Court Asked to Criminally Refer Billionaire Plaintiff for Evidence Destruction in Lawsuit He Filed
Pro Per says, “The justice system cannot function when the party who brought the case destroys the evidence.”
“It’s so absurd you expect Mel Brooks to jump out yelling ‘CUT! This is so good I can’t believe I didn’t think of it.’ A billionaire plaintiff destroys evidence, files late, and blames the calendar.”
PHOENIX, AZ, May 31, 2026 /24-7PressRelease/ — A Pro Per litigant has filed a Motion for Sanctions asking the court to criminally refer the billionaire plaintiff for destroying evidence in the very lawsuit he initiated. The filing asserts that the plaintiff eliminated subpoenaed documents that would have allowed the court to evaluate potential conflicts, improprieties, or undisclosed relationships relevant to the underlying matter.
In addition to the evidence destruction, the motion highlights a procedural breakdown that compounded the problem: the billionaire plaintiff filed a motion to quash after the deadline, and the court nevertheless accepted the excuse that his attorneys “couldn’t read a court calendar.” The Pro Per litigant argues that allowing an untimely filing on such a basis undermines the rules that govern every other litigant and erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
According to the motion, the plaintiff’s conduct “strikes at the heart of the judicial process,” because the court cannot assess issues of impartiality, influence, or procedural fairness when the party who filed the case eliminates the records needed for that scrutiny. The motion argues that such conduct — combined with the court’s acceptance of an untimely motion based on a non‑legal excuse — warrants sanctions and referral for potential criminal investigation.
“The justice system cannot function when the party who brought the case destroys the evidence,” the filing states. “A plaintiff cannot file a lawsuit and then erase the very documents that would allow the court to evaluate the integrity of the proceedings. And no court should excuse an untimely motion by claiming the plaintiff’s attorneys couldn’t read a calendar.”
The motion outlines the timeline of the evidence destruction, the plaintiff’s preservation obligations, the untimely motion to quash, and the resulting collapse of the court’s ability to examine potential conflicts or improprieties. It argues that allowing a plaintiff to proceed after destroying such records — and then permitting an untimely motion based on a non‑legal excuse — would undermine public confidence in the judiciary and incentivize similar misconduct.
The filing requests that the court impose sanctions, including dismissal, and refer the matter to the appropriate authorities for criminal review.
In addition to the evidence destruction and the untimely motion to quash, the filing details how the billionaire plaintiff successfully persuaded the court to bar the defendant from public access to the court system, imposing a requirement that the defendant request permission before making any filing — even though the plaintiff was the one who initiated the lawsuit.
The motion argues that this restriction functioned as a form of prior restraint, preventing the defendant from defending himself, creating a one‑sided record, and shielding the plaintiff’s own misconduct from judicial scrutiny.
Case Caption
Parsons, et al. v. Harris
Maricopa County Superior Court
Case No. CV2023‑002276
# # #
