Lane Myers' Legal Defense Fund

Fighting criminal charges for free speech

Lane Myers has been charged with disorderly conduct, trespassing, and federal misdemeanors for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech. The criminalization of free speech sets a dangerous precedent for all U.S. citizens. Donate to help Lane defend his free speech rights and the free speech rights of all Americans. Every donation helps secure the rights for all the people.

What is happening to Lane should show all Americans that the criminal justice system is broken and must be held accountable. The right to free speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Yet, all over the country, local governments and police are criminalizing and prosecuting individuals who dare to exercise this most basic freedom. The loss of free speech for one person affects every one of us. Lane is a dedicated and tireless defender of his rights and, by extension, the rights of all Americans. Without individuals like Lane who are willing to stand up to government corruption and overreach, those in power will continue to infringe on the rights of everyday Americans. For Lane, the promise of the Constitution is more than just words on paper. It is a promise that must be kept every day. You can take action to stop this tyranny by supporting Lane today.

On November 6, 2024, Lane went to the federal courthouse in downtown Tucson to file paperwork. He was broadcasting on his live stream as he approached the front doors of the courthouse when a Court security officer stopped him, told him he could not enter the building, and told him to turn the camera off. Lane responded that he was a news reporter and that he was legally permitted to record and asked to see a supervisor. As Lane entered the courthouse, the Court security officer pushed him back against the wall. Lane believed he was authorized to film public spaces outside and inside of the courthouse, pursuant to Musumeci v. Department of Homeland Security, a 2010 federal case and the 2018 Department of Homeland Security Federal Protective Service Order (HQ-ORO-002-2018) that authorized videotaping of public spaces inside and outside federal buildings. In the Musumeci case, the federal government agreed that no federal law bars recording of federal courthouses from publicly accessible property. On November 25, 2024, Lane learned that he was charged with “failing to comply with the lawful directive” of a Court security officer in violation of 41 C.F.R. Sections 102-74.385 and 102.74.450 (class C misdemeanors). The interaction is posted on Lane’s YouTube channel.

On May 20 2024, Lane Myers went to O’Reilly’s Auto Parts to purchase bolts for an exhaust system. In a matter of days, he was facing charges for disorderly conduct because store employees lied to the police about what happened. Lane videorecorded the conversations with O’Reilly’s employees. Despite the video recordings exonerating him, and the lack of any other evidence, the prosecutor continues to press the charges. One former O’Reilly’s employee is now potentially facing perjury charges for lying under oath about what Lane said. However, that does not undo the harm Lane has experienced as a result of a false police report and a prosecutor that has failed to adequately examine the evidence or assess the legal merits of the charges.

Lane then went to a Tucson City Council meeting to speak about what happened at O’Reilly’s. Before he even had a chance to speak, he was removed from the meeting and arrested for booing while other audience members clapped. Lane never disrupted the meeting or behaved in a disruptive way. Despite the police unlawfully removing him from the meeting, he left calmly and voluntarily. Nevertheless, he faces charges of disorderly conduct and trespassing simply for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech during a public meeting. The right to engage in political speech with respect to public officials is one of the most protected First Amendment rights. Yet Lane’s political speech was criminalized.

Prosecution of Lane’s free speech did not begin or end in Arizona. In July 2023, Lane was arrested and removed from a National Forest campsite by a New Mexico state trooper who used excessive force against him and his wife on their honeymoon. When Lane asserted his First Amendment right to camp on federal public land (not having violated any federal regulation), the officer forcefully detained and removed Lane from the campsite, calling him “one of those Constitutionalist guys.” Lane was under the impression that being a “Constitutionalist” was not only a good thing, but necessary in the United States. However, Officer Moreno and the State of New Mexico felt differently. Lane was charged with resisting arrest and trespassing, simply for being on public land where he was unequivocally allowed to be, and for asserting his First Amendment right to do so. The charges still have not been dropped.

