BREAKING NEWS - ELIZABETH BURTON ORTIZ LIES TO SUPREME COURT!

Elizabeth Burton Ortiz, the Arizona prosecutor’s council chief, is accused of distorting a court record to justify a rule change

A fired-up online critique claims an executive director at the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council mischaracterized the facts behind a Supreme Court filing. The allegation centers on whether a prior case was used as a pretext to narrow public access to courtroom recordings.

A new dispute is unfolding over an Arizona court rule, and the fight is not really about procedure. It is about power, access, and who gets to tell the story of what happened in court.

At the center of the controversy is Elizabeth Burton Ortiz, identified in the source material as the executive director of the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council, or APAC. The critic in the video accuses Ortiz of lying to the Arizona Supreme Court by describing a prior filing in a way that, he argues, turns a routine legal victory into something sinister. He says the petition wrongly portrays him as a danger to courtroom participants and public order when, in his telling, the underlying event was simply that he won two cases in one day and had two harassment injunctions dismissed.

The dispute concerns Arizona Supreme Court rule 122, which governs recording and broadcasting in court proceedings. According to the transcript, a petition filed last year sought changes to the rule, and the speaker says the filing cited his case as an example of why the court should restrict recording. He says a similar effort has now been filed again, and that this time the court itself was involved in the filing. The speaker frames the effort as a quiet attempt to curtail transparency after public backlash, and he insists the rule-change campaign is built on false statements about his conduct.

The rule at the center of the fight

The source material repeatedly returns to one issue: whether courtroom recording should be restricted, and if so, why. The speaker says that around a year earlier, a filing aimed to change rule 122 because of a hearing he was involved in. He refers to a petition marked “R25-000031,” which he says was filed on January 10, 2025, and claims it built on earlier arguments from a prior filing. In his telling, the filing was presented as if his behavior in court justified limiting recording rights for everyone.

The speaker argues that this is backwards. He says the real event was not disruptive conduct, but a legal result: “Lane Myers wins two cases in one day.” He describes the original circumstances as two unlawfully issued harassment injunctions being dismissed on the same day. From his perspective, that is the factual context that was supposedly transformed into a cautionary tale about the dangers of technology and public recording.

The petition language, as quoted and paraphrased in the transcript, is the core of his outrage. He cites a passage saying that “the circumstances detailed in R2531” illustrate the dangers of technological advances, and then says the filing goes on to claim that a defendant used a smartphone to broadcast proceedings to YouTube, made it difficult to maintain the integrity of the court, and “weaponized” technology to harass participants. He says that characterization is false and defamatory. The transcript shows him insisting that the case was not a criminal case, that he was not “the defendant” in the way the petition describes, and that the filing wrongly casts his conduct as felony behavior.

The speaker’s point is not subtle: he believes the petition takes a real court event and recasts it as evidence that public recording itself is dangerous. He says that framing is not only inaccurate, but calculated.

A public-record fight turns into a personal accusation

The transcript presents Ortiz as a public official whose language, according to the speaker, goes beyond legal argument and becomes personal attack. He repeatedly says she used his name in the petition and attached his YouTube content to the filing. He argues that if a government official makes a false statement in a court document, that is not protected by anonymity or bureaucracy.

He calls the petition “fiction,” “horseshit,” and “defamation, per se,” though those are his opinions and accusations, not findings established by the source material. What the transcript does establish is that he believes Ortiz attributed dangerous conduct to him that he says did not happen. He appears especially angered that the filing reportedly tied his case to his YouTube channel and to a hearing involving Stacy Jane and Mackenzie O’Brien. He says the petition used his conduct at that hearing as the justification for changing the rule, even though he insists the actual events amounted to courtroom victories, not misconduct.

The speaker also claims that another filing from last year was related to the same issue but never went through. He says people were commenting on it while he was in jail, and that the current effort is a repeat attempt to accomplish the same goal under a different procedural posture. He argues that the latest filing was met with objections from reporters, media figures, and lawyers who support open courtrooms.

Those objections are described in the transcript as coming from people affiliated with journalism and media organizations, including the chair of the University of Arizona’s journalism school, a vice president at a news operation linked to Channel 12 and ABC15, and lawyers for a media coalition. The speaker treats that opposition as proof that his side is right, though the transcript does not supply the underlying filings themselves in full or independently verify the claims.

