7 25 13 0204 62337 Notice of Irregularities 397 Pages Stamped 13-21913

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
3
4
Electronically Filed
Appellant.
6
7
Jul 25 2013 07:36 a.m.

)
Tracie K. Lindeman
)
Clerk of Supreme Court
)
) Supreme Court No: 62337
)
)
ZACH COUGHLIN;
vs.
8
9
SBN
Respondents
10
11
12
13
14
NOTICE OF IRREGULARITIES
15
16
Coughlin hereby files this and Declares under penalty of perjury pursuant to
17
NRS 53.045 that everything within this filing and attached to it is true to the best of
18
his knowledge, and that any matters stated upon information and belief herein
19
20
21
Coughlin reasonably believes them to be true and that all materials attached are true
and correct copies of what they purport to be.
22
23
Dated this 7 17 13
24
25
26
/s/ Zach Coughlin, signed

electronically
27
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
28
Appellant
- 1/3 -
NOTICE
Docket 62337 Document 2013-21913
Proof of Service:
1
2
3
4
5
On this date, I, Zach Coughlin electronically served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document to all registered efilers, and to those whom are not I placed a
true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the usps mail on this date:
David Clark via Eflex
mailed to Pat King at Bar's Northern Office, EPO permitting
6
7
DATED THIS: Dated thi 7 17 13
8
9
10
/s/ Zach Coughlin

Zach Coughlin
Appellant
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2/3 -
NOTICE
INDEX TO EXHIBITS:
2
3
1. Exhibit 1: various relevant materials.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3/3 -
NOTICE
1
2
3
4
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. )

)
)
Petitioner,
) CASE NO:63342
)
vs.
) CHIEF JUDGE ISSUE
RENO JUSTICE COURT; J. THOMAS
)
SUSICH, NORTHERN NEVADA
)
DISCIPLINARY BOARD, SECOND
) ----JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, HON.
JUDGE PATRICK FLANAGAN, HON. )
JUDGE STEVEN ELLIOTT, 2JDC
CLERK OF COURT JOEY ORDUNA
HASTINGS, RJC COURT
ADMINISTRATOR STEVE TUTTLE,
KAREN STANCIL, STATE BAR OF
NEVADA, ET AL, HON . JUDGE
ELLIOTT SATTLER, WASHOE
COUNTY JAIL, RENO JUSTICE COURT,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant. RJC RCR2011063341

RCR2012-071437, rcr2012-065630,
rcr2012-067980, RCR2013-072675,
Adminstrative Order 2012-01 In Re
Zachary Coughlin, etc.
---------------------------------------richard g. hill, esq. v. zach coughlin rcp
2012-000018
------------------------------------------Milan Krebs v. Zach Coughlin RJC
Rcp2012-000287
-------------------------------------------City of Reno v. Zachary Coughlin
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT 1/394 Docket 62337 Document 2013-21913
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RMC 11 CR 26405, 11 tr 26800, 12 cr

12420, 12 cr 00696, 13 cr 3913, 13 cr 3914
-----------------------------------------.
Matthew Merliss
v.
Zachary Coughlin rev2011-001708,
rev2011-001492
----------------------------ZACH COUGHLIN
V.
MATT MERLISS, ET AL. (CV11-03051,
CV11-03126, CV11-03051)
----------------------------------ZACH COUGHLIN
V.
CITY OF RENO CR11-2064, CR13-0011,
CR12-1262-----------------Zach Coughlin v.
State of Nevada CR12-2025, CR12-1262
CR13-0614, (2JDC)
-------------------------------Zach Couglin v.
Reno Justice Court CR13-0552
---------------------------------------Park Terrace Townhomes
v.
Zachary Coughlin rev2012-000374
rev2012-074408
----------------------------------------Northwinds Apartments
v.
Zachary Coughlin
rev2012-001048,
1167, 1168, 1082, 1083, Rev2012-076746
(all Rev2012-)etc.
------------------------------------------Washoe County, applicants
v.
Zach Coughlin rcp2012-000599
---------------------------------------State Bar of Nevada, applicants
v.
Zach Coughlin, respondent RCP2012000607
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT 2/394 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-----------jeff nichols Rev2012-075658

---------------superior mini storage v. tahoe quarterly and
or zach coughlin
and or zach coughlin v
superior mini storage Rev2011-078432
-----------------------------DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT AND ADD ALL THIS STUFF AND THESE FOLKS
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Couglhin hereby respectfully requestst that this Court consider allowing him to amend this
Petition and hopefully address in an economical fashion these circumstances wherein
mandamus, prohibition, and or certiorari are arguably indicated, and hereby declares under
penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct and based upon his first hand
knowledge except to those matters stated upon information and belief and as to those matters
Coughlin believes them to be true:
(But first some law...) "If the trial court lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court has
jurisdiction only to vacate the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the cause.[FN5] Indeefg
Leslie's account of Coughlin's 12/12/12 visit to the WCPD to pick up the discovery reference
in teh 12/12/12 email Leslie and King allege provides a basis for the incredible overwrought
response by the RJC, themselves, and local law enforcement (which included a 2/8/13
incident where RPD Waddle pointed a gun at Coughlin's head from four feet away and arrest
Coughlin, where Coughlin was fraudulentlyu overcharged with a felony and a gross
misdemeanor incident to allegation of his violating a simple Workplace Harassment
TPO/EPO (which is in either case a simple misdemeanor, which it says right on the Orders
RPD detective Ytrubide (whose wife works for ECOMM 911 dispatcher alongside RPD
Duralde's wife), requiring Coughlin come up with some $800 to bail out, where the deadline
to file his Opening Brief in 62337 was looming as of 2/13/13 until Justice Pickering's order
striking the ROA (such order likely came before the arrest, though sufficinet to extend the
deadline).
as to portion of the 1/4/13 transcript beginning at 8:56 am the following transpires:
24
Watts: Kate what was the date of that e-mail.
25
Leslie: December 7, 2012 as I recall.
26
27
Watts was absent.

Leslie Mr. Coughlin.
28
Watts for what purpose.
Leslie it references what we call the 911 case. He was alleged. And I say alleged to have
called 911 without legal cause and the letter basically summarizes that once we were relieved
from his cases. At least with the 911 case because he had asked to self represent himself on
that case we were closing up that file, and there was a packet of documents up at the front
desk that we had left for him at his earlier request some months ago and as the letter says. We
left and there for you back at that time you didn't pick them up. We left them for you.
Another time you didn't pick him up and so what I did was I was basically e-mailing those
documents to him saying here you go.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(NOTE:
The very 12/12/12 email Leslie and the SBN's King alleged Coughlin sent and
attached to their respective TPO applications (neither managed to file the jurisdictionally
required EPO application, these guys aren't exactly work a holics or thorough, and neither
seemed to read any of the email beyond the first paragraph or so, when they seem to have
went for a deft head fake by the one time all-time leading in free throws attempted in boys
high school basketball for the State of Nevada (any division), and went about trying turn
some alleged hark.com audio clip link into the goose that laid the golden egg absolving them
of the work the misconduct they had been engaged in that should result in both of them being
disbarred immediately, and permanently, where such 12/12/12 email they attached as an
exhibit reads:
"The Trial yesterday in RCR2012-065630 featured extended discussions regarding the
failure of the WCPD, Dogan, and Leslie, to turn over discovery propounded by DDA Young
in the form of cd's featuring 911 calls DDA Young provided to the WCPD on 8/13/12 and
8/17/12... And the heavy hitters were there, too (Elliot Sattler).....despite numerous written
requests from Coughlin that the WCPD do so, and multiple trips to the WCPD personally by
Coughlin to pick such materials up, and despite more flip flopping on their story by Leslie
and Dogan regarding whether they ever gave Coughlin some package of materials
responsive to Coughlin's request for his "file"...But, Jim Leslie is stuck with the 7/27/12
date he mentions in his email, then he is stuck with what his recent email wherein he
purports to have therein digitally transmitted Coughlin his "file", which obviously does
not include the cd's of 911 calls (the one's DDA Young took up an enormous amount of
court time playing, over and over (well, Young only played over and over the particular calls
he felt were strongest for his case and most prejudicial, claiming some "cutting room floor
mishap" for the reoccurrence of certain calls, arguing that such a "happy accident" justified
playing them again and again, at ever increasing volumes, etc., etc.).'"
"Leslie's" 12/18/12 "instiutional protection order application" (there is not such
thing, Jim, and employer, under nRS 33.250 must apply for one on behalf of an
employee, not all the employees of an institution and despite Leslie and WCDA
Watts-Vial being the extremely overpaid legal eagles that they are, neither of them
figured that out in time for the 12/18/12 application, and then subseuqnetly WattsDECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT 4/394 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Vial sought to characterize the 12 1812 application as having been Leslie's

application when in fact it is Watts the Al whom had his secretary attempt to serve it
on Coughlin. It is Watts the Al and sign the affidavit of attempted service, and it is
Washoe County listed in the caption rather than the Washoe County public defenders
office simply put the jurisdictional prerequisites to even entertain the original TPO
application are lacking (in addition to the jurisdictionnla mandatory minimum $100
cost bond, and considering this ordeal has required about $100,000 of legal work out
of Coughlin and likely cost him at least that much in additional damages incident to
the wrongfull arrest of 2/8/13 pursuant to the ensuing RMC prosecution for alleged
violation of the SBN's Workplace Harassment TPO/EPO in RCP2012-000607 (this is
a great reason for why the Truesdell decision is a horrific one) in RMC 13 CR 3913
and 13 CR 3914 (another bad Dan Wong creation, currently set for two trials,
unbifurcated, natch on August 23rd, 2013, and if anyone does not like the extent to
which their dirty laundry has been aired herein, feel free to thank Wong, Pearson,
Watts-Vial, Leslie, Detective Ytrubide, and the other malfeasors detailed herein for
placing such exigent circumstances upon Coughlin such that this is the best and most
responsible work product one could possibly expect of him, even if he will probably
need to go into the witness protection program soon) judge Pearson either Ms. that or
just figured, hey this is Zach Coughlin were talking about here. I'm in on the gang
bang as much as anybody else don't want to miss out on the party y'all, where do I
board this train y'all been runnin' on this "undesirable" (see Mitchums quote from his
cameo in the 1991 version of Cape Fear), huh? what the hey"
16
The Watts-Vial/WCDA Jim Leslie/WCPD hot potato whose Workplace

Harassment TPO application is it game went like this:
17
"Watts why are you not his attorney now
18
Leslie: as I set forth in the application for TPO that there came a point where Mr. Coughlin
since an e-mail that had what I believe to be a veiled or indirect threat component to it
additionally as set forth in the application and supporting documents, he had come to the
office later that day and engaged in behavior that was disruptive and threatening based on
that we set a hearing the court in front of judge Clifton went in a few days after that
December 12 incident and asked to be relieved based upon the conduct of Mr. Coughlin
Watts: and it's my understanding that you filed an application with the court for a protection
order
Leslie yes after his behavior and after consulting with the department head we went forward
with quote we would call an institutional request for a TPO
it's: that's not an order that you're requesting on your own on behalf of the applicant Washoe
County
Watts and you had attached exhibits to that application as well
Leslie yes
Watts Your Honor may approach as well
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Watts Your Honor I am handing a daughter he meant that is previously been marked as
Exhibit 1 it was an exhibit attached to the application for a protection order Mr. Leslie G
recognize the document
Leslie yes
Watts who wrote that document
Leslie I did
Watts when did you write it
Leslie I wrote it over the course of time between December 12 when the e-mail came in from
Mr. Coughlin and the time that we filed a TPO
Watts for what purpose why did you write it
Leslie I wrote this to summarize his conduct in the form of the e-mail that is summarized
referenced in the exhibit as well as his contact with myself and our chief investigator later
that day on December 12 some the reason and the concerns that we have and why we were
seeking the TPO
Watts did you attach this to the application that you filed with the court?
Leslie yes
Watts is it fair to say that this is a true and correct for presentation of the facts as you know
them?
Leslie: yes and that was certainly my intention when I drafted the document"
That 12/12/12 email attached as exhibits in both Workplace Harassment TPO
applications (both lack a security bond, both lack a separate epo application, both fail on
insufficient service of process grounds, both damage the appearance/prestige of the RJC
where courthouse sanctuary rule is violated by RJC Bailiffs, etc., etc.) continues: "This is a
formal grievance against Dogan, Leslie, Bosler, Young...etc.
If Svengali/Diann Ross Diva Jim Leslie is going to micromanage Dogan and Goodnight's
cases, and gag order them, he better be sure not to screw up the cases requiring a mistrial by
failing to provide the client the cd's of 911 calls DDA Young gave the wcpd on 8/13 and
8/17/12 in rjc rev2011-065630, and clearly, any packet from 7/27/12 wouldn't have them (not
to even get into the flip flopping contradictory accounts by Leslie and Dogan as to who gave
Coughlin the packet, or who didn't or blah blah blah)...and certainly Leslie email below only
contained a 57 page pdf...way to close to the 12/11/12 trial date, and containing materials
Coughlin had never been given before....so much easier, Jimmy Sleazy to email the client a
"digital transmittal" proving what you gave and when"....but, no, that would make it so hard
to fudge the accounts of what was contained therein, or who handed what to whom, or who
failed to pick up this or that, or Dogan's slippery nonsense:...So, now today, we get this Jim
Leslie email with all it's revisionist history...which only contradicts the position Leslie and
Dogan have taken that Coughlin already picked up this 7/27/12 packet (at first Dogan
claimed to have personally handed it to Coughlin, then changed his story 2 minutes later and
said he saw Leslie personally hand it to Coughlin....and Dogan asserts to the Court at the
11/27/12 Hearing in rcr2012-065630 that he has never spoken with Judge Dorothy Nash
Holmes (see materials regarding clandestine status conference of 2/27/12 and subsequent
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
fallout with Judge Nash Holmes of 2/27/12 a couple hours after Dogan secured his 2/27/12
1:31 pm Order for Competeny Evaluation in 065630 from Judge Clifton).""
he email of Coughlin's copied above goes on for several more pages detailign the prejudice to
his defense in 12-065630 inherent to WCPD Leslie refusing to turn over the 8/13/12 and
8/17/12 production of two discs of ECOMM 911 calls by the WCDA to Coughlin. Where
Leslie attests that he had turned over a collection of materials on 7/27/12, he necessarily
admits to having failed to turned over the discs only propounded after that point. Further
Leslie subpoened recordings from ECOMM on 10/3/12 in 11-063341 but never turned them
over to Couglhin, despite only being removed as counsel of record well over 15 days
thereafter, on 10/22/12.
It's not at all clear how a request and subsequent Order apparently prohibiting
Coughlin from calling, emailing or faxing the SBN would address the alleged threat of
physical harm. One cannot be physically harmed by a fax, email, or phone call. Further,
phone calls, faxes, and emails are common in pending litigations, even one's where postjudgment motions are being sought and where Coughlin has a duty to seek a stipulated
continuance of, say, the deadline to file an appeal brief in 62337 prior to filing a motion
seeking one. The EPO apparently would perhaps even forbid Coughlin from utilizing a
messenger service to deliver a filing to the SBN's Clerk of Court's Office for the securing of a
file stamp to beat a deadline, such as the 1/3/13, or 1/4/13 (depending upon whether holidays
are included in the 3 days for mailing calculus under NRCP 6(e) and the Deboer decision),
for Coughlin to file a NRCP 52 or 59 Motion as to the 12/14/12 NNDB Panel Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, which recommends that Coughlin be irrevocably disbarred
(disbarments became irrevocable in 2008). To curtail the time Coughlin had to prepare such
a motion, which was scant to begin with, by applying an onerous EPO application, or the
threat of arrest for anything arguably violative of it, would work and injustice, and has here,
as Coughlin was arrested and charged with a felony EPO violation for some alleged violation
in connection with his seeking from the SBN a stipulation to an extension of time to file his
appeal brief in 62337 on or around the deadlien to do so of 1/23/13. The SBN has failed to
respond to Coughlin's reasonable inquiries in that regard, as has the WCDA DDA Young
(rather, Coughlin is funneled to an Inspector Covington, whom is arguably committing the
unauthorized practice of law, and such circumstances only further underscore the extent to
which the WCDA Office should be disqualified form prosecuting Coughlin, particularly
where DDA Kandaras' above email admits to feeling Coughlin's competency is brought into
question, the events involving two former WCDA Criminal Division prosecutor's turned RJC
Judges on 2/13/13 in (an Order for Competency Evaluation signed and entered by Judge
Pearson at an 8:30 am hearing in 11-063341 was provided, in writing, to Judge Clifton in 12065630, with shall language, and DDA Young's willingness to go along with Judge Clifton
in refusing to follow NRS 178.405's mandatory stay is arguably impermissible. To have RJC
Bailliff's then Order Coughlin to remain at the RJC, then go into a hearing brought on an
Emergency Basis upon DDA Young making an Ex Parte Request for Judge Clifton to
resconsider his Order for Competency Evaluation
1
2
To wit
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NRS 33.240 Acts that constitute harassment in workplace. Harassment in the workplace
occurs when:
1. A person knowingly threatens to cause or commits an act that causes:
(a) Bodily injury to the person or another person;
(b) Damage to the property of another person; or
(c) Substantial harm to the physical or mental health or safety of a person;
2. The threat is made or the act is committed against an employer, an employee of the
employer while the employee performs the employees duties of employment or a person
present at the workplace of the employer; and
3. The threat would cause a reasonable person to fear that the threat will be carried out or
the act would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated or
harassed.
An employer or an authorized agent of an employer who reasonably believes that
harassment in the workplace has occurred may file a verified application for a Temporary
Order for protection against harassment in the workplace against the person who allegedly
committed the harassment. NRS 33.250(1). King offers no proof that he is an authorized
agent of the SBN or that he has been given authority to file his self serving TPO Application
in 607. Further, King's application is not verified. The declaration King signed on the last
page of his application fails to indicate that the unsigned, unattributed summary referenced
on page 2 of 8 of King's 12/20/12 APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY ORDER FOR
PROTECTION AGAINST HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE (NRS 33.250) is
incorporated by reference. Further, neither in that Application or any of the Exhibits 1A1D attached thereto, is there any indication as to who wrote the Summary in Exhibit 1,
which consists almost entirely of unattributed hearsay. There is a burden of proof that must
be met. Its not entirely clear just what that is in Nevada, but unattributed, unverified hearsay
could hardly be said to satisfy any standard. As such, the Summary contained in Exhibit
1 to King's 12/20/12 Application is less than evidence. Its nothing. Its certainly not
verified, which is required. By failing to utilize From B4-Continuation Page King failed to
include that which is found in Form B4, which reads: CONTINUATION PAGE
APPLICANTS NAME: ___(NOTE: BE SPECIFIC AS TO WHO COMMITTED WHAT
ACT OR ACT(S), AGAINST WHOM, WHEN, WHERE, WHETHER COMMITTED OR
THREATENED; INDICATE APPROXIMATE DATE(S) AND LOCATION(S).)
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2: THE ATTACHED APPLICATION INCORPORATES
THE CONTINUATION PAGE BY REFERENCE. Form B-4 Continuation Page. Further,
even if one where to accept the summary attached to King's TPO Application of 12/20/12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
as satisfying the verified requirement (ie, that which is contained in the unattributed,
unsigned, unincorporated by reference summary attached at Exhibit 1A to King's
12/20/12 TPO Application fails to be incorporated by reference into King's Form B3 TPO
Application, therefore, the declaration by King on page 8 of 8 of his TPO Application fails to
apply to the unsigned, unattributed, largely irrelevant (it focuses on NNDB Panel Chair
Echeverria's unnamed employees, mostly...if Echeverria wants to get his employees an NRS
33.240 TPO or EPO, he is free to apply for one, but it makes little sense for King's TPO
Application to rest largely on accusations involving conduct by Coughlin toward non-SBN
employees, like those in Echeverria's office.).
Page 2 of 6 of the Form B-3 used by King in his 12/20/12 TPO Application in 607
reads:
I reasonably believe that the Adverse Party has
threatened or committed an act or act(s) of harassment in
the workplace as defined above. The event(s) occurred as
follows: NOTE: BE SPECIFIC AS TO WHO
THREATENED OR COMMITTED WHAT ACT OR
ACTS AND AGAINST WHOM. INDICATE
APPROXIMATE DATE(S) AND LOCATION(S).
ALSO LIST SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE(S)/PERSON(S)
PRESENT AT THE WORKPLACE WHO ARE THE
FOCUS OF THE HARASSMENT OR WHOM THE
ADVERSE PARTY SHOULD BE DIRECTED NOT
TO CONTACT. THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD
(in the blanks thereafter following King has handwritten
in):
See Summary contained in Exhibit 1 including
exhibits 1A- 1D.)
NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THE BACKS
OF ANY PAGES; CHECK BOX IF YOU ARE USING
ADDITIONAL PAGES. Check if you use a
continuation page (to be incorporated by reference)
(See Exhibit 1
(not only did king fail to check the preceding box, he made a handwritten notation that is
vague at best and of little value, particularly where is appears to begin with an unmatched
parentheses followed by Exhibit 1, considering that King's 12/20/12 TPO Application
consists of Exhibit 1A-1D according to the handwritten notation by King at page 2 of 8 on
his From B-3 TPO Application of 12/20/12...as such, one is left to wonder what, if any, of
the materials comprising Exhibit 1 are purported to be verified. Of course, none of them
are. King wants it both ways, he wants to take advantage of the power of having a TPO/EPO
issued, subjecting Coughlin to arbitary restraints in the middle of a contentious, serious
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
litigation (such as no telephone calls, emails, faxes, or even, apparently, courier delivered
filings where time is of the essence).
(See, Standardized Forms for Mandatory Use in Stalking and Harassment, Workplace
Harassment and Harm to Minors at:
http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/viewdocumentsandforms/SelfHelpProSe/Standardi
zed-Forms-for-Mandatory-Use-in-Stalking-and-Harassment-Workplace-Harassment-andHarm-to-Minors/orderby,1/page,1/
Form B3 - Application for Temporary Order for Protection Against Harassment in the
Workplace Download Date Posted: 11 Mar 2009 File Size: 109.12 Kb Downloads: 116 Form
B4 - Continuation Page Download Date Posted: 11 Mar 2009 File Size: 14.84 Kb
Downloads: 70
KING UTILIZED FORM B3 IN HIS 12/20/12 APPLICATION, HOWEVER, HE FAILED TO UTILIZED
FORM B4-CONTINUATION PAGE, AND INSTEAD APPARENTLY DECIDED TO INCLUDED INFORMATION IN THE
FORM OF A SUMMARY ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT 1A TO HIS TPO APPLICATION. HOWEVER, THE SUMMARY
HAS LESS THAN NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND CANNOT BE SAID TO CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING TOWARDS KING
MEETING THE BURDEN OF PROOF NECESSARY TO PROVE COUGLIN COMMITTED AN ACTION UNDER NRS
33.240 SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY ISSUING A TPO PURSUANT TO NRS 33.270 IN LIGHT OF THE UTTER
FAILURE BY KING TO INCLUDED A SINGLE VERIFIED FACT WITHIN HIS ANY TPO OR EPO APPLICATION IN
607 SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF NRS 33.250(2)(C).
SERVICE
OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER, THE NOTICE OF HEARING THEREON AND THE ORDER MUST BE
SERVED UPON THE PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED THE HARASSMENT PURSUANT TO THE
NEVADA
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. NRS 33.300(2).
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
THE VERIFIED APPLICATION MUST INCLUDE SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE WORKPLACE, AS WELL AS A
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS THAT ALLEGEDLY CONSTITUTED HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE AND
THE DATES ON WHICH THESE EVENTS OCCURRED.
NRS 33.250(2). THE COURT MAY ISSUE A TEMPORARY
ORDER FOR PROTECTION AGAINST HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE IF IT APPEARS TO THE SATISFACTION OF
THE COURT FROM SPECIFIC FACTS SHOWN BY A VERIFIED APPLICATION FILED PURSUANT TO NRS 33.250
THAT HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE HAS OCCURRED. NRS 33.270(1)A TEMPORARY ORDER FOR
PROTECTION AGAINST HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE MUST NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT THE GIVING OF
SECURITY BY THE EMPLOYER IN AN AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE COURT TO BE SUFFICIENT TO PAY FOR SUCH
COSTS AND DAMAGES AS MAY BE INCURRED OR SUFFERED BY THE PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED THE
HARASSMENT IF THE PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED THE HARASSMENT IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
WRONGFULLY ENJOINED OR RESTRAINED.
NRS 33.270(2).
24
25
26
27
28
(nOTE: coughlins is attaching his 5/1/13 of so Motion to Dismiss etc in RMC 13 CR 3913,
3914, though likely in a more legible one page per page version than that RMC Dilworth was
burdend with where Coughlins ubmitted s 4 per page one do to his indigency, when the RMC
has failed to recognize and where RCA Wong got the more legible one per page version but
the 1/16/13 RMC Judge W. Garner's Administrative Order prohibited Coughlin from email or
faxing to the RMC, so...
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT 10/394
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
It is important to note that none of the attachments to King's 607 Application have
been verified, there is nothing from King attesting to whether or not they are true and correct
copies of what they purport to be, and, in fact, the WCPD, WCDA, and SBN needed to pay a
bit more attention to detail in their concerted assault upon Coughlin stemming from the
emails between WCDA DDA Kandaras, WCPD Leslie, and the SBN's King beginning on
12/12/12, as Exhibit 1A to the NRS 33.240 Workplace Harassment TPO Application
filed on behalf of (who knows? The application, like King's, fails to meet the requirement
that it specifically set forth which employe or employees it is being sought to protect), most
likely, Leslie himself, by way of husband to 2JDC lawyer/legal assistant to a family court
judge Laura Watts-Vial, WCPD DDA David Watts-Vial, Esq., in their 12/18/12 TPO
Application in RJC Rcp12-599, filed in retaliation about an hour after Couglin filed his own
application for a TPO against Jim Leslie in RCP12-598, which was in addition to Coughlin
moving for such a protection order against Leslie on 11/19/12 where Leslie was mocking,
heckling, and harassing Couglin menacingly in open court while purporting to act in his role
as standby counsel in 063341). A review of that Exhibit 1A to the TPO application for
Leslie and, as listed in the applicants section, apparently, Washoe County (as opposed to
just the WCPD), reveals that the purported 12/12/12 Couglin email to various individuals
(including Leslie and King) purportedly forward to King by Leslie has excised therefrom
approximately 29 attachments in pdf form that completely recontextualize all communicated
in that 12/12/12 email Leslie purports Coughlin sent him. Those attachments are clearly
displayed in the version of that purported 12/12/12 email from Coughlin to King and Leslie
(amongst many others, including complaints@nvbar.org, WCDA Kandaras and Young, Reno
City Attorney's prosecutors, SBN President Flaherty, all five members of the Panel in
Coughlin's formal disciplinary matter, etc., etc.) that Leslie/Watts-Vial attached to the TPO
Application in 599, begging the question: why are those attachments missing from the
version King purports Leslie forwarded him that King attached as Exhibit 1A to his own TPO
Application in 607?
Upon Coughlin being assigned an alternate defender (aside from the also conflicted
out APD) in privated defense attorney Bruce Lindsay, Esq., Couglin was able to obtain
documents from Mr. Lindsay that Lindsay was later castigated for turning over to Coughlin
by the WCPD, WCDA's Office, and RJC which include the following correspondence
between Coughlin's then WCPD James Briand Leslie and WCDA DDA of the Civil Division
Mary Kandaras. The following email exchange between WCPD Leslie and WCDA DDA
Kandaras reveals that Kandaras is confused...where she indicates I believe you should send
this (to the State Bar) on 12/13/12 at 10:20 am, despite the fact that Leslie had already
forwarded her the email wherein he did just (in Leslie's 12/12/12 2:59 pm email to DDA
Kandaras) that in writing to the SBN's King and forwarding what he purports to be
Coughlin's email to Leslie of 12/12/12 along therewith:
From: Kandaras, Mary Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:20 AM
To: Leslie, Jim Subject: RE: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide
28
-
essential 911 call cd discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in

rcr2012-065630 Importance:
1
2
3
High
Jim:
I believe that you should send this. Supreme Court Rule 104(a)
authorizes State bar counsel to investigate all matters involving possible
attorney misconduct or incapacity called to bar counsel's attention,
whether by grievance or both. This potentially involves misconduct
(violation of law) and incapacity.
Mary Kandaras Deputy District Attorney Civil Division Washoe County
5
6
775 -337 -5723 direct phone

-----Original Message----From: Leslie, Jim Sent: Wednesday,
December 12, 2012 5:11 PM To: Kandaras, Mary Subject: RE:
The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd
discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012 -065630
10
11
12
13
14
15
Thanks, please do. He came to our office after my email to you and caused a disturbance. We
called the police, but he fled before they arrived. jim
-----Original Message----From: Kandaras, Mary Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:17
PM To: Leslie, Jim Subject: RE: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd
discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012-065630
16
I will have to review this tomorrow and get back to you.
17
18
19
-----Original Message----From: Leslie, Jim

The below email from Mr. Coughlin contains a reference at
the end of the first paragraph to a website containing a video clip
from the movie Cape Fear. Please advise whether any action is
required of our office or yours regarding this possible veiled or
indirect threat of violence against attorneys in this office by Mr.
Coughlin.
20
21
22
23
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:59 PM To: Kandaras,

Mary Subject: FW: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide
essential 911 call cd discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin
in rcr2012-065630
24
25
26
27
Mary:
28
-
Please review my transmittal to Patrick King at the bar, below,

and let me know if I should do anything else from a civil
perspective.
1
2
3
Thanks,
James B. Leslie, Esq.
Chief Deputy Public Defender
-----Original Message----From: Leslie, Jim Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:49 PM
To: 'patrickk@nvbar.org' Subject: FW: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911
call cd discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012 -065630
7
8
Mr. King:
11
The below email from Mr. Coughlin contains a reference at the end of the first paragraph to a
website containing a video clip from the movie Cape Fear. Please advise whether any action
is required of our office or yours regarding this possible veiled or indirect threat of violence
against attorneys in this office by Mr. Coughlin.
12
Thank you,
13
James B. Leslie, Esq. Chief Deputy Public Defender Washoe County Public Defender's
Office
10
14
-----Original Message----From:
15
Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012

