Fans of Lane Myers suffered a setback on Tuesday when Judge D. Douglas Metcalf denied the latest attempt by Pima County, Arizona, resident Jason Jensen to receive permission to allow recording of Myers’ upcoming court hearing on his personal audio recorder.
Jensen filed a notice of intent to use a personal audio recorder during Myers’ upcoming hearing on November 17. The sometime YouTuber cited Rule 122(h), Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, which allows the use of personal audio recorders during court proceedings after notifying the judge or staff.
This filing essentially contest’s Metcalf’s long-time use of Supreme Court Rule 122.1(e) authorizes the Court to restrict the use of portable electronic devices, which includes personal audio recorders, that are disruptive or distracting, or contrary to the administration of justice.
It also challenges the use of 122.1(e) as Metcalf had previously ruled that a local TV station could record the proceedings.
Jenson wrote:
On November 6, 2026 the Court granted KVOA-TV’s request to place a video camera and lavalier microphone in the courtroom for this hearing, and ordered that “no further requests for audio or video recording will be granted for this hearing.” It did so in chambers, without a hearing and without any finding that anyone would be harmed by recording, resting only on the parties having been advised and “there being no objection.” Members of the public were not advised and had no chance to object. The State, which had objected to recording in order to protect the victim, did not object to a television camera and microphone, though nothing about the victim has changed except that her husband, who testified for the State, is now the subject of a search warrant. The only thing that changed is who would be recording. A party that may object when the recorder is a member of the public and stay silent when it is a television station, with the Court adopting the result, decides who may report on its own case. Rule 122(d)(1) gives that decision to the Court, on findings of harm, and a system in which a party’s objection or silence decides it has no standard at all. Such unchecked discretion “has the potential for becoming a means of suppressing a particular point of view.” Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 130 (1992).
The Order does not deny a personal audio recorder under paragraph (h), and it does not mention one. Its final sentence speaks of “requests,” and a notice under paragraph (h) is not a request: a person using a personal audio recorder is “not required to submit a request under paragraph (c),” and Mr. Jensen has made none. The Order does not suspend paragraph (h), refer to personal audio recorders, or name Mr. Jensen, and its protocols are directed to KVOA-TV, “its agents/personnel,” and “all media.” It nonetheless leaves the matter unclear and reads as though it might reach him. A court cannot restrict a right that a Supreme Court rule grants on notice by an order that does not say it is doing so, and then leave the person to guess. To the extent the sentence is read to reach a paragraph (h) notice, it is a denial, and Rule 122(c)(3) provides that “[t]he judge will promptly hold a hearing if the judge intends to deny the request,” while Rule 122(d)(1) permits denial “only after making specific, on-the-record findings.” The Court held no hearing and made no findings, and a denial the Rule requires to follow both cannot be issued as the closing line of an in-chambers media order. Nor was there any reason to mention audio: the Order’s protocols concern equipment placement, setup and operation, none of which applies to a handheld recorder that needs no setup, placement or space. Mr. Jensen therefore reads the Order as not reaching his notice and asks the Court to say so if it reads it otherwise.
Judge Metcalf would respond on Tuesday:
Jason Adam Jensen, a member of the public, has given notice pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Rule 122(h) that he intends to record the court proceedings scheduled for Tuesday, November 17, 2026 using a personal audio recorder. Supreme Court Rule 122.1(e) authorizes the Court to restrict the use of portable electronic devices, which includes personal audio recorders, that are disruptive or distracting, or contrary to the administration of justice. The Court has previously entered orders that it is not allowing members of the public to record proceedings in this case using personal audio recorders due to the potential for disruption. Mr. Jensen has himself previously asked to record the proceedings in this case using a personal audio recorder, which this Court has denied. The Court also denied his request for reconsideration. In response, Mr. Jensen filed an emergency special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals seeking to overturn this Court’s order. The Court of Appeals denied his appeal. Consequently, this Court’s previous order still stands. Likewise, the United States District Court has held that this Court’s orders denying the use of a personal audio recorder in this case does not violate the requestor’s constitutional rights. Peltz v. Metcalf, No. CV-25-00165-TUC-SHR (U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. Ariz. 3/20/2026).
