[Music] It's been dark way too long in this place. That bright smile long gone been replaced. From ear to ear, I see that fear in your face. Tell me when the last time you felt safe cuz there's some evil people in the streets. People at your front door creeping while you sleep. It's time to raise up so that even we don't turn for the cheek. I can show you how to be strong. Come on, follow me. Are you looking for a hero? Well, look up. No more running from the bad guy. I'mma stare him in the eye like what's up. I know the journey got hard for a minute. But I ain't giving this up. Yeah. I got the heart of a champion. If I get knocked down, I get back up. We go through bad days, hard times, low pay, high crime pathways to a life without sunshine. I'm the lifeline with this life. I'm going to be the pipeline shining in the night time. Bet on me to smoke down. I'mma go toe to toe. Already know that I'm never going to back down. Bet on me to stand tall. I take on many things for my crew, but I risk it all. We can wicked people in the streets. Corruption in the politics and the police. It's time to raise up. Take a stand against the seat. We won't take a backseat. I can show you how to be strong. Come on, follow me. Heard you looking for a hero. Well, look up. No more running from the bad guy. I'mma stare him in the eye like I know the journey got hard for a minute, but I ain't giving this up. Yeah, I got the heart of a champion. If I get knocked down, I get back up. Get back up. Get back up. Get back up. If I get knocked down, I'mma get back up. If I get knocked down, I'mma get back up. If I get knocked down, I'mma get back up. I'mma get back up. I'mma get back up. I'mma go. Are you looking for a hero? Well, look up. Yeah. Come on. Running from that bad guy. Don't worry about it. I'm right here. What's up? I know that journey been hard for you. Okay. I ain't giving up. We ain't giving up. I got the heart of a champion. And if I get knocked down, I get back up. [Music] All right. Uh uh let's go on the record and the matter of state of Arizona versus Lane Jeffrey Meyers CR20251060 and CR202514 uh 54. Time set for sentencing for both CR matters. Part of appearances will start with the state. Rachel Styles for the state. In your honor, the victim is present and will like to address the court today. Okay. And uh Mr. Myers, Lane Myers, defendant. All right. And you're assisted by your advisory council, Mr. President. Correct. Yes, sir. All right. Um the first thing I want to address is Mr. Myers, you had filed. There is some confusion with that. Hold on, Smith. Um, there's no recording of this hearing. So, if anyone's recording, um, they're to stop right now. Audio recording. No recording. Audio. Audio 1228. No, no, no. Sir, if you can't if you can't follow my orders, you have to leave. Oh, I mean, it's a Supreme Court room. Okay. You're ordered to remove from the courtroom. Could we get him out of here? I'll turn it off. All right. Turn it off. I already ordered that previously. Sir, same thing for you. You said you were going to do the same thing. Why do you recording, sir? In the back of the courtroom. What? No, I'm just standing here. Why don't you have a seat? No recording. We are live streaming today's hearing. All right. Um, Mr. Myers, uh, you had filed a motion to strike letters of support, uh, on June 27th. Did you want to proceed on that or were you withdrawing that? There's some confusion. Yeah, Judge. Mr. Myers and I were speaking on Friday when we received a sheath of letters um from the state um some of which uh just from a legal perspective as as an just bothered me by the way they were submitted and and the anonymity of them. Um we talked about it. Um we discussed possible motions that could be filed. Additionally, at that point, Mr. Meyer still hadn't even seen his PSR. He didn't even get a chance to see it until this morning. So, I wrote up the motion um discussed the case law with Mr. Myers. He agreed to let me sign for him and file it. However, um we talked to Mr. Myers did some research on it later once he had some time. um called me up and he'd like to uh take we'd like to I guess move to uh move to uh withdraw the motion to strike the letters of support. Um, and I guess we can just deal with the sentencing recommendations and yeah, that that part of the um of the motion um because rule hold on hold on the UNC constitutional probation conditions um that address first amendment issues. I did review that and I I would just take that as a sentencing memorandum. That that's kind of how we figured we just suggest the court take a look at it. Um and uh and then we added just um minor objections to the pre-sentence report that I'm sure the court had an opportunity to see. Yes. So we'll leave that intact, but we didn't intend for it to be a full-blown motion that needed to be responded to. And if the court wants to treat it as a sentencing recommendation, that's or sorry, as a uh as a our sentencing memorandum, that's fine. Sure. Okay. Uh so I'll take another further action on that. Um Oh, yeah. And I just wanted to make a a comment as to the the one case that was cited there in the state versus Mononttoya case talked about victim impact statements that was in the context of a uh sentencing phase of a capital case where the issue was presented uh to the jury that's fundamentally different uh than this case. Uh we always get sec uh recommendations from uh victims at every the call was quick and then I went back and read and rule 39 it's all it's all legit. It's all okay. All right. We're all on the same page then. All right. But I do get to refute the statements under rule 39. You you certainly do, and that's going to be part of your allocation of sentencing. Um, Mr. Myers, are you ready to proceed to sentencing? Yes, sir. All right. Uh the court accepted your plea of guilty on June 9th, 2025 and enter judgment you're guilty of uh NCR20251060 amend account for uh stalking, distress, fear, and violation of 13-2923A1, a class 5 felony, non-dangerous non-repetitive offense committed between September 12th, 2024 and February 22nd, 2025. And in CR20251454, amend account one, aggravated harassment, court order in place and violation of 13-2921.01A1, a class 6 felony, non-dangerous, non-repetitive offense committed on March 16th, 2025. The court has reviewed the pre-sentence report dated June 26th, 2025. uh uh the victim's impact statement, the victim's husband's impact statement, the victim's uh mother's impact statement, uh her brother's impact statement, impact statements from the uh victim's co-workers. I've also reviewed the support letters uh on behalf of the defendant, uh three from his mother, one from his stepfather, one from his sister, and one from his spouse. Um and um I also reviewed obviously the sentencing memo that um that was filed that we just uh discussed. Um I think we'll hear um from the victim next um Miss Styles. And so, um, Miss Walker, if you could, I know you've spoke before in court, but if you could identify yourself and then, um, I would like to hear from you and obviously make your comments uh to me, not not against uh or not not attacking uh uh Mr. Meyers. Thank you, your honor. My name is Shannon Walker. I wanted to take this opportunity to speak directly about what it has meant to be a victim in this case and to share the truth. I am here today because Lane Meyers chose to stalk, harass, and terrorize me and by extension my family and my community. Lane Myers first contacted me when my husband was prosecuting him for his misdemeanors. In his words, he wanted to come talk to me about my husband being a crooked ass prosecutor. He emailed my husband that he knew where we lived and would come to our neighborhood soon. Twice he showed up my workplace trying to find me. He called me many times and left several voicemails. These actions were sufficiently terrifying on their own. But that wasn't enough for him. Lane Myers then built an entire campaign of harassment on lies. Lies about me, lies about my family, and lies about why he was targeting us. lying became his tool to justify his harassment, to manipulate others into joining him, and to keep his campaign of fear alive. He lies that I am a public official, as if that somehow makes stalking and harassing me acceptable. Just to be clear, I haven't been a state employee since December of 2024. I now work with the University of Arizona, not for the University of Arizona. Lane Myers knows this and has known it for months, but he conveniently hid it from his followers because it undercuts his argument that he can do whatever he wants to any government employee. Lane Meyers said that he was going to take my career from me and he tried to do exactly that. He called my boss and dozens of people I work with anyone he could get a hold of. He threatened to sue me repeatedly using the legal system as another weapon to intimidate and control me. And of course, he demanded that I resign from my job over and over, even though he had no idea what my job was and could not identify anything that I actually did improperly that was related to it. I want to address Laney statement to the probation officer in the pre-sentence report. In that statement, he tried to downplay his conduct as simply criticizing my husband in a voicemail and claimed he never encouraged anyone to contact me. Not only was this not a valid reason to contact me at all, the reality is that he did far more than this. He threatened to come to my home and workplace, repeatedly posted my contact information online, even after being ordered not to by superior court, and explicitly told people that anyone could reach out to me. When that contact information was briefly taken down by a concerned colleague, Ling called me immediately to taunt me about it and said that everybody knows where I live and everybody knows where I work. He then told his followers it was proof that their emails and phone calls were working. One of his many lies is that I called a federal judge to get his girlfriend Katherine Henrik's fired after he reached out to me. Something that he, she, and I all know is not true and something that she has openly admitted didn't happen. Lane Myers has blamed a number of people for whatever happened with Miss Henrik's job, whoever he was angry with at the moment. but he decided to claim it was me when he needed a story to justify what he had done. He has also stated that there's FBI evidence supporting this claim. Of course, this evidence has never appeared. If it existed, Lane Myers would have plastered it online, live streamed it, posted about it repeatedly, and sent it to everyone on Earth. It doesn't exist. We all know it. It's just another lie he tells to keep his harassment campaign going. But he continued to push the false claim to the probation officer that I caused his girlfriend to lose her job. So although the pre-sentence report states that Lane took responsibility for his actions, this demonstrates that he is not. True accountability would have meant telling the truth and stopping the harm, not continuing to spread lies and minimizing the fear and chaos he caused for me, my family, and so many others. Lane's lies, his online mob accepted