2:35 PM To: Leslie, Jim; Bosler, Jeremy; Dogan, Biray; Goodnight, Joseph W; Fortier,
Chris; Tuttle, Steve; Kandaras, Mary; Young, Zach; skauc@reno.gov; wongd@reno.gov;
kadlicj@reno.gov; complaints@nvbar.org; cvellis@bhfs.com; je@eloreno.com;
patrickk@nvbar.org; davidc@nvbar.org; rosec@nvbar.org; laurap@nvbar.org;
skent@skentlaw.com; mike@tahoelawyer.com; eifert.nta@att.net;
nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net; fflaherty@dlpfd.com; fflaherty@dyerlawrence.com
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Subject: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd discovery of 8/13 and
8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in
rcr2012 -065630
The Trial yesterday in RCR2012-065630 featured extended
discussions regarding the failure of the WCPD, Dogan, and Leslie,
to turn over discovery propounded by DDA Young in the form of
cd's featuring 911 calls DDA Young provided to the WCPD on
8/13/12 and 8/17/12 ... And the heavy hitters were there, too (Elliot
Sattler) ..... despite numerous written requests from Coughlin that
the WCPD do so, and multiple trips to the WCPD personally by
Coughlin to pick such materials up, and despite more flip flopping
on their story by Leslie and Dogan regarding whether they ever
gave Coughlin some package of materials responsive to Coughlin's
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
request for his "file" ... But, Jim Leslie is stuck with the 7/27/12
date he mentions in his email, then he is stuck with what his recent
email wherein he purports to have therein digitally transmitted
Coughlin his "file", which obviously does not include the cd's of
911 calls (the one's DDA Young took up an enormous amount of
court time playing, over and over (well, Young only played over
and over the particular calls he felt were strongest for his case and
most prejudicial, claiming some "cutting room floor mishap" for
the reoccurrence of certain calls, arguing that such a "happy
accident" justified playing them again and again, at ever increasing
volumes, etc., etc.).
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Part of the disconnect between Coughlin the Washoe County public defenders offices
that Coughlin is been laboring under the delusion that the rules of professional conduct
applied to its representation of clients where is wash County public defender's office seems
secure in its belief that that is not the case and that they too should be imbued with the same
loving immunity given apparently the judges and prosecutors, such that judge Clifton's
disputing Coughlin's contention on 11 2712 that Coughlin seem to be the only person in the
room ready skin in the game was incorrect. Clearly, the Washoe County public defenders
position is that when one such as Coughlin request quote there file that entitles them to at
best nothing more than the discovery, which the state propounded near the start of the case.
Further, the Washoe County public defender believes that it has no duty to maintain any
records thereafter of any such file and perhaps not even the discovery the funny thing is if
one such as Coughlin wants to fire the Washoe County public defender. There's an enormous
resistance to allowing him to do so put up by the state and the Reno justice court judges bring
up the question what is it about the Washoe County public defender do they like so very
much as it would seem to be that they have some sort of function to fatten up defendants for
the Cal confused them keep them occupied and act as some sort of filter to the courthouse
whereby nothing the defendant wishes to file or seeking discovery or receipt to subpoena will
make its way into reality or become legally operative such that the states job would be any
harder or that local law enforcement liability could possibly be exposed, much less their
fraudulent. Ms. willful misconduct or that the judges of the RJC will have to make any tough
decisions which might come back to bite them come reelection time when traditionally all the
RJC judges trumpet the Norsemen of local law enforcement via prominent placement in all
their campaign materials and commercials.
"From:
zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To:
jleslie@washoecounty.us;
zyoung@da.washoecounty.us Subject: your professional misconduct Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012
13:41:27 -0700 Dear WC Chief Deputy Leslie and DDA Young, You have purported to
appear on my behalf at times in RCR2012-065630. Despite your office's admitted failure to
notify me in any way regarding various recent hearings, your associate, Biray Dogan,
deprived me of my right to a pre-trial hearing in this case, and held a clandestine status
conference on February 27th, 2012 (upon information and belief). I invite you to review the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
court's records and your own files and place your office on a litigation hold notice with
respect to any materials related to such failure of your office to provide me notice of
hearings, including those "combo" hearings on August 6th, 2012 (please review the tape of
the July 16th, 2012 Trial in RCR2011-063341 where PD Jeremy Bosler and DDA Young are
insstructed to meet and confer an pick a date for the hearing on the pre-trial motions in that
case (after I was led away in cuffs back into custody, where DDA Young asked me to be
taken again on September 5th, 2012 because he can't compete with me unless I am locked in
a cell and deprived access to a law library or even basic means of doign legal work, like some
guy born on third base patting himself on the back like he hit a home run), and Judge
Sferrazza indicates he doesn't want the witnesses to show up if the disposition of the motion
to suppress results in no Trial being held. You refused to verify that, and instead pressed
recklessly ahead in complete derogation of your duty to insure I am afforded zealous
advocacy and due process. Linda Gray has admitted to much regarding your office's failure to
provide such notice. Larry Carslon has admitted to some pretty sorry things too, same with
Evo Novak. Your office is hereby placed on a litigation hold notice as to all materials in any
way baring on your office's failure to zealously advocate on my behalf or perform in a
competent manner in connection with my various cases. I am demanding that you provide the
documentation you received in response to any subpoena or records request your office has
made in any of my cases, including the call records and any records baring on the iphone's
ownership for Cory Goble's purported phone. You have not provided these. Further,
your office has not provided me materials in response to my demand for a copy of my
file in RCR2012-065630. You made material misrepresentations to Judge Sferrazza
during the in camera hearing in that regard. Please immediately provide me a copy of my
entire file in all three cases on which your office appears on my behalf. Dogan failed to
inform me of or otherwise alert me to the July 31st, 2012 filign by DDA Young which
sought to amend the complaint in RCR2012-065630 to a crime that WOULD require Bar
Counsel to file a Petition for Suspension on the public record with the Nevada Supreme
Court for a conviction of a "serious offense" under SCR 111(6), whereas the original charge
(and neither the original or the amended Complaints contain a sufficiently supported or
specific recounting of facts to support each element of the crime alleged, and I demand your
office file a Motion to Dismiss or other appropriate filing in that regard after providing me a
draft thereof and an opportunity to confer with counsel prior to its filing....also, I want
Sargent Zach Thew of the RPD subpoened in that matter, Sargent Monica Lopez, RPD
Officer's Chris Carter, Sargent Sifre, RPD Officer Shaur, the cab driver mentioned in the
dispatch reports from the hours following my release from jail on January 12th, 2012, after I
was arrested for "jaywalking" and RPD Officer Duralde pulled me over with 5 other RPD
Officers or personnel near midnight, in an apparent attempt at witness intimidation. I want
Officer Ron Rosa (not "Dosa" as DDA Young continually indicates in his discovery and
Complaints, curiously, though it did not prevent the revelation of the 1994 lawsuit against
Officer Rosa in his official capacity, at least to Coughlin, if not the WCPD). Please see that
Officer Alaksa is there to testify as well. Please supboena the police reports and complaints
against the RPD that I submitted to the RPD, including that which I filed against Duralde,
and all the reports and any other documentation testified with regard to at the horrific bail
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
hearing, which was unnoticed, on July 5th, 2012, wherein Sargent Dye and Office Weaver
showed up to testify for higher bail, and RMC defender Loomis failed to objecdt on
relevancy grounds, then refused to subpoena those very records citing a lack of relevancy.
Please procure and provide a copy of the audio of that hearing from the RMC in 11 CR
12420 from July 5, 2012. Please correct any misstatement you made at Trial regarding any
purported threats to sue Duralde or the RPD. You were clearly winging it, and on a
reprehensible ego trip, much like Novak, refusing to do even basic aspects of your job or
fulfill your duties. You clearly confused Rob Dawson assaulting me with a skate board with
Cory Goble assaulting and battering me by projecting a lit cigarette at me, which exploded in
sparks on my left shoulder, on June 5th, 2012, and for which, upon information and belief,
Goble has been provided immunity by the DA, impermissibly, in exchange for his testimony.
Goble failed to appear at Trial on July 16th, 2012, and your office refused to move for a
dismissal despite my demands, in that regard. Further, RPD Officers Look and one other
officer whom refused to perform their jobs in response to my reports of my stolen Gary
Fisher mountain bike being spotted at Grand Sierra Resort on or about May 15th, 2012.
Soldal. Wheeler v. Coss. Also, while Cory Goble makes three addled 911 calls over a cell
phone on August 20th, 2011, lying about somone "socking a minor", then making statements
on those calls inconsistent with his subsequent written witness statement and testimony at
trial on August 29th, 2012, he is not charged with "misuse of 911". Coughlin was, and the
main ingredients there seem to be Coughlin asserting his Constitutional rights and or
reporting official misconduct or deprivation of his civil rights by a state actor. Are you sure
you want to co-sign all that, Mr. Young. Especially after your statement in Court on July
16th, 2012 where you contradicted yourself repeatedly with regard to whether you had any
knowledge of the reason for my attorney's sudden removal from the case. You argued to the
court that you "assumed" the removal was Coughlin's fault, then indicated you had no
knowledge of the events involved in the removal, then argued that it was clear that
Coughlin's misconduct caused the removal. That is sanctionable prosecutorial misconduct.
Additionally, I was subject to more witness intimidation by the RPD shortly after midnight
on September 4th, 2012. I had Trial in RMC 11 CR 12420 at 9 am hours later on September
4th, 2012. RPD Sargent Weaver (newly minted as a Sargent) mysteriously appeared suddenly
in a empty parking lot at the Caughlin Ranch Scolari's at approximately 12:15 am and
decided to attempt to intimidate me in connection with the wrongful arrest, in violation of
Soldal v. Cook County, US Supreme Court case. Then Sargent Dye's partner, RPD Officer
Weaver, made menacing gestures at me in court on September 4th, 2012 at Trial. The WCPD
has refused to procure and provide me with a copy of the audio from the TPO hearing in RJC
RCP2012-000287 by Milan Krebs against myself in connection with both the June 28th,
2012 arrest in RCR2012-067980 and the July 3rd, 2012 arrest in RMC 11 CR 12420 (I spent
approximately 20 days in jail starting on July 3rd after RMC Jill Drake made arguments not
supported by Nevada law resulting in my bondable $1,415 bail being increased to $3,000
cash only. DDA Young, this RPD misconduct amounts to witness tampering. You conduct in
co-signing the RPD and 911 dispatch attempts to cover up their own misconduct in
RCR2011-065630 is misconduct in itself. Nifong. I have previously doen so, and am doing
so again here placing the WCDA Office on a litigation hold notice with respect to any
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
materials in any way connected to any of my arrests or prosecutions this year, as well as
materials connected to the clandestine status conference DDA Young had with WCPD Dogan
on February 27th, 2012 (even though the defendant was informed in writing that it was
vacated) and any communications with the RMC or RMC Judge Nash Holmes in any way
connected to Coughlin or the various competency evaluations sought, including the one
Ordered in response to a "counter motion" or some other fugitive document purportedly
supporting Dogan's seeking such an evaluation. Further, the Litigation Hold Notice extends
to any DA Office knowledge of or involvement in any events connected to the seizure of my
property, including my smartphone and other electronic data (which was not returned to me,
but rather destroyed) on February 27th, 2012 in RMC 11 TR 26800, in a Trial that occurred,
upon information and belief, just minutes after DDA Young and Dogan hald a clandestine
"status conference" in which Coughlin's alleged competency issues were communicated to
the RMC and or Judge Nash Holmes. Further, please subpoena any complaints I filed with
anyone with the RPD and any other police reports, records, internal memorandum, or
otherwise maintained by the RPD, the WCSO, or the WCDA. DDA Young, you have now
been provided a CD/DVD copy of all the excuplatory videos which you have previously been
provided by other means, so, attempting to assert the lame excuse RPD Officer Weaver
maintained upon his being provide, on June 17th, 2012 a video of the Northwinds Apartment
maintenance man assaulting me, if not possibly attempting extortion (he indicated he didn't
open the file because I was afraid my computer would get a virus) will be even further
unavailing. Respectfully, Zach Coughlin PO BOX 3961 Reno, NV 89505 Tel 775 338 8118"
WCPD apparently put a muzzle on both Goodnight and Dogan (if Goodnight really
had an issue with Coughlin, why was the last thing he said to Coughlin at the close of their
trial prep on 7/13/12 that he would see Coughlin the following Monday for the trial? Its
hearsay to allow Leslie to show at the hearing and alleged that Goodnight whom Coughlin
went through school with since 7th grade, had an issue, and its just reads as more of Jim
Leslie being a Svengali trying to sabotage Coughlins' case in the name of puttin' in big work
for the 'County. WCPD Leslie's own 12/7/12 email to Coughlin (which echo his testimony at
the epo extension hearing on 1/4/13 in rcp2012-000599) only prove that Leslie failed to
provide Coughlin essential discovery prejudicing Coughlin's defense for the 12/11/12 trial
date (even if he had provided a digital copy of the 911 call recordings via email (which
would have been insanely easy to do, and just highlights the extnet to which both the WCPD
and WCD a play this stupid little game where they refused to e-mail thanks such as discovery
your client files people and instead insist that people come and pick them up only to meet
them with protection orders for showing up to pick such things up on the case the DA having
security goons refused to let Coughlin ventured to the WCDA Office or lobby on the fourth
floor in conjunction with the harassment Coghlan faces from Olympik security personnel, the
Washoe County Sheriff Reno marshals and RJC bailiffs ect
"Subject: 911 Case? From: Leslie, Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us) This sender is in
your safe list. Sent: Fri 12/07/12 9:18 AM To: 'zachcoughlin@hotmail.com'
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Cc: Dogan,
Biray
(BDogan@washoecounty.us)
Attachments:
1 attachment Coughlin Discovery 911 Case.pdf (2.2 MB) Mr.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin: Attached are the discovery materials in the above-referenced case that you
had requested and we had made an additional copy of for you in response to your
request. Please note that the July 27, 2012, cover letter was for your pick up and you never
picked it up. Note also that the July 27, 2012, packet encloses a copy of the April 17,
2012, hand delivery transmittal of the very same documents which you received. Since
we have been removed from the 911 case, we are closing our file. The attached materials
were sitting at our front desk. Since you failed to retrieve them, we provide the attached
courtesy copy before final closure of our file. No response to this transmittal is required
from you. James B. Leslie, Esq."
Emails between Coughlin and Dogan form 7/27/12 Dogan and Leslie allegel
Coughlin's "file" in 065630 was left for him at the front desk, er., handed him by Dogan, er,
by Leslie as witnessed by Dogan, er, Leslie saying Coughlin failed to every pick it up so he
emailed it to Coughlin . Dogan did not send Coughlin one email that whole time and, in fact,
willfully obstructed Coughlin in his requests to obtain a copy of the 7/30/12 Motion to
Amend Criminal Complaint by DDA Young seeking to leverage SCR 111(6) in amending
the "misue of 911 case" (prejudicing Couglin where he would have to deal with RJC Judge
Clifton instead of a jury) to a NRS 199.280 "resisting a public officer" charge, which Dogan
attempted to hide from Coughlin, and it was only Coughlin's constant trips to the RJC filing
office to review his files, which so irritated Robbin Baker The words bailiff reyes and sexton
an apparently the judges and court administrator Steve Tuttle but it didn't irritate them
enough to levy any sanctions that Dogan for being an obstructionist jerk, or partake in any of
the "appropriate action" per Canon 2 Rule 2.15 that Judge Nash HOlmes so overloaded on in
11 TR 26800 (62337, FHE 4 and 5) where judge Clifton instead took a monumentally laissez
faire approach to the patent and evident misconduct by the Washoe County public defenders
office (Sgt. Mullen demonstrated a remarkable lan in violating RPC 3.8 and/or and NRCP
11 in a manner not commonly seen outside Richard Hill's office (sure he was testifying, but
the lines between judicial and executives are so completely blurred in the RJC that who even
notices anymore whose plane which role it's pretty much a binary system where there's the
people who are on the county payroll and people who are not, rather than the tripartite form
of government America's schoolchildren are brainwashed with), though his misstatements to
judge Pearson and his unnoticed impromptu testimony on may 23rd 2013 shortly before
Coughlin's arrest not like that got all the the bailiffs riled may not have been enormously
fraudulent, but he did demonstrate and ethics to negligence ratio that was sub richard Hill.
Can you imagine? Sub Richard Hill?)
This is an index of emails Coughlin sent Dogan, none of which help Dogan in
explaining his professional misconduct, or, for that matter. Leslie's failure to supervise
Dogan. Maybe the take-home guys is if you don't have the resources or woll to play kick the
can with the wrong attorney (and one a holler saved me to the judiciary. When the going gets
rough) don't make yer stupid baseless retaliatory, ego driven arrests. And don't compound
that by providing jackass level of representation, framed by a vindictive scattershot style of
prosecution. That seems to consist primarily of violating the mandatory stay required by
competency orders, Brady and RPC 3.8. And then don't whine like a little bitch when
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
somebody defends themselves and you get called out on the carpet for the very things that
burdened you with a conscience so guilty that you can't walk to your car without thinking
someone is going to You get the picture. Nothing Coughlin did put that fear in your head.
It is your own guilty conscience that put it there operating much the same way that the
synapses that send message to your brain telling it is in pain and to take your hand off the
scalding hot stove immediately function. They may do a fairly good job of creating the
illusion but one might suspect there's no such thing as not having any skin in this game,
though at times it appears the only skin any of these public defenders have in the game is that
of their own conscience and it's an extremely thin skin at that.
"Coughlin:? From: Leslie, Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us) This sender is in your safe
list. Sent:
Mon 11/26/12 3:05 PM To:'zachcoughlin@hotmail.com'
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Cc: Dogan, Biray (BDogan@washoecounty.us) Mr. Coughlin:
I understand you continue to email Joe Goodnight even though he no longer represents you. I
see no reason for such communication and ask you to please direct your communications to
appropriate persons. At this point in time, me and Biray Dogan each have one case with
you, and Mr. Goodnight does not. Thank you, James B. Leslie, Esq." So why
Leslie recapitulates the attempt to coerce from Coughlin his Fifth Amendment rights
that Leslie joinined in with DDA Young and Judge Sferrazza in seeking through rCr2011063341, but attempting to coerce from Coughlin his sixth amendment right to representation.
"RE: Jim Leslie is a scrappy dude RE: Coughlin? From:
Leslie,
Jim
(Jleslie@washoecounty.us) This sender is in your safe list. Sent:
Fri 12/14/12 9:45 AM
To: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Mr. Coughlin: A hearing has been set
for Tuesday December 18, 2013, at 8:30 am in Reno Justice Court, at which we will ask to be
relieved as counsel in the remaining case you have with this office, RCR12-067980, based
on, among other things, (1) your prior expressed desire to represent yourself and (2) your
email to myself and several other recipients, including state bar attorneys, which contains an
I am in New York you will have no fear eight and is that even in put the big jail really
big deal by getting elected that that might be New York Newark have some respect. I
am not a jackass Bill. If you fail to appear at the hearing, the relief will be requested in
your absence upon the grounds stated above. If you choose to agree to self-representation
without argument, the second above-noted reason may or may not rise to the point of
discussion, although I would note that the email you sent with the express or implied threat
was disseminated by you to several recipients including representatives of the Nevada State
Bar, thereby breaching confidentiality by your own action. Pending the hearing, there is no
reason for us to meet in person or communicate by any means. Any communications from
you pending the hearing will be deemed to be made in waiver of attorney-client privilege and
are subject to forwarding to the Nevada State Bar and/or law enforcement as appropriate
pursuant to Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(c). James B. Leslie, Esq."
"oughlin? From:
Leslie, Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us) This sender is in your safe
list. Sent:
Wed 12/12/12 4:22 PM To:'zachcoughlin@hotmail.com'
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Mr. Coughlin: Based on your behavior at our offices on
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
several past occasions, including today where we had to call the police due to you engaging
in behavior constituting disturbing the peace, you are hereby directed NOT to come to our
offices without first having confirmed in writing an appointment with your assigned attorney.
If you violate this email notification, we will contact law enforcement. James B. Leslie, Esq."
RE: LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE i was not faxed the 11 7 12 motion to quash
subpoena that? From:
list. Sent:
Mon 11/26/12 8:04 AM To:
Gray, Linda (lgray@washoecounty.us);
Tibbals, Leslie (LTibbals@washoecounty.us) Cc:
'zachcoughlin@hotmail.com'
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Thank you. From: Gray, Linda Sent: Monday, November 26,
2012 7:41 AM To: Leslie, Jim; Tibbals, Leslie Subject: FW: LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE
i was not faxed the 11 7 12 motion to quash subpoena that For you Jim since he didnt
include you in email From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com] Sent:
Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:53 PM To: Tibbals, Leslie; Gray, Linda Subject:
LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE i was not faxed the 11 7 12 motion to quash subpoena that
please NOTE YOU ARE ON A LITIGATION HOLD NOTE TO RETAIN AND FAX
LOGS OR PROOF OF RECEIPT, TRANSMISSION, CONFIRMATION OF ATTEMPTED
TRANSMISSION ETC OF THE PURPORTED SERVICE OF THE NOVEMBER 7TH,
2012 MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FILED STAMPED 11/7/12 BY
BIRAY DOGAN IN RCR2011-063341. LESLIE TIBBALS SIGNED A CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE DATED 11/7/12. THIS DOCUMENT WAS NEVER FAXED TO THE FAX
NUMBER IT LISTS FOR ZACH COUGHLIN OF 949 667 7402. DDA YOUNG HAD THE
DOCUMENT IN COURT AND SHOWED IT TO THE DEFENDANT AT THAT TIME.
PLEASE ALERT THE COURT TO YOUR FRAUD. Zach Coughlin
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155635116/8-22-12-0204-063341-067980-065630-Emailto-WCPD-Leslie-Dogan-and-DDA-Young-I-Accept-State-s-Offer
"RE: Coughlin: petit larceny trial? From: Leslie, Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us) This
sender is in your safe list. Sent: Wed 8/22/12 5:04 PM To: 'Zach
Coughlin'
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Mr. Coughlin: Regarding today's 11 am appointment, we did
have it set, as reflected in my emails. I note also that you responded from your
zachcoughlin@hotmail.com address, which is the same address I noticed you for the
meeting, as per your request on the phone. Notwithstanding your failure to appear, I will
inquire, again, of my investigator to see about availability over the next couple/few days. I
and my predecessors have kept you reasonably informed. Please recall also our long face-toface meeting lasting over an hour and a half, at which we discussed your case, defense
theory, etc., at length. I do not have the time to provide written summations as you request, as
we have also discussed. Regarding your continuing accusations of conspiracies against you,
you are incorrect. Regarding providing documentation to you, you have been provided the
materials and moreover, I recall you showing up at our offices in an agitated emotional
state demanding additional copies, which we took the time to make for you, and you then
left without taking them. As to my withdrawl from your case, I do not believe it appropriate
or necessary. However, if you wish to represent yourself, please advise and I'll try to set up
a hearing for a proper court canvass to see if the Court will permit that. Finally, I am
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
informed that you called my staff today, were unreasonable on the phone, and then hung up
on her. Please refrain from doing that again. Thank you, James B. Leslie, Esq. Chief Deputy
Public Defender"
Whatever the case, where leslie's 8/22/12 email to Couglhin writes (as to an
unspecified one of the three case the WCPD was then currently handling for Coughlin despite
Coughlin's attempts have them removed: "Regarding providing documentation to you, you
have been provided the materials and moreover, I recall you showing up at our offices in an
agitated emotional state demanding additional copies, which we took the time to make for
you, and you then left without taking them."
One thing is sure, any such materials referenced by Leslie did not include the 8/13/12
and 8/17/12 911 call records the WCDA propounded to the WCDA in disc form on those
dates as evinced by Leslie's failure to included them with what he purported to be Coughlin's
discovery (despite Coughlin having requested his "file" in RCR2012-065630, as obvious
from a review of Leslie email of 12/7/12. Further, Leslie admits that such materials did not
included the identify of the 911 callers that the WCPD insisted on redacting from the version
of the ECOMM 911 call logs is provided Coughlin. So I say just think one of your loved ones
might be rotting in jail right now for the rest of their lives due to the Washoe County public
defenders choice to only provide redacted discovery consisting of 911 call logs, which
prevented your loved one from conducting a thorough review of the states quote unquote
evidence, including the ability to identify the ownership and identities of those making 911
calls. (see Coughlin's explication of the important thereof in his filings in RCR 2011
063341 and Leslie's blanket refusal to allow Coughlin access to such up through Leslie's
removal from the case on October 22, 2011. Such period of time including the all-important
hearing on the motion to suppress held on August 29, 2012 wherein the case was likely lost
due to the fact that Leslie not only lied about the fact that he is subpoenaed witnesses when
he had , according to material eye witness 12/ met his during the hearing, then refused to
answer. Coughlin queries prior to the hearing other than in non-Damon's on the record of
September 5, 2012 that he was 20/12 Forwarded formal complaint against state bar of
nevada, bar counsel king, Clerk of Court Peters,
12/19/12 court refusing to file documents and exhibits missing?
12/18/12 can you email me the 8/13/12 and 8/17/12 files on the discs provided to the wcpd??
12/17/12 FW: 12/11/12 Motion for Recusal, Conflict, Continuance etc. with 1651 page in
exhibit 2?
12/13/12 The Three E's; wcpd failure ... 911 call cd .. O065630?
12/04/12 formal.grievance against Skau, Young, Leslie, Dogan, etc. FW: 911 calls missing
City Attorney Skau?
11/30/12 PLEASE DIGITALLY TRANSMIT MY ENTIRE FILE TO ME
IMMEDIATELY?
11/23/12 Forwarded Chief Marshal Roper and Marshal Harley on setting the record straight
in NG12-0435?
11/22/12 Forwarded please indicate some response to my subpoena and discovery requests?
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
11/22/12 Washoe Legal Services Paul Elcano and State Bar of Nevada's Coe Swobe's
contacts with my family?
11/08/12 High priority RE: RCR12-065630?
11/07/12 (No Subject)?
11/02/12 Forwarded please email me the materials produced by ecomm/K. Odom/ dispatch
tapes?
10/11/12 RE: Coughlin: RCR11-063341 (Petit Larceny) and RCR12-067980 (Resisting)
065630 (misue of 911)?
10/10/12 DO NOT STIPULATE TO ANYTHING
10/02/12 problem with the file in RCR2011-063341?
9/21/12 DDA Youngs violati. O/27/12 178.405 2/28/12 Order at 1:31pm aYoungOpposition
2:55pm?
9/20/12 Forwarded misue of 911 case?
9/14/12 continuation of nrs 174.124?
9/14/12 Forwarded nrs 174.124?
9/13/12 request to meet, confer, and prepare for trial LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE?
9/11/12 Shoeless Jim Leslie?
9/11/12 please have vacate the upcoming trial a65630 and prepare for my approval a draft of
a Motion to Dismiss?
9/11/12 wrongful arrests, malicious/retaliatFW: Reno eviction noticed for Sparks Justice
Court?
9/08/12 Forwarded Dogan's professional misconduct?
8/29/12 FW: NEF: VS. WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ET AL.(D6): Supreme : CV1101896?
8/22/12 FW: RJC trial date - RCR 2011-066341?
8/22/12 I accept States offer to settle all three charges as detailed by Goodnight?
8/21/12 Coughlin NVB court hearing of 8/28/12 at 2pm conflicts with 8/28/12 9am trial
i063341?
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
One almost has to feel bad for Dogan good night and Leslie this truly was the perfect
storm for them you had Coughlin the extremely hard working solo attorney, whom also
happens to be abnormally intelligent according to thousands of people who've told Coughlin
that throughout the course of his life (Coughlin himself still has some reservations respecting
that diagnosis...one can only have so many judges refer to them as brilliant before begins to
become more of a patronizing punchline highlighting the incongruity between such alleged
intelligence level and Coughlin's current financial personal and professional straits). Keep
yer "brilliance", give me my effin' munny. So anyway you've got these three public
defenders, whom I've grown abnormally well, actually completely normally used to the level
of performance. They have been held to who dig their heels in and it in insisting that they do
not have to perform to any certain standard for Coghlan, even where Coughlin is done all the
work for them and he merely wants to get some help with subpoenas and witness fees and
little things like that. Add to it that this solo attorney was only just recently fraudulently
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
arrested by Reno police officer Duralde in conjunction with the lies by a group of early
twentysomething skateboarders compounded by the fact that such resulted in a seven-day
incarceration during which time an eviction. A summary eviction for a wrongful summary
eviction was posted on Coughlin's door and that nine days after being released from that
summary from that seven-day incarceration Coughlin was again wrongfully arrested again in
violation of NRS 171.136 and 171.1255, to boot where the odds of that happening twice and
9 days spent outside of jail? And it becomes clear that an abnormally high level of motivation
on Coughlin's part, and in entirely deficient level of motivation and inspiration on the part of
these three public defenders has now gotten them into quite a sticky wicket. It's touching
almost the extent to which the RJC judges have been over backwards to attempt to bail out
the Washoe County public defender, including having their judicial Sec. Lori Townsend send
it correspondence to the State Bar. On April 11, 2012 which judge Clifton on for two 2013
ruled as irrelevant and refused even like Coughlin have marked as an exhibit in the trial and
065630 but that Lori Townsend correspondence that extrajudicial voluntary correspondence
sent to the State Bar interfering impermissibly with a disciplinary matter much the same way
that does that which resulted in misconduct finding in In re Ward and In re Erickson oddly
related that February 21, 2012 filing by Coughlin Townsend forwarded on to the State Bar
which made its way into Pat King's eight 2312 complaint related to Dogan's failure to appear
where he was required to pursuant to statute judge piercing and Clifton Stiller trying to argue
that this is not the case but it clearly is that where an attorney has and has appeared as Dogan
did in the case of a gross felont rose misdemeanor or felony. Co
maybe rather than trying to get Coughlin disbarred fraudulently it's time to admit that
the beast is gotten to beg and the extent to which the RJC the District Attorney's Office in
Washoe County public defender have to bend there at six at an inordinately alarming rate just
to feed the beast the beast being assist him of law enforcement wherein deputy sheriffs,
police DAS officers. Everyone are overpaid and have completely bloated pension that's
completely outsize in the relation to what someone like Coughlin and private practices
making and that's, that's to say nothing of the difference is in levels of accountability and
work that are required and comparing the private and public sector in Washoe County these
days. Coughlin did brilliant work in his criminal defense of the trespass case in RMC 11 CR
26405 and fraudulent idiot Pat King is a certain at the bases to get him disbarred rather to
make Coughlin, president of the State Bar or bronze as law school blue books or something
suitably deferential to the enormous debt all of Nevada. Those Coughlin for kicking a hole
through the dark ages shell in which it has been ensconced, deliverying it in swaddling
clothes to a bright, beautiful sunshiny tomorrow as it relates to the tenants rights, and him
sitting on the path to salvation from the gutter dwelling lowlife bottom feeder of the Western
states it has been for so many years in the area of tenants rights and nap it goes beyond
getting some law passed in the legislature as clearly that doesn't matter where it the RJC is
judges the Washoe County district attorney the public defender Reno Municipal Court and
the Sheriff and the Reno Police Department altogether crap what the legislature dies because
they're just gonna do it their way. Anyways and there way always consists of taking in ahead
of some poor tenant and eliminating whatever due process trimmings or procedural
-
1
2
3
protections the good men and women of the legislature five hard to make wine Nevada in
reducing the will of the very people whose taxes pay the salaries of these overfed, under
worked courthouse/law enforcement types, to black letter law.
11
The e whom had been declared indigent was entitled to representation at all stages of
the preceding and clearl an arraignment is a stage of the proceeding a critical one in fact
ymail of Coughlin's copied above goes on for several more pages detailign the prejudice to
admits to having failed to turned over the discs only propounded after that point. Further the
WCPD subpoened recordings from ECOMM on 10/3/11 in 11-063341 but never turned them
over to Couglhin, (or ECOMM/RPD failed to adn really Ecomm and the RPD need to quit
acting like they are distinct, regardless the subpoena was on Ecomm's Kelley Wood and
either she or someone with the WCPD or both have some 'splainin' to do where the
recordings between the RPD and Ecomm were not provided) despite only being removed as
counsel of record well over 15 days thereafter, on 10/22/12.
12
"
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Exhibit 1D consists of a printout of a webpage at www.hark.com (ie, not even the

url linked to in the email King alleges Coughlin sent to various individuals (including
some, like Coughlin's then Washoe County Public Defender, Jim Leslie, whom then
forward that same email to individuals listed amongst the recipients of the original
email itself (ie, the SBN's King), in a class Leslie-style bit of pointless, insipid
melodrama, along the lines of his adorable jibberish stylings such as the phrase
hand-off transmittal, which he originally fashioned in his resistance to being stuck
with the digital accountability attendant to email a client their discovery, versus, what
Leslie and his junior associate WCPD Biray Dogan, are wont to do, which is have
Dogan he himself handed the client his discovery several weeks prior, only to change
his story a couple minutes later to say he saw Leslie hand it to the client, only to have
Leslie then idiotically email the client and indicate that the client failed to ever pick it
up, and identifying such as discovery of a 7/27/12 date, while failing to explain why
neither Leslie nor Dogan released to there then former client Coughlin the 8/13/12
and 8/17/12 updated 911 call discovery discs propounded to them by WCDA Zach
Young while Dogan and Leslie were still representing Coughlin (ie, Leslie taking
over Goodnight and Dogan's cases, and in an attempt to get a raise, setting out to
purposefully deliver the cheapest, quickest, convictions of Coughlin in all three of the
baseless, retaliatory prosecutions brought by the WCDA's Office after Leslie had
succeeded in depriving Coughlin of his right to accept a plea bargain disposing of all
three matters then pending on 8/27/12, which would have resulted in no SCR 111(6)
convictions in any of those matters.
27
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Leslie's is referencing a July 27, 2012 time frame (as well detailed in Coughlin's
12/14/12 email to Leslie explaining the incongruity of Leslie and his associate Biray Dogan's
inconsistent and oft changing positions regarding whether they ever gave Coughlin such
discovery package (first Dogan alleged he himself have it to Coughlin, then Dogan switches
up and indicates he personally saw Leslie give it to Coughlin, only problem is that Leslie
then later indicates Coughlin failed to ever pick it up....shucks, get on the same page, guys!
(not the support for the "scrap, scrap, scrap" attempt to Ameliorate the lame and said out of
frustration "Scrappy-Doo" blast by cloacking such as really having been "Scrappy Dude",
versus Leslie's "chip, chip, chip". Coughlin has never once in his life made a disparaging
comment about someon's height, and really, "Scrappy-Doo" analogy relates more towards the
low character Couglin perceives inherent to Leslie's constantly picking antagonising situation
with people on to then sick Bailiff Reyes on them (something Coughlin personally witness
Dogan, Goodnight, and Leslie do with varying Bailiffs and Sheriffs....Coughlin has known
Dogan and Goodnight since about 1990 and both seem to have become pretty bad mother
effers what with the Sheriff and Bailiff's providing the "muscle" (if by muscle one means
"guns" and "bades"/color of law) to suit their every sand kicked in their face at the beach
revenge fantasy, somethign that Bailiffs Sexton and Reyes appear to view as the preeminent
perk of their positions, doing it constantly, usually for no good reason (Medina too, but in a
more 7th grade maturity level sort of way...)"im Leslie is a scrappy dude RE: Coughlin?
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Sent:
Fri 12/14/12 1:24 AM To:
Leslie, Jim (jleslie@washoecounty.us); jbosler@washoecounty.us
(jbosler@washoecounty.us); fflaherty@dlpfd.com (fflaherty@dlpfd.com);
fflaherty@dyerlawrence.com (fflaherty@dyerlawrence.com); davidc@nvbar.org
(davidc@nvbar.org); mpickesq@msn.com (mpickesq@msn.com) Dear Jim Leslie, Esq.,
Jim, I need to get my discovery for the resumption of the trial in rjc rcr2012065630...Despite your cries of "wasting county assets" at 9:05am on 11/20/12 when, in
your standby counsel role, you attempted to assist DDA Young and Judge Sferrazza in
further coercing from me my Fifth Amendment rights...you seem intent on wasting county
assets, as your failure to turn over the discovery (the cd recordings of 911 calls DDA Young
alleges he produced to my WCPD on 8/13/12 and 8/17/12 has not materially prejudiced my
defense in rcr2012-065630, in much the same way your failure to timely transmit my file in
rcr2011-063341 did, including your failure to produce the results and response and
production in connection with the subpoena of 10/3/12 (NOTE: Coughlin was mistaken, such
subpoena was from 10/3/11 and appears to have been issued by Goodnight, and served on
ECOMM"s Kelley Wood by NOvak, it was stupid of Coughlin to think Leslie would have
supoenead anything) , and given you were note removed as counsel of record until at the
earliest 10/22/12...Kelley Dodma, ECOMM, and you have some 'splainin' to do. Now you
allege that you filed a false police report. Jim, please keep a copy of any communications you
have made to the RPD, and of course the call you reference will be subpoenaed, and if there
exists any recordings (video/audio, whatever) of the "incidents" you describe (not sure
dropping of a written request for one's file/discovery to your receptionist given the fact that
time is of the essence here is "distrubing the peace", but, to each his one, I guess...however,
its curious you never seem to place any restrictions on your continuing to cash your sweet
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
paychecks week after week, Jim...now you seem to be seeking some sort of protection against
being served written notices or having them delivered, or making my ability to do some
contingent upon your scheduling a meeting (any such meeting would likely terminate after
five minutes, as they have in the past, with you pulling your Diana Ross-diva act....DDA
Young got a good knowing laugh out of that one on 12/11/12.....). Jim, please do me a favor
and reply to this email, copying the SBN and President of the State Bar and describe just
exactly what occurred during these recent "past several occasions"...and put it in an
affidavit...also, will you finally put in an affidavit your contentions that you "know" your
office sent me notice in writing of the 8/6/12 combo-hearing date in 065630 and 067980
(please also put in writing your refusal to send out subpoenas (easy under nrs 174.345) to
ECOMM for any calls to 911 or dispatch related to me in any way since 8/20/12) and any
dispatch to law enforcements recordings, and recordings made by law enforcement or
submitted to law enforcement by private parties, since that date as well. Please further
indicate in writing why you are refusing to send the WCSO a subpoena duces tecum for any
materials related to me in any way from their civil division (that served process of the items
detailed in the variosu affidavits of services by Machen et al that have become of issue in 11
tr 26800, 067980, etc., etc., subpoena Northwinds Lou Cadia and Duane Jakob...)....See, Jim,
you are still getting paid, you need to do some work here, guy... So cute how Biray Dogan,
in the 8/21/12 Hearing in 065630 mentioned how he "left a voice mail" for Linda Gray,
but just couldn't, gosh darn it, get an answer from her about whether she did send out
written notice of the 8/6/12 combo hearing...(you know, the one you testified about
during our closed Mardsen-lite conflict hearing in 063341...where you alleged you
"knew" for sure that notice was sent, but then refused to provide any specifics as to how you
'knew" or what you did to make sure of that..." Gray admitted to Coughlin on the phone that
she did not mail out any written notice of the 8/6/12 hearing to Coughlin because your office
had marked his "PO BOX 3961" address as "no longer good" at that time (and the audio of
the 7/16/12 aborted Trial date clearlye establishes Coughlin was not provided the 8/6/12 date
at that time, because the temporary replacement for the suddenly disappeared WCPD
Goodnight, and DDA Young were directed to meet in the hall/counter after the conclusion of
the proceeding on 7/16/12 and pick a date and time, by which time Coughlin was taken back
into custody (where he was serving 18 days in jail due to the fraudulent bail increase in rmc
12 cr1240 (another bogus "disturbing the peace charge" by the RPD...that even the City of
Reno prosecutors had to drop (and we all know how adverse they are to dropping any
charges, ever). Jim, why don't you just go wash the RPD's cars or something if you want to
suck up to them so bad? Please then explain to those listed above why your cross
examination of Cory Goble on 8/29/12 in 063341 seemed to consist solely of an attempt on
your part to defeat the NRS 171.136 problem the State faced, including the exclusionary rule
application, where the testimony as to the value of the phone by the "victim" Goble was
"about $80" valuation...well under the $250 needed at the time to support a "oooh, thats a
felony" grand larceny charge (to quote Officer Duralde), and therein vitiate the legitimacy of
any such arrest or search incident thereto (unless a citizen's arrest could be
established....which is what you spent your entire cross of Goble trying to establish, for the
State's benefit...because you are a sleazy, spiteful, lazy, mean spirited, petty, hateful
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
individual whom the DA wants on the case anytime it really, really needs a win. Just because
you have ascended to Chief Deputy status doesn't mean you are any good at what you do,
Jim, nor does it, in my opinion, provide some sheen of integrity to your act). NRS 171.136
When arrest may be made. 1. If the offense charged is a felony or gross misdemeanor, the
arrest may be made on any day, and at any time of day or night. 2. If it is a misdemeanor, the
arrest cannot be made between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., except: (a) Upon the direction
of a magistrate, endorsed upon the warrant; (b) When the offense is committed in the
presence of the arresting officer; (c) When the person is found and the arrest is made in a
public place or a place that is open to the public and: (1) There is a warrant of arrest against
the person; and (2) The misdemeanor is discovered because there was probable cause for the
arresting officer to stop, detain or arrest the person for another alleged violation or offense;
(d) When the offense is committed in the presence of a private person and the person makes
an arrest immediately after the offense is committed; (e) When the offense charged is battery
that constitutes domestic violence pursuant to NRS 33.018 and the arrest is made in the
manner provided in NRS 171.137; (f) When the offense charged is a violation of a temporary
or extended order for protection against domestic violence issued pursuant to NRS 33.017 to
33.100, inclusive; (g) When the person is already in custody as a result of another lawful
arrest; or (h) When the person voluntarily surrenders himself or herself in response to an
outstanding warrant of arrest. Sincerely, Zach Coughlin":
) Which is obviously prior to the August 13 and 17th, 2012 propounding of the discs of 911
calls in rcr2012-065630)
16
Watts let's go back to December 12. You said you had received an e-mail from Mr. Coughlin
did you have any other interaction with Mr. Coughlin on December 12, 2012.
17
Leslie: yes. Later that day he came to the office.
18
Watts: for what purpose?
19
Leslie: well, no clear purpose that I can discern (NOTE: really Jim, for no clear purpose
that you can discern the the 12 1212 e-mails harping on your failure to turn over the two 911
discovery discs propounded in mid August and Coughlin's reference to such in the lobby to
verbally and in writing you in no which seems to of disappeared as the Washoe County
public defender never did provide Coughlin with those discs but rather Washoe County Dist.
Atty. young had to provide another copy. This is amongst Leslie's biggest prevarications that
he couldn't discern just what it was Coughlin was seeking that day when he appeared in the
public defenders lobby 8:57 AM,) but he showed up unannounced and I was notified by the
front desk that he was there and I was asked to come up and see him.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Watts: and did you do that?

Leslie: I did. I first got Mr. Novak. He is our chief investigator and I asked Mr. Novak to
accompany me because basically at the office level. We had decided that it's best not to meet
with Mr. Coughlin along.
-
Watts: how come?
Leslie: safety concerns and additionally the concern that he would and I regret saying this but
the concern based on experience that he might fabricate what had transpired in any
conversation. (NOTE: Leslie can rest assured there is means to make sure that no one
fabricated anything with regard to what transpired in the conversations between Leslie and
Coughlin and the Washoe County public defenders office and that won't require relying upon
the testimony of the various investigators, including Evo Novak and Larry Carlson that Leslie
arrange to have come the his witness with Carlson admitting he knew nothing of Coughlin's
cases during the August 21, 2012 meeting Coughlin had with he and Leslie, but simply that
Carlson was there to be Leslie's witness much as Novak admitted to during this December 12
interaction with Coughlin in the lobby. Additionally, Dogan and good night. At times insisted
on speaking to Coughlin jointly on the phone sort of tag teaming activity by the public
defenders offices interesting, notice the "concerns for the personal safety is only broache with
a leading question and well after Leslie relays his concerns regardin his alleged fear that
Coughlin would "fabricate what transpired" in their meetings")
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Watts: did you have any concerns for your personal safety.
14
Leslie: yes and the general sense and that's part of why I agreed to have Mr. Novak go up
with me (NOTE: suuuuuure, Jim, you "agreed" to have Novak accompany you, uh-huh,
right....8:58:27 am)
15
Watts: can you relay what happened when you wind up and met Mr. Coughlin.
16
Leslie: well, I summarized it in the exhibits but basically I got out there he was sitting in our
lobby outside the elevators. Mr. Novak and I walked up to him and stood a few feet away
from him. I said what do you want Zach and he muttered something....(NOTE: here Leslie
pauses because he realizes that he has a problem where he earlier testified that he couldn't
discern the reason for Coughlin's visits the lobby that day with the reality that he is now
likely stock with the no Coughlin handed him which was in writing seeking such discovery
please also stuck with Coughlin's asking for such and the e-mail of earlier that day December
12, 2012)... He, um.... And I basically said I don't have anything really to discuss with you
unless you put it in an e-mail and By the Way, Mr. Coughlin. We are going to be conflicted
off your remaining cases. He became agitated and up said and I said it's probably time for
you to leave and he said he didn't want to leave. 8:59 AM
13
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Watts: did you do anything in response to him, saying he didn't want to leave?
Leslie: well, he said I'm writing a note so I don't have to leave or something to that effect.
And I said well what's the note about and he kind of slammed his hand on the note and said
none of your God damn business and stood up and took a step towards me. I didn't think he
was gonna do anything but at that point he was not agreeing to leave. He was becoming
verbally aggressive and so I turned to Paula at the front desk and I said call the police and so
she shut the door and went ahead and call the police.
-
Watts: did Mr. Coughlin never hand you the note.
Leslie: not really. He said I have a note here and he was going to give it to the front desk. I
am assuming he saw that she had slid the door shut, or the glass shut and and then he held it
out to me and as I described it just got very strange. I reached out for it and he pulled it back
and I pulled my hand back and then he put it back out there again and we played this sort of
odd little back-and-forth game and I kind of said are you going to give it to me or not, and he
either handed it to me or at one point he threw it on the ground. I'm not sure.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Watts: and did that little interaction with him where he's handing the paper and pulling it
back and then handing it to you in pulling it back. Did that cause you concern for your
personal safety?
Leslie: a little bit, yeah.
Watts: can you explain why?
Leslie well, I thought two things because it took a couple or few seconds for it to occur. And
I thought, and this was speculation on my part but I thought and my been suckered into upon
chair in my being drawn in and that didn't happen but the other concern I had was our hands
were going back and forth and we were standing at one point maybe 18 inches apart from
each other well within the arms reach, and I thought we are going to slap hands against each
other or something and one of us is gonna take that the wrong way and act defensively or
something and I thought this is really a risk that this is gonna get physical. And that's when I
kind of, I think I stopped putting my hand out and maybe that's when he put the note on the
ground.
(Note it is noticeable. The similarity between both Leslie in King and that they both have
extremely guilty consciences and just assumed that someone is going to violently physically
attack them at any moment. Perhaps that says something about our legal system where rather
than to make Leslie and King out to be cartoon villains one might need to consider whether
they operate in settings where they are overwhelmed by the power of those dominating the
setting such as the District Attorney's Office or the judges whom in Coughlin's disciplinary
matter seemed to of been doing quite a bit of voodoo behind-the-scenes and who are Leslie or
King to attempt to operate independently of those monolithic influences and clearly they
normally do not need to as most attorneys cave into the big me a call, but whether they're
guilty or not and certainly most indigent criminal defendants provide far less of a likelihood
that anyone will go to anywhere near the lengths and with anywhere near the skill that
Coughlin has to expose the fraudulent practices of the Washoe County public defenders
office and the State Bar of Nevada and others involved in the situation as well).
26
27
Watts: and then did he leave at that point.
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
Leslie: I was telling him throughout this you need to leave and we hit that elevator button and
we were waiting for that. And as the elevator was coming up. He was agreeing to leave at
that point but he was still being kind of confrontational.
Watts: how was he being confrontational?
Leslie: well, he was. He kept saying I'm chipping at you. I'm chipping at you.
Watts: what did you understand that to mean?
10
Leslie: I was in 100% sure what he meant but I took it to mean I'm annoying you. I'm
bugging you, I'm messing with you, essentially those are my words and he said see I'm
chipping at you. I'm chipping at you and as the elevator doors open I said here we go. Zach,
time for you to leave and he got in and then as the doors were beginning to close. He kind of
jabbed his finger at me and said Chip chip chip chip and I said okay (laughing) goodbye and
that was basically the end of that.
11
Watts and you indicated did you have the staff call 911.
12
Leslie yes.
13
Watts in what was the extent of that. Did any police arrive
14
Leslie yes two RPD's arrived shortly. Mr. Coughlin, left they came up. I relate them what had
happened in very condensed form and they said they would check the building and then they
left." (9:02 AM)
7
8
9
15
16
17
18
19
20
Compare Leslie's account to what was actually said, verbatim during that interaction
in the WCPD lobby between Leslie Novak and Coughlin on December 12.
Leslie Hey, Zach.
21
Coughlin hello Mr. Leslie how are you doing today? Good day Mr. Novak how are you
doing?
22
Novak okay.
23
Coughlin did you I'm sorry I didn't hear what tiy said.
24
Leslie I said what do you need.
25
26
27
28
Coughlin oh I need the discovery discs of what was propounded on 8/13 and 8/17.
Leslie put it in writing and I will respond. Send me an e-mail.
Coughlin I did. Earlier today.

-
Leslie send me an e-mail.
Coughlin (to Inspector Novak): are you just here to be a witness?
Leslie: Yes.
Novak: I just came out here to say hi
Coughlin Oh, hey, how are you doing?
6
7
8
9
10
11
Leslie: Anything else? (1:17 mark)

Coughlin: okay, are we going to do any prep for 067980?
Leslie: I am you to ask to be relieved.
Coghlan: from what?
Leslie: from you.
12
Coghlan: from what?
13
Leslie: Uh... If you have something that you need put it in writing, Mr. Coughlin, alright.
14
Coughlin okay.
15
Leslie, go ahead and leave.
16
Coghlan: well, I am just finishing up my note here.
17
Leslie: what are you writing?
18
Coughlin: None of your god damn business, Jim.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Leslie: Alright, Beverly, call the police.