The accusation: “lying to the Supreme Court”

The strongest claim in the video is that Ortiz lied to the Arizona Supreme Court. The speaker uses that phrase repeatedly and openly accuses her of putting his name in a filing in a misleading way. He says the petition claims that “the defendant’s use of technology made it difficult to maintain the integrity of the court proceedings and ensure that the proceedings did not result in further harassment to those participating in them.” He then counters that the actual circumstance was just that he prevailed in court.

That is the factual dispute readers should keep in view: whether the filing accurately summarized the underlying case or instead exaggerated it to support a broader policy change. The transcript does not provide the full petition text in a clean, independent format, nor does it offer the court’s own response. It does, however, make clear that the speaker believes the petition distorted the record and that he intends to challenge it publicly and, he says, legally.

He also says he plans to request public records related to the filing and to pursue the matter further once he receives emails and other documents. He frames this as an effort to “expose” what he sees as false statements made by a government official. Whether those statements are legally defamatory is not established in the source material; what is established is that the speaker feels targeted and is escalating the conflict.

A broader attack on courtroom secrecy

Beneath the outrage, the transcript reveals something larger: a recurring fight over transparency in Arizona courts. The speaker presents himself as a defender of public access, arguing that court proceedings should be open and that recording is part of accountability. He mocks attempts to restrict recording as “dabbling with rights” and says people should not be allowed to “dabble” with his. The language is theatrical, but the underlying theme is serious. He sees the rule-change effort as an attack on the public’s right to observe what courts are doing.

That argument matters because rule 122 does not exist in a vacuum. Recording policies shape whether the public can verify what happened, whether journalists can document proceedings, and whether participants can be held accountable. The source material shows the speaker making the case that broad restrictions are being justified using his name and his case. If his account is accurate, then the rule-change effort is not just administrative housekeeping; it is a reactionary move built on a distorted narrative.

The transcript also suggests that the current filing has become a battleground over credibility. The speaker repeatedly challenges Ortiz’s professional background, mocking her qualifications and suggesting she is part of a prosecutor-driven effort to shut down criticism. Those insults should be understood as rhetoric, not evidence. But they do show how bitter this fight has become. What began as a rule-making dispute has turned into a personal war over who gets to define the facts.

What can be verified from the source material

The transcript does not establish that Ortiz committed a crime, nor does it prove that she lied in a legal sense. It does, however, clearly establish that the speaker believes she used his name and case in a filing to support changes to Arizona’s courtroom recording rules. It also establishes that he says the prior circumstances were a pair of dismissed harassment injunctions and two court victories in one day, not dangerous behavior involving technology or harassment.

The speaker’s broader claim is that the petition misstates the record and that public officials are using that misstatement to justify limiting access to court proceedings. He says the filing from January 10, 2025, and the later follow-up effort, both rely on his case as a cautionary example. He portrays that as a misuse of court process and a deliberate attempt to paint him as the problem.

Whether the petition actually says everything the speaker claims it says is the key question. The transcript quotes and paraphrases portions of the filing, but readers should independently verify the original document, the precise language used, and any response from Ortiz or APAC. The same is true of the underlying case history: what the injunctions were, why they were dismissed, and how the events were described to the court.

THE RECORD

The supplied source material establishes that a speaker identified as Lane Myers accuses Elizabeth Burton Ortiz, described as the executive director of the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council, of misrepresenting his prior court proceedings in a filing connected to Arizona Supreme Court rule 122. It establishes that he says a January 10, 2025 petition and an earlier petition relied on his case, and that he believes the petition falsely portrayed him as dangerous and associated his conduct with courtroom harassment and technology misuse.

What remains allegation and opinion is the claim that Ortiz “lied” to the Supreme Court, that the filing is defamatory, and that the petition intentionally distorted facts to suppress public recording rights. Those claims are asserted forcefully in the transcript but not independently verified there.

Readers should independently verify the actual petition text, the underlying case history, the exact wording of rule 122, and any response from APAC, Ortiz, or the Arizona court system.

Watch the Original Video