them, repeated them, and weaponized them. They have called me, emailed me, and left me voicemails. Hundreds of messages echoing his false claims. They have threatened to make false reports to child protective services to have my children removed from my home. They have demanded that I be fired and have spread the same shifting stories Lane's creation, a campaign that Lane Meyers started and that his followers have been eager to carry out for him. Lane Myers could have stopped all of this at any time. Not only was this completely in his control, he was ordered to do so by a court. But he continued the same behavior, inciting his followers with his lies, showing them my contact information over and over, and encouraging them to target me. As a result, the harassment and threats against me escalated even further. Lane Myers orchestrated this harassment and now he tries to distance himself from the consequences, pretending he is a victim of a system gone wrong. These were not isolated mistakes. They were deliberate actions Lane Meyers chose to take to harass, intimidate, and control me. And let's be clear about why he did it. Lane Myers cannot win lawfully, so he attempts to win unlawfully. There's simply no reason to post the names and contact informations of um information of victims, witnesses, or the prosecutor's wife in your criminal cases except to incite people to contact them, intimidate them, and drive them out of participating in the criminal justice system. By definition, this is terrorism. Lane Meers liked to call his supporters the non-violent army. Here are just a few of the things that the the non-violent things that he and his army have done in his name. Lane Myers posted an altered image of my spouse holding my severed head. He posted multiple images of my husband with crosshairs over his head, a symbol that is strongly associated with shooting targets. His supporters have sent me messages including, "Hope to see you tred and feathered one day soon. You are all parasites who should be thankful that they are allowed to even exist. People are going to be fisting your ass in a prison cell. Scum such as yourself deserves to be gunned down without mercy. I hope that you will get to see your children die before you meet your end. Please do this world a big favor by killing yourself. Die, Shannon. Please [ __ ] die slowly and painfully. And just this past Saturday, after Lane Myers violated this court's order yet again, he returned to YouTube to lie about the statement I submitted to this court and I received. You deserve to be hung in the street with your lying husband. This is what Lane Myers calls nonviolent. This is what he has built and encouraged and is the fear he brought into my life and lives of many others. And he wants this court to believe he will comply with this court's orders. He can't even control himself while he's in jail awaiting sentencing. Lane Myers often likes to say that I harassed myself by watching his content. And he likes to lie and say that I made up the harassment by sending harassing emails to myself. The truth is much of Laney's harassment was sent to me by identifiable people acting on his behalf, including Joshua Gray of New Smurman Beach, Florida, who goes by this is a public service on YouTube. Joshua Gray is Lane Meyer's little partner in committing many of the crimes. He has repeatedly emailed me, called me, and forwarded Mr. Meyer's videos to ensure I saw them. I want to acknowledge that I'm not the only one that Lane Myers has targeted. He has harassed, threatened, and terrorized many others. Overall, don't interrupt Go in Tucson and beyond, dragging people into his chaos and fear for no reason other than his desire for control and attention. This wasn't just scary for me. It was scary for everyone at the University of Arizona who became aware of his actions at a time when our community is all too aware of the effects of behavior like harassment and stalking. Lane Myers has targeted colleagues and students at the College of Law. People who have nothing to do with him, who were simply coming to work or to class, and who ended up navigating locked doors and security protocols because of the threat he created. He made students feel unsafe at their own law school. And he forced colleagues to worry about their personal safety simply for doing their jobs. He's disrupted entire communities. And while I'm here today to stand up for myself, I'm also here to stand up for them. Katherine Hendrickx shared in her letter to this court that Lane Myers supported her f supported her during her father's illness. Let me tell you what Lane Myers did while my father was dying during the same time that Lane Myers tried to destroy my life. My father was diagnosed with terminal cancer two months before Lane Myers decided to start harassing me. Lean Myers took a significant portion of the last time I would ever have with my dad and turned it into fear, stress, and chaos. Instead of spending those final months fully present with my dad while he was fighting cancer and when he needed me, I spent more hours than I can count talking to police, documenting Laney's harassment, meeting with various security officials, and attending court hearings while living under constant siege. My family was trying to process my dad's illness and make the most of the time we had left. But Lane Myers's harassment was always there, demanding attention, demanding time, demanding energy. that should have gone to my dad and my family during those precious final months. I was harassed by Lane Meyer's sickopants while sitting next to my dad in the ICU on the day he died. Lane Myers took what should have been a peaceful sacred time for my family and turned it into a period of fear and exhaustion. And for what? Because my husband was prosecuting him, Lane Myers targeted me. Then he invented a saw on fire to justify what he wanted to do. escalate, target, control, and harass. He even fabricated other lies that my husband and I were somehow working together to unethically prosecute people. Lies, lies, and more lies. Your honor, Lane Myers wants to claim this is about free speech. But it is not. This is about the harm he has caused to me, to my family, to my colleagues, to the students at the University of Arizona, and to the broader community he chose to terrorize. It is about the fear he created in our daily lives, the time he stole, and the safety he shattered for so many. He only cares about his supposed rights while ignoring the rights of others to live free from harassment and fear. In one of the letters of support for Lane Myyers, it was written that a community should tolerate diversity and freedom of expression and viewpoint as long as it does not harm others. I absolutely agree and that is exactly the point. Lane Meyer's conduct is not about diversity of viewpoints. It is about targeted harassment, threats, and fear. It is about dragging families, workplaces, and entire communities into chaos, in danger because he refuses to take responsibility for his actions and cannot control himself. This is not speech that does not harm others. Lane Meyer's speech was designed to harm and it has harmed me, my family, my colleagues, and countless others in ways that will not disappear when this hearing ends. I also need this court to understand that while we are resolving the legal issues today, this will not be over for me anytime soon. Lane Myers made sure of that. I will still have to worry every day about someone showing up at my home or workplace ready to hurt me or my family because they have been incited by his lies. I understand this court can't stop that from happening. But it can send a message. It can send a message that Lane Myers and people like him who decide to lie and whip people into a frenzy will be held accountable for the harm they create the same way that an arsonist would be held accountable for dropping a match into the forest and letting it burn. I ask that you consider this ongoing harm as you decide what accountability looks like in this case. And I'm asking you to see Lane Myers clearly for who he is and what he has done. Lane Myers ensured that the consequences of his actions will follow me long after today. And that is something I will have to carry forward whether he is behind bars or not. I'm asking you to hold him fully accountable so that I, my family, my colleagues, our students, and the many others he's harmed in the Tucson community can begin to heal and feel safe again. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Walker, uh, for that. Uh, let's turn next to um, Miss Styles for the state's uh, sentencing recommendation as both cases. When do I get to after they're done? You get a full chance, Mr. Myers. Don't worry. your honor. So, in trying to come up with the sentencing recommendation, it it's taken a lot of thought as I've been looking at everything. What's interesting to me is that when I've met with Mr. Meyers, and he's not When I've had the chance to meet with Mr. Myers, when I'm speaking to him directly, just one-on-one, Mr. Myers has always been respectful to me. He listens. We're able to have a conversation. Nothing like what we've experienced in the courtroom during this process. He's a completely different person one-on-one. But then something happens to him when he gets in the courtroom and he has an audience. Something happens to him when he's on YouTube and he has an audience. And he takes on this complete different persona that is trying to appease the masses. And so that's what I'm focused on is how do we stop that? Because Mr. Myers has spent time in custody. You know, at some point he's got to get out of custody. So what can we do to try to curb this of whatever has happened to him? Because this he didn't have this persona all along. You know, this is something that's been created over time. There is something with social media and what it does to people. We've been seeing that of like when they are going online and they're trying to get people to like them and to send money to them or just follow them, what they will do to get that attention, you know. So, what I'm requesting is that we put, as I think the court noted last time, you referred to it as guard rails. And I think that's what he needs because I said Mr. Meyers, who's the one-on-one person that you talk to when he doesn't have the audience, is someone that I think can follow rules and can do what he's supposed to do because that's what he's done when he's talked to me. Um, the concern I've had is since we have the change of plea and waiting till sentencing, I was kind of observing what is he doing, right? And it seemed like it was going well. The victim wasn't getting as much communication. things had quieted down and then Mr. Meyers decided to do an interview to talk about sentencing and he talked about and I know it was in between because he talked about the victim's sentencing letter and once he did that all of a sudden all of us so and maybe he didn't realize this is what he did is then all of a sudden the victim started getting harassing voicemails again. she started getting the harassing emails again. And in those emails, it references things like how she should be hung. You