The story does not end there. While mountain biking in a county park in western Michigan, Lane encountered a man riding an e-bike who crashed into him at 20mph in a blind corner. E-bikes are not allowed on that trail and the prohibition is clearly posted. Lane confronted the man riding the e-bike and told him it was not allowed. County administrators then banned Lane from the park by the county administrators without a hearing or any kind of due process. Lane filed a federal lawsuit in the Western District of Michigan. After years of litigation, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Lane that the county had violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by banning him from a public park without proper notice or a hearing. The Sixth Circuit Court did not rule on Lane’s First Amendment argument, finding that he had not properly raised it in the lower court. However, one judge on the panel dissented, stating essentially that the court was biased against Lane because he was self-represented, and that their refusal to consider the First Amendment issue was erroneous. The County eventually was forced to change the Ordinance that purportedly authorized Lane’s removal. The case is still being litigated.

This will be updated with all the case numbers to follow in short order. People should research for themselves what is happening so they can see what it looks like, not just what it sounds like. There are videos of all these interactions posted on the Lane Myers Channel for Nonviolent Social Change YouTube channel where you can see speech being criminalized, how to fight it, and the retaliation if you do fight take place in real time.

All donations will be used towards legal expenses to fight the criminalization of free speech. When you are fighting the government, they have unlimited taxpayer money to use against you. Please support Lane in any way possible. Lane cannot fight for the rights of the people alone.

All of the money raised by this campaign will be used to directly fund attorney's fees and legal costs of Lane's legal defense (except 1% paid to givesendgo.com). Donations may be made anonymously if desired. The funds from this campaign will be received by Freedom Productions LLC, and used for the legal defense of Lane Myers.

Archived.

I am reaching out because Lane Myers, a news reporter for Freedom Productions, LLC, is facing criminal charges in Arizona related to an unconstitutionally overbroad injunction against harassment. Mr. Myers is currently being held in Pima County jail without bond. The bond judge found "proof evident" that Mr. Myers committed aggravated harassment by posting a YouTube video showing the publicly available, professional contact information of the alleged victim, Ms. Shannon Walker, who is a government employee at the University of Arizona.

The injunction orders that:

• Defendant must have no direct or indirect contact with Plaintiff through any form of social media.
• Defendant must not post or place Plaintiff's contact information, including her work information, on any social media platform.
• Defendant must not through social media or otherwise directly or indirectly encourage third parties to contact Plaintiff or go to a Protected Location.

There were two prior injunctions against Mr. Myers, in favor of Ms. Walker, prohibiting similar speech. During both injunction hearings, Ms. Walker made false allegations against Mr. Myers, and the judges violated procedural safeguards intended to ensure the rights of the party not present at the hearing, which was Mr. Myers. Ms. Walker included only one contact from Mr. Myers in her petition; however, she testified to multiple contacts from Mr. Myers during the hearings. Ms. Walker also testified to contacts from individuals who were not Mr. Myers. At the second injunction hearing, the judge re-issued the injunction without hearing testimony from Ms. Walker and in violation of the rule that says an injunction cannot be dismissed and then re-issued on the same facts. These are clear violations of the requirements for issuing an injunction against harassment.

Further, and most importantly, the injunctions restrict constitutionally protected speech. The injunctions prohibited Mr. Myers from posting social media content about Ms. Walker. An injunction is intended to prevent one individual from having direct contact with another individual. An injunction cannot be used as a prior restraint on speech about a person. Yet that is exactly what happened here. This error is even more egregious because Ms. Walker is a State of Arizona employee.

Mr. Myers made and posted videos on YouTube discussing the unconstitutionally overbroad injunction. He also posted the injunction hearings during which procedural safeguards were violated, which are public record. Mr. Myers criticized Ms. Walker, the judges who issued the injunctions, and other government actors involved in the abridgement of Mr. Myers’s First Amendment rights. Mr. Myers posted the publicly available, professional contact information of these individuals in his videos. Mr. Myers has been charged with felonies for these acts.

Mr. Myers was acting within his First Amendment rights as a journalist and as a citizen redressing his government at all times during the acts alleged in the indictment. Ms. Walker was an employee of the University of Arizona when Mr. Myers contacted her. As an employee of the State of Arizona, Ms. Walker took an oath to uphold the United States and Arizona constitutions. Those constitutional rights include the rights of citizens to redress their government. Mr. Myers is being criminally charged for redressing the government.

