief at the trial court level in his denial of the request.
If Jenson’s name sounds familiar, he famously attempted to file a similar amicus curiae brief in the early days of Jose “Chille” DeCastro’s first lawsuit against the Las Vegas Metro Police department. He was also unsuccessful in that case.
Myers did two livestreams at the first part of the week, where he seemed to focus on Elizabeth Burton Ortiz, the Executive Director of the Arizona Prosecuting Attorney’s Advisory Council.
During Tuesday’s afternoon livestream, which Myers has since removed from public view, Myers called her office and was told that she was out of state. Myers told her assistant that Ortiz had twenty minutes to contact him or else face his wrath.
KATY, who provides our transcription service, captured Myers’ beef with Ortiz in a passage from Monday evening’s livestream:
So because I’m a nice guy, I always when I exercise my rights, I like to let people rest in peace. Yeah, my rights aren’t dabbled with. They’re 100% upheld. You either uphold or you go. You don’t dabble with my rights. My rights. Okay, so no more dabbling with our rights around here. Now they’re going to have to give me somebody who actually is a constitutionalist. And so, let’s see. Now, moving on to the next breaking news segment. Hey. Chat. Does everybody remember like a year ago when a certain person. Does everybody remember a year ago when one of the two people whose name I can’t say on my channel or I’ll go to prison. But I can say everybody else’s name except these two names. OK, remember. There’s two names I’m not allowed to say. One of those two names I’m not allowed to say. Last year filed something in the Supreme Court petition thing to try to get the rules of the court recording and shit. Right. and uh they tried to uh blame see that’s this is what’s crazy i can’t even show the petition from last year from the supreme court because of whose name is on it one of the two people whose name is a it’s a if i say these two people’s name it’s 40 to 100 years in prison if i say anybody else’s name. It’s just another day at the office. And so, uh, uh, one of those two people that I can’t talk about, but they can talk about me on Supreme court violence. Imagine living in, imagine living your life and living in a world where if you show a document filed with the Supreme Court of Arizona, you go to prison. Allegedly. Hey, Badger, depends who you ask. Hey, but. So let’s all remember about like around a year ago, somebody, one of the two people, one of the two people who I can’t say their name or I’ll be arrested. Allegedly. I don’t tell nobody, but I won’t actually be. But we just got to keep that. Charade going where if you say these two people’s name, it’s a crime. If you say anybody else’s name, it’s not. So anyways, of those two people, the one that has the kit, that one of those two people filed something with the Supreme Court to get the rule change. And I can’t even pull it up right now because it has a certain name on it. Think about that. But hey, it has my name on it. But I can’t show it. But that’ll get changed soon. Don’t worry. And then there’ll be lots of videos on Lane’s Law Office about all this. And yes, hey, hate me or love me. I’m still going to, I’m trying, I need to make money off my time on YouTube. It’s no offense to anybody that wants to be my subscriber. but um if i’m gonna put that much time into it i might as well like i need to because like it’s i have to basically invest my time i don’t have much quote unquote free time now i’m gonna do the lie i’m gonna keep this channel where like we can just do whatever live streams clown people but over there i’m trying to get like you know what i mean the the corny ass (expletive redacted) hey everyone like share and subscribe hit the like button because that don’t mean shit over here i got 14 000 subscribers and i’m not even monetized what good is it it’s good for like getting the information out but it’s not like it’s not like i do it for that but I’ve spent $900 on transcripts for one court hearing recently. That’s insane to me, but that’s just how they do it. You want to prove you’re innocent? You better get out your money. Oh, you need the transcripts to do your appeal. That’ll be a thousand dollars. You know what I’m saying? And that’s just some of them. A, uh, at, at KS for rights, not nuke war. A, uh, you should be able to share public documents as you don’t say the name, but their name is on the document. And apparently if I listen, I went to I was facing 40 to 100 years in prison for showing a document. That had somebody’s name on it. In a silent video. No problem. So, like, why can’t I and now I’m really going to be mad at this. This shit’s going to be. We got somebody that we’re going to clown. On like on like we’re going to clown this woman until she (expletive redacted). and does an interview and tells me she’s sorry and she’ll never let it happen again. But, so, you all remember, all of us that are here today, remember about a year ago, one of the two people that I can’t say their name, put in a petition to try to get rid of 122 recording rule. Right. And that was a big thing. And people put in replies and shit. Well, we need to do that again. Cause guess what somebody, guess what Mike Ockland just told me about. And now this one, we’re going to show it. It says my name. I don’t give a fuck who, if