know, they're threatening, they're calling her all kinds of names. But it was in response again to his interview being put out online that that happened. And so what I'm asking for is I'm asking for him to be placed on probation, but I'm asking for consecutive terms. And I'm asking for the full three years on each, so for a full term of six years. And I'm asking as part of that that he be restricted in his social media access. And conditions of probation. The case law supports that there can be conditions of probation that resp rest restrict speech and association and it's going to be narrowly tailored to make sure that he's not repeating the criminal conduct. So I think what he's demonstrated is he's has difficulty on his own figuring out what those lines are that he shouldn't cross and he needs those guardrails put in place. And so if he's associating with groups on YouTube and he's associating with these people on YouTube and so the two that are we have with Reluctant Prophet or Mark Kelly and Joshua Gray with this is a public service those seem to be two in particular that those conduct even if it's not at his direction anymore they're doing it and they're continuing this um campaign against the victim in this case. And while he can say that he is not the cause of it, that he's not telling them to go do anything, he's 100% the reason that this started. He created this situation. It is 100% of his doing. He started this. He's the reason that they're focused on the victim. And every time he says anything about this case, says anything about the victim, it creates this where he's again enticing them to go after her. And so we are asking for the restriction that he not be able to be publicly speaking about this case on social media, that he not be able to um be on YouTube, and that he not be able to associate with the YouTubers that I've just referenced. And I think those parameters are necessary in order to keep him where he is able to follow the law and that he is not going to be encouraged by these groups or these people to engage in criminal conduct. And like I said, even though these are would normally be constitutionally protected activities on some of them of being able to talk about things in public, those conditions of probation can be put in place to ensure that he's not repeating his criminal conduct. And so that's what I'm asking for. And I think the length of the probation time is important to make sure that he is staying within compliance, that he is leaving this victim alone. You know, the victim has a right to be free from harassment. It's constitutional in Arizona and she has not been free from harassment from day one in this case. And Mr. Meyers picked up new charges against this victim um during this process. And so we're asking for that longer period of time to ensure that he spent some time in custody. I think that message got clear. I don't know that additional time in custody is going to serve anybody. But then I think that's a choice that he should then make for himself whether he's going to follow the terms of probation. He's going to remain in the parameters of his probation, remain in law in law-abiding activity, go live his life, just leave this victim alone. And that's what we're looking for. So that's why I'm asking for the full six years of per years on each consecutive. Um and let me ask uh in in CR20251060 uh the the plea agreement identified um the possibility of a lifetime injunction. Are you seeking that? Yes, the victim is requesting the lifetime injunction and that is part of the plea agreement is in the special terms. Do you have the did you prepare the forms for that? So we're filling that out. We weren't clear cuz it looked like um some of that was done if it wasn't asked for in court. So, we didn't realize we needed to fill that out. So, we're getting those filled out right now. Okay. You do that now and then um at the end um I I'll have I'll order that. Make sure that I do so. Okay. Yes, your honor. All right. Um Mr. Myers, it's going to be your turn to speak here in just a minute. Um, as a part of that, I will tell you that the information the court can consider during sentencing is uh quite broad and um I am considering all the different things that have happened uh in this case. So, this is your time. It's called allocution of sentencing. This is your time to uh argue uh your case uh what you think an appropriate sentence uh would be as to each count. So, why don't you uh tell me what would you like to tell me? I just put the microphone down. So, right now I'm trying to figure out how conversation on the jail ended up on YouTube, harming me from my supposed friend that I thought I was talking to in confidentiality. He goes and post it on YouTube two days before sentencing. What in their right mind would lead somebody to do that? Well, that individual's behavior is not before the court. So, it's affecting me right now because they're sitting here accusing me of doing an interview. I didn't do no interview. I literally didn't call anybody intentionally so they couldn't use anything against me since our last hearing till now. I call and do a think I'm calling my friend and having a conversation. He posted on his YouTube channel like it was an interview that I didn't even know was an interview. So, they're sitting here saying, "Oh, you did an interview on Saturday." He doesn't even learn his lesson. That's ridiculous. And all I'm That threw me off, man. Threw me off. So now I got to talk my way out of something I didn't even know was happening. That's what friends are for, I guess. All for the name of YouTube views. You know what I'm saying? Okay. So, should I start by talking refuting what she said or going or is it kind of on me? This is it's it's your discretion. Um, you've been able to consult with Mr. Resnick to give his advice for sure as to what he thinks he would typically do and he's a very experienced lawyer. So, you don't have to reveal to me what your communications are. I kind of have like a little order I had set up and then that kind of like threw me for a second. Why don't you just go I I tell you, Mr. Myers. Sometimes it's good to go with the order you written down because that's an outline. That way you won't forget anything. Okay. I do want to add to some cuz when she started talking about I did an interviewing on Saturday, all that that threw me for a loop cuz I sure didn't know I did an interview on Saturday. So, let me start. I'm going to read a poem. Hark, I hear the trump the [ __ ] of thousands and of armed men the hum. Lo, a nation's host have gathered round the quick alarming drum, saying, "Come, free men, come your heritage be wasted," said the quick alarming drum. "Let me of my heart take counsel. War is not of life the sum." "Who shall stay and reap the harvest when the autumn days shall come?" But the drum echoed. Come. Thou shalt reap the broad braver harvest, said the solemn sounding drum. But when one won the coming battle, what a profit springs there from. What if conquest subjugation even greater ills become? So nobody wins even if you win. So to start with because obviously I had my order but then I had to go by what I didn't know if she would go first or I would go first. So just to address some of her stuff. I mean she's not under oath but she did state multiple lies. She said that uh I threatened to come to her house. That's factually incorrect in all levels. There's not a single cintilla of evidence that I've ever said I was going to come to her house or I said I was going to go to her neighbors and talk to them about her husband. Okay, for her to sit in here and say I was going to come to her house, that's taking it too far. There has to be some rational. You know, I realize she has the right to feel a certain way, but that doesn't get to you don't get to embellish things in court right here because we don't have trial and I don't get to put you on the stand and prove that you're lying. So, there needs to be some some personal responsibility on her part, too. But, this isn't me going at her. You know what I'm trying to say? This is me talking to you, you know? But, um, she said that I knew she changed her job. Well, I knew she changed her job after I was in custody in March of March 26th. I haven't made a video about her since January. So, how would I make a video from jail saying that she changed jobs? And all the videos I made were from October when she did work as a public employee. So, that's more I don't know what the right word is because I don't want to sound I'm not trying to sound rude or just I'm just trying to make my point without like making diminishing her. What? I'm just saying whatever the word in the thesaurus is to say that uh that's that's not fact like you disagree with her your her facts. I'm not trying to do like an ad hominemum attack. You know what I'm trying to say? You're giving me your version of what happened. Right. Right. I don't agree. That's not there's no credence to that. Never said come to her house. Okay. She can say that she didn't have anything to do with my wife getting fired, but she could also sue me for defamation and she hasn't. The I do talk to the FBI regularly and when I get out, I'll post it just to make her happy. I'll post the FBI telling me that she was involved in getting my wife fired just to prove a point if I if I'm allowed to under my conditions. Not not if I'm not allowed. You get what I'm saying? I'm not going to. But since she's so caught up in it, we'll just put it all out there cuz you know, some conversations are confidential. But I feel like she's in here talking about this on YouTube, she's saying things about me that she's speaking like it's just 100% fact, well then sure, I'll put out the receipts if if you get what I'm saying. If there's a mechanism within the type thing, not just to like prove a point though. I know I said to prove a point, but to more like clarify the record. Kind of like pre-trial publicity under rule 3.6. She's saying one thing. All right. Well, then we'll just let the the stuff speak for itself. Uh, you know, she sat there and talked and talked and talked about threats and things that were said and, you know, not one time did I hear her advocate for those people to get charged. She just kept constantly blaming Lane Myers for the decisions of other people. You know, a bank robber bank robbery happens, there's a getaway driver and there's the people that go in. They they never just charge the getaway driver. They always charge the people that go in, too, cuz they're the ones that rob the bank, you know, and then the person drove. So, you know, I'm not I'm not disputing that I wasn't responsible for posting the information, but as I'm about to read here in a second from some transcripts, Lane Myers never threatened Shannon Walker. Lane Myers never told anybody to threaten Shannon Walker. Lane Meyers put up her information that's on a government website which is available right now. anybody, you know, I don't want him to say that, but the facts of the matter is if she's not an employee of the U of A, why is she listed on the UOVA website as an admin as an working in the administration of the college of law? So, I don't know. I