Fans of YouTuber Lane Myers celebrated on Thursday as news spread that he had indeed dismissed public defender William Parven as both his advisory counsel and his counsel in the two sets of charges he is facing in Pima County, Arizona.
Parven announced in one of two motions filed on Thursday:
Counsel, William J. Paven, hereby moves this Court to withdraw him as Attorney of Record so that Mr. Myers can represent himself. Mr Myers has informed Counsel that he no longer desires any counsel, advisory or otherwise.
Mr. Myers very clearly wants to represent himself. Mr. Myers wants to file his own motions. Mr. Myers is self-trained in the law. While Counsel has advised Mr. Myers on motions that might be appropriate to file and has filed motions in this case, those discussions have occurred, and motions have been filed. In fact, it has been requested that Counsel withdraw the last pending motion so Mr. Myers can file his motions instead.
Mr. Myers has a right to represent himself and Counsel does not want to interfere with this right. It is now believed that even acting as advisory counsel will interfere with Mr. Myers’s right to self-representation.
Mr. Myers informed Counsel at the jail to file this motion immediately and that the issue be heard immediately or at the soonest possible time and date.
Furthermore, once Counsel is withdrawn, it is requested that the State provide disclosure to Mr. Myers at the Pima County jail. It is requested that the State make arrangements for Mr. Myers have access to devices to view all media files the State intends to use at the trial.
Parven filed a similar motion to withdraw as advisory counsel for the original set of charges.
Parven was originally assigned to defend Myers from the original set of 12 charges he faces. He remained as an advisory counsel after Myers was awarded the ability to represent himself as a pro se defendant.
When Myers picked up a second set of charges immediately after being arraigned for the first set of charges, Parven was assigned the case with the intent that both sets of charges will be combined at some point.
Myers had asked to fire Parven at least once during recent court hearings as he disagreed with Parven’s take on recent motion hearings. He also openly stated that as soon as the motions Parven filed on his behalf were dealt with, he would be filing to take over the combined lawsuit from Parven.
It’s unclear how much of Parven’s strategy will carry over to Myers’ defense going forward. Parven had planned on appealing Judge Metcalf’s recent decision to declare a law governing aggravated assault unconstitutional, with Parven requesting Myers’ release while the appeal was being heard.
Parven’s motion involving withdrawing a request to cancel the hearing scheduled May 5, 2025, to determine if Myers is eligible for a second bond hearing has been filed but is not available as of press time.
In support of that motion, Parven was attempting to show that Myers is at a great disadvantage in his role as counsel for himself while incarcerated based on Myers’ questionable claims that he has been denied access to the electronic law library provided to all inmates. Parven had argued for home release with specific conditions to govern Myers’ behavior.
Prosecutor Rachel Stiles interjected, responding to the idea of home confinement by reminding the Court that releasing Myers had already been attempted and he had picked up multiple new felonies within hours of his release on bond.
It’s unclear what the path forward is for the case at this time. The May 5 hearing to discuss the possibility of a bond hearing for Myers remains scheduled despite the motion to withdraw the hearing. Theoretically, that hearing will be repurposed in order to handle Parven’s removal.
Myers will remain in the Pima County Adult Corrections facility until at least that date.
The loss of Parven is seen as a major blow to Myers’ ability to defend himself. According to our courtroom observer, more often than not, Parven was the sole voice of reason to keep Myers from damaging his own defense with outbursts and inappropriate behavior.
At Monday’s hearing, the struggle between the men was again apparent. Myers ignore even Judge Metcalf attempts to reign in his instincts to talk over other participants in the trial and state his truths at all times, regardless of appropriateness.
While a longshot, legal scholars saw Parven’s arguments as one of the bright spots for Myers’ defense. Parven’s long-term plan to attempt to release Myers from jail while he appealed Metcalf’s Monday rulings were solid, and even seemed to have traction with Judge Metcalf, who had set a date to consider the argument.
Myers’ friends and supporters were jubilant about Myers’ decision. Myers had become YouTube famous for his wild antics and his outrageous behavior in lower courts. At one point making a claim of having Tourette’s Syndrome in order to be able to swear in lower courts while randomly insulting and degrading his opponents.
Though his actual ability to cite law often borders on the same limited set of rulings that sovereign citizens and First Amendment auditors cling to, Myers’ ability to make hearings such a chore for all the participants and his ability to break down the will of his opponents to follow through with a prosecution of him is legendary.
The next few months of hearings, even with a steady hand such as Judge Myers overseeing the proceedings, will be interesting at best as Myers is expected to return to form in his solo defense.
The minute order from Monday’s media hearing were also released on Wednesday. In the order, Judge D. Douglas Metcalf made it clear that his ban on personal audio and video recording devices will continue throughout the course of Myers’ trial.
Known Myers associate Mark Brown had attempted to have Metcalf’s standing rule against personal recording in his courtroom lifted in Monday’s hearing. The ruling effectively wiped out any chances of non-authorized recording in the courtroom by Myers or his associates.
Myers and his associates have been known to press the issue of personally recording their hearings, often audio broadcasting those hearings during the proceedings on YouTube. Judge Metcalf ruled that since he provides a public YouTube audio feed for his audience, there would be no need for independent recording of his courtroom.
This is an on-going news story.