Coughlin: Scrappy-Doo at work! (Coughlin stands up to leave from his seat ten feet in front
of the 5th floor elevator one must use to get to the WCPD's offices and presses the button to
summon the elevator to take him downstairs)
Coughlin: what did you say Jim? (clearly, at this point Coughlin again presses the elevator
summoning button)
Leslie we are calling the police on you,
Coughlin: here is this Jim this is in writing I'm going to give it to your people.
Leslie: drop it.
Coughlin okay, I'm going to give it to her.
-
Leslie: put it on the counter and get out.
Coughlin: here you go, Jim. (Coughlin holding out note to Leslie, fearful of venturing into
the physical space of the WCPD's Office given Leslie is already told him to leave and that
he's calling the police on Coughlin and where Leslie had told Coughlin, whom was standing
in front of the elevator waiting for it to arrive to quote dropped the note presumably on the
floor upon which Coughlin was standing which arguably is not under the exclusive control
the Washoe County public defenders office as far as Coughlin at that time and would
therefore be given the old Washoe County Sheriff Reno justice court bailiff Reno Municipal
Court marshal treatment where Coughlin's the documents. Coughlin submits for filing are
characterized as trash and thrown away rather than filed. See the may 23rd 2013 arrest and
reports these are the bailiff Ramsey's conduct on may 22nd 2013 and other dates (and Bailiff
Hiebert, Medina, Reyes and Sexton's recapitulation, which also took place with RMC
Marshal Scott Coppa on numerous occasions (and Coppa, Moser and Harley all need to sign
NRS 22.030(2) affidavits incident to Judge Holmes 2/28/12 and 3/12/12 Orders in 11 TR
26800 purporting to find Coughlin in contempt, summarily, incident to allegations of conduct
occurring outside the immediate view and presence of Judge Holmes (similar to the NRS
22.030(2) affidavit requirement avoiding practice by Judge Pearson in referencing numerous
unnamed bailiffs or clerks in his 2/25/13 Order to Show Cause in the "Administrative Order"
that he alternately (case numbers as musical chairs tactice makes it rather hard to defend
against, bravo, Judge Pearson) shoehorned into its own caption, then RCR2012-065630
(making Lindsay's no show on 3/19/13 trial in that case sanctionable, as Lindsay can
"appear" in ways other than some inappropriate Rule 2.13 direct administrative appointment
by he whom Lindsay refereed to as "Dave" in explaining to Coughlin how much "Dave" does
not like Coughlin and therefore that whole global resolution that Lindsay indicated had been
agreed to an approved by both the WCDA and both Judges Pearson and Clifton was a no go
as to RCR2012-065630 (sort of a high will sell you this car at this price with all these extra
add-ons except for the fact that you won't get any the add-ons after you paid us the price
(allegedly, Coughlin maintains that he did not agree to an Consent ORder obviating the
requirement that the RJC prove his guilt as to the bullying 2/25/13 Order to show cause in the
'Administrative Order" matter that Lindsay apparent (ol 401K) got paid for in appearing at
the combo-hearing (everything has been a "combo-hearing" for Coughlin in the RJC the last
two years as the WCDA, RJC, WCPD, and Lindsay are constantly trying to get the most
bang for their buck of time, due process and prejudice to Coughlins' defense be damned, its
pathetic really what they do...ultimately, on 3/14/13 Judge Pearson had that 12/20/12
Administrative Order opened as a "new case" given the criminal case number RCR2013071437, which is the Order upon which Chris Hick's 5/30/13 Criminal Complaint stemming
from the attack on Coughlin by Bailiff Reyes on 5/23/13 flows) references as "a previous
court order" that Reyes alleged command to Coughlin of 5/23/13 was premised, and or
Coughlin's alleged infraction of such order provided sufficient justification for Reyes to go
berzerker on Coughlin).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and the WCSO Deputy Greg Herrera (wherein the coordinated harassment of Coughlin by
the RMC, RJC, Olympkin Security, and RJC is discussed and gameplanned, in addition to
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the threat Deputy Meyers had made to Coughlin in front of the family court elevators on the
third floor the same day Deputy Stroup had followed Coughlin up to the family court, and
right outside the CAAW run TPO office (see 60302, 60317, DV08-00168, FV09-00866 J.
Uribe v. Karina Valdez and the docket entry showing WLS breckenridge gathering the
recording of Coughlin's working therin at the 3/12/09 TPO hearing representing a male
victim of domestic violence, gathered per the docket therein by Brecknridge on 4/10/09,
where the fhe3 from Coughlin's 11/14/12 formal disciplinary hearing (see 62337) was not
entered until 4/13/09 (see Breckenridges and WLS Exec. Directors insconsistent and pretextual, judicial prestige of 2JDC L. Gardner impermissible leverage incident to Coughlin's
firing and the closeting of the J. Uribe matter wherein CAAW run TPO Office advocate
"Roxy" complained about Coughlin's work therein, as may have Master Edmondson (whom
is listed as bff's with Judge Linda Gardner in some interview Judge L. Gardner did for a
Nevada publication related to women in business or something along those lines, then
compare Master Edmondson granting an incredibly suspect dv TPO to Coughlin's former
domestic Partner Melissa Ulloa shortly after the RJC Bailiff Reyes attack resulting in
Coughlin's incarceration. Further, whilst its promising to not be dealing entirely with former
prosecutors turned jduges anymore incident to Judge Hardy moving all of Coughlin's case to
Judge Stiglich (Judge Sattler failed to recuse himself from CV11-01955 despite sitting on
WLS's board, and it must be a record in that case where his predecessor sat on the other codefendant's board (Judge Elliott on CAAWs) where neither of them mentioned that or
recused themselves, but Elliott did manage to pull out every trick in the book to grant a
dismissal not on the merits only to then award attorney's fees that are only allowable if a case
gets to the merits...huh? Judge Elliott's summary incarceration of then practicing attorney
Coughlin on 4/19/12 in CR12-0376 is a very shameful thing, indeed, one for which he shoudl
face plenty of Rule 2.15 consternation an "appropiate action"). E-mail that was forcefully
ripped out of Coughlin's hands some time in May 2011 after it had been voluntarily given to
Coughlin by the Olympic security team incident to Coughlin squaring them as to whether
they were ordering him to do one or thing or another. Given the extent to which both the
Washoe County District Attorney's Office and the Sheriff were constantly playing little
games with the administrative order that Coughlin was subject to the two different ones one
being that of January 16, 2013 by the Reno Municipal Court which was nothing but a
verbatim reproduction of the December 20, 2012 administrative order by then chief judge
Sferrazza, which was subsequently ratified by now Chief Judge Pearson's 2/25/12 (back then
the caption lack a true case number, but subsequently, on 3/14/13, after the fraudulently sham
of a combo hearing of the various baseless ORders to Show Cause/allegations of probation
violation that the 3/11/13 hearing was (old 401K himself, R. Bruce Linsday, Esq. was only
given permission by Coughlin to appear as co-counsel on the RCR2011-063341 probation
violation allegation matter, and not to appear at all on the Administrative Order (which Judge
Pearson alterantely shoehorned into RCR2012-065630, as the NRS 4.240 docket entry shows
a 3/5/13 Order to Show Cause hearing (which represented to one ultimately held on 3/11/13,
as Judge Pearson did indicated on the record on 3/5/13 that he was moving the
Administrative Order's 2/25/13 Order to Show cause into the "iphone case" of RCR2011063341 (despite that vitiated any notice, opprotunity to be heard or other due process
-
14
trimmings required (and Coughlin asserted that he was not waiving any such rights thereto
and that he was not agreeing to anything other than a co-counsel arrangement with Leslie
merely to the portion of rcr2011-063341 that related to the contempt or probation violation
allegation that formed the basis for the 2/1/13 warrantless arrest of Coughlin in his home by
DAS Officer Ramos and Wickmon in violation of NRS 171.136, at 7:02 pm where they
ordered Coughlin to exit his home upon Coughlin inquiring if he was required to...furthter,
the 2/25/13 Order to Show Cause for the "Administrative Order 2012-01 In the Matter of
Zachary Coughlin (which lies in alleging Coughlin had been "admonished" previously by
"Judge Pearson" when clearly, such was not the cases, and there is absolutely no record of
that, but one thing that is clear is that in the RJC extrajudicial communications between
Sferrazza Clifton Pearson and Schrader have greatly prejudice Coughlin's defense and a
variety of landlord tenant matters and criminal matters, including those extrajudicial
communications between Pearson and Clifton on February 5, 2013, and between Clifton and
Sferrazza incident to Coughlin submissions of November 15, 2013, wherein the discs
Coughlin attached to filings before both judges conveniently turned up missing despite the
fact that RJC clerk Robbin Baker headed dated they were there when Coughlin submitted
those filings when Coughlin queried her about such on November 28, 2012 approximately
where bailiff LeMond and had remove those filings the filing office and walked out to the
center point between the RMC and the RJC and attempted to hand them back to Coughlin
after Coughlin had gone to serve those filings on the District Attorney's Office) order to
show cause that Ramsey served on Coughlin in the courthouse on February 28, 2012)
15
Leslie You are going to jail, you're going to jail.
16
Coughlin here you go, Jim. (Leslie dramatically holds his arms out resembling the underside
of an airplane, or some crucificion pose, as if to demonstrate how thoroughly he is refusing to
accept the written request Coughlin is attempting to hand him where Coughlin is posting up
by the elevator's entrance, anxiously waiting for the elevator to arrive so he can avoid going
to jail, as Leslie is now gleefully exclaiming he will have occur. At this point. Coughlin is
desperate. He greatly wants to affect the legal consequences upon the Washoe County public
defenders office of Coughlin, providing yet another written request first discovery one
delivered by a personal service rather than e-mail or fax which Coughlin was fearful may not
satisfy some technical rule where his personal service typically does with Coughlin,
considering the further delay that would be inherent to attempting to affect constructive
service by mailing on the Washoe County public defenders office Coughlin decides against
dropping the note on the lobby floor as he figures Leslie will leverage that to argue that
Coughlin failed to serve any such written notice on the Washoe County public defenders
office and thereafter Coughlin despite his fearfulness (after all Leslie had previously directed
Coughlin to drop it. With respect to the note only to then thereafter direct Coughlin to put it
on the counter and get out meaning Leslie a given Coughlin to conflicting directives leaving
Coughlin with a set of circumstances where no matter what he did Leslie would say Coughlin
failed to follow his directive) of setting foot in Washoe County public defenders office does
venture into their entryway and sets his written request for the discs of discovery propounded
by the Washoe County District Attorney's Office to the Washoe County public defender on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-
1
2
3
August 13 and 17th 2012 onto the sort of ledge or desk window where she was behind the
closed glass and then Coughlin immediately walks to the elevator).
Leslie
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ote it is professional misconduct for both Watts the Al whom is now trying to recharacterized
Leslie's application for the Apple case and wants the out file for Leslie on 1218 12 as
something Leslie filed rather than what the out given the tenuous situation Washoe County
District Attorney's Office is and in that it now has yet one more amongst a multitude of
reasons for while why it should be conflicted out of prosecuting Coughlin especially where
Coughlin's filed numerous motions previous two that point including one of 12/3/12 in the
case in which Leslie was able to obtain an unnoticed to Coughlin emergency hearing on
12/18/12. Leslie has lied about his iAnd I basically said I don't have anything discuss with
you Mr. Coughlin unless you put it in an e-mail and By the Way, Mr. Coughlin were going to
be conflict it off your remaining cases he became mpetus for seeking to be removed as
counsel. As at this January 4 extension hearing Leslie indicated it was in response to the
December 12, 2012 e-mail when in fact when Coughlin appeared in the Washoe County
public defenders lobby on that date requesting the discovery that Leslie had refused to
provide him which consisted to different discs the Washoe County district's attorney's office
had propounded on August 13 and August 17, 2012 that were of material relevant to
Coughlin's defense in the misuse of 911 case in 065630 which had just had a trial date the
date for as detailed in the December 12, 2012 e-mail of course no one not judge Pearson not
Watts the Al not Leslie not the State Bar of Nevada wants to talk about the import or content
of Coughlin's December 12 e-mail or the flagrant misconduct that is events therein by Jim
Leslie purposefully and willfully refusing to turn over Coughlin the discovery Jim Leslie is
stuck with the fact that he is alleging he attempted to turn over discovery Coghlan which gets
into even more convoluted set of circumstances the short synopsis of which is that Leslie and
Dogan constantly flip-flopped their story as to whether they did or did not turn over
discovery Coghlan whether Coughlin said or did not pick it up as a June 27, 2012 regardless
that's irrelevant given the propounding of the two discs Coughlin sought on December 12
were by the Washoe County Dist. Atty.'s office his own admission propounded to the
Washoe County public defender in 065630 on August 13 and August 17, 2012 course
Coughlin e-mail field details that an incredibly reprehensible extent to which Leslie and what
is apparent lease some overcompensating for his lack of height, and the neuroses in that
regard which manifests itself in Jim ed, where a trial court enters judgment without
jurisdiction, the judgment is void and the appellate court acquires jurisdiction only to
determine the invalidity of the judgment and to dismiss the appeal.[FN6] However, the view
has been expressed that where a party alleges that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider
a cause of action, it is the duty of the appellate court to examine the case and determine
whether the allegation is meritorious, and if the appellate court finds that the trial court did
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
lack jurisdiction, the appellate court may be required to vacate the trial court's judgment with
regard to the cause of action but is not required to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
before the appellate court. FN7. [FN5] Allen v. Day, 213 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006),
appeal denied, (Dec. 27, 2006); Kerr v. Harris County, 177 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. App. Houston
1st Dist. 2005). [FN6] Richardson v. Jallen Investment Group, Inc., 140 S.W.3d 112 (Mo. Ct.
App. E.D. 2004). [FN7] Brown v. Duncan, 361 Ill. App. 3D 125, 296 Ill. Dec. 663, 836
N.E.2d 78, 202 Ed. Law Rep. 735 (1st Dist. 2005)." 5 AMJUR Appellate Review 2d 807.
Lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Ala.,2009. Williamson v. Fourth Ave. Supermarket, Inc. 12 So.3d 1200:'"[1] On
questions of subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court is not limited by the parties' arguments or
by the legal conclusions of the trial and intermediate appellate courts regarding the existence
of jurisdiction. Rather, we are obligated to dismiss an appeal if, for any reason, jurisdiction
does not exist. See Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983) (Lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to
consider lack of subject-matter jurisdiction ex mero motu. (citing City of Huntsville v.
Miller, 271 Ala. 687, 688, 127 So.2d 606, 608 (1958))). Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Human
Res., 999 So.2d 891, 894-95 (Ala.2008).
Since when is seeking to enjoin the RJC from exceeding its jurisdiction to hold a criminal
trial where NRS 178.405's mandatory stay upon a fellow RJC department (where written
notice thereof was provided) requires staying "all proceedings" in all departments of the RJC
"until the question of competence is determined" so very confusing sufficient to justify
striking Coughlin's 4/2/13 Petition for Writ of Mandamus ("The document in question fails to
state a rational claim upon which the Court can rule. Further, the document does not direct
the Court to the factual and/or legal grounds upon which the document should be considered.
Indeed, the Court is unclear what is being sought by way of the filing of the document.")?
Page 1 of Coughlin's 4/2/13 Emergency Petition for Writ seems to plainly state " a rational
claim upon which the Court can rule" and "directs the Court the the factual an legal grounds
upon which the document should be considered" where it reads: "moves this Court for a Writ
requiring the RJC to stay all proceedings in the RJC prosecuting Coughlin and abide by
Judge Pearson's 2/5/13 Order For Competency Evaluation in RCR2011-063341 and vacate
whatever Order "Sua Sponte" "Amending" such order, which was only made in violation of
NRS 178.405,upon DDA Young and Judge Clifton encouraging Judge Pearson to violate
NRS 178.405, which in itself is a violation, and Judge Pearson refused to/failed to rebut the
inference made by the questions Coughlin asked him directed to whether he decision to
suddenly reconsider his Order for Competency Evaluation an hour before was the result of
any prompting from DDA Young or Judge Clifton and whether he and Judge Clifton
discussed Coughlin in any way during the recess Judge Clifton ordered upon being presented,
in a copy of the 2/5/13 Order for Competency Evaluation entered by Judge Pearson an hour
before the continuation of the trial in rcr12-065630 before Judge Clifton..."
Coughlin's 4/2/13 Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus is hardly unclear in its desire
to have the criminal trial Judge Clifton sought to forge forward with despite the mandatory
stay required by NRS 178.405 upon Judge Pearson's entering an Order For Competency
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Evaluation on 2/5/13 just prior to the continuation of the trial before Judge Clifton minutes
later.
Some related judicial excesses vis a vis NRS 178.405 in Nevada:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZFUBwgZGzE
We have considered some issues related to competency hearings where an "important legal
issue needs clarification." Sims v. Dist. Ct., 125 Nev. 126, 129, 206 P.3d 980, 982 (2009).
See Fergusen, 124 Nev. At 805, 192 P.3d at 719; Calvin v. State, 122 Nev. 1178, 147 P.3d
1097 (2006); Morales v. State, 116 Nev. 19, 22, 922 P.2d 252, 254 (2000); NRS 178.405;
"NRS 178.405 Suspension of trial or pronouncement of judgment when doubt arises as to
competence of defendant... 1. Any time...if doubt arises as to the competence of the
defendant, the court shall suspend the proceedings, the trial or the pronouncing of the
judgment, as the case may be, until the question of competence is determined.
2. If the proceedings, the trial or the pronouncing of the judgment are suspended, the
court must notify any other departments of the court of the suspension in writing.
Upon receiving such notice, the other departments of the court shall suspend any
other proceedings relating to the defendant until the defendant is determined to be
competent."
Judge Sattler's 4/3/13 Order striking Coughlin's 4/2/13 Emergency Petition for Writ of
Mandamus seeking to enjoin the RJC from holding a trial in violation of NRS 178.405 reads:
"ORDER Case No. CR13-0552 Dept. No. 10 The Court is in receipt of an "Emergency
Petition for Writ of Mandamus and IPF MOTION and Declaration of Poverty" (hereinafter,
''the document")(emphasis and varying font in the original) file stamped April 2, 2013. The
document in question fails to state a rational claim upon which the Court can rule.
Further, the document does not direct the Court to the factual and/or legal grounds upon
which the document should be considered. Indeed, the Court is unclear what is being
sought by way of the filing of the document. The document fails to follow numerous
applicable District Court Rules (hereinafter, "D.C.R.") and local rules (hereinafter,
"WDCR"). See generally, D.C.R. 12, D.C.R. 13, WDCR 10, and WDCR 12. But see, WDCR
18 (the Court does not believe that WDCR 18 authorizes the complete abandonment of all
of the other rules in criminal matters). D.C.R. 5 states in full: These rules shall be liberally
construed to secure the proper and efficient administration of the business and affairs of the
court and to promote and facilitate the administration of justice by the court. These rules
cover the practice and procedure in all actions in the district courts of all districts where no
local rule covering the same subject has been approved by the supreme court. Local rules
which are approved for a particular judicial district shall be applied in each instance
whether they are the same as or inconsistent with these rules. It is the Court's conclusion
that the document is in violation of D.C.R. 5. The Court also finds that the petitioner has
failed to qualify to represent himself pursuant to S.C.R. 253. See also, Faretta v. California,
422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525 (1975), Hooks v. State, 124 Nev. 48 (2008) and Wayne v. State,
100 Nev. 582 (1984). The canvass required pursuant to S.C.R 253(1) is mandatory in every
case where a defendant appears in district court and chooses self representation. For all of the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
foregoing reasons it is hereby ORDERED that the document is stricken and the Court shall
take no further action on the document.. Dated this 3rd day of April 2013. /s/ Judge Sattler".
Chief Justice Pickering's Order of 5/14/13 reads: "ORDER REDESIGNATING APPEAL
This is an appeal from a district court order entered on April 3, 2013. This appeal was
inadvertently docketed in this court as a fast track appeal subject to the provisions of NRAP
3C. Because appellant is representing himself in this appeal, this appeal should have been
docketed as a proper person appeal. The parties shall disregard the briefing notices issued by
this court on April 18, 2013. Hereafter, this appeal shall proceed as a proper person appeal. It
is so ORDERED."
1. Coughlin moved for an received an Order for Competency Evaluation from Chief Judge
Pearson in RCR11-063341 on 2/5/13 at 8:30 am. After that hearing on an Order to Show
Cause
Coughlin was arrested on May 23rd, 2013 by the same RJC and its Bailiffs that he is
appealing the Order of 4/13/13 Order Striking his Petition for Writ of Mandamus (the 2JDC's
former WCDA's Office former coworker of now Judge Clifton struck Coughlin's 4/2/13
Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking to require RJC Judges Clifton and his former
coworker at the WCDA's Office, now RJC Chief Judge Pearson, from further violating NRS
178.405's mandatory stay incident (in all departments) to Judge Pearson's entering (and
Coughlin providing written notice thereof to Judge Clifton on 2/5/13) an Order for
Competency Evaluation of Coughlin in RCR2011-063341 on 2/5/13. So, minutes after
Coughlin filed a request for some documents and permission to review files with the RJC
(necessary to Coughlin's work in 61383, 62337, 61901, etc), the RJC's Bailiff Reyes attacked
Coughlin, resulting in his arrest the very day a Panel of this Court entered is 5/23/13 Order
Dismissing Appeal in this matter. Coughlin was incarcerated between 5/23/13 and 6/6/13
and herein submits this as soon as was reasonably possible given all the other matters which
Coughlin was denied any ability to make filings with regard to by the Washoe County Jail
during his incarceration, and those matters which required more immediate attention in the
intervening days since he bailed out on 6/6/13. This is an important case. There is way too
much striking of defendants/litigants filings in the RJC/RMC/2JDC (see D7 Judge Flanagan's
recent 5/29/13 Order Striking Coughlin's Emergency Amended Notice of Appeal in CV1103628...now on appeal in 61383 (see collateral consequnces in appeal of disbarment
recommendation in 62337), as well as Judge Nash Holmes striking Coughlin's Notices of
Appeal of her summary contempt Order in RMC 11 TR 26800 (ditto the consequences
thereof a major part of the 12/14/12 FOFCOL in 62337), and consider Judge Elliott's striking
a multitude of Coughlin's filings in CR12-2025 (see 62821) on his last day in office, not to
mention to legion of instances where judges in Washoe County have viewed responding to
Motions to Disqualify in accord with NRS 1.230, 1.235 as an optional or discretionary aspect
of being a judge....Now consider 2JDC Chief Judge Hardy's very recent 6/11/13 Order in a
vast number of cases wherein Coughlin is a party transferring those matters to one
department, D8, Judge Stiglich.
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Further, the circumstances of CR13-0552 and Judge Sattler's sitting on Washoe Legal
Services Board (Judge Elliott's failure to disclose sitting on CAAW's Board) and the fact that
WLS and CAAW are co-defendants against Coughlin in CV11-01955 all add up to not
adding up. Add to all this the numerous instances of judges in Washoe County refusing to
allow Coughlin to self represent or appear as co-counsel (much less issue his own subpoenas,
or, to even have the court issue him blanks) in the various criminal prosecutions he has been
abused by since August 2011, even during times when Coughlin's law license in Nevada was
not suspended, and where he filed the appropriate Notice of Appearance, Substitution of
Counsel, etc. (somehow these judges simultaneously declared Coughlin unfit to represent
himself, yet fit to stand try, or otherwise denied Coughlin's Motion for Order for Competency
Evaluation of transfer to Mental Health Court (never mind the fact that Coughlin was
summarily removed from Mental Health Court with zero notice or opportunity to be heard as
to a dubious contention that such was appropriate on the basis of Coughlin asking the MHC
whether it was seeking to summarily remove him for his taking a medication which the
program materials/contract indicated Coughlin would be permitted to take (nevermind the
fact that the 6/25/12 atty fee award the SBN is fraudulently seeking to hold out as a sanction
justifying an application of some SCR 111(5) "conclusive proof" of various RPC violations
stems from a 4/19/12 post-judgment Motion for Sanctions in CV11-03628 (see 61383) that
Coughlin was prevented from further opposing as a result of an extremely dubious summary
incarceration of 8 days by Judge Elliott for asking a HIPAA question, only to be deprived of
his medications by the Washoe County Jail, then release to the WCPD and WCDA's Office
continuing their hitting streak as to violating the mandatory stay under NRS 178.405 on
5/7/12 where they attempted to hold a trial in RCR2011-063341 (despite the remand from
CR12-0376 not occuring until 5/23/12) on 5/7/12, the very day the Opposition to such
4/19/12 Motion for Atty Fee Sanction was do in 03628...Nevermind the fact that in the
interim the RJC made Coughlin move mountains just to retrieve some of his belongings from
an landlord who fraudulently and illegally locked him out in Coughlin v Nichols....Rev12075658.
Oh, then there is the wrongful summary eviction of 3/15/12 in Rev12-374, Northwinds v
Coughlin were the jurisdictional prereq of the landlord actually filing an unlawful detainer
affidavit before a hearing being held, much less before getting a summary eviction order by
default (despite Coughlin's filing a Tenant's Answer on 3/8/12 and RPC 3.5A making it a no
no for Gayle Kern, Esq. To smugly smile at Coughlin as she walked out with her lockout
order where Coughlin was allegedly a minute or two late to the 3/15/12 8:30 am
hearing...resulting in the WCSO racing over to Coughlin's former home law office at 1422 E.
9th St. #2 89512 to continue their assault on the requirement that all laws in Nevada apply
evenly to all counties (like NRS 40.253's 24 hour post and wait requirement as to lockout
orders, requiring the WCSO to post such a lockout order and wait 24 hours before breaking
in to a tenant's rental and subjecting said tenant to the vagaries of the way in which the RJC
handles NRS 118A.460 scenarios. Which became key in the disbarment case vis a vis NVB
Judge Beesley's testimony of 11/14/12 (nevermind that the SBN carefully avoided disclosing
his testimony in the DowSoe, waiting until one day before the 11/14/12 hearing, without
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
offering any excuse for such a failure to timely comply with SCR 105(2)(c) (especially where
the SBN had been well aware of all of the circumstances to which Judge Beesley testified for
six months and completely failed to notice-plead such in its 8/23/12 Complaint
whatsoever...), wherein Judge Beesley testified as to Coughlins' "competency" or "fitness" in
light of Coughlins' presentation in the NVB in 10-05104 Cadle Co. v. Keller at 2:30 pm, just
minutes after Coughlin was accorded only a few minutes by the WCSO to grab what he may
incident to their illegal lockout of him from his former home law office on 3/15/12 based
upon a 24 hour lockout order that had issued only hours before, in violation of NRS
40.253(5)-(6) and RPC 3.5A.
Beyond the ordinary vicissitudes in the practice of law (and, being an indigent non-attorney
(according the WCDA DDA Watts 11/13/12 faxed objection to Coughlin's SCR 110
subpoenas, which he was expressly informed he was authorized to issue on his own, which
he did, then had served appropriately by a non-paty on 2JDC Judges and personnel, and Asst.
Bar Counsel King regularly taunted Coughlin regarding not being an attorney...except
RMC Judge W. Gardner, RJC Judge Clifton, Sferrazza, etc. all refused to allow Coughlin to
appear on his own behalf, or as co-counsel, even while Coughlin was license in Nevada, and
where he filed Substitutions of Counsel, Notices of Appearances and Authorizationl
2. In of of his final orders before retiring, Judge Steven Elliott ented and Order on 1/9/13
granting Coughlin's IFP request and ordering that the transcript for this matter (perhaps
including all of the trial court proceedings in RJC RCR2011-063341, the appeal thereof in
CR12-1262, and now this 62821). The RJC failed to comply with Judge Elliott's Order,
and, as far as is known, continues to.
The Panel's 5/23/13 Order Dismissing Appeal in 63041 (appeal of 4/3/13 Order by
Judge Sattler Striking Coughlin's 4/2/13 Petition for Writ of Mandamus, now even more
suspect in light of 6/11/13 Chief Judge Hardy's transferring all of Coughlin's cases to
Department 8, Judge Stiglich, and Sattler's failure to divulge and or recuse himself from
CV11-01955 where he sits on the Board of Directors of Washoe Legal Services and
Coughlin is suing WLS for wrongful termination therein), reads: "Order Dismissing Appeal
This is a proper person appeal from an order striking an emergency petition for a writ of
mandamus. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Elliott A. Sattler, II, Judge.
Because no statute or court rule permits an appeal from an order striking a petition, we lack
jurisdiction. Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly,
we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED."
b. Particular Grounds for Dismissal 4 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review Summary 807.
Lack of appellate jurisdiction West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest,
Appeal and Error k782, 792 West's Key Number Digest, Criminal Law k1131(4) West's Key
Number Digest, Federal Courts k725 Forms Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Appeal
and Error 757 (NoticeMotion to dismiss appealLack of service of proposed case) Am.
Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Appeal and Error 760 (AffidavitIn support of motion
to dismiss appealLack of service) Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Appeal and Error
764 (MotionTo dismiss appeal Improper party appellant) Am. Jur. Pleading and
Practice Forms, Appeal and Error 765 (MotionTo dismiss appeal Improper party
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
appellantLack of service) Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Appeal and Error 766
(MotionTo dismiss appeal Judgment appealed from not final) Am. Jur. Pleading and
Practice Forms, Appeal and Error 777 (OrderDismissing appeal Failure to serve
proposed case) An appellate court has a duty to consider its jurisdiction over an appeal and
dismiss the appeal if jurisdiction is lacking.[FN1] An appellate court must dismiss an appeal
even where the point is raised by neither party, being instead raised on the court's own
initiative or motion.[ FN2] A court's jurisdiction is never presumed, and if the record does not
affirmatively demonstrate the appellate court's jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed.
[FN3] An appeal failing to satisfy the jurisdictional minimum amount in controversy must
also be dismissed.[ FN4] If the trial court lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court has
jurisdiction only to vacate the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the cause.[FN5] Indeed,
where a trial court enters judgment without jurisdiction, the judgment is void and the
appellate court acquires jurisdiction only to determine the invalidity of the judgment and to
dismiss the appeal.[FN6] However, the view has been expressed that where a party alleges
that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a cause of action, it is the duty of the
appellate court to examine the case and determine whether the allegation is meritorious, and
if the appellate court finds that the trial court did lack jurisdiction, the appellate court may be
required to vacate the trial court's judgment with regard to the cause of action but is not
required to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction before the appellate court.[FN7] The
question whether an order or judgment is final for appeal purposes is a jurisdictional
question, and an appellate court, on a determination that the order or judgment is not final,
has a duty to dismiss the appeal,[FN8] and if the appellee has not moved for a dismissal, then
the court should dismiss the appeal on its own motion.[FN9] The failure to comply with the
rule requiring certification of final judgment in appealing from a summary judgment that
does not dispose of all the parties and claims deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction, and
the appeal will be dismissed.[FN10] An appellate court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant
whom the plaintiffs dismissed from litigation before trial, requiring dismissal of the appeal
pertaining to such defendant.[FN11] The United States Supreme Court may also dismiss an
appeal for lack of jurisdiction where the appellants lack authority to pursue the appeal as
individuals and are no longer parties to the action.[FN12] Observation: Where an
intermediate appeal is dismissed because a final judgment has been entered, the issues in the
intermediate appeal may be considered on the appeal from the final judgment.[ FN13]
CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases: When it is determined that an order appealed from is
not a final judgment, it is the duty of the appellate court to dismiss the appeal ex mero motu.
Ex parte Green, 58 So. 3d 135 (Ala. 2010). Since a void judgment will not support an appeal,
it follows that the appeal is due to be dismissed. Pierce v. American General Finance, Inc.,
991 So. 2d 212 (Ala. 2008). A dismissal on the merits cannot be affirmed on appeal if the
trial court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action; instead, the
judgment of dismissal must be vacated. Lockwood v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton,
173 Cal. App. 4th 675, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 220 (2d Dist. 2009). Although inventor brought his
action against attorney and law firm in state court, he was entitled to challenge state court's
subject matter jurisdiction over action on appeal, claiming that the matter was within the
exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts; inventor's case was dismissed on the merits, and thus,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
if he was correct that his claims should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, he was
prejudiced by the dismissal on the merits due to the res judicata effect such a dismissal had,
and the appellate court would have to vacate that dismissal. Lockwood v. Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton, 173 Cal. App. 4th 675, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 220 (2d Dist. 2009). The
appellate court has a duty to dismiss, even on its own initiative, any appeal that it lacks
jurisdiction to hear. Lewis v. Slack, 110 Conn. App. 641, 955 A.2d 620 (2008), certification
denied, 289 Conn. 953, 961 A.2d 417 (2008). If an appellate court does not have jurisdiction,
it has a duty to dismiss an appeal. Williams v. Lawton, 288 Kan. 768, 207 P.3d 1027 (2009).
An appellate court has a duty to question jurisdiction on its own initiative. State v. Johnson,
286 Kan. 824, 190 P.3d 207 (2008). If the record shows there is no jurisdiction for the
appeal, the appeal must be dismissed, and to make this determination, appellate courts must
examine the governing statutes because the right to appeal is statutory; neither the United
States nor Kansas Constitutions grant such a right. State v. Johnson, 286 Kan. 824, 190 P.3d
207 (2008). The right to appeal is purely statutory, and an appellate court has a duty to
question jurisdiction on its own initiative. State v. Scoville, 286 Kan. 800, 188 P.3d 959
(2008). If the record reveals that jurisdiction does not exist, an appeal must be dismissed.
State v. Scoville, 286 Kan. 800, 188 P.3d 959 (2008). Whether an appeal is subject to
dismissal because the decision appealed from is advisory in nature may be raised by the
Court on its own motion. Farrell v. City of Auburn, 2010 ME 88, 3 A.3d 385 (Me. 2010).
Motion by health care providers to seal documents shielded by protective order in the event
that Court of Appeals determined review of order was warranted would be dismissed as moot
on patient's appeal from judgment for providers in negligence action, where Court of Appeals
determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review protective order. Yorke v. Novant Health,
Inc., 666 S.E.2d 127 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008). The Supreme Court generally dismisses an appeal
as of right only when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the appeal, the
appeal is barred by statute, or the appeal has been rendered moot. Rosen v. Celebrezze, 117
Ohio St. 3d 241, 2008-Ohio-853, 883 N.E.2d 420 (2008). Landowner could not cure
jurisdictional defect in his negligence claims against Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
(TPWD) and TPWD employees, and thus claims would be dismissed on appeal, rather than
remanded to allow landowner to amend, given finding that landowner's allegations, arising
from damage to premises leased to TPWD for boat storage, did not relate to the active use or
operation of a motor vehicle or motor-driven equipment, as would support a finding of
waiver of sovereign immunity, but to the condition of state property. Texas Parks and
Wildlife Dept. v. E.E. Lowrey Realty, Ltd., 235 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2007). An appellate court
lacks jurisdiction over an appeal that is not taken from a final order or judgment; in such
circumstances, the appellate court must refuse to decide those cases not properly before it.
DFI Properties LLC v. GR 2 Enterprises LLC, 2010 UT 61, 242 P.3d 781 (Utah 2010). [END
OF SUPPLEMENT] [FN1] Smook v. Minnehaha County, 457 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2006), cert.
denied, 127 S. Ct. 1885, 167 L. Ed. 2d 386 (U.S. 2007); Holmes v. Johnson, 2007 WL
867025 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007); Kim v. Mansoori, 214 Ariz. 457, 153 P.3d 1086 (Ct. App.
Div. 2 2007); In re Conservatorship of Ben C., 40 Cal. 4th 529, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 856, 150
P.3d 738 (2007), petition for cert. filed (U.S. May 3, 2007); Pritchard v. Pritchard, 281 Conn.
262, 914 A.2d 1025 (2007); St. Elizabeth's Hosp. v. Workers' Compensation Com'n, 371 Ill.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
App. 3d 882, 309 Ill. Dec. 400, 864 N.E.2d 266 (5th Dist. 2007); Flores Rentals, L.L.C. v.
Flores, 153 P.3d 523 (Kan. 2007), as modified, (May 11, 2007); State ex rel. Stude v.
Jackson, 213 S.W.3d 208 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2007); Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Styron,
2007 WL 178178 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2007); In re Adoption of JRH, 2006 WY 89,
138 P.3d 683 (Wyo. 2006). Generally, as to jurisdiction of appellate courts, see 1 to 76.
[FN2] Holmes v. Johnson, 2007 WL 867025 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007); In re Conservatorship of
Ben C., 40 Cal. 4th 529, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 856, 150 P.3d 738 (2007), petition for cert. filed
(U.S. May 3, 2007); Pritchard v. Pritchard, 281 Conn. 262, 914 A.2d 1025 (2007); Leslie v.
Estate of Tavares, 109 Haw. 8, 122 P.3d 803 (2005), reconsideration granted in part, 109
Haw. 423, 127 P.3d 83 (2005); In re Marriage of Mardjetko, 369 Ill. App. 3d 934, 308 Ill.
Dec. 289, 861 N.E.2d 354 (2d Dist. 2007); Moser v. Moser, 838 N.E.2d 532 (Ind. Ct. App.
2005), transfer denied, 855 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. 2006); Gates v. Goodyear, 155 P.3d 1196
(Kan. Ct. App. 2007); Anne Arundel County v. Cambridge Commons L.P., 167 Md. App.
219, 892 A.2d 593 (2005), cert. denied, 393 Md. 242, 900 A.2d 749 (2006); State ex rel.
Stude v. Jackson, 213 S.W.3d 208 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2007); Manning v. Manning, 2006 ND
67, 711 N.W.2d
149 (N.D. 2006). [FN3] Zuniga v. Navarro & Associates, P.C., 158 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. App.
Corpus Christi 2005), reh'g overruled, (Apr. 7, 2005) and review denied, (Oct. 14, 2005).
[FN4] Rick v. Sprague, 706 N.W.2d 717 (Iowa 2005). [FN5] Allen v. Day, 213 S.W.3d 244
(Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, (Dec. 27, 2006); Kerr v. Harris County, 177 S.W.3d
290 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2005). [FN6] Richardson v. Jallen Investment Group, Inc.,
140 S.W.3d 112 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2004). [FN7] Brown v. Duncan, 361 Ill. App. 3d 125,
296 Ill. Dec. 663, 836 N.E.2d 78, 202 Ed. Law Rep. 735 (1st Dist. 2005). [FN8] Blankenship
v. Blankenship, 2007 WL 548799 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007); Vivid Video, Inc. v. Playboy
Entertainment Group, Inc., 147 Cal. App. 4th 434, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 232 (2d Dist. 2007);
Gorelick v. Montanaro, 94 Conn. App. 14, 891 A.2d 41 (2006); Common Cause of Kentucky
v. Com., 143 S.W.3d 634 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004); Bell v. American Intern. Group, 950 So. 2d
164 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007); In re Marriage of Rhoads, 209 S.W.3d 24 (Mo. Ct. App.
S.D. 2006); Hallie Management Co. v. Perry, 272 Neb. 81, 718 N.W.2d 531 (2006); Burns v.
Morgan, 165 Ohio App. 3d 694, 2006-Ohio-1213, 847 N.E.2d 1288 (4th Dist. Highland
County 2006); Southwest Const. Receivables, Ltd. v. Regions Bank, 162 S.W.3d 859 (Tex.
App. Texarkana 2005), review denied, (2 pets.)(June 9, 2006) (except for statutory
exceptions, if the judgment from which the party has appealed does not dispose of all
pending parties and claims, then the judgment is deemed to be interlocutory and the court of
appeals should either abate the appeal or dismiss it for want of jurisdiction). [FN9] G.C. v.
J.G., 2007 WL 80462 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007); Atkinson v. Atkinson, 167 Ohio App. 3d 704,
2006-Ohio-3676, 856 N.E.2d 1023 (4th Dist. Washington County 2006). [FN10] Lee v.
Martindale, 363 Ark. 249, 213 S.W.3d 1 (2005). [FN11] Conway v. Dravenstott, 2006-Ohio4840, 2006 WL 2664241 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. Crawford County 2006). [FN12] Karcher v.
May, 484 U.S. 72, 108 S. Ct. 388, 98 L. Ed. 2d 327, 42 Ed. Law Rep. 1062 (1987). [FN13]
Legendre v. Siqing Bao, 29 A.D.3d 645, 816 N.Y.S.2d 495 (2d Dep't 2006); Lewin v. County
of Suffolk, 18 A.D.3d 621, 795 N.Y.S.2d 659 (2d Dep't 2005). 2012 Thomson Reuters. 33-
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
34B 2012 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All rights
reserved. AMJUR APPELLATE 807
Please incorporate
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
318. Appeal by rightTrial court's power to strike notice of appeal West's Key Number
Digest West's Key Number Digest, Appeal and Error k357(1) West's Key Number Digest,
Federal Courts k660.40 A district court has no power to strike a notice of appeal.[FN1] The
notice of appeal operates to transfer jurisdiction of the case to the court of appeals, and
thereafter the district court lacks jurisdiction to act except in aid of the appeal.[FN2]
However, where an appeal has not been docketed in the court of appeals, the district court
may dismiss the appeal upon the filing of a stipulation for dismissal signed by all parties, or
upon motion and notice by the appellant.[FN3] Only failure to timely serve and file the notice
of appeal is jurisdictionally fatal to an appeal's validity, while lesser omissions may be
subject to sanctions.[FN4] The court of appeals is charged with the duty to dismiss an appeal
whenever it becomes apparent that the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction; the fact that a
motions panel denied the government's motion to dismiss an appeal does not free the court of
appeals from the independent duty to decide whether it has jurisdiction, and the doctrine of
law of the case is inapplicable to the question of jurisdiction to consider an appeal.[FN5]
[FN1] Liles v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 414 F.2d 612 (4th Cir. 1969); Hogg v.
U.S., 411 F.2d 578 (6th Cir. 1969); Arundar v. DeKalb County School Dist., 522 F. Supp. 677
(N.D. Ga. 1981). [FN3] 817. [FN4] Western States Land & Cattle Co., Inc. v. Lexington
Ins. Co., 459 N.W.2d 429 (S.D. 1990). [FN5] U.S. v. Houser, 804 F.2d 565, 21 Fed. R. Evid.
Serv. 1376 (9th Cir. 1986).
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN:

I, Zachary Barker Coughlin, swear under penalty of perjury, NRS 53.045 that the
following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge:
VIOLATIONS OF NRS 178.405 AND NRS 5.010 BY RENO CITY ATTORNEY AND
WASHOE COUNTY PROSECUTORS AND RMC AND WCPD COURT APPOINTED
DEFENDERS
September 8th, 2011 Order for Competency Evaluation by Judge Schroeder in RCR2011063341
September 9th, 2011: Coughlin arrested at Wal-Mart in RMC 11 CR 22176 for petty
larceny October 10th, 2011: Coughlin arraigned in RMC 11 CR 22176 for petty larceny
charge
October 26th, 2011 (or a short time after depending upon entry of order) Judge Sferrazza
declares Coughlin competent in RCR2011-063341
February 27th, 2012: file stamped at 1:31pm in RCR2012-065630 Judge Clifton signs an
Order for Competency evaluation of Coughlin
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-February 27th, 2012: despite being present at the "clandestine status conference" (Dogan's
client Coughlin was noticed, in writing, that it had been reset to March 29th, 2012) DDA
Young filed an Opposition to Motion to Continue Trial Date and Motion to Appoint CoCounsel on 2/27/12 at 2:55 pm in a companion case that he was also prosecuting,
RCR2011-063341 in violation of NRS 178.405. In her March 13th, 2012 grievance against
Coughlin, Judge Nash Holmes admits to communications in this regard between her and
the Washoe County Public Defender's Office. -February 27th, 2012: At 3:00 pm, despite
the communications she admits to with the WCPD, Judge Nash Holmes holds a trial where
Coughlin is forced to appear as an indigent criminal defendant proceeding with self
representation in 11 TR 26800, which is suspened upon Judge Nash Holmes finding
Coughlin in "summary criminal contempt" seconds after he testifies that RPD Sargetn
Tarter lied in connection with a retaliatory traffic citations incident to Tarter telling
Coughlin to leave the law office of Richard G. Hill, Esq. On November 15th, 2012 after
Coughlin was released from 3 days in jail incident to a criminal trespass custodial arrest
upon Hill lying to officers and signing a criminal complaint in 11 CR 26405 for criminal
trespass on November 13th, 2012. Tarter ordered Coughlin to leave after Hill refused to
give Coughlin his state issued drivers license or identification, his hard drives/client's files,
his keys, or his wallet. -Judge Nash Holmes proceeds to file numerous Orders -March 5th,
2012: in RMC 11 CR 26405, the criminal trespass case from Coughlin's former home law
office the Certified Copy of Docket done by the Judicial Assistant, D2's Lisa Wagner, who
couldn't quite seem to find or remember the fact that Coughlin faxed in a Notice of Appeal
on June 28th, 2012, and her failure to docket that led to the dismissal of Coughlin's appeal
in CR12-1262, despite Coughlin having electronic confirmation of receipt of that fax
delivering his Notice of Appeal to the RMC and to City Attorney Hazlett-Stevens (whom
coyly tries to assert he didn't get it or the paper copy Coughlin personally delivered to the
offices of the City Attorney within the 10 days set forth in NRS 189.010) Trial date set for
April 10, 2012 by Court. -05 March 2012: Notice Of Appearace As Co-Counsel And
Motion To Dismiss filed defendant. 20 March 2012: Order #1 denying defendant's motion
filed 13,February 2012 signed Judge William Gardner. RMC 11 CR 26405 -21 March
2012: Order #2 denying defendant's motion filed 5, March 2012 signed by Judge William
Gardner. RMC 11 CR 26405 -21 March 2012: Motion To Strike Defendant's Motion To
Dismiss Complaint filed by Deputy City Attorney Christopher Hazlett-Stevens. RMC 11
CR 26405 -10 April 2012: Defendant appeared for trial with counsel Keith Loomis, Judge
William Gardner
23
1/5
24
presiding. Present on behalf of the City was Christopher Hazlett-Stevens. Several pre-trial
motions were heard. An Order Suspending Proceedings was signed. All proceedings
suspended until the question of competence is determined. Case Status Hearing scheduled
for 8, May 2012. RMC 11 CR 26405. See attached emails demonstrating the knowledge of
and complicity between the Washoe County Public Defenders, the court appointed Reno
Municipal Court defenders, the City of Reno Prosecutors, Washoe County District
Attorney's Office, RMC, RJC, and both court's filing office's staff and administrators
25
26
27
28