mean, to the common average man of reason, you know, reasonable, you get what I'm saying, of average intelligence. They go on the UVA website, they see her thing listed as the admin of the College of Law, they're going to assume that she works at the College of Law. I don't know the technical nuances of her job. and for her to state that I knew. No, I didn't prove it. But we're not here for that. The the point is is we're trying to move on from this. So, I'm not trying the the proving it part. But she she used this as a last ditch opportunity to say things that I couldn't that I would have normally been able to cross-examine in court to leave it as the last impression on you. You have no idea to know if that's true or not. That's what trial's for. But I feel like she took advantage of the opportunity to say those things knowing that I would have to sound like I was still combative or whatever towards the situation in order to refute it. But I also have to clear my name here for for all the time. This is this is going to be on the my record forever. I feel like I need to clear my name here. And so I feel like there's going to be some defamation proceedings after this. But um you know that's what the courts are for. And so for her to sit here and say things that I didn't hear a single time and you didn't either, sir, where she said the people who actually said those nasty and I don't condone those things and I've never would condone those things and the first um the first clue or the first inclin you know uh piece of evidence that I don't because I don't say those things. So, I'm not leading by example here and saying those things leading to other people saying those things. No, those people came up with those things to say to her on their own. Lane Myers didn't say to say those things. And Lane Myers himself didn't say those things leading other people to think it's okay to say those things because I don't condone that and never have and never will. And my track record, you got it in front of you. I've never in my entire life been accused, charged, convicted, or any sense for anything remotely close to an act of violence, threats, harassment, stalking, none of that. It's you got the paper in front of you. You see my whole life. Never has Lane Myers advocated for violence ever in his entire life. And there's no proof that I have. And there's no proof here that I advocated for people to threaten her or, you know, wish her harm or, you know, it's kind of like, well, I put the information up. Well, what if everybody would have told her she was a great person? Would I still be charged? No. The point is is that I put the information up. I'm being punished for that. Where's the punishment for these? Because because I heard some things that to me I would think that's a threat that or that's a that's sounds like a crime or sounds like something that you can't say to people under the first amendment or not. You can't say if what she's I have no way of knowing here if people really said that stuff to her. Why aren't they being charged? Why aren't they why am why am I bearing the burden of people saying threats and and you know things about sexual you know like that. I don't even want to repeat it. Stuff. You heard it. You heard it. You know what I'm saying? The stuff that is beyond the scope of, you know, offensive, even beyond offensive. What? Where's the charges if we all rob the bank together? But so I'm kind of at a loss for that. And I don't know what message it sends. I don't know how it sends a message that you can go rob a bank and only the Getty getaway driver will get charged. But the people that who went in and robbed the bank, they're good to go. So, that's really confusing. That's something that I'm going to have to uh meditate on. But it doesn't mean that I'm not here. I'm here to take I'm here to be sentenced. We're not We're not here to argue that I didn't do it or I didn't. You know what I'm trying to say? I'm still facing the consequences. On the paper right here, it says, you know, convicted sentencing today. Today is sentencing. So, I'm not trying to say, "Hey, I didn't do it. You know, it wasn't me." I'm trying to say let's like add some weight to to the levels of of whatever the word is when you're involved in something um uh you know what I'm saying culpability on the on the let's like step back for because you know her impression that she's speaking from is very is the micro you know not the macro she's like really lane lane lane lane I don't hear nothing from the prosecutor the police or Shannon Walker about these other people that are alleged to have done all this. Well, I mean, she says she did it, so why would she lie? They that they sent these things. Why would she Why would she not be saying I think they should all be in trouble. Lane Myers, the people that emailed me, the people, you know, but I'll move on too cuz I don't want to talk all day about the same thing, you know. And she says, "Oh, the students never said anything about no student." Okay. Nobody threatened the staff. And if they did, it wasn't Lane Myers. And here we're here to sentence Lane Jeffrey Meyers. So to to add all that in there is just to me just dog, you know, just piling things on to to um try to color the the the color the proceedings even worse than they are. Because if I threatened a student, I'd be charged. If I threatened staff, I'd be charged. If I harassed other staff, I'd be charged. If I, you know, there's all this talk about other cases. So, what they're saying is is that all I got to do is make a YouTube video and then they'll be scared to prosecute somebody. Well, then why didn't that work in this case? So, this whole, "Oh, well, prosecutors for the state of Arizona were scared to prose." No, there was no evidence. There was no probable cause there. The charges were dismissed by the judge because there was nothing there. So, for them to say, "Oh, well, we didn't want to prosecute him because we didn't want to be harassed." So, what is that? sending the message out that anybody that's charged with the crime, all they got to do is make a YouTube video and their charges will be dismissed. I don't think so. And I'm not saying it does that. I'm saying, you know, the same people that can hear things and say, "Oh, well, Lane said it, so it must be true. So, you know, I got to go and send her email." Well, they could be thinking the same thing. We don't we got to be care because because just like I'm putting out messages, the state's putting out messages, you know, messages as in like um not directly like emailing somebody, but like you get what I'm saying? Like um showing showing like the p like how that people are handling things. What message does it send? But I don't mean like an email. I mean like um a a great bigger picture message to sit here and say, "Well, yeah, the prosecutors were scared because he put out a I mean, he put out a YouTube video. They might need to get some new prosecutors then." No offense, but I don't see how a prosecutor should be scared. Rachel wasn't scared. People put out YouTube videos about Rachel. She didn't just all of a sudden go hide in a hole and say that she couldn't even sign her name to a document ever again. She stood here and said, "I'm Rachel Styles. I'm here. here the prosecution we're doing these there was plenty of videos out about her not by me but while I was in jail so so I just it it's I don't want to nitpick with Shannon Walker you know I never did I just had to let the record because this is going to be reflected for a time you know I don't think she wants to sit here and say that there's no proof because we can we can see to it that that those things get released and uh we can we can I'm going to move to my uh some these are I'm going to read some transcripts from superior court. Okay. Are they from this case or a different case? Uh this they're dealing with Shannon Walker. They're there the transcripts. So So she says that she Let me just interrupt you. Just make sure you've been speaking slowly, which I appreciate, but when people read stuff, they read faster. So just expect the Am I going at a good speed right now? You're going good speed. So just read the same speed. Okay. All right. I don't want to. Yeah. I'm I'm trying to keep doing a good job. You know what I mean? I'm just telling you, everyone when they read, they read faster than they speak. It's just a natural thing, right? It is a natural thing. So, just keep it slow. You know, the videos that I made, you know, it started out I did call her husband a crooked ass prosecutor. I think he is a crooked ass prosecutor and I'm allowed to say that. And there's nothing that's not a crime to say that her husband's crooked. Uh whether I say it to her, to the YouTube, to the world, I'm saying it right now. He's crooked. Now, uh, the point is is that it's not why we're here, though. And so, I called her and said that, sure, then my wife got fired. Okay. Whether Shannon Walker called there or not, we should have it. You know, if she doesn't I don't want I'm not trying to taunt her. You get what I'm trying to say? She said that she had nothing to do with that. You may have a different She said that I have nothing to do with it and that I'm lying about having the FBI and she All right. Well, well, somebody's lying. So, I feel like we should probably have a defamation lawsuit to figure that out. All right. That that's not that's not resolvable today. That was her position and you own position. And so, so that was what the the first call I made to her. I didn't put it on YouTube. I didn't call Shannon Walker, leave a voicemail that her husband was a crooked ass prosecutor, and put it on YouTube. I just that was a call between me and her voicemail. I didn't plan on putting it on YouTube. I didn't plan on talking about it. All of a sudden, I got served with an injunction. Oh, I got served with an injunction. And the basis for it was that call and some YouTube videos. Well, I ordered the hearing. I ordered the recording from the FTR that you pay $35 to Tracy downstairs and she hands you, you know, she emails you a recording in Shannon's own words. We're going to listen. So, she goes and gets a uh injunction. This is the the second one because we're going to have to go back, you know, this is the this is the one that is technically still in place cuz, you know, remember there's still that in place too that I still have to that we kind of like modify into the conditions of probation type thing. That's a uh injunction for harassment. Harassment and I think you have an appeal pending. Is that right? That's right. But it's still in place. Yep. And I believe it's going to get overturned and this is going to put egg on their face, but we'll get to that. And so Shannon Walker comes to superior court to get an injunction. Little did we know that she had already came the day before and got an injunction and then came back the ne when the judge wouldn't give her the conditions of social media of taking away my social media, she came back the next day to get another one from a different judge. So, at this point, this proceeding right here, we didn't I didn't know about the previous hearing. We'll get to