Ms. Walker is married to a local City of Tucson prosecutor, Matthew Walker, who in July-August of 2024, prosecuted Lane Myers for booing during a Tucson City Council meeting. Those charges were dismissed after Mr. Myers fought them in court. Matthew Walker has assisted Pima County with the prosecution of Mr. Myers.

There is no evidence of true threats, incitement to violence, or any other established First Amendment exception. Mr. Myers has never posted Ms. Walker's personal or home contact information. Everything he has posted is publicly available information. All of the charges against him stem from Mr. Myers’s constitutionally protected right to redress his government.

• Mr. Myers's YouTube channel can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/@lanemyers2980
• Coverage of the case and court proceedings can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/@ThisisaPublicService
• Mr. Myers's fundraising page is here: https://www.givesendgo.com/lane-myers-legal-fund

The injunction enjoins Mr. Myers from criticizing a government employee and from speaking publicly about legal proceedings in which he is a party. These prohibitions violate Mr. Myers’s constitutional right to free speech, which provides strong protection for speech criticizing, or about, government actors. They also violate Mr. Myers’s constitutional rights to free press, to petition the government, and to assemble. A court should not enjoin an individual from exercising constitutional rights, yet that is exactly what is happening here. Now the State is criminalizing Mr. Myers’s constitutionally protected speech about a government employee. Arizona’s harassment law, as it is being applied to Mr. Myers, directly violates his First Amendment right to redress and criticize the government.

These criminal charges have Mr. Myers potentially facing years in prison, depending on how the jury verdict and Arizona's sentencing laws interact. And under the State's legal theory, which now two courts have adopted without reaching the constitutional issues, Mr. Myers could theoretically continue being charged indefinitely, even from prison, should he "indirectly contact" the victim or "directly or indirectly encourage third parties" to contact her. This is an absurd result that cannot stand. Mr. Myers is not receiving justice through the judicial system. The judicial system is repeatedly and blatantly abridging Mr. Myers’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom to petition the government, simply because Mr. Myers criticized government actors.

The Arizona harassment laws, as they are being applied to Mr. Myers, violate both the First Amendment and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. As a United States citizen, I am extremely concerned about this situation. I am concerned not only because Mr. Myers is currently detained indefinitely for speaking publicly about public court proceedings involving a government employee, but also because the ability of all Americans to redress their government is being threatened. The State cannot be allowed to prosecute free speech in order to silence speech it does not like or that criticizes it. In fact, the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment is to protect speech that is critical of the government.

The right to criticize and redress the government is one of the most fundamental rights in America. Yet a man is currently jailed and facing the threat of years in prison for doing just that. The prosecution of Lane Myers is chilling my First Amendment right as a citizen to criticize and redress my government. This is unacceptable, and I ask that you immediately take action to investigate and correct this situation.

So instead of worrying about access to the Law Library that hasn't existed for 2 years in the Pima County Jail. Rachel Stiles is apparently more worried about fundraising ideas for Lane's legal fund than the Law Library. Rachel is it true you said you would retaliate against Lane if he sold t-shirts with your face on them and not plea bargain? Is it true you said you would charge him with a crime?

In this video, we explore the fine line between neglecting a court case and becoming overly consumed by it. Using the real-life example of Lane Myers, a pro se litigant who documented his legal battles on YouTube, we examine how efforts to bring transparency can sometimes be misinterpreted as harassment or stalking.

We’ll break down the consequences of ignoring a case, the dangers of over-engagement, and how to strike a smart legal balance. If you’re fighting for your rights in court, this is a cautionary tale you don’t want to miss.
Chapters:

• 0:00 – Introduction.
• 0:30 – Risks of Ignoring a Court Case.
• 1:15 – Lane Myers' Story: Transparency or Trouble?
• 2:45 – When Advocacy Becomes Overreach.
• 3:30 – How to Find the Right Legal Balance.
• 4:45 – Final Thoughts Subscribe for more discussions on civil rights, courtroom strategies, and defending yourself pro se.