Petitioner Says Arizona Courts Enabled a Two‑Tier System Allowing Billionaire Plaintiff to Evade Standards While Defendant’s Constitutional Rights Were Ignored
The defendant in Parsons v. Harris, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023‑002276, announced today that the case demonstrates a two‑tier judicial system in Arizona, where a billionaire plaintiff received procedural advantages.
“The billionaire plaintiff was allowed to plead as a non‑party, receive party‑level protections, avoid discovery, and benefit from destroyed evidence, while my constitutional rights were ignored.”
PHOENIX, AZ, May 13, 2026 /24-7PressRelease/ — Superior Court Proceedings Show Structural Imbalance, Petitioner Says
According to the record, the superior court granted multiple forms of relief to the plaintiffs, including quashing a subpoena issued to Parsons Xtreme Golf (PXG) even though the motion to quash was filed outside the deadline set by Rule 45(e)(2)(D) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
The defendant argues that this amounted to granting party‑level protections to PXG while PXG simultaneously asserted non‑party status.
After the subpoena was quashed, the superior court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, leaving the defendant without the evidence he sought from PXG. The defendant asserts that this sequence allowed the billionaire plaintiff’s business to avoid discovery, while the defendant’s ability to defend himself was structurally impaired.
Destroyed Evidence and a Lower Standard of Proof
Because PXG’s subpoenaed materials were never produced, the defendant argues that the evidence was effectively destroyed or rendered unavailable, preventing him from meeting any burden of proof.
He further contends that the plaintiffs were permitted to proceed under a lower evidentiary standard, while his own First Amendment defenses — including public‑figure status and the actual‑malice standard — were never ruled on.
Court of Appeals Declined Jurisdiction — Leaving All Constitutional Issues Unresolved
The Arizona Court of Appeals declined to accept jurisdiction, issuing no written opinion, no memorandum decision, and no ruling on any constitutional question.
By declining jurisdiction, the appellate court:
• did not affirm the superior court,
• did not adopt its reasoning,
• did not address the constitutional issues raised, and
• returned the case to the trial court with no appellate guidance.
The defendant argues that this creates a two‑tier appellate system:
• Tier One: Wealthy or institutionally backed litigants receive written review and constitutional analysis.
• Tier Two: Ordinary litigants receive no written review at all, leaving constitutional issues unaddressed and unreviewable.
Injunctions in Place for Years Without Constitutional Support, Defendant Says
The defendant notes that the injunctions issued against him have remained in place for several years, despite never receiving a constitutional ruling on their validity.
He argues that these injunctions function as a prior restraint, restricting his speech and limiting his ability to access the court forum to defend himself.
Combined with the vexatious‑litigant designation, the defendant says these restraints have blocked his free access to the courts, even as the plaintiffs continued to receive procedural accommodations.
About the Case
Parsons v. Harris, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023‑002276, was returned to the trial court after the Arizona Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction, issuing no written ruling on the constitutional issues raised. The defendant maintains that the unresolved constitutional questions and the long‑standing injunctions highlight systemic disparities in how Arizona courts treat litigants based on resources and status.
https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2023-002276
# # #