that, though. So, she comes in. Okay, this is Judge Walton. Okay, what do you the court? What do you want to do with this one? She wants to dismiss it and start a brand new one. So, I'd like to dismiss this one and start a brand new one. Judge Walton says, "But with the same allegations," Shannon Walker says, "Correct. Correct. That's what I was advised to do. My hope is that the original one will be cancelled. So that's not information that is available to anyone. Judge Walton and to me this is where it becomes news information and she can say that she but she did this in her cap. She's a government employee with an oath and I got a copy of it right here. Uh when she said what she's about to say, she was under oath in court and she was under oath as a government employee and her husband who is a bar member was sitting in the gallery. Judge Walton said, "Well, that's interesting because when some typically when someone files an order of protection and it's granted and then they dismiss it, an order of protection, injunction harassment, and then they dismiss it, that's it." She says, "Right. Did you already submit it?" I did. This is Shannon Walker. My understanding is that hopefully we could dismiss the original one and then have my new one granted. I understand it's kind of a unique situation. A unique situation in law. No, the law applies equally to everybody. And the law that says if you dismiss it, you can't get a new one based on the same facts is not a unique situation. It's a situation that takes place throughout courts. It's called resue to uh claim preclusion now they're calling it or issue preclusion. So to me, when you tell the judge, can you do something that you're not supposed to do because it's a unique situation? That's a red flag to the average person. To the average person, that's asking for special favors from the judge. That's asking the judge to take the law and manipulate it to fit what you desire. Okay. So, the judge says, "All right, let me see. So, I've indicated it was refiled to due to a mistake in the process." Well, that's not true. That's not what happened. There was no mistake in the process. Mr. Myers, um, this is something that's not before me. I know. I'm done with that. Okay. Let's go on to the next part. So to me that's that's newsworthy and those are her words. So those are the words that caused the people to reach out to her are her words in court with Judge Walton. And people reached out to Judge Walton and told her the same thing. And her husband was sitting there who's a member of the bar and he literally watched Judge Walton uh manipulate the law for his wife. So then I make a video after that. I get served the injunction. I get and I said this this injunction is unconstitutional because it ordered um no defendant shall not post any content on any social media about Shannon Walker. I get it. I get served it. I go on YouTube. I say, "Yeah, I got served this injunction. It's unconstitutional." I file for a hearing. You know how you can contest it. We come in there with Judge Griffin. First thing he says is when I look at the injunction, there's some language in there that does concern me in terms of its over breath. The last sentence says the defendant is prohibited from post. See, I did it. I did it. I did it. I did it. I did it. I did it. Slow down. Start over on that. Okay. So, she we come to the hearing to contest the injunction. First thing Judge Griffin says is when I look at the injunction, there is some language in there that does concern me in terms of its over breath. The last sentence says the defendant is prohibited from posting any messages or content regarding the plainif via any social media platform. That strikes me as broad and probably too broad for constitutional first amendment type issues. So I'd like to hear your thoughts on that, whether it could be narrowed in a way that would make it constitutional. Well, that's exactly what I was saying in my video. I got served it. I said it's over broad. It's unconstitutional. And I also said in that video, which is in the police report, which she apparently is twisting my I said do not contact Shannon Walker. I got served an injunction. I made a video. I said, "This is unconstitutional. Do not contact Shannon Walker. It's in it's in his police report. He can get up here on the stand and tell you that I said that." And he failed to say it to the grand jury. He already admitted that during the the uh pre-trial interview. So, Judge Griffin, the first thing he says is it's unconstitutional. Exactly like I said. So, I'm thinking, okay. Then he says it's definitely about, you know, she says the videos, there were some videos that I made, right? Judge Griffin says, "It's definitely about you, but I don't know how it's necessarily directed at you." These videos were sent to not sent to you. Someone told you about them. Correct. Why can't an individual post? And I'll just use myself as an example. I mean, someone could post whatever they want about me. Nice things, bad things, and you know, it's not directed at me. It's just out there in the public. They're allowed to do that. I know I'm kind of more of a public figure than an individual, but I think it would apply to an individual as well. And then people might send it to me and I might not like it. Okay, Mr. Myers, slow down. You I think she she got that, but let's just go there. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's directed at me. That's Judge Griffin's saying that my videos were not directed at her. Okay, so let's Okay, again, he says, "Miss Walker, can you address my concern? I just think the language is broad. I understand you why you want it. I'm just not sure it's constitutionally allowed about the language that Judge Walton put in there." Okay, moving forward. So, so again, he refers to it not being unconstitutional, right? Okay. So, then we get to the end of the hearing. He says, "Anything else you want me to do?" She says, "I do have a your honor, I do have a cons question about the current videos that are still displayed on Mr. Meyer's channel. I understand things that are outside of the protective order are not considered. Is there any sort of consideration?" She says, "I know it you can't consider this." And then her next statement is, is there any sort of considereration for him to be required to take those videos down? The judge says, "I just don't know that I have the authority to do things that have happened already from a First Amendment standpoint. I'm by no means a First Amendment scholar, or although I do dabble in it, I'm interested in it. I just don't feel comfortable doing that in the past tense as opposed to going forward." So, we leave the hearing. The judge amends the injunction that I said was unconstitutional. He said it was unconstitutional. He amends it. He says I can't order him to take any of his videos down that would be prior to this. That was on November 14th. Well, I didn't make a video from October 21st. Okay, which was before November 14th. So, he issues an injunction and I'm following it. I'm I'm abiding by it. He says I can't uh post her contact information. So, I just leave on. I move on from Shannon Walker. And then a judge in this court reaches out to me and he says, "You need to know this." He says, they say, I guess it don't matter now, but they say, "Did you know there was actually a hearing the day before that she tried to have sealed? You need to get a copy of that." How did I get a copy of a sealed hearing in this court? One would have to wonder, what did you think I do? I broke into superior court and stole the file? No, it was provided to me by this by uh employees of this court. They provided me this sealed hearing because they were so concerned about what took place in this hearing that they thought it was newsworthy and needed to be disseminated to the world because they were so concerned that Shannon Walker high up at the U Bay Law School and her husband Matt Walker came to court and asked for this injunction and the lies she told during this hearing that she contends are not lies. Well, the whole world has heard it. I have the FDR. The court got it to me. Whether Why are they not in trouble then? Why isn't the people that provided to me in trouble? Obviously, I got it from the court. It says right on it, Superior Court FTR. And that was in January when I hadn't posted anything about her. So, I said, "You know what? I'm not supposed to post her contact information. I know I'm not cuz Judge Griffin said I could still make videos about Shannon Walker. I just couldn't post her contact information or encourage people to contact her. He said, "You can make videos about her, though." So, I was like, "You know what? I'm going to make a video about her because this is newsworthy." So, I post her lying 33 times in 9 minutes under oath to Judge Wland, okay? Saying that she was feared for her kids' life and she thought I was going to things that are just not even close to remotely true. She got the injunction, but Judge Wyland would not restrict my social media. And the people that provided that to me let me know that judges can't restrict your social media. Now, you can now I'm not talking about convicted. I'm talking about in an injunction for harassment. And you need to you need to let put this out there. You need to put this out there on your channel. What Shannon Walker did in court that day. I They provided it to me. I didn't steal it. So, so there I don't see how once again I drove the getaway car, but where's the bank robbers? And so I put that video out. I think, you know what? Abortion doctors, you know, abortion's illegal in places and doctors still give abortions. They're called heroes. People violate injunctions, civil disobedience. I said, you know what? I'm going to make a calculated risk here. I'm not condoning it. Again, I'm not condoning violating an injunction. Nobody else should needs to do that. It's It's not worth it. You see what can happen. At the time, though, in my emotional, you know, state, I said, I'm going to post this, and the worst thing that can happen is I get charged with interfering with judicial proceedings for violating this injunction. But the world needs to hear this public employee say these things. And so, that's what happened. and I posted it, but I I followed the injunction after it was issued for multiple months. Didn't make another video about her. Left her alone. It wasn't until it was brought to my attention by an officer of the court. I said, "All right, I'll put it up. Obviously, they think it's worth putting up. I probably won't get in trouble, and if I do, I can argue in court that I, you know, was was unconstitutional or whatever." Right? So, that's where we got to the injunction and then I left her alone and then I violated it. Right? Okay. This wasn't this ongoing thing where they issued an injunction and the whole thing about putting crosshairs. There's definitely never been no video on Lane Myers with Matt Walker in the crosshairs because Lane Myers don't condone violence. Now, there might be videos on other people's channels talking about Shannon Walker with images of her husband in a crosshair, but not Lane Myers. So, I get