Mr. Jensen also argues that he is being treated differently from the media outlet that requested to record the proceedings under Supreme Court Rule 122(c). The Court granted the media outlet’s request as the pool reporter. Serving as the pool reporter for the hearing is fundamentally different from using a personal audio recorder, as Rule 122 recognizes.
Given this Court’s ruling, any attempt to use a personal audio recorder will result in expulsion from the hearing, and/or a contempt citation.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Jensen’s notice to use a personal audio recorder to record the court
proceedings scheduled for Tuesday, November 17, 2026 is DENIED.
Josh “Joey Payne” Grey used a livestream on his “This is a Public Service” YouTube channel to criticize Judge D. Douglas Metcalf in an extended livestream Wednesday night featuring a thumbnail of a gnome with Myers’ face having sexual intercourse with Metcalf’s ear.
Grey, as Joey Payne, had previously given public comment to the Arizona Supreme Court Task Force on the Rules of the Supreme Court, which is looking to modify the rules about the use of personal recorders in the court room.
That Task Force is notable as Judge Metcalf holds a position with the Task Force and the husband of the victim in the Myers’ case, Matthew Walker, has briefed the Task Force. Metcalf denied a motion to recuse himself from the Myers case earlier in the year.
Matthew Walker is reportedly currently being investigated over two threatening e-mails involved in the Myers case.
The Task Force has reopened public comment, and Grey would go on to read Jensen’s latest comment to the court.
On Rule 122(h) Jenson wrote:
Rule 122(h) lets a member of the public use a personal audio recorder in a courtroom on notice to the judge or staff “prior to using the device.” It requires no motion and no leave. If a judge intends to deny recording, Rule 122(c)(3) requires a hearing first, and Rule 122(d)(1) permits denial only on specific, on-the record findings that the likelihood of harm outweighs the public benefit. Rule 122.1(e) preserves a judge’s authority to terminate activity that is “disruptive or distracting” or “otherwise contrary to the administration of justice,” and Rule 122.1(e)(3) says members of the public may use a personal audio recorder in a courtroom “only as provided by Rule 122.”
The notice I filed was written to give every actor in the process a chance to use those mechanisms. It identified the proceeding, gave notice in advance, and pointed to the hearing and findings the rule requires before any denial. The Ruling answered in one day, without a hearing and without the findings Rule 122(d)(1) requires. It rests on earlier orders that, in its words, bar personal audio recorders “due to the potential for disruption.” It states that the Court of Appeals “denied his appeal” and that, “consequently, this Court’s previous order still stands.” It treats a pool reporter’s recording as “fundamentally different from using a personal audio recorder, as Rule 122 recognizes.” And it announces that “any attempt to use a personal audio recorder will result in expulsion from the hearing, and/or a contempt citation.” (Ex. B.)
Each of those steps departs from the text. Rule 122.1(e) authorizes terminating disruptive activity that is happening, not forbidding a quiet audio device before anything has happened. A prediction of “potential for disruption” that applies to every recorder in every hearing is not the individualized finding Rule 122(d)(1) calls for. The Court of Appeals did not “deny an appeal” on the merits; it declined jurisdiction in a single sentence (Part VI). Peltz did not hold what the Ruling says it held (Part II). And Rule 122 does not “recognize” a
difference between a reporter’s recorder and anyone else’s; the (h) right belongs to the public. I raise these points because the revised proposal would turn each departure into the rule.
Nor was this the first unequal application. As the notice recounts, I was corrected for having a powered-off phone out of my pocket while a newspaper reporter in the same proceeding was permitted a laptop. I do not ask the Court to decide that dispute, only to notice what it shows: what a person may bring depends on who the person is, and no standard says why.
All of the new attention to the Myers case did little to nothing at all to draw attention to his GiveSendGo campaign, which remained silent for Wednesday.
Aidan “Turtleboy” Kearney won the day with $1,325.00 in new donations to his own GiveSendGo campaign.
Roy “Pigs Under Pressure” Tripoloni placed second with $20.00 in new donations towards his GoFundMe campaign for James “James Freeman” Springer.
No other campaigns that we follow saw new donations for the day.
This is a breaking news story.
