The headache inducing Lane Myers Experience got a bit weirder on Thursday as Myers’ attorney, William Parvin, filed his response to the prosecution’s opposition to his motion for a new bond hearing hours after the prosecution debunked many of his claims in a separate filing.
Please note that the timeline may have changed from previous coverage as the AZAccess website has been slow to release documentation for this case.
Parvin again pushed the idea that Myers was being robbed of his constitutional right to defend himself due to the lack of a library and his inability to communicate freely with people to work on his defense.
Myers is currently being held under a “no bond” status due to a law stating that a defendant is ineligible for bond if a felony has been committed while out on bond. Parvin is stating, without providing legal basis, that this is unconstitutional as a Pro Se defendant due to conditions at the jail.
Parvin argued that Myers had a “no bond” hearing before he was officially arraigned on new charges. Once the arraignment happened and the case was assigned to Judge D. Douglas Metcalf, Metcalf could now hold a rehearing to determine if Myers should be allowed home release or have bond reinstated.
In what could be an ill-timed revelation for Parvin, the prosecution addressed Myers’ alleged access issues in a filing earlier on Thursday. That filing showed that Myers has been less than truthful about his access to the online law library, misrepresenting that he had been denied access to the online law library as he had access to the library since March 21, 2025.
Furthermore, it disputed Myers’ claim that there was only one electronic tablet per 25 inmates in the Pima County Adult Correctional facility. Myers is currently housed in a section of the jail that provides a single tablet for every two-person cell.
Myers himself showed how easy it was to obtain a tablet in one of his previous livestreams from the jail. When the tablet he was using was running out of charge, he quickly found a second tablet that was charged to continue the stream.
The YouTuber had also previously demanded his own personal time with a tablet based on the now disproven fact that there was only one tablet per 25 inmates and his legal searches would compromise others’ access.
In the same filing, the prosecution again offered Parvin use of a laptop to facilitate his defense of Myers. It also made it clear that if Myers was indigent and could not afford to buy paper and pen, he could file a form to have those materials provided to him at the state’s expense.
While Myers took in no new donations on Friday as the entire crowd sourcing market was fille with goose eggs, Myers has taken in $3607.00 in donations to his GiveSendGo campaign this year, with $465.00 coming in donations for April.
Judge Metcalf issued a ruling that the motion for a rehearing on bond will be heard on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. If Parvin’s claims are successful, the rehearing may happen at the same time.
A second filing was made by Parvin on Thursday, which was apparently written by Myers an filed by Parvin. The new motion asks for the aggravated harassment charges faced by Myers be thrown out on the grounds that the current statue is too overbroad and would not apply to Myers.
The filing acknowledges the current statute does not require the intent to harass for the aggravated harassment charges to apply. It further claims that the state legislature is currently revising the rule to require intent for the charges to be made.
In essence, Myers is asking the court to dismiss the charges of aggravated harassment based on a future version of the statute and not the current statute.
Myers argues, “A person of ordinary intelligence would not understand what is and is not protected activity under the current version of the statute. With such vague terms, the State can arbitrarily decide who to prosecute because the intent of the individual has no bearing on the case. Any time a public employee is annoyed or gets their feelings hurt over criticism, they could claim harassment and demand prosecution. This is an unacceptable application of the harassment law. This Court must render it vague.”
The motion concludes that the aggravated harassment charges must be dismissed “because the statute as currently written is void for vagueness, overbroad, and a violation of the First Amendment.”
The prosecution has yet to respond to Myers’ motion.
JOURNALISM IN CRISIS
Both ReallyCoolSite.org’s daily newspaper and our daily newscasts are funded by your continuing donations and what we make from our YouTube AdSense revenue each month.
If you’d like to contribute to help us keep the lights on, eating, keeping the cats fed and writing new stories to feature on both the newspaper and newscast each day, we do have a GoFundMe set up at: https://gofund.me/76d87459
As real American and true protector of the first amendment Lane Myers has made multiple threats to sue us in recent days, portions of all donations may also go towards fighting any possible future lawsuits.
If you can’t afford to contribute, please watch our entire videos, like, share, subscribe and comment. You CAN help by doing next to nothing and we thank you in advance for pitching in!