charged. Okay. And I'm in here and here we are and they go to the grand jury and the grand juror asks the detective, "Oh, in those emails you said he wishes her harm, does he say that he's going to harm her?" The detective says, "So these emails and voice messages aren't coming from Mr. Myers. They're coming from people that are watching his channel." So often refer to the case. They'll refer to her conduct or what he believes her conduct is and on his YouTube. Does he threaten her? Mr. Myers, hold on. Hold on. I just referenced that grand jury transcripts are protected documents that he's now apparently reading. He used it in his emotion and you can use it in motions. Um, and I wasn't allowed to object to them. I mean, this is a this is a very important point and and I can use it. It's part of the record for postconviction. Yeah. It says it says Hold on just a minute. I haven't ruled that. Um, you can also un Yeah, I I did reference it and I don't remember exactly. It had to do with the um the slap motion. The slap motion. Um, and it seems to me that he has the right allocution to to mention uh because all that information has been released. I mean, there's nothing in it that's confidential at this point because it say hold on. Look, M Styles is still arguing. I I I just have concerns it's a protected document. I I know he has a right to make reference to it. I just have All right. I'm going to overrule the objection. Go ahead, Mr. Myers. Right. I don't know where it is right now. So, so um did you can I ask her a question? No, just just um where she got me last at. Is there a way to I I um I overruled objection. Just tell me what you want to tell me. We need to get moving too, Mr. Myers. Right. And so the the I'm not saying the grand juror's name or nothing. The the grand juror asked the person asked the detective again. Okay. And on his YouTube, does he threaten her? Like does he say that he would like to harm her on the YouTube channel? He's never said he would physically harm her on any of his videos. No. Grand jury. Okay. But he wishes her harm. The witness. He has never said that on his YouTube channels. No, she's received those messages through emails and voicemail messages that are left by third parties. Grand juror. And does he encourage his followers to do these kind of things, make threats? And is that what he's trying to do? Witness from the evidence what I've seen, he has encourages YouTube followers to reach out and address their grievances or with her in this case. Now to to me that's testified under oath from the detective. Never. he was question and asked is do I threaten her? I didn't say to threaten her. I didn't encourage threats. I didn't say threats. I didn't, you know, say you should threaten her. I didn't say, you know, and and you know, I just want to make it clear that I'm not dis uh dismissing that I put the video, I mean, the contact information up, but all this threatening and and I'm not diminishing that she received this and she has the right to feel threatened by these statements, but they didn't come from Laney Myers. I think what you're I hear you saying is that you think other people put that content up that you're not responsible for it. I'm responsible for putting up the contact information, but I'm not responsible for the threats and that kind of thing. And that's what I'm saying. That's not just my word. That's like testimony at the grand jury. Okay. I think you've made that point. So, let's go on. I'm going to kind of finish up here. Thank you. And so, now talking about my sentencing, I think I should get probation, too, because you got the book in front of you. Where did it go? Where's the thing? the um you can see that I went 19 years between getting convicted of anything other than traffic. So obviously Mr. Myers, let me interrupt you. So um the probation report indicates that there is a 2001 felony, a 2002 felony, and then two 2006 felonies. In your sentencing memo, you had made reference that one of those was not accurate. Which one was it? Yes, the You see how Let me go to that page. You see how um the first one you see how the thing in go straight to the beginning the very beginning of the of the sent the thing that you just talked about part two where it lists like the crime. Okay. You there? Yep. I'm not sure why it's listed this way, but that should the 112801 is the day that I got arrested. 6302 is the day that I got um sentenced. Uhhuh. So, I don't know why it lists those separately. That's all one event. That all happened on 112801. And the resisting arrest is a misdemeanor. It's it's under 20. It's the equivalent of the 28, you know, like statute 28s in Arizona like DUI under and stuff. It's failure to obey the signal of a police officer. It's a class two misdemeanor in Arizona. And um the receiving stolen property is also would be a class one misdemeanor because the value was only $1,000, less than 2,000. But I realize we're not here arguing, you know, that type of thing. But you got two years prison, so it has to be a felony. You don't send people to two years in uh in prison for a misdemeanor. That was for the other charges, right? But that was for Finley, Ohio. The the first one. Yes. there. That was all one thing. Got it. And no, I'm I'm what I'm saying is is is that in Ohio it was a felony. Okay. I'm saying you know how when you know we're not doing this cuz it's not like an allegation cuz I don't know how much we get into this in this context, but you know how like at trial you talk about like allegations of like prior convictions. You got to like prove that they were felony in Arizona. Uhhuh. Those were a felony in Ohio but not those the equivalent charge in Arizona is a misdemeanor is what I'm trying to say. But yes, on the paper and so it says two years prison, but actually I got six months because it was kind of like that thing where they do the six I mean the class six year where they like switch it around if you do good. It was if I do good for 6 months it would go I would be released and um it would it would be called judicial release there. So I didn't ever do two years in prison for that. And then the like I said the next one the next thing was in um Florida. And that's what I'm saying. Since 2006, 19 years, everything's just m um driving because it shows the dismissed ones. But I mean, I don't know how much you hold a dismissed charge against somebody. But that's what I'm trying to say is so to say that to to I'm trying to prove the point that I can go three years without getting in trouble because I just went 19 years without getting in any conviction. You get what I'm trying to say? Yes. And so that's the point I'm trying to make, not whether it was this or that. I'm we're trying to say that that you can do probation. I can do probation because if I can go 19 year I was 23 years old, you know, now I'm 42. If I could a 23 year old who had already been in trouble twice like that can the light bulb can go on and get his [ __ ] to get stuff together and you know say hey man you don't get you don't get many more chances in life like this. I feel like probation is not something that is going to be hard, you know, that I can't manage three years of probation. If I can manage 19 years without even committing a crime, now I realize that probation violations aren't necessarily a crime every, you know what I mean? Like you can quote unquote violate probation without committing a crime. So, it's a little more um structured, but I feel like that seems like that's what I need right now anyways. It's not like it can hurt me. It's not like having um you know them things they put on horses that they like do this blinders. Yeah. To like just out of put this whole thing out of you know what I mean? Move on and focus forward on other things other I can make YouTube videos about mountain biking. I can make other you know this is I don't want to use the I don't like to even reference like death but you know how they use that colloquiaism the hill to die on or whatever. This isn't the battle I wanna, you know what I mean? Conquer or the hill I want to conquer. I don't want her to die, but you know what I mean? This isn't the hill. You get what I'm trying to say that you want to die on, right? Or anybody to die on, but I don't This isn't like, oh, I can't let this go. I got to You're telling me you can do probation? Yes. That's what I'm saying. It's like I It's not like my life's calling is to continue to talk about Shannon Walker. I have other things to talk about. I have a wife, a house, dogs, family. I have things to focus on other than proving my point whether he said this or she said that or I think at this point we can say that it spiraled out of control. You know what I mean? Like obviously I'm sitting here in shackles with a felony which I thought at the worst I was doing was like violating the injunction. And you know, my channel has 400 videos and you know, 50 of them about judges, local prosecutors, members of law enforcement, city employees, county employees, federal judges. None of them have ever alleged that I was harassing or threatening or stalking them about them. You know what I mean? So, it's like it's not like this is a thing where I'm out here and I and I have been a First Amendment activist for a long time. I even have case law in the sixth circuit federal court where something similar to like this happened and you know they accused me of her uh unpro um you know obscene language whatever and this is the ruling I I didn't even realize I was on uh the tab I'm on west law now as case law it says the court understands defendants frustration in dealing with plaintiff's antics however although plaintiff's speech tiptoes up to the line in the court's judgment it does not quite cross the line from protected to unprotected speech. Plan of speech is certainly demanding and unprofessional, but it never quite quite reaches the point of threatening, let alone the true threats which are not protected by the first amendment. The court is not inclined to sanction plan for speech that is protected by the first amendment. Now, I realize we went over that in Brown. Is it conduct? Is it speech? I'm just saying this isn't like I woke up one day and went after Shannon Walker. I've been in this first amendment arena, whatever you want. You know what I'm trying to say? This first and I always do my research. Is this okay before I do it? And obviously I thought what I was doing was first amendment protected. Doesn't mean that I am not sitting here facing saying, you know, like I'm being sentenced. It's not like I'm still sitting here arguing that, oh, I didn't first amendment. You get what I'm trying to say? I'm not trying to get out of it still. I'm just trying to let you know where my head was at throughout this whole situation. It wasn't let me go commit these crimes. It was it was one where I I checked things ahead of time and then was like, "All right, well, it says constitutionally protected activity in the stalking statute." Seems I'm thinking it's constitutionally protected. So, you get what I'm trying to say here. It's not like it's it's not as it's not like a speed limit, right? You see the sign, it says 50, right? You know, if