-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
respecting the existence of these Orders for Competency Evaluation and the brazen
violation of NRS 178.405 and Nrs 5.010 by these individuals. Further, on April 19th, 2012,
DDA Young again violated NRS 178.405 where he moved to have Coughlin remanded to
custody (whereupon Coughlin could again have his medication suddenly withheld from
him, all while RMC Judge Nash Holmes seeks to leverage jail staff to get Coughlin to sign
some waiver of his medical records privacy rights and where WCPD Biray Dogan
announces confidential HIPAA protected medical information relating to his client
Coughlin into the public record, in front of 40 members of the public gathered in D10, a
transgression which WCPD Jeremy Bosler later refused to seek to ameliorate or strike
from the record in any manner whatsoever).
-May 7th, 2012 in RCR2011-063341 WCPD Goodnight and DDA Young violate NRS
178.405 by attempting TO HOLD A TRIAL in that matter during the pendency of an
Order for Competency directored towards Goodnight's client, Coughlin. Goodnight
manages to jam Coughlin into an ill-advised Mental Health Court sign-up in MH12-0032,
which ends badly when the MHC's Reno Biondo commits fraud in asserting that Coughlin
was removed from the MHC for "failing to following MHC policies" similar to the
arguments put forth by Sharon Dollarhide, despite the MHC, and perhaps Goodnight too,
having given Coughlin a list of medications it prohibits, and a contract for entry into the
MCH, after having informed Coughlin he was accepted into the MCH upon entering the
contract. The MCH subsequently threatened Coughlin with incarceration for taking a
medication is only after the fact objected to, then, upon having the bargained for
consieration, offer and acceptance pointed out to it, the MCH lied and disparaged
Coughlin to the RJC and others, causing Coughlin reputational damage, and Coughlin's
case was remanded to the RJC at a later date. During this period of time, D10 Judge Elliot
forced Coughlin back into custody at the WCDC, where Coughlin has been denied his
medication every single one of his 10 trips to jail this year, with no titration down of
dosing whatsoever, even where Coughlin was willing and able to arrange for delivery of
the medication at his own expense, etc.
-08 May 2012: Case Status hearing held before Judge William Gardner. Present on behalf
of the City was Deputy City Attorney Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, for the defense Keith
Loomis and defendant Zachary Coughlin. Defendant was found to be competent.
Defendant's motion to remove Keith Loomis as counsel granted. Trial date set by the court
for June 18,2012. RMC 11 CR 26405. Strangely, despite Coughlin still being subject to an
as yet to be ruled upon Order For Competency evaluation and despite Coughlin having just
the previous day been accepted into Mental Health Court and the RJC case RCR2011063341 transferred there, RMC Judge William Gardner jammed Coughlin both into
proceeding without the Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel and into some trial setting,
even though NRS 178.405 and NRS 5.010 forbids it, and even though Judge Gardner
admitted to being aware of Judge Nash Holmes, his fellow RMC Judge, seeking to have
Coughlin's law license taken away based upon a SCR 117 Disability Petition (Judge Nash
Holmes, in her March 14th, 2012 letter/grievance to the State Bar of Nevada, wherein she
purports to speak for Judge William Gardner and managed to pass on to the SBN the April
-
1
2
2009 Order For Sanctions by Judge William Gardner's sister Family Court Judge Linda
Gardner, that Judge William Gardner passed to Judge Nash Holmes after receiving from
his sister sometime in
2/5
the first quarter of 2012). Incidentally, Coughlin was previously a domestic violence
attorney at Washoe Legal Services until Family Court Judge Linda Gardner's April 2009
Order sanctioning Coughlin $1,000 personally for the arguments he made in representing a
domestic violence victim in a divorce trial were cited by WLS Executive Director Paul
Elcano as the "sole reason" for Coughlin being fired. Coughlin filed a Petition for Writ of
Mandamus in respone to that Order with the Nevada Supreme Court in 54844. Coughlin
filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal for insufficient service of process of his wrongful
termination case against Washoe Legal Services on February 27th, 2012, and that matter is
currently on appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court in 60302. Oh, and Reno City Attorney
John Kadlic is a patient of Zach Coughlin's father, Dr. Timothy Coughlin, and the City of
Reno and or the RPD have sought to pressure Coughlin's parents into having him
"committed", despite the fact that the numerous (about 8-10 ish) wrongful arrests Coughlin
has been subjected to this year (most of which violate Soldal v. Cook County and have
been captured on video tape, amazingly) all kind of give Mr. Kadlic a bit motivation to
quiet and or discredit Coughlin (and and arrest on June 28th, 2012 by the WCSO and
various instances this year where fraudulent Affidavits of Service by the WCSO have been
involved in arrests of Coughlin give the WCDA Office its own motivations).
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Given that this trial setting and denial of Coughlin's Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
occurred during the pendency of an Order for Competency Evaluation of Coughlin that the
RMC, Judge William Gardner, court appointed defender Keith Loomis, Esq. And City
Attorney's Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, Esq. Were well aware of, the following are void:
O5 June 2012: Notice Of Appearance As Counsel ; Motion To Dismiss; Motion To
Suppress; Motion For A Continuance Of Trial And Transfer To Mental Health Court filed
by defendant. 18 June 2012: Defendant appeared for trial pro-per, Judge William Gardner
motions were heard. Motion to Continue filed by defendant denied. Motion to Dismiss
filed by defendant denied. Motion to Suppress denied. Motion to Recuse denied. Motion to
Transfer to Mental Health Court denied. Case tried on its merits and the Defendant was
found guilty of the charge of Trespass, a violation of R.M.C 08.10.010. .."'Y25'2012 The
Defendant was sentenced as follows: Trespass, a violation of R.M.C 08.10.0 10. : Time
Served (3 days at usual $100 a day, and a $310.00 fine for a total of $610 raked in by the
RMC on a first offense trespass charge where typically the fine is $305. Also, Richard G.
Hill, Esq. Lied under oath at that June 18th, 2012 criminal trespass Trial where he testified
that the RPD identified themselves as law enforcement and issued a lawful order or
warning for Coughlin to leave the premises prior to the landlord kicking down a door to a
quasi "basement" under the former law office. The videos of the arrest filmed by Hill
demonstrate that Coughlin was never given an opportunity to heed any warning to leave
given that day prior to a custodial arrest being effectuated, contrary to the Supplemental
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Declaration by RPD Officer Chris Carter, Jr. RPD Sargent Marcia Lopez subsequently
admitted that the RPD neither identified themselves as law enforcement nor issued a
lawful order to emerge from the basement prior to landlord Merliss kicking down the
basement door on November 13th, 2012. WCSO Civil Supervisor Liz Stuchell has admitted
in an email to Coughlin that Deputy Machen's November 7th, 2011 Affidavit of Service
swearing to have "personally served" the RJC REV2011-001708 Summary Eviction Order
on November 1st, 2011 was "incorrect" in that to Machen "personally served" means
"posting it to the door when no one is home. However, given NRS 40.400 makes
applicable NRCP 5(b)(2) and 6(e) to summary evictions (even those that are noticed by the
RJC, in writing, as a "Trial" and even where, at the October 13th, 2011 "summary eviction
proceeding" the RJC ruled that Coughlin "had met his burden of establishing there is a
genuine issue of material fact concerning his retaliatory eviction defense" and the matter
was then "set for trial on October 25th, 2011 provided Coughlin deposits $2,275 into the
court's rent escrow account", all of which violates JCRCP Rule 109 and NRS
10
3/5
11
40.253(6)) the lockout Deputy Machen oversaw on November 1st, 2011 was based upon a
void Eviction Order and Decision of October 25th, 2011 and an October 27th, 2011
Findings of Fact...that Hill's associate Baker testified as to having apparently provided
receipt thereof to the WCSO on October 28th, 2011, and which RJC Chief Civil Clerk
Karen Stancil indicates were transmitted to the WCSO via fax according to the usual
custom and practice of the RJC...meaning, the WCSO failed to effectuate a lockout
"within 24 hours" of "receipt" of either of those Orders...meaning Hill and Merliss were
trespassing on November 13th, 2011, not Coughlin, and they brought the RPD along for the
ride, whereupon the RPD effected a wrongful arrest (based upon lies by neurologist
Merliss and his attorney Hill to the effect that they warned Coughlin to leave that day prior
to the RPD showing up, which is clearly show to be false by the videos filmed by Hill and
Merliss themselves and Hill's subsequent testimony at the June 18th, 2012 criminal trespass
trial in 11 CR 26405).
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
May 9th, 2012: Order finding Coughlin competent in CR12-0376, by Judge Elliot of
Department 10 resolving the February 27th, 2012 Order for Competency Evaluation signed
by RJC Judge Clifton and file stamped at 1:31 pm on that date.
September 5th, 2012: Order for Competency Evaluation of Coughlin by Judge Sferrazza in
RCR2011-063341
October 2, 2012: WCPD Leslie and Dogan and DDA Young violate NRS 178.405 by
swapping the October 15th, 2012 Trial continuation/Competency Hearing Date in
RCR2011-063341 with RCR2012065630, and setting/stipulating to a new hearing on
October 22nd, 2012, and resetting the Trial date to November 19th, 2012, but not before
attempting to cram RCR2012-067980 onto the calendar with RCR2012-063341 for
October 22nd, 2012 (and Leslie and Dogan lied to Coughlin about whether "mandatory
status conference" was held on August 6th, 2012 in RCR2012-065630, and
RCR2012067980, the latter at which Leslie set a Trial date of September 18th, 2012 despite
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
his legal assistant Linda Gray admitting to Coughlin that Coughlin was provided no notice
whatsoever of the August 6th, 2012 hearing date in those cases. Also, Dogan and Leslie
again violated NRS 178.405 on October 2nd, 2012 where tehy reset for October 30th, 2012
a Motion Hearing on DDA Young's impermissible Motion to Amend the Complaint in
RCR2012-065630 (six months after the arrest, no specific facts pled in either to support
either charge, really). Further, Dogan failed to alert Coughlin in any way to the fact that, in
his July 31st, 2012 Motion to Amend Criminal Complaint, DDA Young attempted to, in
violation of RPC 3.8, amend the "misue of emergency services" charge (where Coughlin is
accused of using 911 to report police misconduct) to a charge that would provide the
District Attorney more leverage against Coughlin, a retaliatory prosecution, for a crime
that would damage Coughlin's law license given the import of SCR 111(6), despite DDA
Young lacking probable cause to so amend his charge. Dogan and Young previously
conspired to retaliate against Coughlin incident to their "clandestine status conference" of
February 27th, 2012, which just so happened to be the date that Coughlin filed a Notice of
Appeal in his case against Washoe Legal Services 60302 and the date that Judge William
Gardner transferred jurisdiction from RMC D1 Judge Dilworth to RMC D3 Judge Nash
Holmes in 12 CR 000696, a case where Coughlin was subject to a custodial arrest for
jaywalkign on January 12th, 2012 incident to Coughli's peacefully filming Richard G. Hill,
Esq.'s contractor's crew from a public sidewalk, disposing of property left at Coughlin's
former home law office due to Hill locking a gate thereto during the time Coughlin was
afforded to remove such property and where Hill had boarded up on of the entrances to the
property as well, in addition to remove the only ladder to the
4/5
upstairs attic/storage space at the property. On February 27th, 2012 in 11 TR 26800 Judge
Nash Holmes told Coughlin she would have him thrown in jail if he mentioned Richard G.
Hill's name one more time. On January 31st, 2012, at an extension hearing on the TPO
Richard Hill received against Coughlinf or Coughlin's alleged jaywalking on January 12th,
2012, RJC Judge Schroeder roared at Coughlin "do you want to go to jail!" when Coughlin
broached the subject of Hill's abuse of process. Judge Schroeder is listed in the RJC docket
as presiding over the February 27th, 2012 "clandestine status conference" that ultimately
resulted in Judge Clifton signing the Order for Competency Evaluation. It is unclear if any
actual hearing before a judge even took place that day, however.
5/5
an update to the list of violations of the stay required by NRS 178.405 concerns an Order
for Comptency Evaluation entered by RJC Judge Scott Pearson on 2/5/13 in RCR2011063341, only to have DDA Young continue his hot streak of setting every mandatory stay
under NRS 178.405 that he comes across aflame, with Bruce Lindsay, Esq. (whom Judge
Clifton arranged to have represent Coughlin at a 2/13/13 quasi-summary criminal
contempt hearing for allegedly being late in the presence of the court. Not there, but in the
presence of the court, somehow...
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
t that 2/5/13 Hearing I got an Order for Competency Evaluation from Pearson, then went
and provided that to Judge Clifton at the resumption of the 065630 trial immediately
thereafter, which, under NRS 178.405, required Clifton to suspend the trial in 11-065630.
Of course, he did not. He has demonstrated a willingness to fail to apply the law as written
in certain instances, invariably to the benefit of the State, often with the encouragement of
DDA Young (though, to be fair, at the 2/13/13 Trial, DDA Young did point out to Judge
Clifton the shall language in NRS 178.405, to which Judge Clifton made, admittedly, an
inventive, argument that some failure to make specific findings of fact or something along
those lines in Judge Pearsons just minted Order For Competency Evaluation in 11-063341
of 2/13/13 made inapplicable the mandatory stay under NRS 178.405. Even if one were to
overlook in possible impropriety of Judge Clifton suspending that Trial, starting at 9 am in
12-065630 long enough for DDA Young to go to the RJC counter and make and ex parte
request for an emergency reconsideration hearing before Judge Pearson, including the
evident partiality revelaed by failing to apply procedural rules to the State in the same rigid
and overly formulaic manner to which the RJC has applied them to Coughlin (including
the 10 days Coughlin should have to respond to such a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Order for Competency Evaluation of 2/13/13 in 11-063341), there still exists the fact that
Judge Clifton failed to follow NRS 178.405 and immediately Stay all proceedings in all
departments, but rather, allowed DDA Young a recess to go and make his ex parte
communications to the RJC Bailiff counter seeking an Emergency Hearing before Judge
Pearson to reconsider his 2/13/13 Order for Competency Evaluation. DDA Young's
making such Motion violated the mandatory automatic stay required by NRS 178.405
leaving the RJC to rely upon some dubious assertion that Jduge Pearson just happened to
continue mulling his decision to enter the Order For Competency Evaluation he entered in
11-063441 at approximately 8:45 am, sua sponte, without any prompting or extra judicial
communications with Judge Clifton, DDA Young, or anyone else...something Judge
Pearson refused to refute the allegation of upon Coughlin putting it before him during the
brief Emergency Reconsideration Hearing Judge Clifton left the bench long enough in 12065630 on 2/5/13 to allow Judge Pearson to take it an vacate or otherwise amend his Order
for Competency Evaluation, at which point Judge Pearson did render a ruling that he
would enter an Order having the State pay for a mental health evaluation for the indigent
Coughlin, that, to this date, still has not been entered and Coughlin has been unable to
have such done due to the failure to issue a check to him made out to his psychiatrist, Dr.
Suat Yasar, MD (the State, DDA Young, and Richard G. Hill, Esq., have all been able to
get Emergency Ex Parte Motions granted against Coughlin, whereas, DDA Young's failure
to oppose Coughlin's 2/21/12 Motion to Dismiss in 12-065630 (which, arguably under
Polk v. State and DCR 13(3) may required such Motion to Dismiss be granted) resulted in
Judge Clifton, almost reflexively by instinct, sua sponte, making an argument on the
State's behalf that DDA Young had implicilty opposed such Motion to Dismiss, thereby
revealing further the evident partiality against Coughlin by the RJC judiciary pervading all
of the various prosecutions and evictions/landlord tenant matters therein).
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NRS 4.230 Docket: Entries; form. NRS 4.240 Entries in docket prima facie evidence of
facts. NRS 4.250 Docket must be kept by justice of the peace. NRS 4.280 Jurisdiction of
justice of the peace with whom docket is deposited. NRS 4.350 Deputy clerk:
Appointment; compensation; powers and duties. NRS 4.353 Deputy marshal:
Appointment; duties; qualifications; compensation. NRS 4.370 Jurisdiction. NRS 4.371
Effect of transfer of original jurisdiction from district court to justice court. The following
brings up some questions as to the RJC morphing the 12/20/12 Administrative Order
2012-01, In the Administrative Matter of Zachary Coughlin (to which, on 2/25/13, Chief
Judge Pearson issued an Order to Show Cause to Coughlin, baring the same caption (ie,
lacking a case number of an opposing party), setting an OSC Hearing for 3/5/13, which
was continued until 3/11/13 (with Coughlin preserving for the record that he wished to
remain his own counsel thereafter and his objections to any attempts to insert the
Administrative Order into any other case (Judge Pearson indicated it was retroactively
being placed into RCR2011-063341, despite the fact that there was not ostensible
connection between the two or the subject matter involved (indeed, the 2/25/13 OSC fails
to cite any actual names in connection with any of the vague allegations (in violation of
NRS 22.030(2)). Upon Coughlin pointing out the issues with such an approach, a new case
was created, RCR2013071437, with the Complaint therein consisting of the 12/20/12
Administrative Order 201201 baring the same 12/20/12 file stamp date, with the new
case number affixed thereto, with no new file stamping to go along with the new case
number (ie, a document was altered by the RJC after it was file stamped). This presents
several issue with respect to NRS 4.230. NRS 4.230(c) The date of the summons, and the
time of its return; and if an order to arrest the defendant be made, or a writ of attachment
be issued, a statement of the fact. Coughlin was summarily arrested (after 7 pm in his
own home, no less) by a DAS officer on 2/1/13 after 7 pm in violation of NRS 171.136
and where the Arrest Report and Probable Cause sheet listed such as a warrantless arrest
and cited to a warrantless probation violation arrest statute therein (hours after sending an
email to the WCDA's Office). DAS Officer Ramos indicated to Coughlin at the time of the
arrest that he was arresting Coughlin summarily for two specific alleged parole violations,
indicating they consisted of two alleged failures to check in with DAS, one on 1/2/13 and
one on 1/23/13. At the 3/12/13 OSC Hearing, Judge Pearson sought to characterize that
2/1/13 DAS arrest of Coughlin as stemming from the alleged issuance of a warrant for
Coughlin's arrest pursuant to an alleged failure by Coughlin to obtain a mental health
evaluation within 30 days of the Order of 11/21/12 by Judge Sferrazza in RCR11063341. However, the Docket in that matter, and the correspondence and communications
between Coughlin, DAS, and RJC Chief Bailiff Sexton, and Bailiff Heibert clearly reveal
that not only was the issuance of a warrant on 1/9/13 for Coughlin's arrest in that regard
unsupportable in the first place, but such warrant was Further, Judge Pearson's revisionist
history as to the basis for the summary probation violation arrest indicated by DAS Officer
Ramos on 2/2/12 (to which he completely lacked probable cause considering the
correspondence between DAS Officer Brown et al and Coughlin as to both the 1/2/13 and
1/23/12 checkins, particularly where RJC Bailiff Augustin Medina willfully prevented
Coughlin from accessing the DAS office prior to its 3:00 pm closing time (and DAS is not
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an area under the exclusive control of the RJC to whatever extent Judge Sferrazza's
12/20/12 Administrative Order 2012-01 is even a legal order (and Coughlin should not
be subject to the threat of incarceration of 25 days for every alleged de minimis infraction
thereof (and the RJC and Judge Pearson, in his 2/25/12 OSC and statements on the record
on 3/5/13 and 3/11/13 have made contradictory assessments fo the extent to which DAS is
under the umbrella or a part of the RJC sufficient to make, say, a phone call or email to a
DAS Officer a violation of such Administrative Order 2012-01. The fact that Coughlin
had provided documentation and medical evidence that he is diagnosed with and being
treated for ADD/ADHD and Major Depressive Disorder makes all the more untenable the
extent to which DAS and the RJC have narrowed the acceptable time frames and methods
of communicating or submitting materials to both the RJC and the SBN (exposing
Coughlin to an arraignment on 4/17/13 incident to the felony and gross misdemeanor
protection orders violation charges that the WCDA's office dropped on 3/7/12. And the
City of Reno's indication that the WCDA's Office dropped such prosecutions only based
on a lack of jurisdiction makes no sense where the RJC prosecuted Coughlin for a
misdemeanor arrest by the RPD that was similarly alleged to have occurred within Reno
City limits (as was the case in 11-063341 and 12-065630, and probably, 12-067980). So,
where the Arrest Report and Probable Cause Report by DAS Officers for the 2/1/13
summary arrest for alleged probation violations clearly fails to indicate any warrant having
been issued. Rather, that 2/1/13 (and RJC Bailiff Sexton and Heibert and the docket in 11063341 reveal no such warrant was issued sufficient to make that 2/1/13 arrest), but rather,
specifially mentions two alleged failures to check in with DAS (failing to allege any sort
of no call no show typically required for such a summary arrest, Judge Pearson and the
RJC's attempts to retroactively recharacterize whether such arrest was based upon a
warrant is troubling, especially where the warrant was allegedly issued incident to an
allegation that Coughlin failed to provide proof of obtaining a mental health evaluation
within 30 days of the 11/21/12 Order in 11-063341. This is particularly true considering
the communciations and correspondences between Coughlin and DAS in that regard,
Coughlin's submitting an IFP as to the expense of any such evaluation that was not
satisfied by virtue of the evaluation connected to the docket entry of 10/22/12 Hearing
Result (Judicial Officer: Sferrazza, Peter ) DefendiJnt has been found competent.
Defendant has indicated that he would like to represent himself. Defendant Faretlo
Canvassed. Defendant's motion to represent hirnselof is GRANTED. The Court also
appointes Public Defender Jim Leslie as standby coulISel. Motion by Defendant to have
trameript prepared at public expense. Motion DENIED. Trial confirmed setfor with
Lake's Crossing's Durante's report or proof thereof provided to DAS, in addition to
communications regarding the arrangement with NNAHMS. Indeed, the docket in 11063341 expressly rebuts the indication by Judge Pearson as to whether the 2/1/13 arrest
was based upon a warrant: 1/11/13 Warrant Recalled Per Order of Steve Tuttle and Judge
Pearson, warrant is recalled DAS to inform Defendant of evaluation and need to get it
completed. DO NOT ISSUE WARRANT WITHOUT OK FROM PEARSON. Further,
The 2/1/13 Inmate Booking Information Form indicates the DAS arrest time as 7:02 pm
(ie, in violation of NRS 171.136 where the probation stemmed from a simple
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
misdemeanor conviction (for which Coughlin has already now served 13 days, to go along
with the completely overreaching 180 day suspended sentence in 11-063341 and another
180 day suspended sentence incident to the 4/2/13 conviction in 12-065630 for an SCR
111(6) "serious offense) (wherein Judge Clifton in another display of transparent
overreaching made that sentence run consecutive to the one in 11-063341, giving
Coughlin four years of probation for two misdemeanors that don't add up to ten days in jail
given the fine schedule for a petty larceny charge and a resisting a public officer charge .
The 2/4/12 10:22 pm Inmate Release Information Form (Coughlin was not actually
released until 1:30 am on 2/5/12, yet still made it to the 8:30 am hearing that morning in
11-063341 (incident to his being in court anyways for the 2/5/13 continuation fo the trial
in 12065630... For the RJC to suggest is has not made such patently overreaching
convictions and sentences for any other reason that to assist Washoe County and the
WCDA's Office/RJC, and WCSO's Office in dealing with Coughlin (even where Coughlin
has been chucking the deuce up for months/waiving the white flag of surrender), is just
preposterous, and really, its very insincere and ignorant, somehow, at the same time, for
Judge Sferrazza and Clifton (not to mention ready attack dog with Clydesdale style ethics
conflicts blinders on DDA Zachary Norman Young, Esq., courtesy of ADA Helzer) to
continue stacking as many SCR 111(6) convictions on Coughlin records, all whilst
ignoring the patent consequential effects of their extremely suspect rulings in Rev2011001708 (including Judge Clifton's of 10/17/11, and Judge Schroeders of 3/15/12 in rev12374, and in Rev12-1048 of 6/28/12 and 7/5/12, and Judge Pearson's in the same Rev121048 of 7/31/12 and in Rev12-078432 of 10/2/12 (and the RJC's failure to accord
Coughlin a hearing as required upon his filing a Tenant's Affidaivt incident to the
summary eviction he only learned of at the 10/2/12 hearing upon cross-examing Ken
Grant of Superior Storage. Holland & Hart's Rick Elmore may have some 'splainin to do
on that one, and might exchange notes with Gayle Kern, Esq., as to the violations of RPC
3.5A, from Rev12-374 on 3/15/12. So, the RJC and Washoe County benefitted in its
avowed goal to have Coughlin disbarred by putting him in jail for five days right before
the 2/13/13 deadline for Coughlin to file his Appeal Brief in 62337. Judge Pearson on
2/5/13 at, according to the docket entry and OSC hearing (further Coughlin has absolutely
no recollection of the 2/4/13 video hearing before Judge Sferrazza being an arraignment
and certainly no warrant being mentioned is recalled by Coughlin at 8:30 am
in 11-063341 (which was improperly noticed to Coughlin on his Jail Inmate Release
Information paperwork as being set for February 5th, 2013, which, incidentally, the 2/25/13
OSC in AO12-01 includes as one of the dates wherein Coughlin is alleged to have violated
the AO12-01 (On February 5, 2013 Coughlin contacted two employees who are not
bailiffs at a number other than that provided to him as the bailiff s station. At Page 2. It is
possible that someone inquired with the RJC on that 2/5/13 date as to whether any such
hearing in 11-063341 was still on calendar and that an RJC employee, whom may have
been a Bailiff, indicated that such 2/5/13 Hearing in 11-063341 was, in fact, not still on
calendar, but, rather, had been incorrectly listed on Coughlin' WC Jail Inmate Release
Information paperwork where such Hearing was actually set for, and did, in fact take place
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on, 2/5/13 at 8:30 am. Whether now it is the case that the RJC Judges intended the 2/5/13
Hearing to be a Gagnon I style hearing and such Hearing indentified in Coughlin's WC Jail
Inmate Release Information paperwork to be a Gagnon II type of Hearing is possible. It
may be possible that an RJC employee, whom may have been a Bailiff, but, whom may
also not have been a Bailiff incorrectly indicated to someone whom may have inquired
with the RJC with regard to whether such 2/7/13 Hearing in 11-063341 was still on
calendar that such Hearing was not still on calendar of set to take place, but had, in fact,
been vacated.) The 2/25/13 OSC in AO12-01 reads: Docket in 11-063341 reads: 1/11/13
Warrant Recalled Per Order of Steve Tultle and Judge Pearson, warralJt is recalled DAS to
inform Defendant of evaluation and freed /0 get iI completed. DO NOT ISSUE
WARRANT WrrffOUT OK FROM PEARSON. 1/17/13 CANCELE D Warrant
Arraignment (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer: Schroeder, Jack) Vacated Mental Health
Evaluation and comply with recommendations . Case is on Appeal. .2/4/13 Warrant
Arraignment (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer: SfernlZZa, Peter) FTC-DAS Violation. .BAIL:
$5oo CASH Parties Present: Defendant Coughlin, Zachary Barker .2/4/13 Bail Sct
(Judicial Officer: Sferrazza, Peter) Bail Set at $500.00 CASH ONLY. Defendant
.Remanded to the Custody of the Washoe County Sheriff. .2/5/13 Order to Show Cause
(8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott) FTC-DAS VIOlATION .Parties present:
Defendant Coughlin, Zachary Barker . DAS Officer Brown has been particularly
dishonest with Coughlin with respect to her comunications with Coughlin vis a vis getting
a mental health evaluation done, the fee waiver application process, whether a warrant
would issue, the extent to which Coughlin had already provided proof of obtaining such
evaluation within 30 days', etc., etc. Regardless, the Arrest Report and PC Sheet of the
2/1/13 DAS summary probation violation arrest clearly indicates no warrant was involved,
that it took place after 7 pm (DAS Officers ordered Coughlin out of his residence) and was
premised upon a total lack of probable cause to make such a summary arrest. So, despite
Judge Pearson's attempts to undo the violation of NRS 171.136 by DAS Officer in
arresting Cougglin in his home after 7 pm without a warrant on 2/1/13, the PC Sheet and
docket in RCR11-063341 tells the real story. Some might say: do the Reno Justice Court
judges ever follow the law? That AR and PC Sheet identifies the charge as the following:
NRS 211A.125 Arrest of probationer. 1. The chief or an assistant may arrest a
probationer without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that the probationer
has committed an act that constitutes a violation of a condition of his or her suspended
sentence or residential confinement. 2. Any other peace officer may arrest a probationer
upon receipt of a written order by a chief or an assistant stating that there is probable cause
to believe that a probationer has committed an act that constitutes a violation of a
condition of his or her suspended sentence or residential confinement. 3. After making an
arrest, the chief, assistant or other peace officer shall immediately notify the sentencing
court of the arrest of the probationer and shall submit a written report setting forth the act
that constituted a violation of a condition of the suspended sentence or residential
confinement of the probationer. 4. A chief, an assistant or another peace officer may
immediately release from custody without any further proceedings any probationer
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
arrested without a warrant pursuant to this section if the chief, assistant or other peace
officer determines that there is not probable cause to believe that the person violated the
condition of his or her suspended sentence or residential confinement.
With transporting Officer Ramos with him, DAS Officer Wickman made the warrantless
arrest of 2/1/13, indicating: on 2/1/13 at apprxoimately 18:45 hours, we made contact
with the above subject who is on probation with this department. Subject failed to check
in into this department as required on 1/3/13 and 1/23/13. Subject was taken into
custody for failing to check in which is a violation of his probation. Subject was taken
into custody, cuffed, double locked, and checked for tightness. Subject was then
transported to Washoe Jail.. Officer Wickman's declaration only indicates we made
contact failing to mention the contact consisted of banging on Coughlin's resdience
door (this Washoe County/City of Reno Gang Bang has reduced National Merit
Finalist/former Reno High All-Time leading Scorer in Basketball (2 time all state,
whatever whatever/passed the NV bar exam after second year of law schoo. Tenth in his
law school class, USPTO patent attorney, etc.) Coughlin to living in a fifth wheel trailer he
rents for $75 a month and eating at food pantries. Isn't Nevada great? No wonder it leads
or is near the bottom, or top? Of all the misery categories and indexes (unemployment,
suicides, disease, foreclosures, bankruptcies. Maybe if Nevada's Judge cease co-signing all
the misconduct of law enforcement and prosecutors, and instead invested in its residents a
bit more (and the few skilled, educated young professional/students who don't bolt the
state at the first chance they get) Nevada could progress a bit, no? Instead, its become a
mecca for law enforcement officers transplanted from California taking out their
frustrations on locals, while being comparitively well benefited and compensated for the
privilege of doing so.. However, the time of arrest as listed on teh Sure does help to have
Judge Elliot strike from the record on his last day on the bench all of Coughlin's filing in
CR12-2025 (the appeal of 11-063341) including Coughlin's typed 1/18/13 Motion to Stay
Probation (citing some ridiculous font size allegation applicable to perhaps 1 sentence at
most of a 10 page filing, made all the more dubious given the subject matter exposed
therein relative to the per se disqualification basis Judge Elliott ignored due to his Board
Presidency for the same CAAW Coughlin was suing before him in CV11-01955, and act
of judicial misconduct sufficient to have all rulings or ordres by Judge Elliott in any case
involving Coughlin overtturned (and Elliot handled all of Coughlin's criminal appeals and
disposed of all of them on ultra suspect grounds (and went to Stanford with Elcano and
Echeverria). Further, the RJC still refused to process the Notice of Appeal Coughlin filed
in various matters, includign on 3/19/13 in 11-063341 as to the 3/11/134 Order. 11-063341
2/5/13 Order to Show Cause Hearing Held (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scot!) Defendant
has submit/ed an SB89 request. GRANTED. Court is to pay for evaluation. Evaluator may
C()T/tact the Defendant at (949) 667-7402 or bye-mail at zachcoughlin@holmail.com.
Defendant is to continue checking in with DAS between 9:00 am and 2:00pm on
Wednesdays. Defendant is to have no contact with RJC staff . by phone, leller or e-mail.
Defendant may file pleadings, but is to check in with security first at the entrance of the
Mills B. Lance Office Building. And a IUC Baj/ifwf illb e notified Bail is to remain infull
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
force and effect.In a Trial set in RCR 2012-065630. Deputy District Allorney Zoch Young
requested to go back on the record before Judge Pearson to be heard regarding the
previous SB89 GRANTED in RCR 2011-063341. Defendant who is appearing without
caunse/, objected Judge Clifton GRANTS Slates request . Hearing proceeded before Judge
Scolt Pearson. State is represented by Zach Young, Esq., Defendant is not represented by
Counsel. After further review of the file, the Court has reconsidered DefendanJs SB89
filed February 5, 2013, at 8:54 am and has DENIED it. The Court is still ordering the
Defendant get evaluated for competency at the Courts expelue. Defendant requested that
his medicatioll be paid for. The Court indicaled it will comider il at a laler time. The order
ta show cause hearing has been confirmed setfor February 25.2013, aI8:30A.M. Defondant
is ordered to maU an apt. for evaluation by February 12, 20/3 and is to show DASproo f o
f lhal apt. 3/5/13 Order to Show Cause (2:00 PM) (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott)
Parties Present: Defendant Coughlin. Zachary Barker\ 3/5/13 Hearing Result (Judicial
Officer: Pearson, Scott ) Upon the order of Judge Scott Pearson. Bruce Lindsay of tire Bob
Bell Group, is hereby appointed to represent the Defendant in this matter and the
Administrative Order. First, Coughlin clearly retained, on the the record, his right to
continue self representing, only assenting to Lindsay appearing in 11-063341 in a cocounsel arrangement, which Judge Pearson indicated was up to you and Mr. Lindsay.
Coughlin never assented to Lindsay appearing in the Administrative Matter or some new
case created thereafter to fit such into 13071437. Lindsay's role seemed to consist chiefly
of collecting checks for three
different case number he was allegedly appointed on for every one hearing he showed
up to (usually late, with no conferring of any sort with his client beforehand) and just,
generall, playing the Washington Generals role to a 't'. So, this matter and the
Administrative Order are different cases, whereas up until Coughlin pointing out the
illegality thereof, Judge Pearson was attempting to retroactively stick the Administrative
Order into this matter (11-063341). Perhaps the RPD, Washoe County, and the RJC
should stop handing out arrest and prosecutions like candy if it lacks the resources to
afford the due process, record keeping, and organizational structure necessary to support
the massive infrastructure such overcharging/ adn baseless arresting requires. 12/0612012
12110/2012 1211912012 0111012013 01/11/2013 0111712013 0210412013 0210412013
0210512013 0210512013 RENO CRIMINAL CASE SUMMARY CASE No. RCRlOll063341 requested by James Leslie, Deputy Public Defender J Appeal Filed Notice Of
Appeal; Designation Of Record; Request for Transcript Cash Bail Converted and
Refunded Bail converted to fines and fees in the amoulJt of$175.00. Balance refunded in
the amount of $290.oocheck #040474 Ql Order Filed l Proceedings Certified to the
Second Judicial District Court Letter Sent B.l Proceedings Certified to the Second Judicial
District Court Supplemental tlI Warrant Issued First Bench Warrant issued bail set at
$500.00 Cosh Only Warrant Recalled Per Order of Steve Tultle and Judge Pearson,
warralJt is recalled DAS to inform Defendant of evaluation and freed /0 get iI comple/ed.
DO NOT ISSUE WARRANT WrrffOUT OK FROM PEARSON. CANCELE D Warrant
Arraignment (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer: Schroeder, Jack) Vacated Mental Health
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Evaluation and comply with recommendations . Case is on Appeal. Qj Warrant

Arraignment (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer: SfernlZZa, Peter) f7C-DAS Violation. BAIL:
$5oo CASH Parties Present: Defendant Coughlin, Zachary Barker 9J Bail Sct (Judicial
Officer: Sferrazza, Peter) Bail Set at $500.00 CASHO NLY. Defendant Remanded to the
CU!itadyo f the Washoe County Sheriff. j Order to Show Cause (8:30 AM) (Judicial
Officer: Pearson, Scott) FTC-DAS VIOlATION Parties "resent: Defendant Coughlin,
lcJchary Barker B.l Order to Show Cause Hearing Held (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scot!)
Defendant has submit/ed an SB89 request. GRANTED. Court is to pay for evaluation.
Evaluator may C()T/tact the Defendant at (949) 667-7402 or bye-mail at
zachcoughlin@holmail.com. Defendant is to continue checking in with DAS between 9:00
am and 2:00pm on Wednesdays. Defendant is to have no contact with RJC staff . by
phone, leller or e-mail. Defendant may file pleadings, but is to check in with security first
at the entrance of the Mills B. Lance Office Building. And a IUC Baj/ifwf illb e notified
Bail is to remain infull force and effect.In a Trial set in RCR 2012-065630. Deputy
District Allorney Zoch Young requested to go back on the record before Judge Pearson to
be heard regarding the previous SB89 GRANTED in RCR 2011-063341. Defendant who
is appearing without caunse/, objected Judge Clifton GRANTS Slates request . Hearing
proceeded before Judge Scolt Pearson. State is represented by Zach Young, Esq.,
Defendant is not represented by Counsel. After further review of the file, the Court has
reconsidered DefendanJs SB89 filed February 5, 2013, at 8:54 am and has DENIED it.
The Court is still ordering the Defendant get evaluated for competency at the Courts
expelue. Defendant requested that his medicatioll be paid for. The Court indicaled it will
comider il at a laler time. The order ta show cause hearing has been confirmed setfor
February 25.2013, aI8:30A.M. Defondant is ordered to maU an apt. for evaluation by
February 12, 20/3 and is to show DASproo f o f lhal apt. Cash Bail Posted in the amount
of$500. Oo B.l Ord rr to Show Cause (2:00 PM) (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott) Parties
Present: Defendant Coughlin. Zachary Barhr Hearing Result (Judicial Officer: Pearson,
Scott ) Upon the order of Judge Scott Pearson. Bruce Lindsay of tire Bob Bell Group, is
hereby appointed to represent the Defendant in this malleI' and lhe Adminislrative Ordel'.
) Order to Show Cause (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott) 0212512013
Continued to 03/11/2013 Arraignment Reset/Continuance Coughlin. Zachary Barker
Order to Show Cause Hearing Hel4 (Judicial Officer: Pearson, SCOI!) Defendan/ is
nimtated into DAS supel'Vision for up to ThlKTY-SIX (36) months. Defendant is onkred
to obtain Evaluation at Court's Expense. Defondant is not to use or possess any countrolled
substance unless presCl'ibed by Medical Doctor. DefondallJ is to give his atlor1l(1Y,
Bruce Lindsay, /lame of Defotukmts psychiatrist. Who shall provide Evaluation.
Defendant is to be nim/aled into the CCP Program to begin March 21, 2013 at 1:30 P.M.
Court Compliance Program To begin 312112013 ) Motion Filed Motion to Vacate any
Order Issuing from March 1 I. 2013 Hearing in RCR201 1063341 filed. Q) Request for
Submission Filed B.l Molion Filed Motion to Remove Bruce Lindsay, Esq. As CoCounsel filed. TlI Motion Filed Motion/or Check/or Dr. Yasar Pursuant to Order Rendend
on 2/13/13 and Submission 0/ Proposed Order for Mental health Evaluation SJ Motion
Filed Notice of Appeal Court Com lianee
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Further, Judge Clifton indicated on the record to Couglhin on 2/12/13 that a Bench
Warrant for Failure To Appear issued for Coughlin's arrest on that date at 9:36 am,
however, the docket in that matter indicates that such warrant issued at 1:00 pm on
2/12/13. Couglhin was allegedly late to court that morning for a 9:00 trial, allegedly
calling the Court at approximately 9:35 am (where the continuation fo the trial was set to
start at 9:00 am) to report that he had slept through two different alarm clocks after being
up most of the night preparing for the trial, having difficulty adjusting his daily routine due
to the arrests of 2/1/13 (confined and taken off his medication until his release on 2/4/12 at
1:30 am
Docket in 12-065630 3/19/13 Misdemeanor Judgment Filed (Judicial Officer; Clifton,
David ) on February 13, 2013, AMEMDED by Judge Clifton to read Misdemeanor
commitment Order
NRS 4.240 Entries in docket prima facie evidence of facts. The several particulars of
NRS 4.230 specified must be entered under the title of the action to which they relate, and
(unless otherwise in this chapter provided) at the time when they occur. Such entries in a
justices docket, or a transcript thereof, certified by the justice, or the justices successor in
office, are prima facie evidence of the facts so stated. Docket in 12-065630 indicates:
01/17/2012 Public Defender Appointed 1/23/12 Case Filed 1/23/12 Formal Charges
USE OF THE 911 EMERGENCY SYSTEM WHEN NO ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED
EMERGENCY EXISTS, a violation of NRS 207.145 2/14/12 CANCELED Arraignment
(10:00 AM) (Judicial Offiter: Pearson, Scott) Vacated Arraignment (10:00 AM) (Judicial
Officer: Pearson, Scott) Dogan was appointed to defend Couglin on 1/17/12, and the
WCPD's Office sent Coughlin a letter notifying him of Dogan's appearance as attorney of
record on on January 26th, 2012, and Dogan's supervisor, Chris Fortier emailed Coughlin
on 2/6/12 to discuss Dogan's representation, and Dogan an Coughlin met and discussed the
case on 2/8/12, at which time, to Coughlin's understanding, Dogan agreed to appear on
Coughlin's behalf at the 2/14/12 arraingment and enter a not guilty plea. Given the charge
was a gross misdemeanor, under Nevada law, Coughlin was entitled to representation at
all stages of the proceedings, including the arraignment. Dogan failed to appear, though
he was required to. The RJC 's Judicial Secretary Lori Townsend voluntarily sent the SBN
OBCs King the 2/21/12 filing by Coughlin represented by the following docket entry:
2/21/12 Notice Notice of Appearance. Entry of Plea of Not Guilty, Waiver of Right to
Arraignment; Motion to Dismiss filed. (DDA Young failed to ever oppose this Motion to
Dismiss, to which, on 3/19/13 Judge Clifton rejected Coughlin's DCR 13(3), Polk v. State
argument that such failure to oppose should be taken as an admission, makign a sua sponte
argument that DDA Young implicilty opposed Coughlin's Motion. Further problematic
is the unexplained transferring of 12-065630 from D1, Judge Lynch, to D5, Judge Clifton,
on 2/27/12. 2/27/12 Mandatory Status Conference (1 :30 PM) (judicial Officer:
Schroeder, Jack) The docket does not indicate that MSC of 2/27/12 was CANCELLED
(as it does for the 3/29/12 date), yet the RJC has continued to maintain that no audio
transcript is available for that hearing due to the fact that it was not held. The docket entry
immediately thereafter, for the same 2/27/12 date, indicates 2/27/12 Order for
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Competency Evaluation Filed. 2/28/12 Case Transferred to Another Court to D.C.

2127120/2 PSYCH 5/23/12 Remand from Second Judicial District Court Filed The
docket indicates Coughlin, then a an attorney license in Nevada, filed a 2/21/12 Notice
Notice of Appearance. Despite that, Judge Clifton steadfastly refused to allow Coughlin
to file documents thereafter or issue his own subpoenas, subjecting Coughlin to the threat
of contempt charges and worse. 8/21/12 Hearing Result (Judicial Officer: Sferrazza, Peler
) Defendant failed to appear, Defense requested that this cose be continued and set with his
misdemeanor Reno Justice Court Case set for August 29, 2012 01 8:30A.M. State opposes
as this is Mr. Caughlin's second time foiling to appear. Defense's motion is GRANTED.
MSC is setfor August 29,2012 at 9:00A.M. Coughlin dispute the allegation that he failed
to appear on either 2/14/12 or 8/29/12, rather, the WCPD failed to appear despite agreeing
to at the 2/14/12 arraignment, and the WCPD admits to failing to notify Coughlin in
writing for the 8/6/12 hearing, and the docket fails to contain any entry on 8/6/12 to
indicate that some Motion Hearing was to be held on that date, or that such was continued.
Rather, the first appearance in the RJC's docket of any indication that there was some
8/6/12 hearing in 12-065630 is indicated in the docket entry for 8/21/12. 8/27/12 Motion
Hearing (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer: Sferrazza, Peter) Parties Presenl: Plaintiff The State
of Nevada Deputy Dislrict At/orney Yaung, Zach Defendant Coughlin, Zachary Barker
Public Defender l.eslie, James Briand 8/27/12 Amended Criminal Complaint Filed
(Judicial Officer: Sferrazza, Peter ) Stricken 8/27/12 Hearing Result (Judicial Officer:
Sferrazza, Peter) The State moved to strike Second Amended Criminal Complaint.
8/27/12 Motion Granted (Judicial Officer: Sferrazza, Peter) to Strike Second Amended
Criminal Complaint. 8/27/12 Hearing Result The Slate read offered plea negotiations into
the record at which time the Defendant accepted the offered plea. The State filed Amended
Criminal Complaints. Hearing proceeded at conclusion of the hearing, the Court will not
accept Defendant's plea. The State moved to Strike Amended Criminal Complaint.
GRANTED. Mandatory Status Conference remains set August 29, 2012, at 9:00A.M. It
was overly prejudicial to Coughlin's defense for Judge Clifton to, unexplainedly, be given
some: 11/5/12 Correspondence Recieved via mail from Reno City Attorney's Office Re:
Written Objection Pursuant to Reno Justice Court Rule 45 (RJCR 45) Regarding E-mailed
Subpeonas to City of Reno Emergency Communication Center from Zach Coughlin
Concerning RCR2011-063341. Further, in RJC RCR11-063341, the docket entry for
7/16/12 only serves to prove Coughlin's contention that during that Trial date Judge
Sferrazza indicated that the 8/29/12 court date would not be a trial date, but rather:
Hearing Result (Judicial Officer: Sferrazza, Peter ) Defense movesfor continuance; Public
Defonder Jeremy Bosler indicated that a new Deputy Public Defender shall be appointed
to take over the case. State Agrees. Trial shall be set on August 29, 2012. All Motions
shall be decided at that date. The subsequent need to have an appearance of the docket
entry for 8/9/12 does little more than prove that Coughlin's newly introduced WCPD
Leslie (a Chief Deputy Public Defender who never handles misdemeanor cases, save for
taking over all three of Coughlins for the express purpose of sabotaging them to benefit
the Washoe County fisc), whom replaced WCPD DPD Goodnight minutes before the
7/16/09 Trial date, lobbied behind the scenes to Judge Sferrazza to enter such a
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Notice/Order to defeat Coughlin's argument that the 8/29/12 date was not a Trial date,
but rather set for disposing of pre-trial motions, and to then set a Trial date should one
be necessary. Leslie, as his is wont, of course, attempted to jam both the hearing of pretrial motions and an MSC in 12-065630, and a hearing in 12-067980 all into that 8/29/12
date (which occurred a couple days after Leslie successfully of the only inviolable right of
criminal defendant that Leslie had yet to rape, ie, Coughlin's right to decide whether to
accept the State's plea bargain or to go to trial). While that docket indicates 8/9/12 Notice
The Honorable Peler J. Sferrazza will hear Motion to Suppress at the time set for Trial
that entry was, of course, interpreted to mean the trial was set for 8/29/12. Of course, that
8/9/12 docket entry does not actually indicate that the trial date was set for 8/29/12. This
materially prejudiced Coughlin's defense, as did Leslie's lying to his client Coughlin
regarding his arranging for the witnesses to be held to their subpoenas (Templeton and
Dawson...Dawson later admitted to Coughlin Leslie told him not to show up for the
8/29/12 date, and Leslie, only informed Coughlin that he released all witnesses from their
subpoenas well into the State's presentation of its case during the Hearing on the Motion to
Suppress (going beyond a failure to communicate with his client, Leslie actually
purposefully mislead his client, failed to review the exculpatory video/audio of the
arrest/assault and battery of Coughlin just prior to the arrest/and subsequent investigatory
videos from one week after the arrest wherein the material witness Leslie and the WCPD
refused to even attempt to serve a subpoena on via NRS 174.345 (not to mention she is a
McQueen High School student, so, she's not that difficult to track down), Nicole Watson,
whom Coughlin caught on tape, knowing she was being recorded, admit to hearing an
unidentified man whom she witnessed pick up a phone off the ground int he middle of the
skate plaza (in constrast to Goble's assertions that he carefully set such phone in a hat on a
ledge on the perimeter thereof next to a group of his friends) and threat to throw the phone
in the river if someone did not claim it immediately...which is not the case upon a
review of the audio transcript and the docket entry from 7/16/12. Rather, that docket entry
for 7/15/12 indicated Trial shall be set on August 29, 2012. All Motions shall be decided
at that date. Setting a trial on a date is far different than setting a trial for a date. Further,
indicating all motions shall be decided at that date fails to characterize that date as a
trial date, rather, is further underscores the extent to which that date was set for nothing
more than hearing, and deciding all motions and to then, if necessary set a trial date.
The entry in 11-063341 for 8/29/12 reads: Hearing Result The Stale read offered plea
negotiations into the record at which time the Defendant accepted the offered plea. Tire
State filed Amended Criminal Complaints. Hearing proceeded. At conclusion of the
hearing. The Court will not accept Defendant's plea. The State moved to Strike Amended
Criminal Complaint. GRANTED. Trial remains set August 29, 2012. at 9:00 A.M. The
docket entry in 11-063341 for the Suppressio Hearing demonstrates the clearly reversible
error attendant to Judge Sferrazza ruling there was probable cause to make the arrest
(despite it clearly being violative of NRS 171.136, especially where Goble testified that he
told the Officer the phones value
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
was less than the amount required to charge Coughlin with felony grand larceny and the
arrest occurred between 7 pm and 7 am). Without anything connected to the pat down
search, which the docket indicates Defendant's motion to Suppress GRANTED to the
extent of the pat down search, there is insufficient evidence or support to find sufficient
probable cause to arrest existed. The State failed to argue any inevitable discovery or
that Duralde would have heard the silent vibrating incoming call alert (where there
was testimony and evidence that the alert was nothign more than the phone's screen
lighting up, and no vibrating sound...and where the video/audio fo the arrest, taken with
a high definition audio/video smartphone less than 10 inches away, reveals absolutely
none of the vibrating that RPD Officer Duralde indicated he could hear in connectin
with his pat down search (and at that point, it was a second quasi-pat down search (read,
really a Fourth Amendment violating search and seizure, rather than a pat down search
where, at that point, Duralde indicated he had already discerned that Coughlin possessed
no weapons and posed no threat'). The docket entry for 8/29/12 reads:Hearing Result
(Judicial Officer: Sferrazza, Peter) Defendant addressed motion to appoint co-counSel.
Defenrdant's Counsel addressed motion to appoint co-counsel. The State opposes motion
to appoint co-counsel. Motion DENIED. If Defendant so chooses the Court will conduct a
Faretta Canvas. Defendant moved for self representation. The Court canvassed the
Defendant regarding the Faretta inquiry. The State objects to Defendant's motion to
represent himself on the grounds that it is untimely and that this is for the purpose of delay
and not in good faith. Defendant's counsel addressed motion for self representation.
Motion DENIED. The State's motion to Strike all Documents that were filed solely by the
Defendant is hereby GRANTED. The Defendant previously filed Motion to Suppress.
Motion Hearing proceeded. The State opposes Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
Defendant's Motion to Suppress GRANTED to the extent of the "pat down search". Trial
proceeded. Witnesses held to subpoenas. Its no wonder that Coughlin felt forced to
confirm the sole self representation that he was unlawfully prevented from undertaking
since his filing, as prima facie evidence of is demonstrated of by the following docket
entries in 11-063341: 2/15/12 Authorization to Represent Filed by Couglin while he was
an attorney licensed to practice in Nevada. Another couple Coughlin filings on 2/15/12
Motion Filed Motion to Allow Late Filing Pre-Trial Notice and Motion Filed Pre-Trial
Motion. Additionally, Coughlin's right to represent himself where he was an attorney
licensed in Nevada was denied, revealing clearly reversible error where Coughlin filed, as
the docket indicates on 2/17/12 Notice of Appearance Filed and Supplement to Motion to
Accept Pre Trial Motions Where Untimely. The stressful lead up to the 2/29/12 trial date
in 11-063341 is a SCR 102.5 mitigating factor as to any misconduct alleged in connection
with the 2/27/12 or 3/12/12 trial dates in 11 TR 26800. Further, there is no indication in
the 11-063341 docket that the required notice in writing to all other departments was
issued by D5 in response to the 2/27/12 Order for Competency Evaluation. Regardless,
given jurisdiction was only remanded back the the RJC on 5/18/12 by Judge Elliott, the
docket entry of 5/3/12 Response Reply to State's Opposition to Motion to Supress
represents a fugitive document filed in violation of the stay under NRS 178.405, as was
the 2/27/12, 2:55 pm file stamped Opposition to Motion to Continue Filed Trial date and
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion to Appoint Co-Counsel by DDA Young... As such, it was reversible error to