it says my name, I can show it. It appears they filed another petition. for 122 and we got caught slipping in may or i mean in this year recently they (expletive redacted) filed another thing this time it was the court that filed it and look who the first people to oppose it were actual reporters I’m the chair of the University of Arizona’s journalism school is taking the shareholder’s side then it’s (expletive redacted) the vice president of the news, channel 12 news ABC 15 working as a journalist they say (expletive redacted) they support open courtrooms like Lane Myers then the AI committee says something then the (expletive redacted) lawyers for the media coalition say we support Lane Myers the media coalition big lawyers and shit then this (expletive redacted) dirty rotten scoundrel who I’m going to now have to sue hey y’all get your popcorn ready hey remember now you can comment on this we’re gonna go over this extend time okay so you can comment they extended the time on their own because there were so many negative comments dude put it up there and then it got roasted by all these people there was a couple that were in support like the chief judge of maricopa and she said that the only thing she wants change is uh better to apply to virtual courtrooms i thought she was going to say something crazy, but she just said apply it to virtual, like if you’re doing remote court and people shouldn’t be able to record it. Get the fuck out of here. This guy. Right? But look at what this dumbass (expletive redacted) said to me about me. She put my name in her mouth again. See, last time, the person whose name I can’t say said that it’s Lane Myers’ fault and he even linked it to my YouTube channel and he linked it to a hearing for Stacey Jane. He said, he said, uh, oh, this defendant. Well, here’s what they said. I mean, this, this chick is a (expletive redacted) nut job of the highest. Look at this shit. I’m a sewer just to see what happens. I’m not going to let this woman continue slander me. And in the next day or two, we’re going to have a large public records request fulfilled. Or they’re going to scam us, one or the other. But now we’re going to get lots of… Everybody’s going to do some public records off this one. Because we’re going to… Elizabeth is now going to experience It’s the Barbra Streisand. Huh, Elizabeth. So does everybody remember the person who said, whose name I can’t say, who said they need to change the rules because of me? He put as an example of the reason it needs to be changed is because of my hearing with Stacey Jane and Mackenzie O’Brien that day. Okay. They said, they said, or this person, I don’t know what their pronouns are, but I pretty much can guarantee you, or I could guess them if I was allowed.
Continuing:
So it’s time to read between the lines. We’re doing a good job of reading between the lines. Throw a one in the chat if you’re reading between the lines here. so anyways there was a there was a petition filed last year because of the Stacey Jane hearing now it looks like they filed another one this year and look at this lie this is the executive director executive director of the APAC Arizona Prosecuting and Attorneys Advisory Council executive director Said this about this and that. Look. This (expletive redacted) had the nerve to say. The circumstances detailed in the last petition. Which is. The male version of the person I can’t talk to. About. Talk about. So the circumstances that Mr. Prosecutor himself put in there. About how, oh, Stacey Jane and all that, right? Look at this shit. Read this shit. Illustrate the dangers. These advances. There, the defendant, there, Lane Myers, right? Lane Myers used the smartphone to broadcast. I was not the (expletive redacted) defendant. It was not a criminal case, okay? But listen, watch this. She says, there, the defendant used a smartphone to broadcast to his YouTube channel after only giving notice. The defendant’s use of technology made it difficult to maintain the integrity of the court proceedings and ensure that the proceedings did not result in further harassment to those participating in them. Through his weaponization of technology, the defendant effectively targeted and amplified his harassment towards numerous participants in the proceedings, resulting in the defendant being found guilty of two felony offenses, State v. Myers. Look at this. She put my name in this petition again, again. This time she’s saying, but here’s where she’s going to have to pay me damages. And because this is defamation per se, because look, she said the circumstances detailed in our fight art, right? So let’s just go there. Let’s just stop there. The circumstances detailed in this, right? The circumstances detailed in our… We’re going to use our own words against her in a court of law right now, watch. And then we’re going to let her know that there’s no such thing as anonymous lies when you’re governmental. Hopefully that, hopefully she’ll be able to put some false charges on me. Get her, we’re going to need some, we’re going to need some thumbs.
[Full disclosure: Mr. Myers has both threatened to sue and/or to file an injunction against ReallyCoolNews. If you’d like to contribute to our fund set up to fight possible legal action/keep the lights on/keep the cats fed, our GoFundMe is located at https://www.gofundme.com/f/reallycoolsite-ongoing-expenses.]