you're going 51, you're ow you're breaking the law. If you're going 49, you're not. Right? A lot of this first amendment stuff, it's it's supposed to be objective, but then it really when you really on its face, it's subject objective, right? It's open, but then when you really narrow it down into each individual situation, it becomes more subjective and nuanced and and so I'm learning on the job. You can't just say first amendment, you know, it's the first a you have to get more nuanced into it and more case law and more applicable to the exact situation. But again, it put some conditions on me that I can't talk about Shannon Walker. That's I don't want to talk about Shannon Walker. It hasn't brought me any. And another thing I want to make sure this here, I don't get paid on my videos. My videos do not make money. I don't get I don't do it for money. So, don't I don't want to hear him saying I do it for money. I don't get money. I could, but I don't have my YouTube set up to pay me because I don't want to do it for that. I I feel like I'm doing it as to show the law and stuff like that, not to just do it for money. And I get what she says is uh she being Rachel. I mean, she being Miss Styles. Yeah. I mean, it's I'm not perfect and I probably do have a tendency to like when the lights come on, you get what I'm trying to like, you know, it's not my greatest um attribute. You know, I'm not sitting here saying, "Oh, yeah, it makes me a great person or anything." I mean, I can see how I always let listen to feedback and she gave me It's not the first time we've talked about it. We've talked about it just me and her about the same thing. So, she didn't say anything there that her and I haven't already discussed about, you know, when I'm talking to her. You know what I mean? So, it's something to take into consideration. You know, I'm not above being constructively criticized by somebody who's objectively viewing me from like the outside and saying is not, you know, nitpicking. She's giving me good advice. I feel I mean, you know, as long as I stay off to me, as long as I leave Shannon Walker and this alone, I feel like I can move on, be productive member of society. I don't need to go to prison. What is that going to do? Put another homeless, broke, felon on the streets of Tucson. We got enough of those already. You know, that's I don't feel like that serves the community in any way either. And I I mean, that's basically, you know, I I had some other cases where they got probation for social, you know, state versus Mitchell. They got two and a half years probation for social media posts about his wife with the order of protection. The state vers they like to uh site that person only got 18 months probation for aggravated harassment about social media post. State Martinez harassing and stalking that person went to her job, trapped her in a massage parlor, slashed her car tire, sent her 55s text in one day, violated the injunction, three years probation. State Mr. Myers, let let's I I understand what you're saying. I was just trying to say that it's not unreasonable to give me probation. Okay. Anything else for me personally? Yeah. That All right. The end. So, um, Mr. Myers, obviously this has been a very, uh, intense case for everyone involved. Um, and the reason that this is a a criminal case is that you were harassing uh the victim, a person who was unknown to you at the time simply because she was married uh to a city of Tucson prosecutor who was prosecuting you for disrupting a Tucson city council meeting. I see no reason why uh you reached out to her other than um her husband's uh employment. And and I find that this is an attack on the justice system. itself and um as has been stated here today that uh you put all this harassment in motion. I understand what you're saying is that much of what was done was not you posting things to YouTube but others but you put it in motion. Um and there's kind of a a truism that you see here on the criminal bench that when you associate with dangerous people bad things happen. And I think what happened in this case is that things spiraled uh out of control. Um, at the same time, I do believe you accepted responsibility. You you were fighting this case hard. You had a change of heart and decided to uh accept responsibility by pleading in both cases and you pled to uh felonies, which obviously are very uh serious uh matters. I was also um uh something that uh your mother said in uh her letter to me said that Lane has a support system in place including family and friends who are willing to guide and assist him as he navigates this challenging time. And when I took your plea, remember I asked you if you were doing this voluntarily and you said no, your wife made you. Remember you said that and true. Um and um make me, but you know what I mean. Yeah. She you were you were joking, but you weren't joking. in the sense that you have a support uh system in place that's trying to keep you uh on the straight and narrow and you're responded to that. So that to me indicates that you are uh willing when you want to uh to follow uh court orders. So I've considered all this. Obviously I've heard this case thoroughly because of the number of uh motions uh in this case and other things. So, at this point, I'm going to suspend sentence as sentence as to both matters and place you on probation on the standard case load for a period of 3 years. And I thought a lot about this whether run them consecutive or concurrent, but I do think in my standard practice is to do three years probation in almost every case except for very unusual cases. Um, and so I'm going to run them concurrent, meaning at the same time. So, you're going to be on probation for a period of three years starting today. Now, in talking about the conditions of probation, um there's been a lot uh obviously the victim wrote a letter. Uh the prosecutor has made her recommendations. You've made your uh recommendations. The case in Arizona is a state versus Kesler 199 Arizona page 83 at 2000 Court of Appeals decision. And it it talks about uh when you can restrict first amendment rights as a condition of probation. Uh it says uh as a probationer a probationer is subject to restriction on his constitutional rights to a greater degree than would be permissible outside the criminal justice system. Courts have consistently held imposition of conditions of probation that restrict a defendant's freedom of speech and association when those conditions bear a reasonable relationship to the goals of probation. The question is whether a reasonable nexus between the conditions imposed and the goals to be achieved by probation. Uh there's obviously a lot of uh federal circuit court opinions. Uh there was a case from the sixth circuit uh United States versus Holloway 740 uh Fed 2 1373 in 1984 six circuit case says uh several courts have had occasion to consider conditions of probation which affect constitutional rights. It cites cases of the third circuit, 10th, 9th and fifth circuits. Uh and it says these cases are in general agreement that the test to be used in such cases inquires whether the condition is reasonably related to the dual goals of dual goals of probation, rehabilitation of the defendant and protection of the public. So in imposing um uh conditions of probation uh I have considered the goals of probation which are to rehabilitate uh the defendant, protect the public and protect uh the victim. And I find that there's a nexus between the goals of probation and the uh defendant's criminal conduct um and and the conditions of probation. These conditions are designed to protect the victim and her family from further harassment by the defendant or those who are harassing the victim on behalf of the defendant. They are designed to rehabilitate the defendant by denying him the opportunity to engage in additional criminal behavior. They are the least ownorous conditions that will accomplish these goals. And I'm going to read them off and there will also be in the conditions of probation for both cases. Are you are you sorry are you reading the conditions or like case law right now? Um, I read the I I cited the case law and then I was making my findings. That was your words. Those are my words and then um I'm going to read the probation conditions. Do not contact the victim or her family. Do not go to the victim's home. Do not go to the victim's place of employment, meaning the building where she works or where she parks her car. Do not encourage others to contact the victim. Go to her home or place of employment. Do not engage in activities that would reasonably expected to cause others to harass or contact the victim or her family. Remove all videos from streaming services, social media, including YouTube, that mention the victim or her family, or include identifying information about them. Allow probation full access to your YouTube channel and any other social media to determine whether you are abiding by the conditions. Do not associate or communicate directly or indirectly with Joshua Gray of New Smyrna Beach, Florida, whose YouTube handle is this is a public service or Mark Kelly of Tucson, Arizona, whose YouTube uh handle is reluctant profit. And finally, do not post information about the victim or her family on YouTube or other social media. The court imposes um the following assessments. Your honor, he has a question. Oh, yes. Can can we clarif should I if I have a question about something you just said should I ask it now? No, those are the conditions. So, if you have a if you have an issue, you can talk to the probation office. I want to make sure that I'm under I I' I've read those and I don't want to get into a discussion because it's going to make it unclear. So, um if you have an issue with that, um you can raise it with the probation officer. I'm also going to impose the lifetime injunction under 13-719A and CR20251060. And Miss Styles has prepared that. Um, and I sign it. Does the defendant have to sign it as well? Yeah. So, no. No. Just Yes. There needs to be a service just on the service one. Okay. So, Mr. Myers, I'm I'm imposing the lifetime injunction as a condition of probation. I'm ordering you to to accept service of that. You'll have to sign that as well. All right. So, uh, the court imposes the following assessments in CR20251060. The court imposes a time payment fee of $20, probation fee $65, probation search charge 13, uh, excuse me, uh, probation search charge $20, additional assessment $13, victim right enforcement assessment $2, victim right assessment $9, and CR20251454, time payment fee of $20, probation fee $65, concurrent, that means one payment for both cases. Probation search charge $20. Additional assessment $13. Victim right enforcement assessment $2. Victim right assessment uh $9. Uh you do have the right to file a petition for postconviction relief within 90 days of today's date. If you complete probation or receive an absolute discharge from prison for this offense and if you've not been previously convicted of a felony and paid restitution, your civil rights will automatically be restored. If you've been previously convicted of a felony offense in this or another state or