refuse Coughlin his right to appear on his own behalf, especiall under DCR 13(3) and Polk
where, one would think, at some point, DDA Young would be held to having his fugitive
documents and failures to oppose held against the State in anywhere near the same overly
rigid and formulaic application of procedural rules that Judge Clifton and Sferrazza so
consistently applied to Coughlin. Further, the 5/7/12 transfer to Mental Health Court
itself violated the NRS 178.405 stay, as did the State and DPD Goodnight's attempts to
hold the 5/7/12 Misdemeanor Trial, as was the setting of that trial itself (the RJC
constantly moves cases forward during such mandatory stays, though the public defenders
most definitely do not build a defense case during such time). 5/7/12 Mcnlal Health Court
(Judicial Officer: Sferrazza, Peter) Defense requested /0 be trans/erred /0 Melltal Health
Court. StaU did 1101 oppose m fonS! M lhe Defendalll entered a plea to the charges. The
Court finds that the Defendant does 1101 infocl have to enter a plea. State requested (hat
if/he Court decides to transfer this case 10 Mental lIea/lh Court. Prior to that happelling.
Witness fees be paid ill the amount of$75.oo. DefellSe opposed stating De/erukm! Has no
means ofpaying witness/ees. 11 is ordered IhlJIIJre Defondant is topay S75.OO
witness/ees by May 7. 20/1 Upon/urther order a/ the ColVt. This cose is traTISforred to
the jurisdiction o/District Court Mental Health Court without a plea. Further, Judge
Breen's shameful summary removal of Coughlin from Mental Health Court was truly
appalling. There was absolutely no notice or opportunity to be heard as to the fraudulent
basis for the MHC removign Coughlin where the program materials, offer, acceptance, and
contract entered into with Coughlin was thereafter, apparently, unilaterally altered by an
AA focused Judge Breen, whom lacks a medical degree or license to practice medicine,
yet, along with Rene Biondo (and the complicity of silent WCPD Jennifer Rains) refused
to allow Coughlin to take a medication for ADD/ADHD/Treatment Resistant Depression
that the MHC's Sharon Dollarhide admitted was not excluded by the contract or program
materials/rules/guidelines provided to Coughlin. Following that 5/24/12 hearing, Coughlin
was accosted by several WCSO Deputies in the hallway of the 2JDC courthouse
demanding to search Coughlin for any recording devices and interrogating him as to
whether he recorded any of the hearing before Judge Breen. It was reversible error to
refuse to reject to plea bargain Coughlin voluntarily and freely accepted (and expressly
indicated to the Court that he had so done) on 8/27/12 Hearing Result The Stale read
offered plea negotiatioTIS into lhe record at which lime the Defondant accepted tire
offered plea. Tire S,ate filed Amended Crimino/ Complo/nls. Hearing proceeded AI
conclusion of the heoring. Lhe CalVI will not accept De/elldant's plea. The State moved to
Strike Amended Criminal Complaint. GRANTED. Trial remains sel August 29. 2012. al
9:00 A.AI. in 11-063341. Further, the suggestion by Judge Clifton that Coughlin was
seeking (or, rather, had successfully attained) an Order for Competency Evaluation from
Judge Pearson (which Coughlin handed to Judge Clifton in court, on the record, on 2/5/13
in 12-065630, requiring a stay of proceedings in all departments, which Judge Clifton,
as is his wont, violated Nevada law in willfully ignoring in his patent display of partiality
towards the same WCDA's Office in which he was a prosecutor for the 25 years preceding
his investiture ceremon in January of 2011. Further, Judge Clifton's evident partiality and
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the extent to which he has yet to embrace his role as a judge, but rather constantly reverts
to the more familiar, to him, role of a prosecutor, was evident when, during the 3/19/12
Trial date in 12-065630 he announced to Coughlin, on the record: I know what I am
doing, I have been doing this for twenty-five years...which is curious given Judge Clifton
worked in civil litigation for five years prior to his twenty-five years as a prosecutor with
the WCDA's Office (where he worked alongside 2JDC Judge L. Gardner in the domestic
violence unit for some time, a reunion of sorts from their tenure together at Reno High
School (class of '77 and '78, respectively, with the Judge in Coughlin's criminal trespass
prosecution in RMC 26405, W. Garnder, L. Gardner's brother, class of '75). Regardless,
prosecutorial and police misconduct was revealed incident to the failure to propound the
ECOMM recordings between the RPD and ECOMM. That docket entry for 12/19/11
reads: Request Filed Request/or Discovery, which represents the filing by WCPD
Goodnight which demanded all recordings (logs or audio files) by Ecomm/RPD, etc....and
despite that the ECOMM recordings between the RPD and ECOMM, which totally
vitiated the fraudulent recounting of what the officer's were told by dispatch (the officer's
were out of there cars and on scene, unable to read the logs on their in car screens, and
nothing on their radios indicated anything about a possible fight or someone just
socked a minor, therefore, no exigent safety basis for the pat down search, etc., etc. (911
dispatchers, one of which on duty that night was RPD Officer Duralde's wife, dispatcher
Jessica Duralde...a connection that Judge Clifton threatened to jail Coughlin should he
mention it again, after striking such mention from the record on 3/19/13 and 4/2/13 (where
Judge Clifton gave similar indications in response to Coughlin unearthing the marital
relationship between Judge Clifton and Deputy AG Rhonda Clifton, see 62821, where the
AG's office is representing the WCDA's Office...and consider that Judge Sattler is a
member of the Board of Directors of Washoe Legal Services (replacing CAAW Executive
Board member Judge Elliott in CV11-01955, where Coughlin was suing both WLS and
CAAW...oh, and WLS's Executive Director Paul Elcano's daughter, Tyler Elcano, Esq.,
was recently hired as a prosecutor for the Washoe County District Attorney's
Office. WLS and the WCDA's Office have partnered (with Coughlin's former RMC public
defender, Lew Taitel, Esq....see CV11-03216 and RMC 11 CR 26405, and RJC Rev121048, and RCR12-067980, and Rev11-1708 for a Conflict-Palooza...ADA Hezler will
have none of this (or NNDB/DDA Kandaras's 12/13/12 emails to Coughlin's then WCPD
CPD Leslie declaring Coughlin's competency an issue (implicating NRS
178.405...which of course, the WCDA's Office and RJC as a whole ignored completely,
especially at the improperly noticed (your're here! said Judge Clifton, echoing RMC
Jugde Dilworth's statements in response to similar due process/lack of notice/service
arguments made by Coughlin at the 12/3/12 Trial in 12 CR 12420 (which is entirely
connected to CV11-03126, RJC Rev12-1048, RCR12-067980, and, therefore, CV1103126, and therefore, CV11-01955, and therefore RCR12-065630, and therefore NG120204, 0434, 0435, etc., etc., and on and one. Sure the Nevada Constituting requires some
to swear to protection the Constitution and the government of Nevada but its a bit much
to stretch that and JCRCP 1 to an exception that swallows all dur process protections and
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
procedural rules, not to mention individual liberties and rights altogether. But, it sure helps
come re-election time).
Quite clear that Coughlin was seeking the 2JDC to required the RJC judges to follow the
law vis a vis NRS 178.405, where they failed to on 2/5/13 in rcr11-063341, and rcr12065630, leading to a conviction for a SCR 111(6) serious offense in 12-065630 on
4/2/13.
Emails between Coughlin and DAS Officer Brown incident to probation in RCR11063341 (rebutting the assertion in the 2/1/13 Arrest Report and Probable Cause Sheet by
DAS Officers Wickman and or Ramos that the after 7 pm warrantless arrest of Coughlin
was based an alleged violation of NRS 211A.125 (a statute providing for the arrest of
probationers without a warrant provided there is sufficient probable cause to believe a
violation of one's probation has occurred) upon the following: "ON 2/1/13 at
approximately 1845 hours, we made contact with the above subject who is on probation
with the department. Subject failed to check into this Department as required on 1/2/13
and 1/23/13. Subject was taken into custody for failing to check in which is a violation of
his probation. Subject was taken into custody, cuffed, double locked, and checked for
tightness. Subject was then transported to Washoe Jail."
Clearly, the following email from DAS Officer Brown vitiates any suggestion that DAS
had probable cause to believ eCoughlin failed to check in on 1/23/12 (and after that, is a
multitude of written evidence demonstrating that Coughlin contacted DAS well before and
after 1/2/13 to arrange for an alternate check in given the extraordinary circumstances of
his NRCP 52, 59 filing deadlines as to the 12/14/12 FOFCOL recommending permanent
disbarment in 62337 running on 1/3/13...beyond that, NRS 176A requires DAS to notify
the court of any alleged violation "within 24 hours" of such taking place, so why a
warrantless arrest on 2/1/13 for alleged conduct consisting of alleged failures to check in
(and regardless, certainly no of the "no call no show" variety) on 1/2/13 and 1/23/13?
How can it be that there was allegedly sufficient probable cause to make the warrantless
2/1/13 arrest of Coughlin (an impose a cash only bail of $500 resulting in 5 days in jail for
Coughlin) yet DAS did not "report within 24 hours" to the RJC such alleged violations of
1/2/13 and 1/23/13? Indeed, during the 2/1/13 warrantless probation violation arrest after
7 pm in violation of NRS 171.136, DAS Officer Ramos went out of his way to insist he
didn't not care to hear about or see any written evidence disproving the allegations that
Couglhin failed to check in on 1/2/13 and 1/23/13 (Coughlin attempted to show Officer
Ramos the 1/24/13 email from DAS Officer Brown admitting to the fact that the RJC
Bailiff's overly broad interpretation of an already suspect "Administrative Order" (DAS, as
part of the executive branch, cannot be "under the exclusive control" of the RJC sufficient
to require an RJC Bailiff escort Coughlin every Wednesday for his probation check in,
though the 5/23/13 arrest of Coughlin and ridiculous overstacking of redundant and
outsized charges by an RJC Bailiff Reyes whose wife filed a TPO Application against him
on 5/2/12 indicating his suffers from "severe depression" and is "off his medications" and
exhibits controlling and abusive behavior resulted in a bail of $16,500 for Coughlin and
incarceration between 5/23/13 and 6/6/13, with deadlines missed and prejudice suffered in
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
62337, 61383, 63041, 60302, and more..accordingly, Coughlin was placed in a Catch-22
on 1/23/13 where he waited for RJC Bailiff Medina to escort him to DAS, Medina taking
just long enough for DAS to close its doors, though DAS Officer Brown's email to
Coughlin of 1/24/13 certainly precludes any view that probable cause existed to view such
circumstances as tantamount a failure to check in violation of Coughlin's probation on
1/23/13. DAS Officer Brown's written admission to Coughlin of 1/24/13 follows (and
includes her narrowing the time frame for Coughlin's future check ins in a reverse of the
common accommodations provided to those with disabilities (whether Coughlins is
disabled due to a diagnosis of ADHD/ADD or MDD or the SCR 117 Petition in 60975...Its
inappropriate for DAS Officer to be playing lawyer (like they do in CCP court, sitting
opposite WCPD Rains) and judge (as Brown is here where she is altering the terms of
Coughlin's probation in a manner that fails to provide Equal Protection under the law, and
is clearly retaliatory to boot):
"RE: ATTN CJ of Department of Alternative SEntencingRE: New voicemail from:
7753299517? From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Sent:
Wed 1/02/13
4:13 PM To: Brown, Celeste (CBrown@washoecounty.us) Dear officer brown, car trouble
be there tomorrow"
"RE: I appreciate your efforts? From:
Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Sent:
Thu 1/03/13 12:20 PM To: Brown, Celeste (cbrown@washoecounty.us) Dear Officer Brown,
Would it possibly be okay if I checked in with DAS tomorrow, Friday? An Order was
entered recommending for me to be disbarred permanently as an attorney and I need to
consult with an attorney within a very limited time frame to challenge it. Sincerely, Zach
Coughlin"
"RE: I appreciate your efforts? From:
Fri 1/04/13 12:24 PM To: Brown, Celeste (cbrown@washoecounty.us) Dear Officer
Brown, I got very sick late last night with a stomach virus and apologize for not coming in
today. Sincerely, Zach Coughlin"
"Subject: about today? From:
Mon 1/07/13 2:57 PM To: Brown, Celeste (cbrown@washoecounty.us) Dear Officer
Brown, I am pretty sure I called or wrote last Friday saying I would check in today. I did
come to Court (I had a hearing in the RJC) but I forgot my $5 whistle tube and am very low
on money right now, plus I had not slept all night because I am working on an appeal brief to
an Order that seeks to disbar me permanently from the practice of law...and the RJC Bailiffs
have some Orders to limit my access to any areas within the RJC's dominion and control...so
it seemed like I had a halfway good argument that they were telling me to leave, but If I
pushed it I probably could have gone and checked in at the DAS counter. Hopefully you can
give me a little slack here (I will check in Wednesday and get the application for the fee
waiver for any competency evaluation you want me to take. I only have a few more days to
finish my appeal brief as to the attached Order, and its just a ton of work (I am doing it all
myself because I cannot afford an attorney). Sincerely, Zach Coughlin Zach has a file to
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
share with you on SkyDrive. To view it, click the link below. 12 14 12 stamped 0204 Order
by Chair Echeverria Findings of Fact Conclusion of Law seeking to disbar Coughlin.pdf "
"Subject: competency or mental health evaluation evaluation? From: Zach Coughlin
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) You moved this message to its current location. Sent:
Wed 1/16/13 11:10 AM To:
cbrown@washoecounty.us
(cbrown@washoecounty.us) Dear Officer Brown, When we last spoke I informed you that I
had not slept in at least 30 hours having been working very long hours on a brief addressing
and order seeking to permanently disbar my license to practice law. You indicated you could
care less about such a thing an mentioned how you were tired of my coming in during your
offices working hours, indicating you were upset that I came in to close to closing time.
While it was my understanding previously that we had done whatever intake was required
you recently mentioned that you would like to do an additional intake meeting of some sort.
Additionaly, I have previously written you and your office respecting any requirement that I
have a competency evaluation done within 30 days of the 11/20/12 Order. My understanding
was that Judge Sferrazza's declaring me competent on 10/22/12 complied with that Order in
that it was within 30 days of 11/20/12. I am attaching the report by Lake's Crossing Tom
Durante upon which Judge Sferrazza's Order evaluating me as mentally competent to stand
trial was based. Addtionaly, we had discussed that there was some uncertainty as to whether
that 10/22/12 Order finding me competent as sufficinet or whether I would need to have a
fourth competency evaluation done within the last 15 months, and Judge Sferrazza's ruling on
11/20/12 that waived all fees associated with my participation in DAS's program, which I
understood to included any costs associated thereto, including any competency or mental
health evaluation that may be required to be done within 30 days of the 11/20/12 conviction
order, should the 10/22/12 Order finding me competent not be satisfactory. You directed me
so ask for and fill out some materials at my next checkin, However, when I appeared and
requested such materials from Sabrina, and referenced you directions that I pick up the fee
waiver application for any competency or mental health evaluation that may be required,
Sabrina knew not of what I was speaking nor was she aware of or did she have any such fee
waiver application. Now, in complying with your request that I check in today I called prior
to 10 am and sought further clarification and you indicated to me that there is no fee waiver
application or process for any competency evaluation and that you had reported to Robbin
Baker something causing my case to potentially "go to warrant" despite my justifiable
reliance upon your previous directions and indications to me that you could and were
extending any such requirement to have a competency or mental health evaluation done
within 30 days of the 11/20/12 conviction until issues related to figuring out the fee waiver
application process and whether or not the 10/22/12 Order Declaring me competent based
upon a report by a Lake's Crossing mental health professional was satisfactory. I appreciate
your assistance in notating my file sufficiently to insure this does not go to warrant as I
believe I have relied justifiably upon your previous express assertions that it would not,
especially considering that you have now changed your position respecting the fee waiver
application process. I am attaching a fee waiver application and the Lake's Crossing
evaluation and a docket from RCR2011-063341 wherein the 10/22/12 Order delcaring me
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
competent was rendered and links to the JAVS audio transcript of both that hearing and the
conclusion of the trial and decision of conviction on 11/20/12 wherein the waiver of all fees
associated with the my participation in the DAS program were addressed. 10/22/12 in
063341 declaring competent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajOqx4xFCK4 11/20/12 in
063341: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgSKVkvqFU Sincerely, Zachary Barker
Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com Zach has 2 files to share with you on SkyDrive. To view them,
click the links below. 1 15 12 updated 063341 ifp coughlin to DAS for fee waiver for any
competency evaluation required 0204 printed.pdf 10 1 12 Lake's Crossing Competency
Evaluation Report by Durante Ruled Competent by Judge Sferrazza on 10 22 12 which is
within 30 days of 11 20 12 Order to get evaluation done within 30 days 063341.pdf
Download all"
"RE: Update?
10
From:
Brown, Celeste (Cbrown@washoecounty.us) This sender is in your safe list.
11
Sent:
Thu 1/24/13 3:10 PM
12
13
14
15
16
To: 'Zach Coughlin' (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)

Per the video, you showed up at 2:56 p.m From here on out Zach, you need to check
in between 9:45 and 2:00 p.m. Lets see if we can fix the problem ok?
Sgt. CJ Brown WC Dept. Of Alternative Sentencing 1 South Sierra St. Reno, Nv 89501
desk 775)327-8384 fax 775)327-8383
From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24,
2013 2:42 PM
17
To: Brown, Celeste Subject: Update
18
Dear Officer Brown,
19
I appreciate your recent note. Thank you. It meant a lot. I came in yesterday well more
than 5 minutes prior to 3 pm, but was detained too long at the security station for Bailiff
Medina to escort me to the DAS Office (then Chief Judge Sferrazza's Administrative
Order 12-01 of December 20th, 2012 requires as much). I saw Judge Linda Gardner's
bailiff, Deputy Kirkham milling about with four or five other deputies near the courthouse
exit performing a pbc test on a man, and requested permission to wait my turn and take
one as well. I memorialized this in a note that I gave to Bailiff Medina for which he agreed
to provide to DAS. Deputy Kirkham made some sneering commentary about alcoholism
and dependency issues in general (I cannot recall specifically whether or not she then
"high-fived" one of her fellow deputies) as they relate to me, and perhaps the Irish race
and my ancestry in general, then refused to allow me to take a pbc test and document it on
the note I left with Bailiff Medina for DAS. Deputy Kirkham decided against assisting in a
pbc test. Deputy Kirkham, the SBN arranged, was present for my 11/14/12 formal
disciplinary hearing at the State Bar of Nevada, despite the involvement of 2JDC Family
Court Judge Linda Gardner (the SBN has been purposefully vague and obstructionist as to
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
whether ng12-0435 is a grievance with a grievant of Linda Gardner given some of the
ethical problems associated with Judges writing letters whether of recommendation or
condemnation (or Orders After Trial) and submitting them voluntarily (or having their
brother RMC Judge William Gardner do so by way of taking the 4/13/09 Order After Trial
by his sister and passing it to RMC Judge Nash Holmes, then having her include that in
the 3/14/09 grievance she herself filed on behalf of RMC Judge William Gardner and all
other RMC Judges....especially where RMC Judge W. Gardner refused to recuse himself
from the criminal trespass prosecution of Coughlin from his former home law office
incident to the summary eviction from it presided over by RJC Judge Sferrazza (where a
$2,275 rent escrow deposit was ordered by the RJC in violation of Nevada law and still
not returned to Coughlin by the time of the trespassing arrest or during any period in
which Coughlin was expected to hire movers and rent a uhaul and arrange for an alternate
location to place such personalty). Further RMC Judge Garder failed to disclose that his
sister is 2JDC Family Court Judge Linda Gardner during the audio record of the 2/2/12
hearing in 11 CR 26405 wherein Coughlin prompted Judge Gardner to disclose any such
matters that would tend to create an appearance of impropriety or a basis for a conflict or
bias, whether or not such did, in fact exist, and whether the judge himself thought such did
in fact exist.
As to the permissibility of such voluntary extra-judicial contacts with adjudicatory panels
(including that by RJC Judicial Secretary Lori Townsend on 4/11/12 to the SBN wherein
she volunteered filings by Coughlin in 063341 and 065630 and the dockets in those
respective cases):
In re Frank, 753 So. 2D 1228 (Fla. 2000) (retired appellate judge publicly reprimanded for
actions while on bench, including making false or misleading statements under oath
concerning his involvement in divorce litigation of his daughter; not recusing himself from
appeals based on his friendship with attorney in those appeals; improperly interfering with
Bar grievance proceeding of that attorney; threatening to have son-in-law arrested or
committed to psychiatric facility during divorce proceedings involving his other daughter).
In re Inquiry Concerning Ward, 654 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1995) (judge received public
reprimand for writing character reference letter for criminal defendant recommending
probation; letter was not response to official request by defendant's probation officer).
In re Fogan, 646 So.2d 191 (Fla. 1994) (judge sanctioned for writing character reference
letter on official court stationery for personal friend facing sentencing in federal court;
friend's federal probation officer had not requested letter).
24
Http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/courted/bin/judicialethicsbenchguide.pdf
25
6. What Contact with Investigative or Adjudicatory Bodies Is Permitted?
26
The case law and committee opinions advise that a judge may not initiate contact with an
investigatory or adjudicatory body determining rights, duties, privileges, or immunities of
a person requesting that the judge contact the body on his or her behalf. Opinion 75-6
(improper to write character letter for attorney who is principal in disbarment proceeding);
27
28

-
Opinion 75-18 (improper to write letter to bar grievance committee or supreme court in
disciplinary proceeding or to federal judge in criminal sentencing without official request);
Opinion 82-15 (improper to write letter voluntarily to Board of Bar Examiners); Opinion
89-15 (impermissible to appear before judicial nominating commission to introduce
candidate or express opinion about who is best qualified to serve as judge...See Judge
Sferrazza's letter in 2007 on this and Judge Linda Gardner's submitting numerous letters of
recommendation from local judges:
http://www.washoecounty.us/large_files/agendas/071007/35.pdf page 101-104);
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
4. May Judge Write Letters of Recommendation or Serve as Character Witness?

Canon 2B governs letters of recommendation and states in pertinent part: A judge shall
not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or
others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in
a special position to influence the judge. Generally, Florida Supreme Court opinions
allow, and Committee opinions advise, that it is ethically acceptable for judges to write
letters of recommendation to educational institutions on behalf of persons about whom
they have actual knowledge based on personal observation. See In re Code of Judicial
Conduct, 643 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 1994) (citing Committee opinions 75-18, 75-22, 77-17, 793, 88-19, 92-2, 92-30, and 93-1, all identified as proper interpretations of the canon).
Similarly, the opinions cited above indicate that a judge may write a letter of
recommendation for a person applying for employment if the judge has actual knowledge
and communicates factual information regarding character, knowledge, skills, and ability
relevant to the job in question or relevant to professional competence generally.
16
5. What Contact with Investigative or Adjudicatory Bodies Is Permitted?
17
The case law and Committee opinions advise that a judge may not initiate contact with an
investigatory or adjudicatory body determining rights, duties, privileges, or immunities of
a person requesting that the judge contact the body in his or her behalf. See In re Inquiry
Concerning Ward, 654 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1995) (judge wrote letter of character reference on
official court stationery on behalf of friend awaiting sentencing in federal court, a violation
of Canon 2B, for which judge received public reprimand). See Opinion 75-6 (improper to
write character letter for attorney who is principal in disbarment proceeding); Opinion 7518 (improper to write letter to bar grievance committee or Supreme Court in disciplinary
proceeding or to federal judge in criminal sentencing without official request); Opinion
82-15 (improper to write letter voluntarily to Board of Bar Examiners); Opinion 88-11
(improper to communicate with Florida Bar members on behalf of Florida Bar presidential
candidate); Opinion 89-4 (improper to ask Board of Bar Examiners to expedite application
for law clerk); Opinion 89-15 (impermissible to appear before judicial nominating
commission to introduce candidate or express opinion about who is best qualified to serve
as judge).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Recent case law, in two notable decisions, does, however, suggest that some
communications initiated by a judge with an investigative or adjudicatory body may be
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
permissible. In In re Frank, 753 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 2000), the court was faced with a judge
who contacted Bar grievance attorneys to express frustration with their handling of a
matter. Notably, the judge did not ask for or demand special treatment based on his
position. The court noted at 1240-41:
Knowledge that one is a judicial officer or respectful conduct in response to such
knowledge does not automatically translate into a determination that a judicial position has
been abused. Judge Frank did not forfeit the right to make proper inquiry concerning the
pending matters simply because he held judicial office. A judicial officer should not be
sanctioned simply because those with whom he or she has interaction are aware of the
official position. The use of a judicial position or power of the position in an...
May 7, 2004 OPINION: JE04-004 http://judicial.state.nv.us/je040043new.htm THE
PROPRIETY OF VARIOUS EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONDUCT. Issue 1. May a judge write
a letter of recommendation on behalf of a candidate for admission to law school? 2. May a
judge write a letter of support on behalf of a doctor in a medical licensing hearing? ...
DATE ISSUED: May 7, 2004 OPINION: JE04-004 THE PROPRIETY OF VARIOUS
EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONDUCT. Issue 1. May a judge write a letter of recommendation
on behalf of a candidate for admission to law school? 2. May a judge write a letter of
support on behalf of a doctor in a medical licensing hearing? Finally, the judge has asked
the Committee whether judicial stationery may be used for the letters of support approved
above. This Committee has previously rendered an opinion that the use of judicial
stationery while not expressly prohibited, is disfavored when used as a letter of
congratulation to successful candidates for election to judicial or non-judicial office. See
JE03-002. Judicial ethics committees around the country are divided on whether judges
may use official stationery to write letters of recommendation. See generally,
Recommendations by Judges, supra, p. 6. This Committee believes that as long as the
letters of recommendation are written upon personal knowledge and otherwise comply
with the cautions set out above to prevent the prestige of judicial office being used for the
private gain of others, that the use of judicial stationery is allowable. References Canon
2B; Canon 4; Canon 4B; Florida Advisory Opinion 75-6; Missouri Advisory Opinion 137
(1988); Recommendations by Judges, Cynthia Gray, American Judicature Society, 1966 at
p.10; Canon 5; Sections 5B(2) and 5C(1); Canon 5A(1); Canon 5A(1)(b); Canon 4C(1);
Canon 4G; Canon 4C(4)(a); Canon 4C(4)(a)(ii); and JE03-002. ________________ This
opinion is issued by the Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics and Election Practices. It
is advisory only. It is not binding upon the courts, the State Bar of Nevada, the Nevada
Commission on Judicial Discipline, any person or tribunal charged with regulatory
responsibilities, any member of the Nevada judiciary, or any person or entity which
requested the opinion. ________________________________ Phillip W. Bartlett
Committee Chairman"
FindACase _ INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 93-145 ROBERT J 0204
judges letters of recommendation.pdf
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
CJE Opinion No 0204 Massachusetts advisory opinion on Judges writing letters of

recommendation for disbarment proceedings 0204.pdf
1 23 13 0204 01168 WLS decision in 3 10 02 Tax appeal to State Board of Equalization
email form Anita Moore.pdf
0204 in re ward regarding judges writing voluntarily character reference letters 0204 op82248.pdf
in re fogan judge letter of recommendation 0204.pdf
5 7 04 judicial discipline commission opinion nv on judges writing letters.pdf
Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline 0204 nv judges writing letters of
recommendation.pdf
Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline appearance of impropriety contacts 0204
eviction.pdf
fogan type case 0204.pdf
12
NO. 06-B-2222 in Re John Whitaker Judge writing reference letter on letterhead prestige
to advance interest of another disciplinary matter 0204.pdf
13
Download all
14
One thing that I am particular.y unhappy about is what I perceive to be the sexism
displayed by the RJC Bailiffs as it relates to their curious insistence upon only attempting
to violate courthouse sanctuary doctrine within the relatively cramped confines of the DAS
check in room. Perhaps they do so in some attempt to set up an argument that court house
sanctuary doctrine has not been violated where they attempt to effect service of the
spurious abuse of process found in the State Bar of Nevada and Washoe County Public
Defender's recent Applications for Orders of Protection and RJC Chief Judge Pearson's
subsequent granting thereof.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
However, to me it seems more in line with the regrettably typical approach by so many
males whom cannot bring themselves to respect the jurisdiction of a woman such as
yourself who has ascended to a position of power and influence, and at such a young age
to boot. I feel that, at least as long as a DAS participant is in the check in room for DAS,
that the RJC Bailiffs should respect the sanctity of the process and not impinge upon the
fine and important work being done therein in their attempts to legitimize the spurious
abuse of process by DDAs Kandaras, D. Watts-Vial (more troubling is the relation the
2JDC Family Court Judge Walker's Administrative Assistant Laura Watts-Vial given the
54844 Mandamus action's reception by the Family Court Judges in general, which, to say
the least, has not been as equinimitable, according to John Springgate, Esq., (whom back
in 2009 suggested I focuse more on "repairing your relationship with the Family Court
Judges" as though they were a collective vindictive whole whom blanche biliously at any
advocacy counter to their preference) as I might have hoped it would be...), WCPD Jim
Leslie, Esq., and the SBN's Patrick O. King, Esq.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
While my resources and time are scarce currently given the pendency of the Briefing
Schedule in the Appeal of the FOFCOL seeking to permanently disbar me...I will come in
today to submit for another pbc if you tell me to, or tomorrow if you do not get this
message today, and I have mental health evaluation scheduled and will get the results to
you post haste.
Sincerely,
Zachary Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402"
Now, considering that under NRS 4.240 docket entries in Justice Courts are prima facie
evidence of fact, it is interesting to consider the various entries in the cases wherein
Coughlin is or was being prosecuted, along with the statements on the record by Judges
Pearson and Clifton, along with a review of the written correspondence between Coughlin
and DAS Officer Celeste Brown, in addition to considering the role of conflict court
appointed (allegedly) attorney Bruce Lindsay, Esq. (especially considering the various
statements of DDA Young and RJC Chief Criminal Division Clerk Robbin Baker relayed
to Coughlin through Lindsay's secretary/paralegal Diana Sims.
The docket in RCR11-063341 indicates on page 1: "Warrants Bench Warrant Failure to
Comply. Coughlin, Zachary Barker (Judicial Officer: Sfcrrazza, Peter) 01/11/2013 11:33
AM Recalled 01/10/2013 10:27 AM Issued 01/09/2013 2:49 PM Pending Clerk. Review
Finc: $0 $500.00 Bonds Cash Bail Without Notice $500.00 2/5/2013 Posted Counts: 1,
2". Thereafter, Bruce Lindsay, Esq. Is listed as "Lead Attorney" with no indication that
Coughlin is acting as co-counsel, despite Coughlin's express reservations on 3/5/13 and
3/11/13 in the combo-hearings that he insisted upon staying on as co-counsel with final
say on all decisions related to his representation in any way. There is no entry anywhere
in the docket for either a Notice of Appearance by Lindsay or a Motion to Withdraw or
Order granting such relative to Lindsay's designation in the docket as attorney of record,
for which Lindsay receives compensation from the Bob Bell, Esq. Group as necessitate by
the WCPD, through the WCDA's Office, receiving a Workplace Harassment EPO against
Coughlin from RJC Judge Pearson on 12/18/12 in RCP 12-599.
page 8 of the docket reveals:
"11/20/12 Disposition (Judicial Officer: Sferrazza, Peter) 1. PETIT LARCENY Found
Guilty 2. POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY Found Guilty
11/20/12 Sentence (Judicial Officer: Sferrazza, Peter) 1. PETIT LARCENY SUSPENDED
Sentenced to Confinement Agency: Washoe County Jail term: 180 Days CTS: 7 Days
Comment: not to exceed ONE (1) to TWO (2) years.
11/20/12 Amended Sentence (Judicial Officer: Sferrazza, Peler) 1. PETIT LARCENY
IMPOSED Condition Adult: I. Department of Alternative Sentencing. Supervision for 12 years. All supervision fees are WAIVED. 11/20/2012, Active 11/20/2014 2. Abstain
from Drugs and Alcohol, 11/20/2012, Closed 11/20/2012 3. No Further Violations,
11/20/2012, Closed 11/20/2012 4. Proof of Evaluation and to Follow Evaluatiob
Recommendations, To obtain a Mental Health Evaluation and provide proof to the Court.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11.20.2012, Active 12/20/2012 5. Other, Defendant is to take all prescribed medications.

11/20/2012, Closed 11/20/2012"
While Coughlin was never served it by the RJC (indeed there exists no proof of service
thereof in the ROA in the appeal in CR12-2025, perhaps owing to a rendition standard),
the 11/21/11 "Misdemeanor Judgment" by Judge Sferrazza reads: "The Defendant on
November 20, 2012, plead not guilty, was tried by the Court and was found guilty of CT.
1. PETIT LARCENY, a violation of WCC 53.160 and 125.050 and CT. II. POSSESSION
OF STOLEN PROPERTY, a violation of NRS 205.275, Count II conviction merges with
Count I for purpose of sentencing. No Cause appearing why judgment should not be
pronounced, It is ordered and adjudged by the Court that the Defendant is sentenced on
Count I to serve ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) days in the County Detention Facility,
with credit for EIGHT (8) days time served, SUSPENDED for an indefinite period of time
not to exceed TWO (2) years on the following conditions: 1) Defendant is to obtain at his
own expense a Mental Health Evaluation and provide proof to the Court by December 20,
2012; 2) Defendant is to take all prescribed prescription medications; 3) Defendant is not
to consume or possess unauthorized drug and/or alcohol; 4) To violate no laws; 5)
Defendant is released on Probation to the Department of Alternative Sentencing for
remainder of sentence; Defendant ordered to comply with all DAS requirements. It is
further ordered that the Defendant be detained and brought forthwith before the Court by
any duly sworn peace officer of the State of Nevada if the Defendant violates or fails to
fulfill any condition of sentence ordered herein 'or if the Defendant violates or fails to
fulfill any condition of alternative sentencing in which the Defendant is allowed to
participate by any agency of the state or local government. Dated this November 21,2012."
From the quasi-transcript the RJC's Cathy Wood prepared of the conclusion of the
11/20/12 Trial in 063341, it is clear Judge Sferrazza still failed to grasp the import of
Coughlin's Motion for Mistrial served on the WCDA's Office on 10/18/12, but not filed
(due to faxing error) in the RJC until 11/9/12, which clearly set out that Staab and Shepp
provide mandatory authority preventing a court from convicting one for both larceny and
receiving stolen property where the allegation is that one received from himself the very
property he himself stole, ie, "a thief cannot receive the fruits of his own theft": "Coughlin:
And let's start from learning very basic things, I think anyone could have read the 230
page motion for mistrial memorandum of law that Mr. Young has had since October 18 th, I
believe, well over 30 days prior to today. Well, if today's the 20th. But I see a lot of growth
was there relevant to the issues here, Staab v State, all this case law I cited herein, urn, is
extremely applicable to things like the amended charge. And I don't want to misstate it
now by citing the wrong case, but I will just say there is cases, and I set them out, and
there is, I believe, mandatory authority in Nevada that if (page 109) the prosecutor does
not plead from another -THE COURT: Sir, it does say from another. MR. COUGHLIN:
I'm sorry, sir, I meant specify. I believe in my --it needs to specify from who, or provide
facts in support thereof. THE COURT: In looking at the complaint, it says the property of
Cory Goble in Count One and Count Two ..." (NOTE: its clear that DDA Young failed to
grasp the above argument and authority Couglin made via motion and during the trial by
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the following at page 116: State (DDA Young): "MR. YOUNG: Very brief, Your Honor.
Again, there is no need for the State to prove that the larceny was, in Mr. Coughlin's
words, from the person of 116 another, that's a total different crime, that's a felony."
Coughlin: "Urn, but I think it's clear that one in Nevada it's mandatory authority, if you
found that I got the phone, or took the phone, or anything of that sort, if you don't find that
I had felonious intent at that time, at that time, this mandatory authority in Nevada says
that that is not larceny, or, urn, receiving, or possession of stolen property. And it's a kind
of quirky thing about Nevada law that legal commentators have noted, but it's definitely
exciting, and I don't believe it's worth costing the Court, you know, a bunch more
resources, or the appellate court, or anything of that regard, particularly when there's
mandatory authority in Nevada law that easily disposes of this, where I believe the facts
are very, very clear that, urn, the accused did not --did not show up and get anything, urn,
upon someone just offering a phone up. There's no testimony today that someone offered a
phone up, and the accused ran up and got it. (page 113) In fact, there's tons of inconsistent
testimony, and I really savaged the skateboard use in this brief, I typed out the 12 pages of
hours of transcripts. THE COURT: Are you referring to Staab v State, or are you referring
to something else? MR. COUGHLIN: That's a big one. I believe State v Clifford is the
one that deals with, urn, conversely as of the time of the taking, the taker --it deals with a
--well, that's an Arkansas one, but there's Nevada law, State v Clifford: "If such intent
does not exist at the time of finding, but instead the finder intends to restore the property to
the owner, a subsequent concealment or fraudulent appropriation does not constitute
larceny." It might sound like larceny, people might not be proud of their actions, other
people might be upset, but that's mandatory law in Nevada."
Its interesting to note DDA Young's assessment of the extent to which the "facts" he
attempted to establish support the elements of the crimes he charged: State: "And I would
submit the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has been sufficiently met with
respect to what this case, a fairly simple case, is. Taking a cellphone and trying to leave
and all the subsequent actions showing why he's trying to hold on to that, including
flipping it over, denying that he has it, and everything else that you've heard over the
couple days of testimony that we've had." (page 117). All of the witness testimony
purporting to have eye witnessed Coughlin "flipping the phone over" was thoroughly
contradicted and or made by one whom necessarily could not have and did not so witness
any such "flipping over" of a phone sufficient to conceal the lcd screen of such lighting up
in an incoming call notification supposedly visible through Coughlin's right front short's
pocket. The witness testimony (particularly that of Zarate and Lichty, when considered in
relation the the call records to and from the phone during the time in question (which the
WCPD tried to conceal from Couglhin and was thoroughly successfully in obstructing
Coughlin in his attempts to identify the callers and the locations at the time of such calls of
such purported eye witnesses of such "flipping over" or "lighting up" of the phone for the
purpose of contradicting their claims of being eye witnesses to such events. The purported
"taking", per that in evidence, at best, consists of alleged eye witness testimony by Zarate
(and Coughlin was denied the right to have admitted a video of Zarate admitting that he
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
did not personally eye witness Coughlin "taking" the phone, but only inferred that "the
man with the six pack of beer" gave it to Coughlin through circumstantial deduction) that
Coughlin was freely given the phone (which contradicts the statements attributed to Zarate
in RPD Officer Duralde's Arrest Report, which indicates Zarate told him Coughlin
"grabbed" the phone off a ledge, which itself contradicts Zarate's own written Witness
Statement, which speaks to his belief that a man gave Coughlin the phone. The bigger
pothole for the State's case relates to the "property of another" element of petty larceny,
which Young decidely steered clear of addressing during his closing argument and within
the case itself. Young's closing and the evidence he put on was also decidedly void of any
support for the "intent to permanently deprive" element, and, in fact, testimony relative to
Coughlin allegedly asking Goble why he would even want a 3G smart phone when 4G
was the newer benchmark (and Goble's own statement on the 911 recording and videos
Coughlin filmed of the moments prior to the RPD arriving to Couglin: "you just admitted
you stole my phone!"...and Coughlin's statements to Goble that one would be lacking in
perspective were they to "set a phone down, then skateboard a mile away, and get mad if
someone picks it up", both of which hardly support any assertion that Coughlin was
"denying that he has it" or an inference that Coughlin manifested some "intent to
permanently deprive" one of their property. Further, the only testimony offered to support
Young's contention that Couglhin ws "denying that he has it" consisted of Goble testifying
that he queried Coughlin as to whether he had "my phone", a possessive clause that
necessitates one having knowledge of which phones, out of all the phones in the world,
belong, in a legal ownership sense, to one, Goble, whom was a stranger to Goble prior to
these events, and where Goble and other witnesses admitted the item in question, allegedly
a fungible iPhone 3G with nothing in the way of identifying marks of ownership displayed
thereon (and Goble's testimony of a screen lock implying one would be unable to even
search such phone for clues as to "ownership" or title).
As to Judge Sferrazza's rendition of judgment, it clearly reveals the negligent approach he
took to this case, at best, and his apparent (at best) complete lack of understanding of the
legal precedent that Coughlin set out in explicit, intricate detail in his filings and trial
presentation. Further, the blase, nonchalant approach Judge Sferrazza takes to convicting
Coughlin of the second charge, the "receiving stolen property charge" can only undermine
any faith one has in his ruling as to the larceny charge. Clearly, a finder of fact whom
hands out SCR 111(6) serious offense convictions as easily as candy (and with zero
analysis as to the elements of a receiving stolen property charge, or any apparent
understanding as to the fact that one must "receive" such "stolen" property "from another"
whom one "knows came to possess that property" by "stealing" it...ie, there was zero
testimony to support a view that "the man holding a six pack" whom Zarate lied with
regard to in testifying, under oath, that he "personally eye witnessed" to anyone, but
especially to one whose livelihood would suffer enormous collateral consequences upon
such a conviction, such as an attorney (which the receiving stolen property charge is, as it
contains an element in its definition involving theft) :
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"THE COURT: I am prepared to rule at this time, and although I don't believe I'm
required to explain my decision, I am going to indicate that I have reviewed State v
Clifford, and also the other case cited by Mr. Coughlin, Staab v State, and from that
State v Clifford, it does indicate that the mere fact of a person's converting to his own
use goods found by him does not, as a matter of law, make him guilty of theft.
Conversely, if at the time of the taking the taker knows or has means of discovering
the owner, it is his legal and moral duty to hold and restore the goods to him, and if
under such circumstances he absolutely appropriates them to his own use, excluding
the dominion of the owner, it is larceny. And that's State v Clifford, 14 Nevada 72,
1879 case. And then Staab v State provides that: "It is the fact of possession," and that's 90
Nevada 347, 1974, "it is the fact of possession that provides the inference of guilt. The
inference which is founded on manifest reason that when goods have been taken from one
person and are quickly thereafter found in the possession of another, there is a strong
probability that they were taken by the latter." And based upon the law of the statute, the
case law in Clifford and Staab, which were cited by the defendant, the Court finds beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant in this case is guilty of petty larceny, and in Count
Two, the Court finds 118 I beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of
possession of stolen property. And with respect to sentencing, we'll hear from the State at
this time, and then we'll hear from the defendant. MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, with
respect to sentencing I believe the case law is clear that essentially Counts One and
Two merge, so I'm only going to be asking for effectively one sentence...
THE COURT: All right. Sir, I'm going to impose sentence. I'm not punishing you for
going through a trial, but I do agree with the district attorney in this case that this is not
a run of the mill petty larceny case, I am going to sentence you to the 180 days, which
will be suspended, and you will get credit for the time you served, which you indicated
was seven and a half days, I'll give you credit for eight days on this case. (page 123) I will
suspend it on condition that you are supervised by DAS, and I will waive --instruct DAS
to waive any cost for the supervision, normally defendants are required to pay the cost
of their supervision. MR. COUGHLIN: What is DAS? THE COURT: Department of
Alternative Sentencing. MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you. THE COURT: You'll need to
check in no later than tomorrow with them. You'll need to sign an order to attend up front
before you leave. I will not impose any fine, but there will be a condition you abstain
from use of alcohol and illegal drugs, and that you take medications as prescribed.
And that you get a mental health evaluation within 30 days from today, and follow the
recommendations, that will need to be presented to the Court no later than 30 days from
today. And if you do all that, you will not go to jail, and you will your sentence is
suspended for a minimum of one to two years. And I do not want to see you back in
court again, but I don't believe your problems with the law are being caused by Mr.
Young, he doesn't go out in the streets and find you and accuse you of offenses, that is
the police, and it is (page 124) independent of Mr. Young, it is independent from me,
it is independent of the landlords you've had problems with, or the other attorneys,
prosecuting attorneys, and the judges, you've had a variety of judges consider your
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
cases. I think you've had an opportunity to present your case, and I do find that this
is a reasonable sentence in light of everything that's happened. And you do have the
right to appeal if you disagree."
It is noteworthy that nothing in the judgment and sentence as rendered by Judge Sferrazza
orders Coughlin to pay for the cost of the "Mental Health Evaluation". The alleged failure
of Coughlin to comply with such condition in a timely manner became central to the
1/10/13 issuance of a warrant by Judge Sferrazza, noted in the docket, which was quickly
quashed by Chief Judge Pearson on 1/11/13/ As such, the notation in the docket for 2/4/13
of a "Warrant Arraignment" for a FTC (Failure to Comply) DAS Probation Violation
certainly runs counter to the Arrest Report and Probable Cause sheet by DAS Officers
Wickman and Ramos of 2/1/13 in not only crossing out the box for entering a "Warrant #
& Date" but further listing a warrantless probation violation statute, NRS 211A.125 in the
box for "NRS/ORD #". Further, that ARDOPC lists the "Arrest Date" as "2/1/13" with a
"Time" of "1902", which is an admission that the arrest violated NRS 171.136 in making a
warrantless arrest of Coughlin in his home (especially where the two officers refused to
indicate to Coughlin that he was going to be placed under arrest, as required by law prior
to doing so, and where the indicated to Coughlin through a closed, locked home door, that
they were "ordering" him to exit his home, and that he would be in violation of the law
should he fail to do so. This is particularly true where the judgment and sentence as
rendered contain nothing to support a view that a condition of Coughlin's probation
involved submitting to "random search and seizure", and the any assertion that "being
supervised by DAS" includes such, especially per the listed options in NRS 178, or that
the DAS "Contract" requires such a waiver of one's rights (especially not where Coughlin
interlineated on such contract that he was not waiving any such rights and not agreeing to
comply with anything more than the express conditions of his sentence and or probation as
rendered in court by Judge Sferrazza (and any subsequent amendments thereto, or
differences between the sentence as rendered in open court and as reduced to writing in the
"Misdemeanor Judgment" of 11/21/12 (which, again, was never served on Coughlin and
where even the Record on Appeal in the appeal of this matter in CR12-2025 lacks any
Proof of Service or Notice of Entry whatsoever to support an assertion that Coughlin ever
received such 11/21/11 Misdemeanor Judgment" sufficient to place him on notice of any
such terms or otherwise lend any credence to a view that such are not void).
The terms of Couglin's probation in 063341 (which is the only probation Couglin is
currently subject to given Judge Clifton made Coughlin's sentence in 065630 run
consecutive to Coughlin's sentence in 063341, meaning, Coughlin's probation incident to
the conviction in 065630 (now on appeal in CR13-0614) has yet to even begin) do not
include being Subject To Random Search and Seizure by a Peace Officer anymore than
the do not require Publice Defender Reimbursement. Upon complying with Judge
Sferrazza's 11/20/12 Order to Attend in 063341, which reads: YOU ARE ORDERED
to attend and complete the following: (NOTE: there are box that are not check for the
following: Dui School, Victim Impact Panel, Domestic Violence Program, Anger
Counseling Program, Self Help Meetings, To appaer for Courts Counesling Compliance
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Program (CCP), Public Defender Reimbursement, Evaluation, Parenting Class,

Restitution) (NOTE: there is a check in the boxes for the following): Due by; 1-2 years;
Alternative Sentencing Division...Report for Probation by 11/21/2012. Hours Mon.-Thurs.
9:00 AM 3:00 P.M.; Due by; 12/20/2012; Other: To obtain a Mental Health Evaluation
and provide proof to the Court. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE
COURT WITH YOUR CURRENT ADDRESS WITHIN 10 DAYS OF ANY CHANGE.
YOU ARE FURTHER ORDERED to enroll within 10 days and appear alcohol free. Upon
successful completion, you are responsible for producing a completion certificate to the
Court on or before the due date. Failure to comply with any requirement of your
counseling program(s) may result in the issuance of a bench warrant for your arrest (A
$25.00 late fee will be assessed eo each programs(s) not complete on the due date). DATE
this 20th day of November, 2012 /s/s PETER J. SFERRAZZA, Justice of the Peace,
Department #2. The sentence imposed upon Couglin by Judge Sferrazza in 063341 not
only waived all of the fees associated with DAS, it did not impose any fine on Couglin
either, and gave him credit for all the time he served in connection with the charge levied
(which is difficult to actually discern given the 15 custodial arrests and the various
intricacies of which bail applied to what charge, and the 52 days of incarceration Couglin
has been subject to since the 8/20/11 arrest in 063341, incident to which he was given 8
days credit for his incarceration between 8/20/11 8/26/11 whereupon he was released on
his own recognizance upon the charge being lessened from ooh thats a felony grand
larceny (as said RPD Officer Duralde to Couglin shortly after effecting a custodial arrest at
11 pm in violation of NRS 171.136) alleging Coughlin larcenized a $80 used iPhone,
but still charging Couglin with felony grand larceny in retaliatoin for Coughlin inquiring
about the Hiibel case, Terry Stops, reasonable suspicion and probable cause, etc., and
taking issue with the fact that Duralde (by all indications, accidentally) touched Coughlin's
penis during one of the many Terry Stop weapons check pat downs that he conducted
that night.). Anyways, Judge Sferrazza did not order, as a condition of Coughlin's
probation, that he be subject ot random search and seizure by a peace officer.
The disturbin link between Coughlin's email of 1:30 AM to the WCDA's Office on
2/1/13 and the warrantless, retaliatory DAS arrest some seventeen hour later is clear when
considering not only the content of that email and surrounding circumstances, but the terms
of Coughlin's suspended sentence and NRS 176A.310
NRS 176A.310 Conditions; duties of surety; probationer to report to and pay surety. 1.
The court shall set the conditions of a program of probation ... The conditions may
include, but are not limited to, any one or more of the following: (a) Submission to
periodic tests to determine whether the probationer is using any controlled substance or
alcohol. (b) Participation in a program for the treatment of the abuse of a controlled
substance or alcohol or a program for the treatment of any other impairment. (c)
Participation in a program of professional counseling, including, but not limited to,
counseling for the family of the probationer. (d) Restrictions or a prohibition on contact or
communication with witnesses or victims of the crime committed by the probationer. (e) A
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
requirement to obtain and keep employment. (f) Submission to a Program of Intensive

Supervision. (g) Restrictions on travel by the probationer outside the jurisdiction of the
court. (h) Payment of restitution. (i) Payment of fines and court costs. (j) Supervised
community service. (k) Participation in educational courses. 2. A surety shall: (a) Provide
the facilities or equipment necessary to: (1) Perform tests to determine whether the
probationer is using any controlled substance or alcohol, if the court requires such tests as
a condition of probation; (2) Carry out a Program of Intensive Supervision, if the court
requires such a Program as a condition of probation; and (3) Enable the probationer to
report regularly to the surety. (b) Notify the court within 24 hours after the surety has
knowledge of a violation of or a failure to fulfill a condition of the program of
probation. 3. A probationer participating in a program of probation secured by a surety
bond shall: (a) Report regularly to the surety; and (b) Pay the fee charged by the surety for
the execution of the bond.
What seems clear is that DAS wants it both ways. DAS wants to make a warrantless arrest
of Coughlin on 2/1/13, based upon
Coughlin's email to the WCDA's Office which engendered the DAS retaliation a scant 18
hours later reads:
"Subject: Covington's threats vis a vis State Bar of Nevada 62337? From:
Zach
Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Sent:Fri
2/01/13
1:01
PM
To:
jhelzer@da.washoecounty.us
(jhelzer@da.washoecounty.us);
trianda@da.washoecounty.us
(trianda@da.washoecounty.us);
Mbays@da.washoecounty.us
(mbays@da.washoecounty.us);
sjstewart@da.washoecounty.us
(sjstewart@da.washoecounty.us);
tgalli@da.washoecounty.us
(tgalli@da.washoecounty.us);
plipparelli@da.washoecounty.us
(plipparelli@da.washoecounty.us);
plippar@da.washoecounty.us
(plippar@da.washoecounty.us);
zyoung@da.washoecounty.us
(zyoung@da.washoecounty.us);
phalstead@da.washoecounty.us (phalstead@da.washoecounty.us); (redacted address)
lcastillo@nvcourts.nv.gov
(lcastillo@nvcourts.nv.gov);
tlindeman@nvcourts.nv.gov
(tlindeman@nvcourts.nv.gov)
Dear ADA Helzer, In her 12/13/12 email to WCPD Leslie, DDA Kandaras admits that
there is an incapacity issue with Coughlin, yet the WCDA's Officer persists with the
1/22/13 Trial in 065630. Instead of moving for a competency evaluation, Leslie and
Kandaras (and Watts-Vial, the DDA, not the Judicial Assistant lawyer for Judge Walker)
abuse process, dodge and obstruct Coughlin's subpoenas on 2JDC Judges and
Adminstrators, and the RJC Custodian of Records, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, etc.,
etc. This is awfully similar to the besMIRCHING of the legal profession's dignity here in
Northern Nevada awhile back in In Re Mirch...some SBN WCDA's Office synergy there
too. The thing about WCPD Leslie's protection order that is the most striking lie, is that the
linked clip is not a "video" at all. It is audio only. Further, nothing in the audio could
possibly be said to amount to a "vow to continue harassing his former public defender".
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jim Leslie is a liar and a fraud. And one of the best prosecutor's the WCDA's Office has.
Also, Paula Cambpell of the State Bar of Nevada completely disputes Bar Counsel Pat
King's attributions to her in his own TPO Application, which, as usual, contains King's
brand of lying every other word out of his moutn. A FOFCOL is not an Order. King, you
demand Coughlin call ahead prior to coming to the SBN to file anything, then, when he
does, you characterize it as requiring you call the police? Ever heard of a post hearing
motion? Why doesn't King and Clerk of Court Peters try to lie a little less about the
representations they make to Respondent's vis a vis SCR 105(4), SCR 110, and SCR
119(3), and all the ex parte communications with the Panel that King admits to intending
to make during a 10/15/12 conversation with Coughlin in NG12-0204?
And coached up that Panel was...ruling on voluminous motions on 10/3/12 before the
Order appointing Panel Chair Echeverria could have even arrived in the mail given NNDB
NVDETR Chairman Susich's Order appointing the Panel is signed and dated 10/30/12. Oh,
that's right, no time for "a regular motion cycle" to quash all of Coughlin's subpoenas. And
look, its a prosecutor's world here in Northern Nevada. And there will always be the
prosecutor's at the SBN there to catch them if they fall, like with In Re Beckett (Bare
couldnt' bring himself to characterize a crime with the exacting wording in its elements as
that found in SCR 111(6) as a serious offense? No matter, even upon the Supreme Court
doing it for him, Beckett got the ol' SCR 111(10) pass, after an arduous week of rehab
"cured" him...). And no biggie with Willardson having an affair with the Judge while
appearing in case before him...http://www.lvrj.com/news/lawyer-who-had-relationshipwith-judge-won-t-face-discipline-from-bar-189160421.html?ref=421 What am I being
disbarred again for? Oh, that's right, former WCDA DDA domestic violence attorney now
Judge Linda Gardner sanctioned me under NRS 7.085 for asking for alimony for the
domestic violence victim I was representing as a legal aid attorney...finding it vexatious
(though not requiring, under any canon, her to report anything related to Coughlin's
advocacy there to the SBN...) despite her 6/19/09 FOFCOL and Decree of Divorce
ultimately including a $1.00 per year jurisdictional reservation alimony award...and
18.010(2)(b) address only frivolous and vextious claims or defense, not "failing to conduct
discovery" or "sarcastic" presentation. So either Judge Gardner violated a Canon by failing
to report Coughlin to the Bar for some alleged violation of an RPC, or Bar Counsel King is
violating RPC 3.8, 4.1, 3.3, and 3.4 by taking Judge L. Garnder's 4/13/09 Order After Trial
that he got from RMC Judge Nash Holmes after Judge L. Gardner passed it to her brother,
RMC Judge W. Gardner, whom passed it to all the other RMC Judges. RMC Judge Nash
Holmes also admits to the WCPD potentially violating the attorney-client privilege in
communicating with her, for god knows what reason, in her 3/14/12 grievance against
Coughlin to the SBN, where she alleges Coughlin is "decompensating", though, Judge W.
Gardner admitted on the record on 4/10/12 that Judge Nash Holmes violated Nevada law
by failing to notify the other departments of the RMC in wirting of her suspension of the
trial of 2/27/12 in 11 TR 26800 upon her finding Coughlin's competency in question and
"referring this matter to the State Bar", but not before she established the majority
viewpoint in the law by failing to grant even a brief stay to an attorney representing clients
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
prior to summarily incarcerating him for summary contempt (she characterized it as

criminal, but cited to civil statutes, though, conveniently avoided NRS 22.030(2), which
would required ol' shifty Marshal Harley to put it in an Affidavit, which he definitely does
not want to do. And NNDB/WCDA DDA Kandaras had to sign off on Judge Nash Holmes
3/30/09 Order resleasing Coughlin property to him (which oddly, contrary to the booking
intake form listing Coughlin's personal property as including a stand alone micro sd card,
only mentioned two phones and a shaver...though the smartphone had the micro sd card
inserted into it...though all the date was wiped form everything....hhmmmmn.
And Coughlin did not lie to Judge Nash Holmes during the 2/27/12 Trial, period. She was
reduced to alleging he lied about having recording devices (because neither she nor anyone
else invovled wants to address the warrantless confiscation of Coughlin's property not
incident to a search incident to arrest where the WCSO released Coughlin's property to the
City of Reno Marshals a day after he was booked and where Coughlin's property was
already booked into his own personal property at the jail, its not a Diaz search incident to
arrest, its just a Fourth Amendment violation at that point... But the thing is, the audio
transcript of the 2/27/12 Trial clearly shows that Coughlin made an "open refusal" to
indicate whether or not he had any "recording devices", telling Judge Nash Holmes "what
is in my pockets is private, and that's a Fourth Amendment issue..."whereupon she
changed her question, asking Coughlin is he was presently recording the proceedings.
Coughlin responded truthfully that he was not. Feeling the reasonableness of her sua
sponte interrogation evaporating, Judge Nash Holmes moved on....and showed up at
Coughlin's 11/14/12 formal disciplinary hearing with an awfully slippery version of the
events that day, easily disproven by a simple review of the audio transcript, not that Panel
Chair Echeverria was going to let that happen. One restroom break. No interrogation about
recording or "recording devices" until AFTER that one restroom break. Judge Nash
Holmes tried to cobble together a finding of reasonable suspicion by alleging she queried
Coughlin about recording and recording devices, whereupon he quickly "got all squirmy
and begged to use the restroom". Yeah, no. Didn't quite happen. Nice try, though. Oh,
well, Judge Nash Holmes will just allude to some unsworn unattributed hearsay to stand in
place for the failed proffer of facts supporting reasonable suspicion... Its odd that Washoe
Legal Services fired Coughlin, asserting it was solely due to former WCDA's Office
domestic violence attorney now 2JDC Judge Linda Gardner's 4/13/09 Order After Trial in
DV08-01168 when considering the docket in FV09-00886 shows then WLS Board
President Breckenridge picked up the cd of the hearing wherein Coughlin represented a
male domestic violence victim, and in doing so so upset Roxanne of the CAAW run TPO
Advocates office. Then there is CAAW complaining about Coughlin incident to the
Carnine case. So...is CAAW an independent contractor? Is 2JDC Judge Gardner "a party"
for an RPC 4.2 analysis? Would that make the WCDA's Office an inappropriate choice
for an entity to prosecute Coughlin here? That Joshi 01168 Trial started on 3/12/09...The
Uribe TPO was on 3/12/09. Carnine was on 3/13/09, and the Joshi 01168 Trial concluded
on 3/17/09, with another Hearing in Uribe on 3/20/09...and the Board of Equalization
appeal WLS's (WCDA's Office ECR partner, another conflict) dropped off on Coughlin a
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
week before the 3/10/09 filing dealinde came due and was filed by Coughlin on 3/10/09.
And while Coughlin's competence to practice law has been put in question by DDA
Kandaras' fellow NNDB members...the Davenport case The SBN and DDA Kandaras's
fellow NNDB members are attempting to disbar me. A big part of that is the $42,060
attorneys fee award by my and Patridcia Halstead's former coworker, now 2JDC Judge
Flanagan, incident to the Motion for Attorney's Fees filed by Richard G. Hill, Esq. On the
same day 2JDC Judge Elliott incarcerated me for asking a question about my HIPAA
rights incident to DDA Young (and Ms. Halstead bares some responsibility there as she
was listed as attorney of record as well) violating the stay in NRS 178.405 by making one
of his myriad demands upon local judges to take me into custody for mentioning some
constitutional right or other (it really is marked how DDA Young orders Judges around,
very impressive the command of the judiciary your office has, some might say). Besides
that, on May 7th, 2012, the day an Opposition was due to Hill's attorney's fee motion, DDA
Young attempted to hold a Trial against me in RCR2011-063341 (the iPhone case), and
WCPD Joe Goodnight admitted minutes before the trial started that he had not viewed the
excuplatory video wherein I obtained a confession from material witness Nicole Watson
that the man who picked up the iphone off the ground in the middle of the downtown skate
place in front of City Hall, threatened to throw it in the river if someone did not claim it
immediately.
The WCPD couldn't even be bothered to mail out a certified mail subpoena for a
misdemeanor trial to attempt to served that McQueen High School student, Nicole
Watson. Also, during the 8 days I spent in jail starting on 4/19/12, I was deprived my
regular psychoactive medication. Yet, your office persists in a prosecution in 065630
based upon an allegation that I lied in asserting that an officer was shining a flash light in
my face, when really, the officer asserts, he was merely shining the flashlight at my
shoulder.... My Boyd School of Law 2000 classmate Chris Hicks saw me at the cross walk
between the Mills Lane Justice Center and the District Courthouse and ambled down the
sidewalk in an effort to avoid cross paths with me, just last week, jaywalking in the
process. I was arrested, a custodial arrest, for such jaywalking on 1/12/12 in 12 RMC
00696. At some point, is playing kick the can with the struggling civil rights attorney with
mental health issues incident to a 18 month slide following a divorce beneath the WCDA's
Office? I believe it is impermissible to have Investigator Covington essentially practicing
law without a license where DDA Young has been walled off from any of my attempts to
communicate with him regarding CR12-2025. This has made it impossible to discuss
settings, and other matter. Additionally, I think (combined with what I feel is misconduct
by DDA Watts-Vial and DDA Kandaras incident to the failure of 2JDC Judges and
Administrators and RJC Custodian of Records to respond to my subpoenas and subpoena
Duces Tecums for the 11/14/12 formal disciplinary hearing, and Kandaras egging WCPD
Jim Leslie on to file a baseless abuse of process TPO in RJC RCP2012-000599 (DDA
Kandaras is on the NNDB, and refused to deny that she was on the Screening Panel for my
case). Now, just two days ago Inspector Covington made veiled threats relative to phone
conversations I had with the State Bar of Nevada, and I believe it is impermissible to have
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
NNDB member Kandaras, a party, also prosecuting me with your office, particularly
wherer DDA Young is not excused from his RPC obligations, despite the attempts to wall
him off from any of my communications. The failure to propound the Brady material that
finally was provided on after I received an email notice of its availability on 12/5/12 is
particularly troubling considering how close in time that is to the 12/11/12 trial in
RCR2012-065630, and the extent to which Sargent Sifre's commentary, some might say,
indicate some level of complicity between the RJC And the RPD incident to the 6 or so
wrongful evictions and arrests I have been subjected to this year. I am just trying to
stabilize and get back on my fee. I have lived here all my life and have strong ties to the
community and would gladly welcome and opportunity to dispose of all three of these
criminal matters in exchange for a waiver of any civil causes of action I might have in
connection with these three prosecutions and the arrests underpinning them and the
wrongful evictions and anything related to the RJC. I only want to do something like that
if it is legally permissible to, but I have seen some authority (ie a Am Trials articler
"Representing Lawyers in Disciplinary Matters" that suggests doing so is permissible if
the District Attorney's Office signs off on it...). I appreciate the opportunity to address
some of my concerns here.
13
Respectfully Submitted, Zachary Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and
Fax: 949 667 7402 ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
14
has 104 files to share with you on SkyDrive. To view them, click the links below.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11 13 12 wcda wcso watts vial supboena correspondence 441pm.pdf

11 14 12 0204 Galli WCDA and NNDB Kandaras's Mtn to Quash Subpoenas on WCSO Machen D
0376 2064.pdf
11 14 12 0204 RJC Schroeder 374 Orderny Denying Coughlin.pdf
11 14 12 063341 Kandaras Emergency ex parte 0204 quash Coughlin Motion to Quash Subpoenas
11 14 12 vol 3 0204 bates 1 TO 574.pdf
11 14 12 WCDA DDA Kandaras 0204 Motion to Quash Subpoenas.pdf
11 14 12 wcso kirkham judge linda gardner 0204 54844 0435 2025 01168.pdf
11 15 12 063341 Submission of Materials Related to Subpoenas etc 0204 1708 cover page stampe
FV09-00886 - JOSE URIBE VS. KARINA CAMACHO VALDEZ (DM) WLS President Brecken
burned picked up 4 10 09.pdf
3 10 09 01168 wls 54844 0204 Coughlin tax appeal for Elcano days before L. Gardner Trial 4 13 0
Washoe Lgl-Final.pdf
3 12 09 0204 Uribe EPO Hearing Exhibit photographs of abuse DV09-00886 0204 CAAW Advoc
Breckenridge Orders hearing cd picked up 4 10 09 01168 01955.pdf
3 13 12 158 pm 26800 Nash rmc SUA SPONTE ORDER DENYING RELIEF SOUGHT IN IMPR
3 13 12 216 pm with ex1 ifp 26800 ORDER STRIKING FUGITIVE document nash rmc.pdf
3 13 12 1238pm 11 TR 26800 SUA SPONTE ORDER DENYING RELlEF SOUGHT IN IMPRO
WCSO RMC RJC NASH KING CLARK SBN.pdf
3 13 12 email from wcso debi campbell dcampbell@washoecounty.us 26800 0204.pdf
3 14 12 grievance by Judge Nash Holmes RMC 26800 0434.pdf
-
1
2
3
3 15 12 000374 Lockout Order PTTHOA wcso 0204 with fax headers schroeder.pdf
3 20 12 Elliot 0204 CAAW Crisis 01955 Order Awarding Fees 03.20.12.pdf
3 21 12 per judges Orders Marshal Deighton rmc 11 tr 26800.pdf
3 22 12 0204 email from RMC Administrator Cassandra Jackson to SBN and RMC Judges and Jud
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Download al Download all

https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?
cid=43084638f32f5f28&page=downloadaszip&resid=43084638F32F5F28%217076&authk
ey=%21AJJo4iuGM6L4coQ&Bpub=SDX.SkyDrive&Bsrc=SkyMail "
At the 3/5/13 and 3/11/13 Hearings on some Order to Show Cause of indeterminate case
number, combined with a vague allusion to a DAS probation violation hearing in RCR11063341 (which Judge Pearson purported to related to a warrant issuing, upon which the
2/1/13 arrest was allegedly premised (conveniently taking care of the NRS 171.136
problem) in relation to some alleged failure on Coughlin's part to comply with a nonexistent condition of his probation that he obtain a Mental Health Evaluation, "at his own
expense" (while severely indigent and battling deadlines related to the 12/14/12 FOFCOL
seeking to disbar him permanently now on appeal in 62337) "within 30 days" of the
11/20/12 misdemeanor judgment's rendition in RCR11-063341.
At the 3/5/13 OSC Hearing (for which the docket in Judge Clifton's RCR12-065630
indicates was "vacated") Judge Pearson indicated that the "Administrative Order 2012-01,
In the Matter of Zachary Coughlin" alleged violations detailed in a 2/25/13 Order to Show
Cause that lacked an opposing party or actual case number in the caption (stemming from
then Chief Judge Sferrazza's 12/20/12 "Administrative Order 2012-01") was to be placed
into RCR2011-063341 (the same matter in which the alleged probation violation resulting
in the 2/1/13 arrest by DAS resides in). Before continuing the 3/5/13 hearing to 3/11/13
so that Coughlin could have co-counsel in Bruce Lindsay, Esq. Appear along with him
(Coughlin taking care to make clear on both 3/5/13 and 3/11/13 that he was not
relinquishing final decision making authority on all matters related to any representation of
himself, and that he would and always will remain, at the very least, co-counsel on all his
cases) Judge Pearson made clear that it was up to Coughlin whether or not he wished to
remain co-counsel on his cases. At that 3/5/13 combination hearing Judge Pearson
indicate the DAS alleged probation violation related to an allegation that Coughlin failed
to get some mental health evaluation done at his own expense allegedly required by the
terms of his probation in RCR11-063341 (which Judge Perason indicated on 2/5/13 he had
taken over from Judge Sferrazza, not indicating whether or not such was in response to
Coughlin's 11/29/12 Motion to Disqualify Judge Sferrazza pursuant to either NRS 1.235
(to which no response was made) or Canon 3(d). Prior to concluding the 2/5/13 hearing
on the OSC In RCR11-063341 Judge Pearson indicated to Coughlin that DAS was "part of
" the RJC, which implied Coughlin's emailing or calling DAS would be violative of the
"Administrative Order 2012-01" which, counter to Judge Pearson's indications of 3/5/13,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
would not be "placed into" RCR11-063341, but rather, was given its own new 2013 case
number RCR2013-071437, despite the fact that the file stamping on the 12/20/12 Order
did not change the date thereon, meaning, the RJC interlineated a 2012 case number on
3/11/13 after the hearing wherein Coughlin and Lindsay appeared as co-counsel, for an
Order to Show Casue Hearing that Coughlin was noticed as combining both the DAS
alleged probation violation and the 2/25/13 Order to Show Cause's allegation of Coughlin
violating the Adminstrative Order that Judge Pearson, during the 3/5/13 OSC Hearing that
was continued to 3/11/13, indicated would be "placed in" RCR11-063341. Subsequent to
the 3/11/13 hearing (before, during, and after which Lindsay indicated to Coughlin that
nothing more than a "two week continuance" would issue as to any of the matters or cases
being addressed therein, in addition to Lindsay's representations regarding the "global
resolution" that had been agreed to by the WCDA's Office and the RJC Judges).
Coughlin, thereafter was in no way alerted to the fact that a new criminal case against him
was opened, RCR2013-071437, which purported to represent the "Administrative Order
2012-01 In the Matter of Zachary Coughlin" that Judge Pearson indicated at the 3/5/13
OSC hearing was "placed into" RCR11-063341. Lindsay's office was therafter listed as
sole attorney of record and Lindsay was compensated for such "representation" by the Bob
Bell Group. Coughlin attempted to file Motions/Notice challenging an Order or Findign
that an "consent order" had been agreed to sufficient to obviate the need for the RJC or
WCDA's Office or DAS to prove a violation of either the terms of Coughlin's probation in
RCR11-063341 or any violation of the "Administrative Order 2012-01 In re Coughlin".
Coughlin, fearing he had been duped, filed a Notice of Appeal on 3/20/13 in the RJC to
the 2JDC as to any continuation of the "Administrative Order" within a new criminal case
number or any finding whatsoever that he had violated his probation (a subsequent CCP
hearing in RCR2011-063341 (and Lindsay, despite his promises to on 3/11/13 to
Coughlin, should the RJC view the result of the 3/11/13 OSC Hearing to be Coughlin
being required to appear monthly for CCP court, that Lindsay would go to every CCP
Heearing with him (Lindsay is required to regardless where the RJC lists him as attorney
of record, and his failure to appear for Coughlin, even as co-counsel on 5/30/13 is
something Rule 2.15 speaks to, in addition to Lindsay's indicating to Coughlin on 3/16/13,
incident to a dispute regarding whether Lindsay was attorney or co-counsel of record in
RCR12-065630 (for his assistant's listing such case number and addressing Lindsay's
faxed letter requesting a continuation from Judge Clifton in 065630, combined with a
docket entry therein for 3/5/13 listing an "Order to Show Cause" hearing vacated that day,
certainly supports to view that Lindsay had appeared and been recognized by the RJC as at
least co-counsel of record therein, much more than just for the 2/13/13 Contempt Hearing,
whether such being a result of Lindsay's being retained or agreeing to appear or being
"appointed" is besides the point. Somehow, Judge Clifton found it equitable to insist that
Coughlin had chosen self representation at the 11/27/12 hearing wherein WCPD Dogan
was granted a withdrawal, sufficient to refuse to "appoint" Lindsay to the matter beyond
allowing Lindsay to (contrary to his assistant's assertion that Lindsay's appearance was a
"freebie") make a quick profit by showing up on 2/13/13 (whereupon Coughlin was
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
brought into court in shackles and surprised to see Lindsay seated at the defense table, and
during which hearing Coughlin in no way assented to Lindsay's appearing as sole counsel,
much less just for the contempt hearing). Where Judge Clifton refused to provide
representation to Coughlin at public expense for the continuation of the trial in 065630, he
did so allow Lindsay to make some more money in RCR12-067980, where Lindsay was
appointed on 12/22/12, though Coughlin was not apprised of this fact until Lindsay
showed up late for the 1/7/13 status conference therein and proceeded to "agree" to one of
many, many continuances to come (which Judge Clifton so freely granted to Lindsay and
Young, where he denied all but one such request from Coughlin (the 2/5/13 continuance
he acquisced to given Coughlin's walking home 4 miles from jail the previous night at
1:30 am after serving 5 days in jail on the bogus 2/1/13 retaliatory DAS arrest, incident to
which Coughlin was abruptly forced off his medications by the Washoe County Jail)
(earlier that day Coughlin filed and received a file stamped copy and had served on Judge
Clifton's chambers the copy required by NRS 1.235 a Motion to Disqualify Judge Clifton
and the RJC and the WCDA's Office which is not noted in the docket. If Judge Clifton
wished to strike such filing, that's one thing, but for such to simply be given the
evaporation treatement is entirely inappropriate. Any striking of such filing (dubious in
light of NRS 1.235) should be noticed to Coughlin and represented in the docket and
record. (subsequnet to WCPD Leslie being granted an Order allowing his withdrawal in
response to his ex parte 12/14/12 unfiled motion to Judge Clifton, which Coughlin had
never been allowed knowledge of and despite Coughlin's 12/3/12 filings therein seeking to
conflict out Leslie going unresponded to, never mind the lack of notice or opportunity to
be heard accorded Coughlin as to Leslie's in court motion on 12/18/12). Coughlin's
introduction to the "Bruce Lindsay, Esq" approach began on 1/7/13 wherein Lindsay gave
the first of what would become a repetitive loop consisting of a rather tepid arrangement of
cliches he spews about how "there's two types of clients, those who recognize that they are
guilty and wrong and those that don't" and how he's "been doing this 39 years", with a
healthy dose of blatant admission thats he knows nothing at all about one's case and has
absolutely no intention of doing anything to change that.
Also, as to the 2/5/13 OSC hearing in RCR11-063341, and subsequent emergency hearing
to set aside or reconsider the Order for Competency Evaluation Coughlin obtained just an
hour prior (DDA Young's approach during the trial in RCR12-065630 following the OSC
Hearing at 8:30 am in 063341 may best be described comparing the docket entries in those
matters...but one thing is clear, given the possibility of jail time and Gagnon, the Sixth
Amendment entitled Coughlin to representation at both the 8:30 am OSC Hearing and
Hearing on Young's Ex Parte verbal motion to reconsider the Order for Competency
Evaluation in RCR11-063341. Such present a further basis for voiding the 4/2/13
conviction in RCR12-065630, and undermining the dismissal of Coughlin's appeal of the
4/3/13 Order Striking Coughlin's Emergency Mandamus Petition in CR13-0553 (see
63041).
Perhaps the biggest issue is the extent to which, during the 2/5/13 impromptu Hearing on
DDA Young's ex part motion for reconsdieration of the 2/5/13 Order for Competency
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Evaluation in 063341, Judge Pearson refused to address whether Judge Clifton had
influenced him or discussed Coughlin or any of Coughlin's cases in any way with Judge
Pearson in chambers or otherwise following DDA Young's request "to go back on the
record before Judge Pearson to be heard regarding teh SB90 Granted" in 063341
(amazingly, DDA Young /Judge Clifton argued such Order in 063341 was granted ex
parte...but its Young whom failed to appear at the 2/5/13 Order to Show Cause in 063341
(Coughlin was not noticed on such or given any written discovery prior thereto, and was
denied counsel pursuant to Gagnon), or rather, DAS regularly appears in the WCDA's
Office's stead, committing the unauthorized practice of law, subjecting probationer's to
DAS Officer's fascimile of legal work, unburdened by the Rules of Professional
Responsibility or licensure oversight or legal training requirements. To that end, its none
of Young concern what occurred in 063341, or at least, he is a disinterested third party and
must accept the application of NRS 178.405 even to probation proceedings, as such are
explicitly listed in the statute. Coughlin has on numerous occasions attempted to obtain a
copy of both the 2/5/13 Order to Show Cause hearing and subsequent Hearing on Young's
Reconsideration Motion (which Judge Pearson actually tried to pass off as a situation
where he was just thinking about the case after concluding the 2/5/14 OSC Hearing in
063341 and sua sponte decided to "grant
In that 2/5/13 Order to Show Cause (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott)
FTC-DAS VIOI.ATION Parties Present: Defendant Coughlin, Zachary Barker (DAS
Officers were present, but the docket fails to note that, actually failing to list any party for
the side opposing Coughlin's)... (curiously, the docket in 063341 then provides support for
the indication Judge Pearson clearly expressed during the 3/5/13 hearing, ie, that the
"Administrative Order" would be "placed into" 063341, as the docket entries speak to the
subject matter involved in that Administrative Order where it reads: "Defendant is to have
no contact with RJC staff, by phone, letter or e-mail. Defendant may file pleadings, but
is to check in with security first at the entrance of the Mills B. Lane Office Building,
and a RJC Bailiff will be notified. Bail is to remain in full force and effect. In a Trial set
in RCR 2011-065630, Deputy District Attorney Zach Young requested to go back on
the record before Judge Pearson to be heard regarding the previous SB89 GRANTED
in RCR 2011-063341. Defendant who is appearing without counsel, objected. Judge
Clifton GRANTS States request. Hearing proceeded before Judge Scott Pearson. State
is represented by Zach Young, Esq., Defendant is not represented by Counsel. After further
review of the file, the Court has reconsidered Defendants SB89 filed February 5, 2013, at
8:54 am and has DENIED it.
Arguably, the Administrative Order 2012-01 was amended by then newly minted
Chief Judge Pearson where the docket entries express rulings as to Coughlin's ability to "file
pleadings" that contain none of the onerous and dubious requirements of the 12/20/12
Administrative Order as it related to Coughlin "checking in with security" and "waiting for
an RJC Bailiff" where the docket in 063341 reads: ""Defendant is to have no contact with
RJC staff, by phone, letter or e-mail. Defendant may file pleadings, but is to check in
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
with security first at the entrance of the Mills B. Lane Office Building, and a RJC
Bailiff will be notified".
As amended above, Coughlin is still prohibited from having "contact" with RJC
staff "by phone, letter, or email", but, Coughlin, "Defendant may file pleadings" (meaning,
Coughlin, himself can walk right into the RJC filing offices and submit documents for filing,
and receive a file stamp for his "original and two copies" etc., etc.) with the only restriction
being that Coughlin "is to check in with security first as the entrance" of the MBL Justice
Center, whereupon "a RJC Bailiff will be notified". The Admin Order as amended merely
requires Couglin to "check in with security first at the entrance"...it does not require
Coughlin to wait for anyone, and it doesn't even require Coughlin to inform security where
he is going, whether it be the RMC, WCDA's Office, RJC, Family Court or the self-help
center. Simply put, the Admin Order was a creation of Judge Sferrazza at precisely the time
where he should have been doing the opposite. It is not something that needs to burden or
potentially besmirch Chief Judge Pearson's term as Chief Judge. Clearly, Judge Pearson (in
an intelligent, thoughtful, and measured action) excised the "Bailiff escort" requirement, and
removed the strictures in place that were severely prejudicing Coughlin in his attempts to
access justice, chief of which being that he was forced, for months, during key phases of
several criminal prosecutions and appeals of the convictions therein, to interact solely with
RJC Bailiff who lack any training as "court clerks" and do not particularly care to learn
anything about such important work or actually do any of it, even where such Bailiffs were
required to by the Administrative Order.
The docket entries amending the Admin Order leave a bit unclear, such as how
Coughlin may go about requesting to view a file in the RJC, or obtain copies of documents.
The 5/31/13 Complaint in RCR13-072675 speaks not to what it is that Bailiff Reyes alleges
Coughlin was doing at the time when Reyes issued his "command" and Coughlin, allegedly
"interfered with" a publice officer" in "carrying out a legal duty of his office" where
Coughlin allegedly "refused to comply with Bailiff Reyes' command to move to an area
where the defendant had been previously ordered by the court to remain and did then
physically resist Bailiff Reyes while he attempted to escort the defendant to said
designated area".
The 5/31/13 Complaint therein in RCR13-072675 is premised upon an allegation that
Coughlin disobeyed RJC Bailiff Reyes by committing yet another SCR 111(6) "serious
offense" (possibly) under NRS 199.280 in "resisting a public officer" where Coughlin
allegedly "did willfully and unlawfully "resist a Bailiff" (note the failure to use the statute's
terminology, indicating a Bailiff might not be a "public officer" under such statute) "in
discharging a legal duty of his office", at "1 S. Sierra Street" (note the Complaint fails to
indicate such events took place in the RJC or in some location therein where Coughlin
could be said to have been "present in the exclusive premises of the Reno Justice
Court" or to have "entered the premises of the Reno Justice Court" prior to . "refused to
comply with Bailiff Reyes' command to move to an area where the defendant had been
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
previously ordered by the court to remain and did then physically resist Bailiff Reyes
while he attempted to escort the defendant to said designated area"
The Arrest Report and Declaration of Probable Cause, wherein RJC Bailiff Reyes
idenitifies himself as "a police officer" and "declares under penalty of perjury" that "At
approximately 1620 hrs, I ordered Zachary Coughlin to voluntarily move to the RJC front
entrance lobby, to await documents he requested, after he refused several requests to do
so. I placed Coughlin in a control hold to escort him to the desired location. While
passing through the "magnetometer unit", Coughlin upturned it onto the floor in a willful
manner, since he was resisting. When advised he was under arrest, Coughlin told me
"no, you're not, I'm leaving!".
Even if one where to fail to recognize the amendments to the Admin Order made by Chief
Judge Pearson, any application of the 12/20/12 version of the Admin Order to the alleged
facts would not support RJC Bailiff Reyes and the WCDA's Offices allegations (why the
WCDA's Office is constantly referred to as the "State" when the Reno City Attorney's
Office is referred to as the "City", in unclear). Reyes alleges Coughlin had "requested"
"documents". Importantly, Reyes makes no mention of Coughlin seeking to "file" any
"documents". Part 1(b) of the 12/20/12 version of the Admin Order cover instances where
"Coughlin sishes to make a request of the Reno Justice Court for copies, transcripts..."
While Coughlin had made such a request for documents to the RJC, in writing, via Bailiff
Heibert, previously that day, there was nothing for Coughlin to wait for, as Bailiff Heibert
had provided Couglin with a copy of such request, with a "stamp" indicating such was
"received", if not "filed stamped". Bailiff Heibert indicated to Coughlin upon returning to
him a copy of his written request that none of the materials requested copied, nor any of
the files Coughlin requested to access, would be made available to him that day, 5/23/13.
While the RJC Bailiffs (not to mention the RMC Marshals incident to the verbatim copy
of the 12/20/12 Admin Order RMC Administrative Judge W. Gardner entered on 1/16/13)
have approached ever appearance by Coughlin in the MBL Justice Center as though
Coughlin were a prisoner in custody from the moment he enters the building, to the
moment they allow him to leave, there is no support for such an approach under any
version of the Admin Order. The only "waiting" mentioned in any version thereof is in
Part 1(a), and that only requires Couglhin to "wait for a bailiff" to "respond to his location"
if "Coughlin wishes to file a document with" the RJC...
Even Section 1(b) of the original version of the Admin Order fails to present a justification
for Bailiff Reyes's "command" to Coughlin: "b. If ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN
wishes to make a request of the Reno Justice Court for copies, transcripts, access to a
court file or to ask a question he shall do so in writing and either mail the request to
the Reno Justice Court or deliver the written request to a bailiff of the Reno Justice
Court by first contacting the bailiff through court security as detailed above. The
bailiff will then file the document for Mr. Coughlin and provide him a file stamped
copy in return..." Bailiff Reyes's statements does not mention Coughlin "waiting" for a
"file stamped copy" of any "written request " "for copies" of some "documents he
(Coughlin) requested". Rather, Reyes's statement indicates he "ordered" Couglin to move
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"to the desired location", apparently the "RJC front entrance lobby" to do something not
mentioned in any way in the 12/20/12 Admin Order. Such version of the Admin Order in
no way requires Coughlin to wait around anywhere, much less near the security check in,
for copies of documents Coughlin may have requested, which invariably take days and
days for the RJC to produce to Coughlin (RJC policy indicates a 72 hour wait time for
document requests is standard). Further, the area in which Coughlin was seated when he
was attacked by Bailiff Reyes is in no way within the "exclusive premises" of the RJC, and
if Coughlin wants to sit on a bench in a shared walkway in front of the MLB Justice
Center's coffee/pastry shop, its none of Bailiff Reyes's business, and certainly does not
present a rationale for "ordering"/attacking "Zachary" to "move" to Reyes's "desired
location" (which, by the way, if the front entrance lobby really was "the RJC front
entrance lobby" and therefore included amongst the RJC's "exclusive premises", then
Coughlin would be in violation of the Admin Order were he to venture there without an
RJC escort, no?), whereupon some alleged "refusal" of "several requests to do so" was
reacted to by Reyes placing "Zachary" "in a control hold" to "escort him to the desired
location". Indeed, such circumstances hardly justify Bailiff Reyes then apparently
attempting to manufacture some incident wherein he himself purposefully knocks over the
magnetometer, only to blame such on occurrence on Coughlin (odd, given the many
cameras rolling) and proceeding to stack as many redundant and excessive charges as
possible onto an Arrest Report built upon the flimsiest and most unprofessional of
foundations.
Most decidedly, no version of the Admin Order requires Coughlin to "await documents he
requested" at the 'RJC front entrance lobby". Further, it is interesting that in that shared
building, with a shared lobby/entrance, RJC Bailiff Reyes, in a display of "power and
control" reminsicent of the Duluth Model, characterizes the MBL Justice Center's "front
entrance lobby" (which is not reference anywhere in any version of the Admin Order, such
merely mentions the "main security entrance") as "the RJC front entrance lobby". Such a
display of dominance has been further evinced in Bailiff Reyes, English, and Medina
invading the DAS check in vestibule while Coughlin was checking in with DAS to attempt
to effect service on Coughlin of various orders by the RJC. On one occasion Bailiff
Medina entered the DAS vestibule while Coughlin was therein and demanded to Sabrina:
"don't check him in".)
MBL Justice Center Olympik Security front entrance guard Matt Greene indicated to
Coughlin on 6/10/13 that his supervisor, James Thomas, the same one whom has arranged
for pictures of Coughlin to be posted in full public view on the machines used to scan
court goers property, and fully viewable to the public (think the "bounced check" circle of
photos as your local convenience store), has uniformly issued an edict to his employees
forbidden them to speak to Coughlin about the events they were eye witnesses to during
the arrest and alleged resisting and or creation of a public nuisance causing $250.00 by
Coughlin on 5/23/13. Such is tantamount to dissuading a witness or seeking to. Greene
refused to answer any questions, such as "what caused the "magnetometer unit" to fall
over?" and "Did you witness Coughlin resisting RJC Bailiff in any way on 5/23/13?".
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Contrast the above docket entries in 063341 with the originally manifestation of the
Administrative Order: "1. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shall not enter the premises
of the Reno Justice Court at One South Sierra Street except as follows:
a. If ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN wishes to file a document with the Reno
Justice Court or attend a hearing in the Reno Justice Court he must notify the security
personnel at the main security entrance located at the east entrance of One South Sierra
Street and wait for a bailiff of the Reno justice Court to respond to his location.
b. If ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN wishes to make a request of the Reno
Justice Court for copies, transcripts, access to a court file or to ask a question he shall do
so in writing and either mail the request to the Reno Justice Court or deliver the written
request to a bailiff of the Reno Justice Court by first contacting the bailiff through court
security as detailed above. The bailiff will then file the document for Mr. Coughlin and
provide him a file stamped copy in return...
2. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shall not be present in the exclusive
premises of the Reno Justice Court ...without the escort of a bailiff of this Court and
without first following the procedures outlined above...."
Such docket entries, again, under NRS 4.240, are prima facie evidence of fact, and
certainly seem to indicate that Bailiff Reyes apparent view of the continued validity of the
following portions of then Chief Judge Sferrazza's 12/20/12 Administrative Order 2012-01
is not in line with the manifestation of such Administrative Order upon Chief Judge Pearson
term beginning, during which Judge Pearson, using the creativity and forward thinking
approach he is known for (balanced with a human touch) amended such Administrative
Order sufficient to make it hardly recognizable. It is high time the RJC Bailiff's and DAS
Officers get the memo. Had they prior to 5/23/13, RCR2013-072675 could have been
avoided, as could have a good deal of collateral consequences to both Coughlin's and the
RJC's interests, and that of the Bench and Bar in Washoe County as well.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shall not enter the premises of the Reno
Justice Court at One South Sierra Street except as follows:
so in writing and either mail the request to the Reno Justice Court or deliver the writ
ten request to a bailiff of the Reno Justice Court by first contacting the bailiff through
court security as detailed above. The bailiff will then file the document for Mr. Cough
lin and provide him a file stamped copy in return...
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

without first following the procedures outlined above....
Docket entries in RCR11-063341 for:
2/5/13 Order to Show Cause (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott) FTC-DAS
VIOI.ATION Parties Present: Defendant Coughlin, Zachary Barker
"2/5/13 Order to Show Cause Hearing Held (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott) Defendant
has submitted an SB89 request. GRANTED. Court is to pay for evaluation. Evaluator may
contact the Defendant at (949) 667-7402 or by e-mail at zachcoughlin@hotmail.com.
Defendant is to continue checking in with DAS between 9:00 am and 2:00 pm on
Wednesdays. Defendant is to have no contact with RJC staff, by phone, letter or email. Defendant may file pleadings, but is to check in with security first at the
entrance of the Mills B. Lane Office Building, and a RJC Bailiff will be notified Bail
is to remain in full force and effect. In a Trial set in RCR 2011-065630, Deputy District
Attorney Zach Young requested to go back on the record before Judge Pearson to be
heard regarding the previous SB89 GRANTED in RCR 2011-063341. Defendant who
is appearing without counsel, objected. Judge Clifton GRANTS States request.
Hearing proceeded before Judge Scott Pearson. State is represented by Zach Young,
Esq., Defendant is not represented by Counsel. After further review of the file, the Court
has reconsidered Defendants SB89 filed February 5, 2013, at 8:54 am and has DENIED
it. The Court is still ordering the Defendant get evaluated (page 9) for competency at the
Court's expense. Defendant requested that his medication be paid for. The Court indicated
it will consider it at a later time. The order to show cause hearing has been confirmed set
for February 25, 2013, at 8:30A.M. Defendant is ordered to make an apt. for evaluation by
February 12, 2013 and is to show DAS proof of that apt."
3/5/13 Order to Show Cause (2:00 PM) (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott) Parties Present:
Defendant Coughlin, Zachary Barker
3/5/13 Hearing Result (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott) Upon the order of Judge Scott
Pearson, Bruce Lindsay a/the Bob Bell Group, is hereby appointed to represent the
Defendant in this mailer and the Administrative Order.
3/11/13 Order to Show Cause (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott) 02/25/2013
Continued to 03/11/2013 Arraignment Reset/Continuance Coughlin, Zachary Barker
3/11/13 Order to Show Cause Hearing Held (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott ) Defendant
is reinstated into DAS supervision/or up to THIRTYSIX (36) months. Defendant is
ordered to obtain Evaluation at Court's expense. Defendant is not to use or possess any
controlled substance unless prescribed by Medical Doctor. Defendant is to give his
attorney, Bruce Lindsay, name of Defendant's psychiatrist, who shall provide Evaluation.
Defendant is to be reinstated into the CCP Program to begin March 21, 2013 at 1:30 P.M.
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
3/11/13 Motion Filed Motion to Vacate any Order Issuing from March 11, 2013 Hearing
in RCR20J 1-063341 filed.
3/11/13 Request for Submission Filed
3/11/13 Motion Filed Motion to Remove Bruce Lindsay, Esq. As Co-Counsel filed
3/19/13 Motion Filed Notice of Appeal"
However, the Docket in RCR2012-065630 causes confusions as to the description of such
events in the docket in RCR11-063341, etc.:
3/5/13 CANCELED Order to Show Cause (2:00 PM) (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott)
Vacated
2/5/13 Hearing Result (Judicial Officer: Clifton, David) Defendant submitted a 5889
request. State has opposed this request. Court has DENIED. The SB89 request at this time.
Defendant has requested a continuance due to recent incarceration and lack of medication.
State opposed Court has GRANTED Defendants request for continuance
2/5/13 Notice Notice of Order For Competency Evaluation requiring suspension of all
proceedings in all. Departments of the Reno Justice Court. Filed in open court on 2/5/2013
at 9:17 am.
The docket in RCR13-071437 indicates:
14
12/20/12 Criminal Complaint Filed Administrative Order 2012-01
15
12/20/12 Summons Issued. No Summons issued Administrative Order Issued and Served
16
2/25/13 Order Show Cause Filed
17
2/28/13 Motion Filed Order to Show Cause (2:00 PM) (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott)
Parties Present: Defendant Coughlin. Zachary Barker
18
19
20
21
22
3/5/13 Hearing Result (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott ) Upon the order of Judge Scott
Pearson. Bruce Lindsay of the Bob Bell Group. Is hereby appointed to represent the
Defendant in this matter and the Administrative Order.
3/11/13 Order to Show Cause (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott) Parties Present:
Conflict Attorney Defendant Lindsay. Robert Bruce Coughlin. Zachary Barker
23
3/11/13 Order to Show Cause Hearing Held (Judicial Officer: Pearson, Scott )
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER TO REMAIN IN EFFECT
24
3/20/13 Notice Notice of Appeal filed (Not Addressed)
25
26
27
28
Further, the Docket in RCR2012-071437 (which indicates on page 1 a "date assigned" of