not pay all ordered restitution, you can still apply to have your civil rights restored. This does not apply to the restoration of firearm rights if you are convicted of a dangerous offense or serious offense. You have the right to file a petition to set aside a judgment upon completion of your sentence and the right to file a petition on 13-911 uh to seal your case records. In addition to signing the order of protection, you'll have to sign both uh probation uh forms um to receive probation. Uh I'm going order you that you uh be released to the Puma County Jail uh today. Thank you, your honor. I'm going to sign that order. Your honor, may I approach? Yes. The order for the lifetime no contact has to be hand All right. I'll also note he's uh going to uh he was served with a copy of the order today at sentencing and he'll have to sign that signed by the victim. Okay. So, I'm going to hand that back to you, Miss Styles. You'll get uh uh Mr. Myers to sign that as soon as we're done here. Um, all right. Um, Miss Styles, anything else that uh that I need to address? I don't believe so. And Mr. Myers, anything else I need to address? You'll have to make an appointment with probation. Um, tell me, um, he'll do that to tomorrow, maybe. Yes, Judge. He he can do that tomorrow. There's just one thing I wanted to address on behalf of Mr. Myers. Um, your last condition that I was able to write down was no posting about the victim or the victim's family. Is that Yes. I I was I understand the victim part. Um, I get that because that's actually related to this case, but my fear is I've got two problems. Number one, he doesn't know who all the members of the victim's family are. And the conditions of probation aren't supposed to be left to the discretion of the probation officer whether or not there's a violation. They have to be more clear. How about the victim? Her husband I think she has two minor children. Is that I I got no problem with the victim and the minor children. Okay. So but but judge her husband is a public figure for lack he's a prosecutor and and he may have there may be things that come up that Mr. Meyer that are public concern. I think the case is on point there. Petition about that recording. Yeah, I I mean the the case is on point there. Um are Philadelphia newspapers incorporated v Heeps working v Hustler magazine and Dovy Harris specifically which is a Ninth Circuit case from 2014 and that's 772F3R 563. And at 578 um the court said regardless of the outcome the fear of revocation proceedings arising from a blanket prohibition of disparagement would stifle abundant speech of public concern and that was as to either public or private actors. I get that I get the victims. I get the minor children. But I would just ask that Mr. Walker be left out of that condition. Just think it's over brought. How do we how do we address that? Because I have cases. Do you know what I mean? You your honor. I don't know that you can just separate him out because by talking about him that is also going to sit there because it was his being prosecuted by Matt Walker that brought Shannon Walker into it in first place. So if he starts talking about Matt Walker again that will by extension naturally bring in Shannon Walker that's how she was tied in the first place and that's something that Mr. Meyers did in associating. And so we would ask for that restriction. If that he thinks there's something that comes up that he wants to post about that he thinks is constitutionally protected and should be allowed, then I think he should then seek out the permission of his probation officer and we can always come to court if there's some issue that he thinks he should be able to talk about and he can ask for permission before doing it. Judge, the problem is that's already been held as unconstitutional. That it's up to the probation officer to determine whether or not something is constitutional. The problem, Mr. Resnick and I'll let you talk Mr. Myers just the the problem is is that um the victim's husband even though he's a city employee it's so intertwined to the facts of this case because the whole point of Mr. Myers getting involved with the victim was because of her husband. So I don't know how how we could separate that out. Well, it's simple. Just uh just say that he's not allowed to post about Shannon Walker. is not allowed to post about either of the minor children. Yeah. But but if he starts if he starts posting stuff about the victim's husband and then that triggers a lot of people harassing her again that we're back in the same The problem is that when he does something, he's causing other people to then attack her. But that's the problem, Judge. He's not causing anybody to do anything. That's that people do what they do. And if that's if other people harass somebody, then go after those people. I mean, he can't be it's it's not like he he germinated a little seed and it's turned into an oak that he's responsible for. He's saying, "I will not talk about her anymore." He's not going to mention her name. He's not going to mention the kid's names. He's not going to do anything that he's probably not even going to mention Matt Walker's name. But the but my concern is from a constitutional perspective that it that that order is going to be over broad. Okay. Um Mr. Myers, who would you like to tell me? I'm not so more concerned about moving forward, but I don't see why I should have to take down my court hearings from city court just because Matt Walker was the prosecutor. Those there's a lot of good information in there. I'm not saying moving forward making videos about Matt Walker because our cases are over and I haven't made videos about Matt Walker since October. But he also put a petition on me that's pending in the Supreme Court about 122. So I absolutely have the right to talk about that. and he put a petition on. He used my YouTube videos as an example of why the rule should be changed. That's a matter of public interest. It's not about it's not about a crim, you know. So, I don't and again, I'm not trying if if I need to just file a special action or whatever because this is putting the probation in a crazy position of getting possibly a federal lawsuit against them if they try to enforce. I got the I got a ninth circuit case right here with 46 pages recently saying you can't take away my right to talk about public officials. You can only narrowly defi like the victim. Okay. But to say that I can't talk about Matt Walker public official because it he's married to the victim. You can you can order it. I'm not I'm not telling I don't want to say you can't do that and that's of course I can order it. That's what I'm saying. You know what I'm saying? You can take it up to a higher court. What's the best way to should I do a motion to modify where I can like make legal arguments and stuff like that? Hold on, Smith. Let's hear from Missiles. So, your honor, this is what the court just referenced in the case law that you cited is that the court can restrict constitutionally protected activities to meet the goals of probation. And right now, he's already starting to do that where he's trying to figure out and test those boundaries, which is part of the concern. And the court needs to set very firm boundaries of what he can or cannot do. And so if you start getting into the little nuances of whether he can or can't, he's going to take that right up to the line. He's demonstrated that he has trouble figuring out what the line is. So we need um and then so we need very clear parameters for him. And Matt Walker is absolutely intertwined in this. That's why his wife was involved. So he has to be part of that um to in avoid being in a situation where again this victim is targeted which she has a right to be free from harassment. And so I would ask the court to keep that order in place. Um I would also note that um she has concerns about her mother and brother. So I'd ask to it extend to her her family members not just her spouse and her children but also her siblings and parents. Jud Judge he doesn't even know who these people are. How can he obey a condition of probation when he doesn't even know who we'll just we'll just if I I'll just file a motion to modify or clarify and we can make legal arguments. You can do that. All right. So, I'm going to I'm going to change it just a little bit. Again, I find uh that the conduct against uh Matt Walker is interwoven with um the uh uh allegations uh um um of harm uh to the victim. Um they are they are completely interwoven. And as we discussed, the whole point of this was to put guard rails. And again, I did a lot of research and um have thought deeply about this and I think that this is uh needs to be in there. So, but I'm going to change a little bit. Do not post information about the victim or her husband or two minor children on YouTube or other social media. All right. Us anything else from the state? And then your honor, um like I said, she requested about her mother or brother. I'm denying that request. And um and of course I can always change the conditions of probation if uh the probation officer thinks that there's a problem. So uh definitely for the victims if if you believe uh that your mother uh or uh other Yeah, she got a sign. Hold on. Go ahead, your honor. It's because they wrote letters in this case which then have been sent to Mr. Meyer. So now there's a concern just because they were sent to him. I I'm I'm not going to start with that. if if it becomes a problem, um the uh victims can contact uh victim services at the prosecutor's office and you can file something um and I can modify conditions of probation throughout the uh the term of probation. Um Mr. Myers, anything um that I need uh to address? That's like I said, I don't want to nitpick with you. So, we can just you can file a motion to modify conditions. you just make the legal argu it's a it's a court order and I don't want to give you legal advice but there are avenues to get the issue before the court of appeals and Mr. Resnik home today and so I need to go home and take down my videos of my court dates with in city court that Matt Walker was a prosecutor I I I've I've done my conditions it's up to you to to uh to uh abide by them. If your probation officer thinks you have not, then they can raise it with you first and then if there's still a problem, um, they can file a petition to revoke or modify your conditions. Okay. All right. With that, we're journ. You have to sign the probation paperwork. I You were talking so fast I couldn't write it all down. Will I get a list? Yeah, it's in here. Okay. I'm going to add the last one. You did say remove videos, not just moving forward. Remove videos. That's why I want to make sure that I remove. It'll be in the mid entry and in the conditions of probation. Did you get a signature? Okay. Okay. And your honor, we just want to confirm uh the injunction. Okay. Wayne, do you need me? I got I got your honor. May I be excused? Yeah. As as soon as as soon as we sign all the pro probation paperwork. I just want to make sure it gets signed. Okay. Yeah. L. Just hold on for a minute. Okay. This is [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. [Laughter]