"3/6/13" and an "Offense" of "Deg M" "Contempt of Court, misdemeanor" complicates
matters further, especially where "Bruce Lindsay" is listed alone as "Lead Attorney", not
to mention to lack of any attorney listed for the "State of Nevada", which, while listed as
"Plaintiff", may feel that the judicial branch has usurped its executive charging function
therein.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The docket in 071437 is missing several of Coughlin's filings as to the Administrative

Order prior to such being given the 071437 case number (playing "hide the case number"
should not enable the RJC to prevent Coughlin from challenging the Administrative Order,
particular now where the collateral consequences have mounted signficantly with the
5/23/13 through 6/6/13 arrest and incarceration (another $200 cash to meet the $1,000
bail) in RCR2012-072675). The 5/31/13 Complaint therein in RCR13-072675 is
premised upon an allegation that Coughlin disobeyed RJC Bailiff Reyes by committing yet
another SCR 111(6) "serious offense" (possibly) under NRS 199.280 in "resisting a public
officer" where Coughlin allegedly "did willfully and unlawfully "resist a Bailiff" (note the
failure to use the statute's terminology, indicating a Bailiff might not be a "public officer"
under such statute) "in discharging a legal duty of his office", at "1 S. Sierra Street" (note
the Complaint fails to indicate such events took place in the RJC or in some location
therein where Coughlin could be said to have been "present in the exclusive premises of
the Reno Justice Court" or to have "entered the premises of the Reno Justice Court"
prior to . "refused to comply with Bailiff Reyes' command to move to an area where
the defendant had been previously ordered by the court to remain and did then
physically resist Bailiff Reyes while he attempted to escort the defendant to said
designated area"
So, the "Administrative Order 2012-01" that became, suddenly, on 3/11/13, RCR2013071437 (and begat RCR2013-072675) is referred to in the 5/31/13 Complaint in RCR13072675 as providing the basis upon which RJC Bailiff Reyes issued a "command" in
reference to something in the Administrative Order 2012-01 (which was no more at that
point, as on 3/11/13 it was transmuted into a "Criminal Complaint" in RCR13-071437)
which had purportedly something therein supporting a view that there was a "designated
area" "where the defendant had been previously ordered by the court to remain". Of
course, an RJC Bailiff, Reyes, is employed by the Reno Justice Court, and subject to the
view that Bailiff Reyes was limited to charging or reporting Coughlin for alleged
contempt.
Nev. Const. Art. 6, 6(1) reads: "District Courts: Jurisdiction; ... 1.The District Courts
in the several Judicial Districts of this State have original jurisdiction in all cases excluded
by law from the original jurisdiction of justices courts. They also have final appellate
jurisdiction in cases arising in Justices Courts and such other inferior tribunals as may be
established by law. The District Courts and the Judges thereof have power to issue writs
of Mandamus, Prohibition, Injunction, Quo-Warranto, Certiorari, and all other writs
proper and necessary to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction..."
The RJC Chief Judge Sferrazza takes some liberties in his 12/20/12 "Administrative Order
2012-01" (now a "Criminal Complaint" in RCR13-071437. Judge Sferrazza remixed the
Constitution of the State of Nevada by replacing in Nev. Const. Art. 6, 6(1) the limiter
"The District Courts and the Judges thereof" with "Nevada courts" and excising the bit
about "and the Judges thereof". While retaining, ironically, the language clarifying that
such "power to issue" to that which is "proper and necessary to the complete exercise of
their jurisdiction."
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
A writ of certiorari serves to remedy jurisdictional excesses committed by an inferior

tribunal, board, or officer, exercising judicial functions. NRS 34.020(2). " This court has
often stated that the inquiry upon a petition for a writ of certiorari is limited to whether the
inferior tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction.1 See Iveson v. District Court, 66 Nev.
145, 206 P.2d 755 (1949); State ex rel. Hinckley v. Court, 53 Nev. 343, 1 P.2d 105 (1931);
Phillips v. Welch, 12 Nev. 158 (1877)." A writ of certiorari can only be granted if
petitioner demonstrates that the court exceeded its jurisdiction and there is no plain,
speedy and adequate remedy. Goicoechea v. Fourth Judicial District Court, 96 Nev.
287,607 P.2d 1140 (1980); See Also NRS 34.020 (2)/
A review of that Administrative Order/"Criminal Compliant" allegedly docketed on
12/20/12 in RCR2013-071437 reveals the following: "WHEREAS, "disobedience or
resistance to any lawful writ, order, rule or process issued by the court or judge at
chambers" constitutes contempt of court in the State of Nevada; and WHEREAS,
Nevada's courts are constitutionally authorized to issue all writs "proper and necessary to
the complete exercise of their jurisdiction." Nev. Const. Art. 6, 6(1); and WHEREAS, to
protect the peaceful and effective operation of this Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shall not enter the premises of the Reno
Justice Court at One South Sierra Street except as follows:
so in writing and either mail the request to the Reno Justice Court or deliver the writ
ten request to a bailiff of the Reno Justice Court by first contacting the bailiff through
court security as detailed above. The bailiff will then file the document for Mr. Cough
lin and provide him a file stamped copy in return...
without first following the procedures outlined above....
5. Any violation of this Order may be considered contempt of court and punished
pursuant to NRS Chapter 22 by a fine of up to $500 and/or incarceration for up to 25 days
in the Washoe County Detention Facility.
6. This Order is effective upon personal service upon Mr. Coughlin."
Of course, the RJC had a party purport to serve that 12/20/12 Administrative Order
where Bailiff English purports to have attempted or effected service thereof on 12/20/12
within the courthouse at the Reno Justice Court. Of course, personal service must be conduc
ted by a non-party, therefore the RJC lacks personal jurisdiction in RCR2013-071437 (bey
ond the courthouse sanctuary rule/immunity from service of process accorded litigants and
attorneys while in the courthouse) Further, all of the Proof of Service/Return of Service in
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
599, 607, 3913, 3914, RCR13-071437, etc. all fail under the requirements of NRCP 4(c),(d),
(g):"
Clearly, Coughlin in no way failed to comply with any such condition of his probation.
Further, DAS Officer Brown's written communications to Coughlin of 1/2/13 are troubling
considering her abrupt about face one week later on a day 1/9/13 when the Docket in
RCR11-063341 indicates a warrant was issued pending "Clerk's Review" (one would
subsequently issue on 1/10/13 by Judge Sferrazza (whom apparently hadn't gotten enough
shots at Coughlin yet), though Judge Pearson (whom masterminded the RJC's MSC
program that has met with such success, in contrast to the ECR deal run by WLS/WCDA
partnership, with NCS"s Taitel aboard) quickly put the kabosh on that warrant on 1/11/13,
as the docket indicates no such further warrant is to issue unless Chief Judge Pearson
approves of it.
DAS Officer Brown actually tried to completely change her story, much less her stance, to
Coughlin on 1/9/13 when Coughlin followed upon on her instructions in her email to him
of 1/2/13 vis a vis obtaining a fee waiver to pay for such Mental Health Evaluation and
obtaining an "indigent application for instructions at that point" (Brown wrote to Coughlin
on 1/2/13 in response to Coughlin's timely 12/20/12 (within 30 days of the 11/21/12
judgment) request for "an extension of time to comply with the Order of ...11/21...to the
extent that I have not already done so..." etc. ,etc.
The 1/2/13 email to Couglin from DAS Brown reads: "RE: ATTN CJ of Department
of Alternative SEntencingRE: New voicemail from: 7753299517? From: Brown, Celeste
(CBrown@washoecounty.us) This sender is in your safe list. Sent: Wed 1/02/13 8:21 AM
To: 'Zach Coughlin' (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Zach, When you come to check in
today pick up an indigent application and ask for instructions at that point. Officer CJ Brown
WC Dept. Of Alternative Sentencing 1 South Sierra St. Reno, Nv 89501 desk 775)327-8384
fax 775)327-8383
From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20,
2012 2:12 PM To: Brown, Celeste Subject: RE: ATTN CJ of Department of Alternative
SentencingRE: New voicemail from: 7753299517 Dear Officer Brown, I am indigent and
cannot afford a competency evaluation at the present time. I am writing to request an
extension of time to comply with the Order of 11/20 or 11/21/12 in rcr2011-063341 to the
extent I have not already done so. I am unsure whether an evaluation is even required
given that I had 3 done this year and I was adjudged competent pursuant to an evaluation
by Lakes Crossing by Judge Sferrazza's own 10/22/12 Order, which is, technically, within
30 days of the 11/20 or 11/21 Order...Judge Sferrazza also waived all fees associated with
my DAS activities, and I believe that extends to any evaluation required. Can you direct
me as to where I should have the evaluation done, if one is still needed? Additionally,
since the 11/20/12 Trial, i had a trial on a traffic citation (failure to secure a load on one's
vehicle) on December 3rd, and another trial in rcr2012-065630 on December 11th, 2012,
with a hearing in that matter on November 27th, 2012, and many things to do related to the
formal disciplinary hearing with the State Bar of Nevada on November 14 th, 2012, so
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
getting any evaluation required done within 30 days, while having nearly no money to my
name, has been extremely difficult. Sincerely, Zach Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV
89512 Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402"
"RE: my reliance upon your indications regarding any necessary extension and fee waiver
application? From:
Brown, Celeste (Cbrown@washoecounty.us) This sender is in
your safe list. Sent:
Wed 1/16/13 1:27 PM To: 'Zach
Coughlin'
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Ill talk to you when you come in Sgt. CJ Brown WC Dept.
Of Alternative Sentencing 1 South Sierra St. Reno, Nv 89501 desk 775)327-8384 fax
775)327-8383 From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com] Sent:
Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:28 AM To: Brown, Celeste Subject: my reliance upon
your indications regarding any necessary extension and fee waiver application Dear
Officer Brown, Will you please provide me an indication in writing of what you or anyone
with DAS have communicated to anyone with the RJC about my participation in DAS and
any alleged failure to comply with any requirements, including information related to my
email to from within the last 30 minutes detailing my reliance upon your express
indications concerning an extension of time to have any competency or mental health
evaluation done, should the one the Lakes Crossing Report and 10/22/12 Order declaring
me Competent by Judge Sferrazaa not be deemed to satisfy the requirement to have a
competency or mental health evaluation done within 30 days of 11/20/12 (which, from my
reading, meant 30 days in either direction). Would you further please email or fax me the
materials that you referenced in our previous discussion and directed me to pick up from
Sabrina, but that Sabrina was unaware of when I requested them? Sincerely, Zachary
Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402"
The WCDA Office should be disqualified form prosecuting Coughlin, particularly where
DDA Kandaras' above email admits to feeling Coughlin's competency is brought into
question, the events involving two former WCDA Criminal Division prosecutor's turned
RJC Judges on 2/13/13 in (an Order for Competency Evaluation signed and entered by
Judge Pearson at an 8:30 am hearing in 11-063341 was provided, in writing, to Judge
Clifton in 12-065630, with shall language, and DDA Young's willingness to go along
with Judge Clifton in refusing to follow NRS 178.405's mandatory stay is arguably
impermissible. To have RJC Bailliff's then Order Coughlin to remain at the RJC, then go
into a hearing brought on an Emergency Basis upon DDA Young making an Ex Parte
Request for Judge Clifton to resconsider his Order for Competency Evaluation all has a
rather fox in the hen house quality to it when it comes to the WCDA's Office, and now
RJC Judges whom had previously spent the majority of their career's in the WCDA's
Office-Criminal Division, having things a certain way an awful lot of the time.). That's the
hearing Couglin really wanted continued because, as specifically mentioned by Judge
Pearson at a 2/5/13 8:30 am hearing on some unserved, unnoticed Order Show Cause
(Coughlin was bailed out at 1:45 am (after the last bus had left 911 Parr Blvd, requiring I
walk 3.5 miles to my 1471 E. 9th St. location, at which I rent a fifth wheel trailer for $75 a
month, a rent I can barely make each month) and Coughlin was only around to attend that
11-063341 unnoticed (or improperly noticed Gagnon 1 hearing considering his WC
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Inmate Release information indicated such hearing would be on 2/7/13, and now
Coughlin faced Show Cause Hearing on 3/5/13 (which is, curiously, noted in the docket
for RCR12-065630, and explains the fact that Bruce Lindsay's paralegal Diana Sim's faxed
a letter Lindsay dictated seeking a continuance of such 3/5/13 OSC Hearing from Judge
Clifton, citing a scheduling conflict, with Sims faxing the the RJC such letter to Judge
Clifton with a designation thereon that it refered to "RCR12-065630" which completely
undermines Lindsay's subsequent assertion that his failure to appear on 3/19/13 at the
continuation of the trial in that matter was not problematic, as he felt he was not attorney
of record on "Dave's case" (Judge David Clifton) and that his earlier indications to
Coughlin just before and during the 3/11/13 OSC Hearing (the case number assigned to
that combination hearing has changed numerous times, with inconsistent indications as to
which allegations and subject matter were to be and were addressed in which case number)
that a "global resolution that will allow you to practice law and not have any SCR 111(6)
convictions on your record as to any of the case wherein you have ever been a defendant in
the RJC" was, not true after all) over some allegation that Coughlin called the RJC,
allegedly in violation of Judge Sferrazza's 12/20/12 Administrative Order 12-01 (no case
number indicated in the caption thereinm and arguably, the service of process of that
Administrative Order was insufficient, and such Order extinguished upon the calendaring
year changing to 2013, and the seating of a new Chief Judge to replace then Chief Judge
Sferrazza), to see if that Hearing in 11-063341 indicated as set for 2/5/13 was, in fact, still
on calendar, or whether the Hearing held at 8:30 am on 2/5/13 replaced such Hearing) 12065630...that DAS hearing in 063341 was incorrectly noticed on my Jail Release papers
for 2/5/13 or something...At that 2/3/13 Hearing I got an Order for Competency Evaluation
from Pearson, then went and provided that to Judge Clifton at the resumption of the
065630 trial immediately thereafter, which, under NRS 178.405, required Clifton to
suspend the trial in 11-065630. Of course, he did not. He has demonstrated a willingness
to fail to apply the law as written in certain instances, invariably to the benefit of the State,
often with the encouragement of DDA Young (though, to be fair, at the 2/13/13 Trial,
DDA Young did point out to Judge Clifton the shall language in NRS 178.405, to which
Judge Clifton made, admittedly, an inventive, argument that some failure to make specific
findings of fact or something along those lines in Judge Pearsons just minted Order For
Competency Evaluation in 11-063341 of 2/13/13 made inapplicable the mandatory stay
under NRS 178.405. Even if one were to overlook in possible impropriety of Judge
Clifton suspending that Trial, starting at 9 am in 12-065630 long enough for DDA Young
to go to the RJC counter and make and ex parte request for an emergency reconsideration
hearing before Judge Pearson, including the evident partiality revelaed by failing to apply
procedural rules to the State in the same rigid and overly formulaic manner to which the
RJC has applied them to Coughlin (including the 10 days Coughlin should have to respond
to such a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order for Competency Evaluation of 2/13/13
in 11-063341), there still exists the fact that Judge Clifton failed to follow NRS 178.405
and immediately Stay all proceedings in all departments, but rather, allowed DDA Young
a recess to go and make his ex parte communications to the RJC Bailiff counter seeking an
Emergency Hearing before Judge Pearson to reconsider his 2/13/13 Order for Competency
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Evaluation. DDA Young's making such Motion violated the mandatory automatic stay
required by NRS 178.405 leaving the RJC to rely upon some dubious assertion that Jduge
Pearson just happened to continue mulling his decision to enter the Order For Competency
Evaluation he entered in 11-063441 at approximately 8:45 am, sua sponte, without any
prompting or extra judicial communications with Judge Clifton, DDA Young, or anyone
else...something Judge Pearson refused to refute the allegation of upon Coughlin putting it
before him during the brief Emergency Reconsideration Hearing Judge Clifton left the
bench long enough in 12-065630 on 2/13/13 to allow Judge Pearson to take it an vacate or
otherwise amend his Order for Competency Evaluation, at which point Judge Pearson did
render a rulign that he would enter an Order having the State pay for a mental health
evaluation for the indigent Coughlin, that, to this date, still has not been entered and
Coughlin has been unable to have such done due to the failure to issue a check to him
made out to his pyschiatrist, Dr. Suat Yasar, MD (the State, DDA Young, and Richard G.
Hill, Esq., have all been able to get Emergency Ex Parte Motions granted against
Coughlin, whereas, DDA Young's failure to oppose Coughlin's 2/21/12 Motion to Dismiss
in 12-065630 (which, arguably under Polk v. State and DCR 13(3) may required such
Motion to Dismiss be granted) resulted in Judge Clifton, almost reflexively by instinct, sua
sponte, making an argument on the State's behalf that DDA Young had implicilty opposed
such Motion to Dismiss, thereby revealing further the evident partiality against Coughlin
by the RJC judiciary pervading all of the various prosecutions and evictions/landlord
tenant matters therein). The motion pending before this Court asks that the district court
judge who heard the case be disqualified. A motion.to disqualify a judge must set forth
facts and reasons sufficient to cause a reasonable person to question the judge's
impartiality, and the challenged judge may contradict the motion's allegation. The motion
must be referred to another judge for adjudication. Towbin Dodge, LLC v. Dist. Ct. 121
Nev. 251,260, 112 P.3d 1063 (2005). Coughlin filed and had a copy served on Judge
Clifton's chambers prior to the commencement of trial on 12/12/12 in 12-065630 (in
accordance with the express language of NRS 1.235(2)(b), to which Judge Clifton made a
non-sequitur argument related to the time set for start of trial where such statutory
dictate actually requires making a Motion to Disqualify such as Couglin's of 12/11/12 in
12-065630 not later than the commencement of trial or hearing of the case where the
facts upon which disqualification of the judge is sought are not known to the party before
the party is notified of the assignment of the judge or beofre any pretrial hearing is held.
Coughlin was not notified of the transfer of 12-065630 to Judge Clifton, from Judge
Lynch until a time to close in proximity to the commencement of trial on 12/11/13 in 12065630 and still has not been told why the matter was apparently transferred, curiously, on
2/27/12 (same day as trial before Judge Nash Holmes in 11 TR 26800 resulting in 5 day
summary contempt incarceration and a 3/14/12 written grievance to the SBN wherein
Judge Nash Holmes indicates she had heard he (Coughlin) may be living in his car
somewhere, which is rather troubling (especially consdiering RJC Judge Schroeder
would issue a default summary eviction lockout Order the following day in 12-374 to
Gayle Kern, Esq., where Kern herself violated RPC 3.5A, especially considerin the
lengthy Tenant's Answer and Pre-Hearing Brief Coughlin filed on 3/8/12 in 12-374 and
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the jurisdictional bar in NRS 40.253(6) requiring that Kern file a Landlord's Affidavit
PRIOR to the holding of any such summary eviction hearing (Coughlin allegedly appeared
a couple minutes lat to that 3/15/12 hearing, where NV Energey and Kern, and her
unauthorized practitioner of law non attorney associate/property manager Western Nevada
Management's Sue King allegedly conspired to deprive Coughlin of electricity to his then
home law office at 1422 E. 9th ST. #2 for over one week), making Judge Schroeder's
3/15/12 Lockout Order voide for lack of jurisdiction (see NRS 40.400 and NRC 60(b)(4),
though, extra-judicial sua sponte investigation, apparently, by RJC Judge Schroeder
resulted in a rather curious Order on 11/14/12 disposing of any need for Kern to addresss
such serious allegations of professional misconduct. This is especially true if one consider
Marshal Menzel used to be a RJC Bailiff and RJC Bailiff Reyes had interrogated Coughlin
as to whether he was recording the summary eviction trial (it is not clear that SCR Rules
related to members of the media apply to pro se attorney litigants in Justice Court,
regardless, even had Coughlin been aware of them at the time) in 11-1708 before Judge
Sferrazza and Judge Nash Holmes testimony on 11/14/12 at Coughlin's SBN formal
disciplinary hearing that she had heard you like to record things. Put together, the
infrence is that RJC Bailiff Reyes and Marshal Menzel (Coughlin filed a TPO Against
Reyes in February 2012 and Menzel sent a report to the SBN detailing issues he takes with
Coughlin in April 2012) do a lot of gossiping while at work. Menzel has followed
Couglin into the RJC Criminal Division filing and castigated Coughlin for not having a
job. Reyes has issued invective to Coughlin regarding Coughlin taking mental
medication. RJC Bailiff Reyes admits to telling Coughlin, with WCPD Leslie and
Goodnight seated beside a seated Coughlin that Reyes would put my boot up your ass,
though Reyes, shortly after mistating Coughlin's citation to Shepp (Reyes accused
Coughlin of lying to Judge Sferrazza about the import of Shepp, then proceeded to provide
his butchered interpreation of the exclusionary rule to the Fourth Amendment, during a
conversation with Coughlin the day after Judge Sferrazza convicted Coughlin of BOTH
petty larceny and receiving stolen property where Coughlin was alleged to have recieved
the very property he allegedly stole, FROM HIMSELF). Reyes went on to chide Coughlin
for allegedly stealing some lost, mislaid, or abandoned property from a 24 year old
skateboard whom allegedly had set his iPhone down on the concrete at 11:15pm at night in
the downtown Reno skate plaze then venture to the opposite side of the plaze, far enough
away to fail to hear a still unidentified man (as confirmed by a video taped admission that
Judge Sferrazza ruled irrelevant and hearsay, of Nicole Watson) hold the iPhone aloft,
offer it up, then proceed to threaten to throw it in the river if someone did not claim it
immediately). Reyes characterized the 24 year old skateboard to Coughlin as just a kid.
Reyes excused his own threat to Coughlin to put my boot up your ass of October 9th,
2011 as a subterfuge that was permissible given Reyes status as a member of law
enforcement. Further, upon Judge Clifton having Coughlin taken into custody on 2/13/13
in 12-065630, Chief Bailiff Sexton reminded Coughlin that he still have hanging over
your head five different extremely de minimis alleged violations of Judge Sferrazza's
12/20/12 Administrative Order 12-01, which threat apparently was put into play by the
2/25/13 Order To Show Cause AO 12-01, file stamped 3:45pm, upon Coughlin filing a
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Notice of Appeal to the 2/13/13 Order by Judge Clifton in 12-065630 sentencing

Coughlin, summarily, and denying any stay thereto despite good cause show, especially
relating to 62337 and the jail depriving Coughlin of his medications during two of the
three questionable incarcerations the RJC had subjected Coughlin to between 2/1/13 and
2/12/13, and Coughlin's established suffering from clinical Major Depressive Disorder ,
Treatment Resistant Depression, and ADD/ADHD. The causal connection between
Coughlin's early mornign email of 2/1/13 to WCDA Inspector Covington (the only person
ADA Helzer is allowing Coughlin to communicate with in reference to CR12-2025 and
RJC 11-0633341) and the NRS 171.136 violating summary arrest for an alleged probation
violation disproven by DAS Officer Ramos' own Coworker, DAS Officer Brown's 1/24/13
email to Coughlin, where such arrest is notated at occuring AFTER 7 pm (7:02 pm) on the
PC Sheet and Inmate Booking papers from 2/1/13, is obvious, and troubling. A similar
casual connection seems apparent between a 2/6/13 email to WCDA DDA-Civil Division
Watts-Vial objecting to his 11/13/12 faxed objections ot Coughlin's SCR 110 subpoenas
on Washoe County and 2JDC personnel and the 2/8/13 point a gun at Coughlin's head
from five feet away for no good reason by RPD Waddle arrest and charge of a gross
misdemeanor violation of the SBN TPO over some alleged violation on 1/3/13 and a
felony charge for some alleged violation of the SBN EPO in 12-607 over some alleged
conduct on 1/23/13 or thereabouts (the purported service of the TPO in 12-599 by Bailiff
Reyes on 12/19/12 involved Reyes following Coughlin into the tiny DAS check in closet
and shoving his forearm into Coughlin's midsection in insisting Coughlin was being
detained sufficiently long enough to serve Coughlin the TPO Order in 12-599...similarly
shoving of a forearm into Coughlin's midsection occurred during an attempted service of
an EPO in either both 12-599 and 12-6087 by WCSO Deputy Courteney, on 1/4/13. Such
apparent misconduct further vitiates the viability of such attempts at service, especially
where Deputy Courteney utilized force in attempting to prevent Coughlin from walking on
his drive way towards his fifth wheel. Next in the apparent retaliatory causal connection
parade is Coughlin's inquiring with WCDA DDA Watts-Vial on 2/25/13 about those SCR
110 Supboenas again, at approximately 2pm, just before former WCDA Office-Criminal
Division prosecutor turne RJC Judge Pearson entered his 2/25/13 Show Cause Order
setting for hearing such matter on 3/5/13, based upon some unsworn, unattributed,
allegations that Coughlin had made various contacts with non-RJC Bailiff personnel,
though the complete lack of specificity, the violation of the requirement for such out of the
presence of the court alleged conduct constituting contempt under NRS 22.030(3), and the
general lack of notice as to the charges against him (what did such contacts entail? Who
exactly would the witnesses of such contacts be? How can Coughlin subpoena them
without sufficiently detailed notice thereof? Why is Couglhin not afforded at least the 10
judicial days seemingly required to prepare for any such Show Cause Hearing. Is not the
purported service of such Show Cause Order incident to Coughlin checkign in with DAS
insufficient service of process for the same reasons other such service attempts in 12-607,
12-599, RJC AO 12-01, etc., should fail? Do not the TPO's and EPO's in 12-607 and 12599 exceed the jurisdiction to make such orders where they impinge upon Coughlin's first
Amendment Rights and rights as a litigatin in his formal disciplinary hearing and the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
appeal thereof, and where such orders are in now way reasonably or narrowly tailore to
achieve the purported safety goals to which they address? NRS 1.235 Procedure for
disqualifying judges other than Supreme Court justices. 1. Any party to an action or
proceeding pending in any court other than the Supreme Court, who seeks to disqualify a
judge for actual or implied bias or prejudice must file an affidavit specifying the facts upon
which the disqualification is sought. The affidavit of a party represented by an attorney
must be accompanied by a certificate of the attorney of record that the affidavit is filed in
good faith and not interposed for delay. Except as otherwise provided in subsections 2 and
3, the affidavit must be filed: (a) Not less than 20 days before the date set for trial or
hearing of the case; or (b) Not less than 3 days before the date set for the hearing of any
pretrial matter. 2. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection and subsection 3, if a
case is not assigned to a judge before the time required under subsection 1 for filing the
affidavit, the affidavit must be filed: (a) Within 10 days after the party or the partys
attorney is notified that the case has been assigned to a judge; (b) Before the hearing of
any pretrial matter; or (c) Before the jury is empaneled, evidence taken or any ruling made
in the trial or hearing, whichever occurs first. If the facts upon which disqualification of
the judge is sought are not known to the party before the party is notified of the
assignment of the judge or before any pretrial hearing is held, the affidavit may be filed
not later than the commencement of the trial or hearing of the case. 3. If a case is
reassigned to a new judge and the time for filing the affidavit under subsection 1 and
paragraph (a) of subsection 2 has expired, the parties have 10 days after notice of the new
assignment within which to file the affidavit, and the trial or hearing of the case must be
rescheduled for a date after the expiration of the 10-day period unless the parties stipulate
to an earlier date. 4. At the time the affidavit is filed, a copy must be served upon the
judge sought to be disqualified. Service must be made by delivering the copy to the judge
personally or by leaving it at the judges chambers with some person of suitable age and
discretion employed therein. 5. The judge against whom an affidavit alleging bias or
prejudice is filed shall proceed no further with the matter and shall: (a) Immediately
transfer the case to another department of the court, if there is more than one department of
the court in the district, or request the judge of another district court to preside at the trial
or hearing of the matter; or (b) File a written answer with the clerk of the court within 5
judicial days after the affidavit is filed, admitting or denying any or all of the allegations
contained in the affidavit and setting forth any additional facts which bear on the question
of the judges disqualification. The question of the judges disqualification must thereupon
be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by the parties or, if they are unable
to agree, by a judge appointed: (1) By the presiding judge of the judicial district in judicial
districts
having more than one judge, or if the presiding judge of the judicial district is sought to be
disqualified, by the judge having the greatest number of years of service. (2) By the
Supreme Court in judicial districts having only one judge. A multitude of such facts were
not known to Coughlin, and necessarily could not be known as indicated in NRS 1.235(2)
(b), as Coughlin detailed in his 12/11/12 Motion to Disqualify and in a 1/7/13 Motion to
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Disqualify Judge Clifton as well in 12-067980. Somehow, Judge Clifton then allowed
DDA a recess to go to the counter and request and Emergency Hearing before Judge
Pearson to have that Order for Competency Evaluation entered an hour before in 063341
vacated. DDA Young was successful in getting a hearing and having that Order vacated.
Judge Pearson was, some might say, evasive during that hearing when questioned as to
whether he had extra-judicial discussions with Clifton (whom had just exited the Bench in
Courtroom D where the continuation of the Trial in 12-065630 was being held on 2/13/13
despite Coughlin's 1/22/13 Motion for Order for Competency Evaluation, and despite
Judge Clifton justifying his failure to follow the requirement in NRS 1.235 that he
respond, in affidavit, to Coughlin's Motion for Disqualification of 12/11/12 based upon an
indication that Coughlin's use of a Declaration only failed to meet the call for an
affidavit in that statute, despite the import of NRS 53.045 and the Court's holding in
Buckwalter which conclusively establish as mandatory authority that a Declaration will
absolutely suffice in such circumstances, particularly where Coughlin had already been
accorded in forma pauperis status by Judge Clifton and could not afford a notary, and the
Self Help Center at 1 S. Sierra St. only provides free notary service in family law cases)
long enough for Judge Pearson to hold the Emergency Hearing to Vacate his just entered
Order for Competency Evaluation in 11-063341, which he claimed to have been
reviewing, unprompted, following his entry of that Order, in his chambers, unprompted...).
It has also become even further apparent that the RJC Bailiff are or may be engaging in a
coordinated effort (further suggested by the apparent dictate in Judge Sferrazza's
Administrative Order 12-01 that Coughlin : inser language where on 2/21/13 Couglin
appeared at the RJC to take the PBC test and check in with DAS as required by his
probation in 11-063341 (in part based upon a conviction for possessing or receiving
stolen property that is clearly violative of Nevada law: ((A) Count 3 charged Shepp with
having received property stolen by him during the commission of the burglary charged in
Count 2. Since a thief cannot receive from himself the fruits of his larceny, the jury must
be instructed that it could convict of either burglary or receiving, [ 484 P.2d 565 ] but not
of both. People v. Taylor, 4 Cal.App.2d 214, 40 P.2d 870 (Cal. 1935); People v. Morales,
263 Cal.App.2d 211, 69 Cal.Rptr. 553 (1968); Milanovich v. United States, 365 U.S. 551,
81 S.Ct. 728, 5 L.Ed.2d 773 (1961); Thomas v. United States, 418 F.2d 567 (5 Cir.1969);
Baker v. United States, 357 F.2d 11 (5 Cir.1966). Such an instruction was requested but
the court declined to give it. This was error, and later acknowledged by the court to be
such when it set aside the receiving conviction and ordered a new trial on that charge. The
appellate issue is whether that manner of handling the error effectively cured it. The error
was not cured by the setting aside of the receiving conviction since there is no way of
knowing whether a properly instructed jury would have found the defendant guilty of
burglary, Count 2, or receiving, Count 3. Milanovich v. United States, supra. Both
convictions should have been set aside and a new trial ordered. SHEPP v. STATE 484
P.2d 563 (1971)) Add to that the efforts of the WCPD's Leslie in working with SBN King
in a Memorandum found in the file Leslie provided to Lindsay, Esq., upon the WCPD and
APD being conflicted out of representing Coughlin (and Leslie clearly violates his duty of
confidentiality to Coughlin under RPC 1.16 in the following and beyond): Memorandum
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
To: Zach Coughlin file, RCR12-067980, PD number 144825 From: Jim Leslie Chief
Deputy Public Defender Re: Threat Date: 12/13/12 On the above date, I received a return
call from Patrick King and David Clark at the State Bar. They were responding to my
email to King yesterday regarding possible threat by Coughlin as contained in an email
Coughlin had sent to me, other attorneys in this office, and several other recipients. Copy
of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and copy of the website that the end of the
first paragraph of the email leads to is attached hereto as Exhibit "2". King and Clark both
agreed that the email from Coughlin, in context and with the reference to the website with
the video clip and other materials from "Cape Fear", constitutes a threat of violence
against me and other attorneys in our office. They disclosed that they had had their own
problems with Coughlin, including having to have armed security at his State Bar hearing
and that they each had considered obtaining restraining orders against him and probably
will do so upon completion of the Bar proceeding. They both stated that "heightened alert"
is appropriate in light of the email he sent and generally when dealing with Mr. Coughlin.
They told me that if I refer the email in question to law enforcement they would not
consider it a breach of attorney client confidentiality under Rule 1.6(c) and also because
Mr. Coughlin includes so many recipients in the email that he has waived confidentiality. J
indicated I was intended to ask to be relieved of the remaining case our office has with
Coughlin, and they agreed I could and should do so. I am moving forward with asking to
be relieved from Coughlin's case in RCR12-067980 and am also considering possible
referral of the email to law enforcement. END Even if one accepts Leslie's waiver of
confidentiality argument where he writes : They told me that if I refer the email in
question to law enforcement they would not consider it a breach of attorney client
confidentiality under Rule 1.6(c) and also because Mr. Coughlin includes so many
recipients in the email that he has waived confidentiality, that still does not excuse the
extent to which Leslie then refers to matters outside such email in violating his duty of
confidentiality. Further, again, Leslie, like the SBN's King, and like RMC Judge Nash
Holmes, relies heavily upon unsworn, often unattributed hearsay. The only reason I went
into court is because I am self representing on 063341. Bruce Lindsay is not my attorney
of record on that case, nor have I ever consented to his becoming my attorney of record
therein at this point, though would consider it if the State were to provide for Lindsay to be
paid to do so. I am asking in writing if Bruce Lindsay, Esq. Was appointed as my counsel
of record in 2012-065630 for the 2/13/13 Contempt Hearing, at which I received 5 days in
jail for being late, wherein Judge Clifton alleged I had already had the benefit of a
warning, yet I maintain that Robbin Baker told me the start time of the trial in that matter
on 12/11/11 had been moved from 9 am to 1:30 pm. Judge Clifton maintained that he did
not change the start time, then insisted Robbin Baker did not tell me that, then refused to
indicate just how he could possibly know what Robbin Baker had told me. Subsequently
it was learned that Robbin Baker was not even at work that day, and that no one had called
her that day to inquire as to whether I was correct in my assertion as to her having
communicated the start time of the trial as having changed. I believe it is situations like
that that resulted in the current Administrative Order 12-01 (which may not even still be
binding considering it was from 2012 and by former Chief Judge Sferrazza) wherein I
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
seemingly am prevented from communicating with any court personnel besides the
Bailiff's, based upon some unnoticed finding that I had caused distruptions in the filing
office, an accusation to which I was never provided an opportunity to be heard on.
Previously, Judge Sferrazza refused to allow me to appear on my own behalf, despite my
having been a licensed attorney in Nevada at the time in 11-063341, and despite my
having filed a Notice of Appearance therein, and an Authorization to represent. Then
Judge Sferrazza, at trial on 8/27/12 and 8/29/12 refused to allow me to self represent still.
Then he refused to accept the plea agreement that would have disposed of all three
matters to which I am a defendant in the RJC (11-063341, which is now on appeal in
CR12-2025, with the Appeal Brief, per the attached Briefing Schedule, on March 9th,
2013, and where Judge Elliott entered an Order granting my IFP on 1/9/13 providing for
the preparation of the transcript at public expense; 11-065630, which stemmed form a
1/14/12 "misuse of emergency communications" gross misdemeanor arrest, that had the
trial start on 12/11/12, where the WCPD was releived on 11/27/12 (the day pre-trial
motions were due, I maintain I was forced to proceed pro se due to Biray Dogan's
complete lack of representation, including failing to appear where required at the 2/14/12
arraignment on a gross misdemeanor (indigent defendnans entitled to representation on
gross misdo and felonies "at all stages"...); and the matter wherein Bruce is counsel of
record, 12-067980, where Bruce has stipulated to several continuances...and now today
apparently DDA Young tried to pull something where he failed to stip to the continuance
in 11-063341, refuses to take my calls or respond to any written communications. Further
WCDA Legal Assistant Tina Galli informed me today that I am not to call their office on
11-063341 and that "Diana
from Bruce Lindsay's Office is handling it". That is not true. I am self representing in 11063341 at this point. Further, I never expressly consented to Lindsay appearing in 11065630 at the 2/13/13 Contempt Hearing, wherein I was brought in upon being summarily
taken into custody the day before, and without consulting with Lindsay at all or ever
consenting to his appearing on my behalf, Lindsay was seated at the defendants desk.
Lindsay then proceeded to disparage my ability to represent clients currently on the record,
stating "Your Honor, can you imagine him trying to represent clients in his current state?"
as though I was so incompetent that doing so would surely produce poor results. Judge
Clifton quickly pointed out my competency to be an attorney was not the relevant inquiry.
Lindsay refused to seek to examined Robbin Baker or call her as a witness in line with my
argument that I had not actually ever been given a "warning" against my being late to
court "happening again" (as Judge Clifton indicated I had). Further, Lindsay ask me, in
open court, in front of Judge Clifton, "so what happened, why were you late". Duty of
confidentiality. A member of Washoe County law enforcement stated to me at some point
while in custody on 2/12/13 that he expected I would be released the following day with
credit for time served. Instead, I received 5 days incarceration. Another member of
washoe county law enforcement subsequently expressed to me that he was surprised by
such an long sentence. I have been told that Lindsay's appeared on 2/13/13 in 12-065630
"free of charge" despite my indigent status and the fact that the State is required to provide
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
me an attorney at any hearing, even a civil contempt hearing, wherein there is even a
possibility of any jail time, much less 5 days of jail time...Lindsay still has not filed an
SB89 form or Proposed Order (though he seemed to orally make such motion on 2/13/13)
requiring that I be evaluated for competency or fitness to stand trial, despite his repeatedly
indicating he believes my competency is seriously in question. I believe he is obligated to
file such a Propose Order and or Motion for an Order for Competency Evaluation
Immediately, pursuant to NRS 178.405. Further, even at the Contempt Hearing on
2/13/13, in 12-067980, the State was required to provide me counsel, and given the
conflict present with the WCPD and APD, private counsel was required. Additionally, I
believe it is extremely bad faith for the State and RJC to refused to provide me private
counsel for the 12/11/12 Trial in 12-065630, only to then allow WCPD Leslie to abuse
process with his 12/18/12 TPO Application, therein bringing about the current
arrangement with court appointed private counsel. Please indicate in writing whether
Lindsay was paid to appear on my behalf on 2/13/13 in 12-065630 at the Contempt
Hearing. The DAS arrest on 2/1/13 was after 7pm in violation of NRS 171.136. Further,
the attached emails below support a finding that there did not exist probable cause to make
such an arrest. Additionally, please find below the Plea Deal that I voluntarily accepted,
on the record in 11-063341, 12-065630, and 12-067980 that should dispose of all three of
these matters. Further, please indicate in writing whether Mr. Lindsay has been assigned to
represent me in the matter stemming from the 2/8/13 arrest for a gross misdemeanor TPO
violation alleged to have occurred on 1/3/13, and a felony EPO violation alleged to have
occurred on or about 1/23/13. Please provide any documentation your office has received
with respect to that case and an written indication of whether your office will be appearing
at the arraignment on 3/6/13. I would prefer that all three matters be resolved (and
hopefully the appeal of 11-063341 in CR12-2025 before Judge Elliott can be included in
such a global resolution) in accordance with the terms I agreed to on the record on 8/27/13
in 11-063341 (a hearing which arguably was combined with the other two matters).
Matters? From: Dogan, Biray (Bdogan@washoecounty.us) This sender is in your safe
list. Sent: Wed 6/27/12 9:04 AM To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com Cc: Goodnight,
Joseph W (Jgoodnight@washoecounty.us) Zach, On June 13th, I sent to you via email (see
below) an offer negotiated w/ the State. I have not heard back from you regarding the
offer. The DA is requesting an answer to whether you are going to accept / reject the
resolution by July 10. You are currently scheduled for trial in Joe Goodnight's case on July
16, and an MSC on the same day for my case. Please let us know before July 10 whether
you want to go forward with trial or otherwise. In the case you have w/ me. Plead Guilty to
an amended count of Disturbing the Peace. Serve 90 days jail (concurrent to the case you
have w/ Goodnight) "suspended," on condition you continue to see your psychologist or
psychiatrist, provide monthly reports of this to the Justice Court, maintain any Rx regimen
prescribed by your doctor, and obey all laws. In the case you have Joe Goodnight. Plead
Guilty to an amended count of Disturbing the Peace. Serve 90 days jail (concurrent to the
case you have w/ me) "suspended," on the same conditions stated above.
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
There terms of my probation under RCR2011-063341 require me to check in with

"DAS"...The security personnel whom I checked in with (Judge Sferrazza entered and
Administrative Order requiring me to be escorted by a RJC Bailiff anytime I go to areas
under the control of the RJC, due to, basically, from what I understanding, past
"disruptions"...so I check in with the front door security staff whenever I go to 1 S. Sierra
St for anything related to DAS (Department of Alternative Sentencing) or the RJC, and
then wait for an RJC Bailiff to appear to escort me to, say, the DAS check in area in the
RJC filing office. The day of one of the allege EPO violation 1/23/13 was also the day my
Appellant's Brief was due in the N. S. Ct. case involving the State Bar of Nevada's attempt
to have me disbarred irrevocably. I was able to obtain a telephonic 5 day extension,
ultimately, making my brief due on 1/30/13 (ultimately the Record on Appeal in that
matter was struck from the record due to some things like the State Bar putting more than
250 pages per bound volume, printing on both sides of the paper, failing to bates stamp
certain things, etc., so my Brief is now due further out, but at the time, I did not know
whether or not the Court would grant my Motion to Extend the Deadline to file my Brief,
etc...so, basically, is was a stressful situation.. Also, the Northern Nevada Disciplinary
Board issues its Findings on 12/14/12 recommending to the Court that I be forever
disbarred. I attempted to file a post-Findings Motion for New Trial or to Alter or Amend
the Findings...under NRCP 52 and or 59, and maybe DCR13(7), that was due 10 judicial
days from that 12/14/12 mailing of the Findings...which would have been 1/3/13...I don't
wish to violate the EPO or file a Brief that disparages anyone. Rather, I hope to be able to
pull together the enormous amount of material involved in defending against the SBN's
Complaint, which alleged I violated some 12 Rules of Professional Conduct and untold
number of times, in a professional and fair manner, with a focus on mitigating factors
involved in what has occurred in my life since August 2011, should an outright agreement
related to some SCR 117 Disability arrangement not be available with the SBN. I have
recently complete an intake with Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services and start
counseling and hopefully that will result in an arrangement where, even if I cannot afford
them myself, I will be able to get my Wellbutrin antidepressant and avoid some of the
things that may, in part happen when I run out of it and can't afford a refill. I have sent the
WCDA's Office some ill advised emails and or writings in the last month or so (and
probably beyond that), and believe that was at least in part a result of not being able to
afford my medication. However, the TPO/EPOs may be void given the purported service
of the TPO and Notice of the EPO Hearing appears to violate Courthouse sanctuary
doctrine, on top of the dictate against serving attorney's process while they access the
courts. Additionally, neither WC nor SBN put up the bond statutorily required for a
workplace TPO, and exhibits on their face demonstrate that the link in the email Coughlin
alleged to have sent on or about 12/12/12 was to a hark.com audio clip only not a movie.
NRCP 56(g), bad faith affidavits, untenable, particulary where WCPD Jim Leslies admits
to failing to provide coughlin 911 audio files on two dics propounded by the WCDA on
8/13 and 8/17/12. Further, audio clip speaks to learning, reading, and philosophy, which
would not seem to support a finding of the sort of conduct required to support such an
Order. Additionally, free speach and access to SBN filing office procedures, including
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
those under SCR 105(4), including those expressed by the SBN and its Clerk of Court and
fax filing (some authority equates email with fax as well) may present claim of right
defense to any alleged EPO violation. As Such, the difficulties associated with being
arrested on 2/8/13 and charged with a felony and gross misdemeanor incident to alleged
EPO and TPO violations occuring on day of deadlines to file NRCP 52 and or 59 motions
as to 12/14/12 NNDB Panel Findings and Motion for Extension fo Time for Appeal Brief
in 62337, have made it inordinately difficult to prepare for 2/25/13 Show Cause Hearing.
Additionally, it may have been improper to apply rigid and formulaic In Re Erickson
application of procedural rules to pro se defendant in various RJC matters, where DDA
Young has obtained several Emergency Ex Parte Orders and or Motions Settings
(11/27/12 no faxing in 065630...the approach
to the Order For Competency Evaluation in 063341 as it relates to the Stay required on
2/12/13 in 065630 (shall...NRS 178.405). May be impermissible for RJC Bailiffs and or
Judge Clifton to required Coughlin, essentially to waive any notice or service requirement
for improptu reconsideration Hearing presided over by Chief Judge Pearson setting aside
the Order For Competency Eval made just an hour previous, and such may have been the
result of extrajudicial communications which may not be a permissible basis for such
action (adjudicatory boundaries limited to what parties appropriately put forth to the
Court...Ex parte communications by DDA Young at RJC Counter and or anythign
communicated to Judge Pearson on 2/12/13 may not be appropriate basis for setting aside
Order for Competency Evaluation). Lastly, DAS Officer Celeste Brown email to
Coughlin of 1/24/13 indicates the video showed Coughlin presented to the security
Check in arguably a timely manner on 1/23/13 sufficient to rebut a finding of a violation,
or at least demonstrate a good faith attempt to comply. Further, arrest report/booking
sheet for 2/1/13 arrest by DAS indicates time of arrest 7:02 pm, which may violate NRS
171.136 dicate against misdemeanor arrest between 7pm and 7am without a warrant.
Coughlin ordered to exit his residence after 7pm by DAS Officer. Further, as to WCPD
Jim Leslies's TPO application it is telling he mistates the 12/12/12 email as continaing a
link to a violent video clip when in fact the link is to nothing more than an audio clip that
relates to learning, reading, and philosophy (the verbatim transcript of the entirety of the
audio only clip linked to in the 12/12/12 email is as follows: I ain't no white trash piece of
shit. I'm better than you all. I can out learn you. I can out read you. I can outthink you, and
I can out philosophize you. And I'm going to outlast you. You think a couple of whacks to
my good old boy gut's gonna get me down? It's going to take a hell of a lot more than that,
Counselor, to prove you're better than me! (Max looks around in an attempt to find where
Sam is hiding) The link to this in the 12/12/12 email does not contain a single violent
statement or image. If the link had been to a clip of Max Cady's Your going to learn
about loss... speach, fine, that may amount to an implied threat. But it wasn't. It was to a
short audio clip of Cady making the above statement. Leslie is adding his own
remembrances of Cape Fear where he alleges that such quotations occurs after Cady has
beaten two men. Actually, if one went and view that whole scene from the movie, it
shows Cady being attacked by about six men that his public defender, played by Nick
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Nolte, had hired to go and attack and beat Cady with baseball bats and bicycle chains.
Cady fought them off, then delivered a speach to a trash dumpster that he figured his
former counselor Nolte was hiding behind when he heard a rustling emanate from
behind it following his successfully warding off the attack by the six hired thugs. Leslie
demonstrates a complete lack of candor to the tribunal in his application (as does WCDA
DDA Watts-Vial, whose 11/13/12 last minuted faxed objections to Coughlin's SCR 110
Subpoenas upon 2JDC Judges Flanagan and Elliot, Clerk of Court Hastings and the 2JDC
Custodian of Records, where Watts-Vial admits to extended discussions with the very Bar
Counsel whom confirmed to Coughlin that he, as a respondent suspended attorney
appearing pro se in his formal disciplinary matter, may, in fact, issue his own subpoenas
(and, given NNDB Susich's 7/27/12 email to Coughlin, Coughlin was entitled to rely upon
such express indications by Bar Counsel King, provided as a message confirming such
King was relaying to Coughlin upon confirming such with his supervisor, Chief Bar
Counsel David Clark. Instead, leslie chooses to focus on a tertiary aspect of some
description of the film incident to a link to buy the film
As to Marshals Harley and Coppa and Bailiffs Reyes, English serving process: JCRRT
Rule 8. Duties of bailiff, sheriff. During the time the court remains in session, the bailiff,
if there is one, or the sheriff or his deputy in attendance pursuant to law if there is no
bailiff, shall: ...(f) Perform such other duties as are required by the justice of the peace.
RJC Bailiff's Medina and Reyes, Heibert. And Ramsey in sua sponte amending the
12/20/12 Administrative Order and thereby refusing to accept from Coughlin documents
he presents for filing more than once a day (even, say, on a day where the deadline uner
NRS 189.010 or NRS 175.515 runs, even where no prior notice of such amendedment by
Bailiff to a Judges order was provided Coughlin) are likely in violation NRS 4.353(c)
Perform other such duties as may be required of the deputy marshal by the justice of the
peace of the court... where the 12/20/12 Administrative Order reads: a. If ZACHARY
BARKER COUGHLIN wishes to file a document with the Reno Justice Court or attend a
hearing in the Reno Justice Court he must notify the security personnel at the main
security entrance located at the east entrance of One South Sierra Street and wait for a
bailiff of the Reno justice Court to respond to his location. b. If ZACHARY BARKER
COUGHLIN wishes to make a request of the Reno Justice Court for copies, transcripts,
access to a court file or to ask a question he shall do so in writing and either mail the
request to the Reno Justice Court or deliver the written request to a bailiff of the Reno
Justice Court by first contacting the bailiff through court security as detailed above. The
bailiff will then file the document for Mr. Coughlin and provide him a file stamped copy
in return. There is nothing in that order allowing Bailiff's Medina and Reyes to refuse to
accept documents Couglin presents for filing at say, 4 pm, because Couglin presented
something earlier in the day at, say, 9 am. Regardless, the entirety of Judge Sferrazza's
12/20/12 Administrative Order 2012-01 is of an disturbingly dubious nature. NRS 4.353
Deputy marshal: Appointment; duties; qualifications; compensation....
3. Each deputy
marshal shall:...(c) Perform other such duties as may be required of the deputy marshal by
the justice of the peace of the court...
7. The provisions of this section do not authorize
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the deputy marshal to serve any civil or criminal process, except such orders of the court
which are specially directed by the court or the presiding justice of the peace thereof to the
deputy marshal for service. Judge Sferrazza's Order of 11/28/12 in "Case No.: ALL
CASES Dept. No.: ALL DEPARTMENTS" reads: "ORDER Pursuant to Justice Court
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 84(b)(1) as Chief Justice of the Reno Justice Court I am
responsible for the administration of court rules and regulations. Pursuant to Rule 84(b)(5),
the Chief Judge oversees all administrative and clerical work and functions of the court.
Pursuant to Rule 5(e) of the Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may by local
rule permit papers to be filed, signed or verified by electronic means that are consistent
with technical standards, if any, that the Judicial Conference of the United States
establishes. Currently, Reno Justice Court has not adopted a rule permitting papers to be
filed electronically. Justice Court Rules of Reno Township Rule 10(f) provides that the
clerk must not accept for filing any pleading or documents which do not comply with this
rule, but for good cause shown, the Court may permit the filing of noncomplying
pleadings and documents. Henceforth, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant,
Zachary Coughlin, shall not be permitted to file any further documents in any and all
departments of Reno Justice Court by electronic means including, but not limited to, fax or
email. In the event he violates this Order, he will be in contempt of court and subject to
twenty-five (25) days imprisonment for each violation." Further, as to Judge Sferrazza
finding authority for makign his 11/28/12 Order in NJCRCP, Rules 1 and 2 therein may
quite clear that (similar to JCRRT Rule 2) NJCRCP Rule 5(e) does not apply to criminal
case in the RJC, and does not apply to summary evictions. NJCRCP RULE 1. SCOPE
AND APPLICATION OF RULES:
These rules govern the procedure in the justice
courts in all suits of a civil nature, with the exceptions stated in Rule 81. NJCRCP RULE
2. THREE FORMS OF ACTION:
There shall be three forms of action in justice
courts to be known as civil actions, small claims actions and summary eviction
actions. Rules 3 through 87 govern civil actions. Rules governing small claims actions
begin with Rule 88 and end with Rule 100. Rules governing summary evictions commence
with Rule 101. JCRRT Rule 10. Form of pleadings.... (f) The clerk must not accept for
filing any pleading or documents that do not comply with this rule, but for good cause
shown, the court may permit the filing of noncomplying pleadings and documents.
Paragraph (1), except as to the size of paper, and paragraph (3) of this rule do not apply to
printed forms furnished by the clerk, district attorney, or public defender. Despite it
patent inapplicability to landlord tenant matters as indicated in JCRRT Rule 2, Judge
Sferrazza continually applied, in the summary eviction case in 1708 the following rule to
Coughlin's various Motions to Alter, Amend, Stay, etc.: JCRRT Rule 11. Motions:
Procedure for making motions; affidavits; renewal, rehearing of motions....(g) No motion
once heard and disposed of shall be renewed in the same cause, nor shall the same matters
therein embraced be reheard, unless by leave of the court. So, Judge Sferrazza manages to
base his 11/28/12 Order entirely upon rules that are inapplicable to ALL of the case
Couglin has ever had in the RJC. Coughlin has never once been a party to a civil action
in the RJC. Regardless, clearly, the RJC accepts filings by facsimile from some parties and
their attorneys, whereas it does not from others...This was the case throughout September
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2011 until Couglin caught on to the fact that, despite RJC Clerk Christine Erickson and
others indicating that filing by fax was not permitted, Richard G. Hill's associate, Casey D.
Baker, was able to file some things by fax, including his 10/19/11 Request for an Order
Shortening Time, etc., etc. Upon discovering this, Coughlin confronted Erickson about her
previous apparently incorrect assertions to him vis a vis fax filing and Erickson said no
comment. Similarly, in the criminal division, Chief Criminal Filing Officer Clerk Robbin
Baker continually maintained to Coughlin that filing by fax was not permitted, until she
changed her tune in mid-February 2012, whereupon Coughlin's filings in criminal cases in
the RJC were accepted for filing, with Baker indicating a fax is an original under the
approach taken by the RJC.
JCRRT Rule 10.(a) All pleadings and papers presented
for filing must be flat, unfolded, firmly bound together at the top, on white paper of
standard quality, not less than 16-lb. Weight and 8 by 11 inches in size. All papers shall
be typewritten or prepared by some other process that will produce clear and permanent
copies equally legible to printing. The print size shall not be more than 12 points. Carbon
or photocopies may not be filed. Only one side of the paper may be used..... There is, or
should be, a pretty big difference between being a politician (or, for that matter, a member
of the executive branch) and being a member of the judicial branch. Whereas those in the
executive branch are permitted to utilize influence, bargaining, and leverage to further
their objecties, those in the judicial branch must dispense justice based on law and fact
alone in a neutral manner devoid of bias or agenda. Judge Sferrazza continually abuses his
contempt power...well, actually, he more threatens to abuse it (which is still arguably
abusing it) versus actually following through and abusing in the way Judge Holmes did on
on 2/27/12 in summarily incarcerating then practicing attorney with client's Couglin for
five days while denying any stay whatsoever (which is what Judge Howard did on
11/30/11, although, ordering a mere 3 days incarceration). The Justice Court Rules of
Reno Township do not apply to criminal case or to landlord tenant matters, yet in his
11/28/12 Order in ALL CASES and in ALL DEPARTMENTS then Chief Judge
Sferrazza ordered just that. Couglin has and hereby again communicates on open refusal
pursuant to RPC 3.4(c) as to the illegality of Judge Sferrazza's 11/28/12 Order (the
enforcement of which by criminal division clerks Robbin Baker and Cathy Wood has
materially prejudiced Coughlin's defense in various criminal prosecutions, including 11063341 and 12-065630). RPC Rule 3.4. Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel. A lawyer
shall not: ... (c) Knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists JCRRT Rule 2.
Application of rules. Except as otherwise provided by statute, these rules apply to all civil
proceedings filed in Reno Township except small claims and landlord tenant matters.
Further, it is completely untrue or erroneous for the RJC Docket in RCR13-071437 to
purport that a criminal complaint was filed therein on 12/20/12 in the form of the
Administrative Order of 12/20/12, and further, at the OSC Hearing on 3/5/13, Couglin did
not consent to Bruce Linsday doing anything more than appearing as co-counsel, subject
to Coughlin having final say in RCR11-063341 as to the allegation of Couglin having
violated his probation incident to the warrantless after 7pm NRS 171.136 violating arrest
by the Department of Alternative Sentencing on 2/1/13...it seems Lindsay wins
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
because he gets another check from the Bob Bell group, and the RJC wins because it gets
to claim Couglin was given his day in court as to the 2/25/13 Order To Show Cause that
alleged Coughlin had violated the 12/20/12 Administrative Order some five times...its
really appalling, first to enter that Administrative Order, as lacking in jurisdiction or
anything in the way of actual precedent to support what it purports to order, but to then
seek to leverage every alleged violation no matter how de minimis, all without
complying with NRS 22.030(2) affiedavit requirement as to the alleged distrubances
Coughlin caused in the RJC filing office (there's cameras everywhere, so...if there is
something so dramatic, it should be produced...). So, it is really inappropriate for Bruce
Lindsay to be getting multiple checks from the Bob Bell Group incident to the WCPD and
APD being conflicted out of representing Couglin by virtue of Leslie's TPO/EPO where
the same subject matter/ case/ Administrative Order is being rebranded with a
different case number three and four times, particularly where Lindsay showed up twenty
minutes late on 3/11/13 (something Judge Clifton gave Coughlin five days in jail for on
2/13/12 incident to Coughlin being less than an hour late to court on 2/12/12, which was
the result of the disorienting effect of attempting to prepare and file the ROA and Brief in
62337 whilst being wrongfully arrest on 2/1/13 by DAS, incarcerated until 1 am on 2/5/13
(requiring $500 bail that still has not been returned by the RJC), then arreste again on
2/8/13 by the RPD and overcharged by Detective Yturbide (citing to the wrong statute,
NRS 200.591, rather than NRS 33.350, resulting in Couglin being subject to a $5,000
bail), Couglin bailing out at 2 am on 2/9/13, with the combined effect of those arrest and
the concomitant forced immediate no titration cessation of two psychoactive medications
(Wellbutrin and Adderall...unless one want to comply with the Washoe County Jail's
insistence on dosing Wellbutrin at bedtime...where such medication is known for causing
sleeplessness and as such would necessarily disturb one's circadian rhythmns...) and
somehow, whereas Lindsay gets a pass for being 20 minutes late (not to mention
completely unprepared and clueless as to the merits, fact, and law, at issue in the various
cases he was triple dipping on (getting paid for two or three different cases by attending
one combo hearing)..and somehow Judge Clifton issues a warrant for Coughlin's arrest
(he alleges he did so at 9:36 am, but the docket indicates it was at noon) where Couglin
arrived just before 10:00 am for the continuation of the trial in 065630 that was set to start
at 9 am (and which should have never taken place at all given the plea deal accepted on
8/27/12, Judge Clifton's failure to abide by NRS 1.230, .235 upon Couglin filing and
having served on his chambers a Motion to Disqualify (Clifton ignored NRS 53.045 and
Buckwalter in insisting that the fact that Coughlin had not presented a notarized affidavit
the judge was not then compelled to follow the procedures (5 days to file a responsive
affidavit/declaration, etc., etc.) upon Couglin filing prior to the start of trial (it matters
not the argument that, ignoring the fact that RJC Clerk Robbin Baker told Couglin the
trial's start time was moved to 1:30 pm on 12/11/12, regardless, Couglin filed the Motion
to Disqualify of 12/11/12 prior to the start of trial (and Tom Viloria's case was taken up
the morning in the RJC anyways, which is why Baker told Couglin the start time was
moved. Regardless refusing to allow Couglhin to query Baker or subpoena here with
respect to that, such an incident being Couglin's one warning not to be late, and Judge
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Clifton's dubious insistence that he knew Baker did not tell Couglin that even where Baker
was absent from work on 12/11/12 and Cathy Wood later told Coughlin that day that no
one from the RJC had called Baker for any reason (that and Baker's verge of tears flip
flopping to Coughlin on 11/27/12 respecting the fact that she originally said that she
clearly remembered the filigns Coughlin personally gave her for filing on 11/15/12 both
having discs attached to them...only to minutes later tearfully exclaim I'm not talking to
you Zach! upon Couglin confronting her about the curious about face Baker
demonstrated after a quick talking to by Cathy Wood and some stern looks (some might
say, all of which resulted in the 12/20/12 Administrative Order...along with, perhaps,
Coughlin's asking Bailiff Reyes if, perhaps, there was a bit of an appearance of bias
incident to Reyes serving Couglin the TPO Washoe County obtained on behalf of Reyes's
fellow Washoe County employee Leslie, on 12/19/12.... NRS 33.350 Penalty for
intentional violation of order. A person who intentionally violates a temporary or extended
order for protection against harassment in the workplace is guilty of a misdemeanor,
unless a more severe penalty is prescribed by law for the act that constitutes the violation
of the order. The docket in 071437 claims something that just did not happen...Couglin
never asked to have Lindsay appear on his behalf in the Administrative Order
matter...and at that 3/5/13 OSC Hearing, Judge Pearson indicated that the Order to
Show Cause on the Administrative Matter is being put into the probation violation case in
11-063341..., which makes no sense given the subject matter involved in the two have no
connection whatsoever, and what really appears to be the case is that the RJC is unable to
control, some might say, the DAS Officers, like Ramos, from, ever so suspiciously,
summarily arresting Coughlin, every time Couglin sends an email to the WCDA's Office
like that of the very early morning hours of 2/1/13, resulting in his arrest by DAS less than
24 hours later. But the RJC is clever, as such it recently in 11-063341 (actually, the docket
therein indicates Judge Sferrazza vacated his judgment as rendered almost immediately
after making it where the obey all laws requirement was closed etc. further, both
Judges Clifton in 065630 (the probation for which doesn't even start for at least one, if not
two years given the consecutive nature of the sentence) and Judge Pearson eliminated the
no alcohol term of Couglin's sentence in 063341, and as there never was any be subject
to search and seizure (and Coughlin indicated to DAS at the outset that such was his
position and that he was not waiving any of his rights in that regard...), so DAS perhaps
should cease descending upon Coughlin's home and office and banging on every wall
thereof for twenty minutes at a time, angrily shouting invective in menacing tones, then
unplugging the electricity to Coughlin's home and office, apparently, when finally
deciding to leave, as was apparently the case on 4/30/13 according to those living near
Coughlin. Judge Sferrazza's Administrative Order 2012-01, of 12/20/12 (lacking any case
number), reads: "ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2012-01 . WHEREAS, ZACHARY
BARKER COUGHLIN has been the subject of disciplinary hearings before the State Bar
of Nevada Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board wherein the Board found Mr. Coughlin
"committed mUltiple violations of the Rules of Professional conduct" and that Mr.
Coughlin "engaged in bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process"; and WHEREAS,
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has been a party in cases before the Reno Municipal
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Court including cases before the Honorable Dorothy Nash Holmes and the Honorable
Kenneth Howard wherein Mr. Coughlin was held in contempt of court for failing to follow
the Court's orders and directives; and WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN
has been a party in both civil and criminal matters before this Court including cases before
the Honorable Peter Sferrazza, the Honorable Scott Pearson, and the Honorable David
Clifton wherein Mr. Coughlin has been admonished for failing to follow the Court's orders
and directive; and WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN is currently the
subject of a Temporary Order for Protection against Harassment in the Workplace
requested by the Washoe County Public Defender's Office, his counsel in several cases
before this Court; and WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN is currently the
subject of a Temporary Order for Protection Against Harassment in the Workplace
requested by the State Bar of Nevada based upon Mr. Coughlin's harassing and disruptive
behavior with employees and officers of the State Bar; and WHEREAS, ZACHARY
BARKER COUGHLIN is currently a party in cases before this court; and WHEREAS,
citizens, whether or not indigent, have a constitutional right to access to the courts with the
protection of due process of law; and WHEREAS, frivolous or vexatious claims and
defenses overburden limited judicial resources, hinder the timely resolution of meritorious
claims and increase the costs of engaging in business and providing professional services
to the public; and WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has repeatedly caused
a disturbance in the filing office of the Reno Justice Court, disrupted the orderly business
of the Court and overburdened the limited judicial resources of this Court thereby
hindering the timely resolution of meritorious claims and increasing the costs of engaging
in business and providing professional services to the public; and WHEREAS, "a breach
of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance in the presence of the court, or in
its immediate vicinity, tending to interrupt the due course of the trial or other judicial
proceeding" constitutes contempt of court in the State of Nevada; and WHEREAS,
"disobedience or resistance to any lawful writ, order, rule or process issued by the court or
judge at chambers" constitutes contempt of court in the State of Nevada; and WHEREAS,
Nevada's courts are constitutionally authorized to issue all
writs "proper and necessary to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction." Nev. Const.
Art. 6, 6(1); and WHEREAS, to protect the peaceful and effective operation of this
Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shall not enter
the premises of the Reno Justice Court at One South Sierra Street except as follows: a. If
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN wishes to file a document with the Reno Justice Court
or attend a hearing in the Reno Justice Court he must notify the security personnel at the
main security entrance located at the east entrance of One South Sierra Street and wait for
a bailiff of the Reno justice Court to respond to his location. b. If ZACHARY BARKER
COUGHLIN wishes to make a request of the Reno Justice Court for copies, transcripts,
access to a court file or to ask a question he shall do so in writing and either mail the
request to the Reno Justice Court or deliver the written request to a bailiff of the Reno
Justice Court by first contacting the bailiff through court security as detailed above. The
bailiff will then file the document for Mr. Coughlin and provide him a file stamped copy
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in return. c. If ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN wishes to attend a Court hearing in the

Reno Justice Court he shall be escorted by a bailiff of this Court. 2. ZACHARY BARKER
COUGHLIN shall not be present in the exclusive premises of the Reno Justice Court
including the criminal, civil, citation, or administrative facilities located on the first floor
of the North Tower of One South Sierra Street and the entire area located on the second
floor of the North Tower of One South Sierra Street without the escort of a bailiff of this
Court and without first following the procedures outlined above. 3. ZACHARY BARKER
COUGHLIN is not allowed to contact any member of this Court other than a uniformed
bailiff. 4. If ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN is a party to a case he may address the
Court during the Court proceedings. 5. Any violation of this Order may be considered
contempt of court and punished pursuant to NRS Chapter 22 by a fine of up to $500 and/or
incarceration for up to 25 days in the Washoe County Detention Facility. 6. This Order is
effective upon personal service upon Mr. Coughlin." Of course, the RJC had a party
purport to serve that 12/20/12 Administrative Order where Bailiff English purports to have
attempted or effected service thereof on 12/20/12 within the courthouse at the Reno Justice
Court. Further, all of the Proof of Service/Return of Service in 599, 607, 3913, 3914, etc.
all fail under the requirements of NRCP 4(c),(d),(g): (c) By Whom Served. Process shall
be served by the sheriff of the county where the defendant is found, or by a deputy, or by
any person who is not a party and who is over 18 years of age, except that a subpoena may
be served as provided in Rule 45; where the service of process is made outside of the
United States, after an order of publication, it may be served either by any person who is
not a party and who is over 18 years of age or by any resident of the country, territory,
colony or province, who is not a party and who is over 18 years of age.
(d) Summons:
Personal Service. The summons and complaint shall be served together. The plaintiff shall
furnish the person making service with such copies as are necessary. Service shall be made
by delivering a copy of the summons attached to a copy of the complaint as follows:... (6)
Service Upon Individuals. In all other cases to the defendant personally, or by leaving
copies thereof at the defendants dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person
of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or by delivering a copy of the
summons and complaint to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive
service of process. ... (g) Return. The person serving the process shall make proof of
service thereof to the court promptly and in any event within the time during which the
person served must respond to the process. Proof of service shall be as follows:...(4) The
written admission of the defendant....In case of service otherwise than by publication, the
certificate or affidavit shall state the date, place and manner of service. Failure to make
proof of service shall not affect the validity of the service. See 60302 and Garins'
11/15/12 Motion to Dismiss therein: 4. Defendants Actual Notice Does Not Constitute
Service Any assertion by Plaintiff that Defendant has actual notice of this lawsuit, and
knowledge of this case excuses service of the summons and complaint, misses the point.
The Nevada Supreme Court has long acknowledged that notice of a litigation is not a
substitute for proper service of process. C.H.A Venture v. G.C. Wallace Consulting
Engineers, Inc., 794 P.2d 707, 709 (Nev. 1990). In effect, Defendant's notice of this
litigation does not excuse Plaintiff's non-service on Defendant. Note that the Proof of
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Service for the 1/12/12 NRS 200.591 Stalking/Harassment TPO Richard G. Hill, Esq.,
obtained from the RJC is signed by RJC Bailiff Plamondon. NRS 4.230 Docket:
Entries; form.
1. Every justice must keep a docket, in which the justice must enter:
(a) The title of every action or proceeding.
(b) The object of the action or proceeding;
and if a sum of money be claimed, the amount thereof.
(c) The date of the summons,
and the time of its return; and if an order to arrest the defendant be made, or a writ of
attachment be issued, a statement of the fact.
(d) The time when the parties, or either of
them, appear, or their nonappearance, if default be made; a minute of the pleadings and
motions; if in writing, referring to them; if not in writing, a concise statement of the
material parts of the pleading. The RJC's Bailiff Reyes and Chief Civil Clerk Christine
Erickson have refused to provide Coughlin a docket in Rev11-1492 and Rev11-1708,
citing to JCRRT rule requiring typewritten pleadings, despite the inapplicability of
JCRRT to landlord tenant matters as indicate in JCRRT Rule 3. Further, Coughlin has
had Reyes refuse to take requests Couglin has submitted for filing for dockets and copies
of the JAVS audio of the 1/4/13 hearing in RCP12-607, and whether default be made
therein is key...particularly given that NRS 33.270 requires more than a default, it requires
to applicant prove (probably by the same clear and convicing evidence standard
California uses, that set forth therein...not simply enter a default upon some alleged
failure to appear by Coughlin, especially where teh 12/26/12 Proof of Service by RJC
Bailiff English is deficient and violative of courthouse sanctuary and attorney litigant
privilege/immunity from service of process in the courthouse (the same deficieny which
befalls Baker's attempts to personally serve Couglhin on 9/27/11 the 5 Day Unlawful
Detainer Notice in 1708.
(e) Every adjournment, stating on whose application and to
what time.
(f) The demand for a trial by jury, when the same is made, and by whom
made, the order for the jury, and the time appointed for the return of the jury and for the
trial.... (this is somewhat is dispute in 1708, though the title of Coughlin's 10/11/11 filing
therein does contain the words Demand for Jury Trial...which is problematic considering
that Judge Sferrazza denied Couglin a jury trial, despite Couglin timely makign such a
demand under NRCP 38 (see NRS 40.400), which was prior to the 10/13/11 Eviction
Decision and Order setting the matter over for Trial on 10/25/11 should Couglin
deposit some $2,275 in rent escrow pursuant to NRS 118A.355(5), even though Couglin
always maintained he was entitled to an application of NRS 118A.360's fix and deduct
dictates, in additon to the set offs inuring to Coughlin under NRS 118A.390, 118A.510,
NRS 118A.290, and NRS 118A.355(2).
(i) The judgment of the court, specifying the
costs included, and the time when rendered.
(j) The issuing of the execution, when
issued and to whom; the renewals thereof, if any, and when made, and a statement of any
money paid to the justice, when and by whom.
(k) The receipt of a notice of appeal, if
any be given, and of the appeal bond, if any be filed. (this is a bit of an issue in RCR11063341 and RCR13-071437 as to the filings and order of and around 3/11/13).
Transcript: January 4, 2013 hearing in Reno justice court RCP2012 000607 State
Bar of Nevada versus Zachary Coughlin hearing on State Bar of Nevada as unfiled request
for an extension of the temporary workplace harassment protection order
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
King: for the record I am Patrick King I am assistant bar counsel for the State Bar of Nevada
I am here representing the State Bar and I will be a witness
court okay you can do it from here do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to
give will be the truthful whole truth and nothing but the truth
King I do. Your Honor also in
court just a moment let me make the record
King Your Honor also with me in attendance is Laura peters she is a paralegal and official
court clerk of the State Bar of Nevada and she will be a witness as well
court: all right Ms. peters go ahead and raise right hand to you solemnly swear the testimony
you are about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
10
Peters: I do.
11
17
Court: okay want you go ahead and join Mr. King at the counsel table and just for the record
this is RCP 2012 000607, State Bar of Nevada versus Zachary Barker Coughlin. This is the
time set for an application on the extended protection order requested by the State Bar of
Nevada a temporary protection order was previously granted in this case and it said in that
order that Mr. Coughlin was served with it said two days day January 4, 2013 at 8:15 AM as
the time for the hearing on the extended protection is now five o'clock, wall in the court room
926 by my I phone 9:25 AM Mr. King Mr. Coughlin does show up he currently is not here,
then mine intent whether he shows up or not is to limit each side to 30 min. for their
presentation of this case because the courts docket that we have and the relative simplicity of
this case and the number of witnesses .
18
King: thank you Your Honor and I am testifying now with the court's permission
19
court: very good
20
King: as in my capacity as assistant bar counsel I prosecuted Zachary Coughlin for ethical
violations violations against the Nevada rules of professional conduct those were brought to
my attention by independent sources we call them grievances I received grievances from a
federal judge, from a municipal judge from a justice court judge and from attorneys in the
community on an ongoing basis I have received complaints regarding Zachary Coughlin's
conduct and I opened an investigation pursuant to Supreme Court 105. In pursuing that
investigation I contacted Zachary Coughlin and asked him to respond to the grievances and
he failed to do so what he did instead was to send him in the stream of e-mails, basically
criticizing me personally as well as our office, other staff at the State Bar and the judges and
attorneys that can grievance against him. I filed a formal complaint against Zachary Coughlin
and took it to a screening panel that had voted unanimously that his conduct warranted a
formal proceeding. That formal proceeding took place and the panel chair named John
Echeverria, was put in charge of the panel, and the hearing commenced. He's full refused to
12
13
14
15
16
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
come to the building unless I provided armed security, and they did that explaining that they
had been harassed and intimidated by Zachary Coughlin and were concerned for their safety I
can tell you on a personal, uh, several, from a personal standpoint, several times I was
accosted by Zachary Coughlin in the office and my being accosted I mean he came, he's a big
fellow, he's probably around 6 foot three years so 240 pounds. He described to me as height
and weight which I wondered why he did that I think he was trying to blame to me that he
was a powerful fellow he accosted me by coming forward and caused me to back up, I
ordered him to leave the building I turned my back to him and went towards my office and he
followed me I felt that I might be being attacked so I turned back around to challenge him
and forced him from the building. Our building which is at 9456 double R Blvd. is open to
the public and so it's difficult for us to secure the doors they do have locks on them but we
are supposed to have it open so people can come in and drop off documents and visit with us
also are accommodations are generally open to attorneys and members of the community for
things like mediations and the like. As a result of Zach Coughlin's conduct, and I will have
Laura peters testify in a minute. We have three women in the office and myself that is the
total staff of the office in each of the three women have explained to me that I need to take
precautions to protect their that they felt intimidated, they were fearful, that they had made
several phone calls to the police where the police responded at the time the police responded
I spoke to them on occasion and they said they were very familiar with Zach Coughlin and
they felt it was import and that I contact them immediately said he arrived at the offices. The
staff had told me that they were not going to stay after dark that we needed to leave the office
as a group. I have had to institute a policy which is disruptive to our office by keeping the
doors locked during the day, which requires the receptionist to constantly be looking at the
front door to make sure he doesn't approach. On one particular evening, the police were
called because Zach Coughlin was pounding on a window of, um...uh..., of one of our staff
members, it frightened her a great deal. He motioned towards the front door where he
attempted to gain entrance, she refused to let him enter the building, and ordered him to
leave, he would not leave then she again was forced to call 911, it he left about 10 minutes
later but before the police arrived. John Echeverria, the attorney who was the panel chair,
informed me that he had gone to his office and was demanding a face-to-face meeting with
him. (9:29:26 am 1/4/13)
Court: Mr. Coughlin had gone to Mr. Echeverria's office?
King: it's close, its in the same center as our building, and had demanded to see him. (9:29:36
am) That was concerned John greatly because his daughter works at the front desk. He
issued an order after being advised by us, that we received a telephone call from the court
reporter who had recorded the proceedings, who said that she had been contacted by
Mr. Coughlin at her home, and so he issued an order that during the pendency of the
deliberations by the panel that he was to have no contact with the State Bar office, State
Bar employees, the court reporter, or any member of the panel. Zach Coughlin flagrantly
disregarded that he contacted me on numerous occasions, sent degrading e-mails made phone
calls. Most recently
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(9:29:55 am...NOTE: beyond King flagrantly violating RPC 3.7 in proceeding as though the
State Bar of Nevada's attorney and as a witness King just made it, seemingly oblivious of the
professional misconduct his so doing is proven by such an admission. King admits to an
impermissible ex parte a communication with the panel chair something King had previously
indicated fully intended to do during an October 12, 2012 conversation with Coughlin
wherein King indicated, any Freudian slip, that he would speak to the panel outside of
Coughlin's presence to further his names of consolidating the formal hearing called for by
SCR 111(8) and the Nevada Supreme Court's June 8, 2012 order in 60838, in defeating any
attempt by Coughlin to bifurcate such a formal hearing from the multitude of other baseless
charges King sought to shoehorn into his SCR 105 complaint. Why King could not have
simply filed a motion of some sort in NG 12 0204 etc. is never made clear other than the
application that it is simply easier and more expedient for King to contact the panel chair
directly and argue on substantive matters outside the presence of any opposition by Coughlin
or any of the tedious due process trimmings that Coughlin is always insisting upon. )
King 9:30 AM most recently just prior to you issuing the protective order that you
issue which we a preview appreciate very much on the day prior to you issuing the order he
made as many as 20 repetitive phone calls and in some cases hiding his identity and
attempting to disguise his voice and getting through to me and he uses profanity he says I am
going to get you and the threats are not failed in my opinion. By personal experience as part
of my investigation I examined his website I was disturbed to see that his website which I
understand has been taken down was a long stream of consciousness in an e-mail and at the
end there were pictures of ninja warriors and weapons of sorts throwing stars those types of
things on an attorney's website very very bizarre and disturbing. I do not have a mental health
background not a psychologist or us psychiatrist but it is patently clear to me that he has
some mental issues. At the formal hearing when he was asked if he was taking medication
avail himself of treatment he explained to the panel and in response to my question under
oath that he refused that he felt it was against his principles. At the formal hearing his
conduct was consistent with the other judges compliance which they ultimately help him and
criminal contempt. He was pointing his fingers 9:32 AM derogative territorially and we had
two armed guards at that proceeding so they did not allow it to escalate. I think that another
thing he does is he calls and he tells me and Laura peters that he will be in the office be at the
office in 15 min. and then hangs up and then that of course puts us makes us all an easy it's a
violation of the order it's a violation of your orders 930 2:45 AM and he has made that call
since receiving temporary protective order now I'm on guard I don't know should I be calling
the police what efforts do we need to take I need to go unlock the back door we need to
develop an escape or evacuation plan because we are prohibited from having weapons to
defend ourselves at the State Bar so as a consequence we did not been done during the day
not show up in 15 min. and then he will call again and say I'm going to show up later. With
that said he is intimidating our office intimidating the staff intimidating me and he has no
reason 9:33 AM to be contacting or be coming to the office at all we have told him you had if
he wants to send something to the State Bar should use the US mail and that would satisfy
any desire or anything he would need to do to file documents with the State Bar if he wanted
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
to make a complaint against another attorney or judge you can do it through the mail. But
what he has been doing instead is he is coming to the office after hours and with that said I
think it is imperative that we have an extended protective order. I do understand as a branch
of the Supreme Court the State Bar needs to keep open for office and that would even include
Zach Coughlin. But Zach Coughlin only needs to contact us by mail. This matter, after the
hearing the panel unanimously determined that he needed to be permanently disbarred they
described his conduct as outrageous and disruptive and that he was incompetent to practice
law. That has gotten him very upset the entire matter has now been sent to the supreme so we
are in essence divested of jurisdiction while the Supreme Court makes its decisions and Mr.
Coughlin has no reason to be coming to the office for talking to us now as a matter of fact I
think it would be improper for me to engage him in any kind of dialogue while the matter is
that the Supreme Court with that said I would like to call Laura peters briefly
court Mr. King before you do that you were also were a person that was addressed with this
e-mail that had the link to the Cape fear
king oh yes Exhibit 2 I believe you have identified it as a yes and that was immediately
brought to my attention I looked at the same link nine 3533 it is tremendously disturbing
when you realize that it is depicting someone shooting attorneys and that in this scene to
Nero is actually covered with blood have been shot the attorney so that just adds a great deal
of concern to his mental state
court and that was addressed to members of the State Bar as well
21
king for members of the State Bar notches to me if King he has attempted even after your
order to contact us he has contacted the State Bar in Las Vegas messages hostile messages
threatening the individuals with his conduct I added eyes them that I thought it would be
inappropriate for them in light of the fact that the matter is that the Supreme Court in light of
the so none of them spoke with them they just simply hung up but they have expressed
concern 930 6:40 AM the matter was brought to both the president of the bar as well as our
Executive Director and they were very very concerned and asked me to pursue the protective
order so it is not just me dealing with temp that's concerned it's a multitude they came and
interviewed the staff see what their opinions were so if there's any other
22
court no and she can testify from where she is there at the counsel table
23
king so you up in sworn can you state your name and occupation please
24
peters: Laura peters paralegal with the State Bar of Nevada at the Reno office
25
king and could you describe what occurred last night
26
peters: last night at a little bit after five another employee and I were leaving the building and
a man came walking up to the door just as we were about to lock it he had its some
paperwork from Zach and to Zach's credit he didn't come himself he sent somebody he was
waiting at the end of the driveway but he had some paperwork with and the guys said I want
16
17
18
19
20
27
28

-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
to file this and I said you're not going to file it and I threw it on the floor because he was try
to stuff into the door and then we just left we just locked it and he left to
( http://www.scribd.com/doc/155585719/12-20-12-607-SBN-TPO-Application-From-RJC12-21-12-Fax-Without-Fofcol )
king Your Honor I consider that to be a direct violation of the order because number one it's
that same intimidating approach of coming after hours when it's dark waiting for the women
to be leading leaving the building or still securing it and he was in the car at the time is that
correct
peters yes (NOTE: really, Peters, because your statements in the TPO and EPO police reports
in 13 CR 3913 and 13 CR 3913 contradict that, do they not?:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155584450/2-8-13-0204-Police-Arrest-Report-EPO-3914Shorter-Discovery-From-RCA-Chief-Wong-RPD-13-2445-03914
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155585187/2-8-13-0204-3913-TPO-Arrest-and-Police-Reportby-RPD-Detective-Ytrubide
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
king Zach Coughlin was so it's not like he arranged to have it delivered by third-party which
would still be a violation it says in the order that you are prohibited from either directly or
through an agent from contacting contacting, and I have explained to Mr. Coughlin that he
has no reason to contact us he shall not contact us it's a violation of the order to not come to
the office I told them especially repeatedly to realize what you're doing coming to the office
after hours and his comment is your you are prosecuting me, so it's an attempt on his part I
guess to intimidate me from doing my job so on behalf of the staff and for our protection I
would ask that the court asked in the order
king
court: does he have, you touched on this briefly, but does he have any legitimate reason or
does he ever right to file documents with your office
king well I would take the same approach that the justice court did they egg knowledge that
it's open to the public and that people have certain rights to file circuit certain documents or
the build themselves of the court system. We are not a court, we are a nonprofit organization,
and he does not have a right to do anything, other than the fact that as a member of the bar he
is currently suspended as the court now knows, attorneys have a duty to file documents with
the State Bar a duty to notify us of his current address things such as that into pay dues and
he is not precluded from doing that by us. I would ask the court to allow Mr. Coughlin to
submit any required documents by US mail and no other method the document that the court
saw this morning that he dropped off at the office included a CD videotape that is
approximately 100 pages. That document was e-mailed to me as well and then he faxes or
-
attempts to fax, the court clerk has ordered him and has written to him indicating not to, not
to fax, not e-mail you're not allowed to nine 4050 8 AM, as well as the panel chair no that's
not true peters only e-mailed saying don't e-mail you can e-mail documents" if you want her
to testify she can
court no that's fine I just wanted to make sure
king and so I do not I think it would be appropriate for the order to allow Mr. Coughlin to file
or serve required documents via US mail
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
court: right mind tenant would be then to loan before I formalize my finding, if I grant the
order it will be that he have no contact with any employee or the employer of the State Bar
specifically at the location of 9456 double R Blvd Park for a person at the location other than
through US mail
king thank you Your Honor and I Joe based on the testimony that I've heard from him and
my contact with him I think he is deeply disturbed I think he does pose a threat and I wish
and hope that there is a mechanism to reign him in and Casey is going to have some sort of
an episode because we read about it in the paper. Yu see it of our life the paranoid but Zach
Coughlin's contact in my opinion as assistant bar counsel is that he is a scary individual and
God only knows if he has weapons or is capable of using them but I would certainly hope not
court: are I think you based upon the sworn statements and evidence here today and my
assessment of the credibility of those witnesses and the weight to be given the evidence I do
find that the applicant has presented sufficient proof to support the granting of the extended
protection order and that I am finding that Mr. Coughlin has knowingly threatened or cause
substantial harm to the physical or mental health or safety of members of the State Bar
therefore I will grant the extended protection order precluding Mr. Coughlin from having any
contact other than through US mail with any employee or the corridor or any person present
at the offices of 9456 double R Blvd. and the State Bar at the State Bar
king Your Honor can we look at the Las Vegas office
22
court: well that occurred to me but I'm not sure of jurisdiction for that so let's, I was thinking
that through and I think I have to go with just the location I don't think I have jurisdiction for
that.
23
King: thank you Your Honor
24
court: the case of that will be the order they can cure pursuant down Las Vegas justice court a
similar order and we will get a copy for you here in a matter it's all right and that concludes
this hearing so if you want to shut that record. 9:44 AM
21
25
26
27
28
The big problems for the SBN are King and Peters "testimony" on 1/4/13
demonstrates they have lied, period. This is especially true when comparing Peters
statements in the police reports (she was not sure if Coughlin was present on 1/3/13 at the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
SBN or nearby when she alleges a document was submitted for filing on Coughlin's behalf by
a courier, however, in her sworn testimony of 1/4/13, all the sudden, Peters is sure Coughlin
was there? King is aware of the fraudulence of this). King lied about the content of the clip
allegedly linked to. Cady does not fire one shot in all of Cape Fear, never possesses a gun the
entire movie, yet King claims the "movie clip" linked to (its audio only) shows Cady with the
blood of his former attorney on his shirt, Cady allegedly shot having shot his attorney. King
is a pathetic hot mess of an attorney who should soon be disbarred. Also, the thing is King
lied about saying Coughlin showed up at edge of areas office and clearly from the atta.ched
police reports peters lied about being sure Coughlin was there on January 3, 2013, wherein
the police report Shimano indicates she feels she saw Coughlin's car and assume that
Coughlin was somehow she became a lot more sure allegedly come time for the extension
hearing. King Saul application is that he and nothing. There's absolutely nothing to base a
protection order on other than Kings referring to how we read things in the paper that
sometimes stuff happens in that he sends Coughlin might do something some vague
something and then his big cleanup hitter being Coughlin's e-mail the Leslie wherein
Coughlin allegedly links to an audio clip of the movie and audio clip from a movie where the
words and such clad refer only to reading, learning, thinking and philosophy and at worst
outlasting somebody and there's absolutely no gunshots Ya Ya I didn't say factors knows
being or violence all one would have to go rent the movie to find out that some violence did
just occur but the fact that it was violence predicated upon the former public defender hiring
three goons not six. Coughlin was wrong this is three goons to beat up the Robert DeNiro
character or otherwise sold him with bicycle chains and bats hardly makes it a bases for
granting a protection order against Coughlin and all these people should be ashamed of
themselves for this affront to justice that was this doubleheader ridic-u-thon of Workplace
Harassment Extension hearings, never mind the fact that David Watts the house: and a cool
hundred and 30 K and he can even get it right where he supposed to file a jurisdictionally
required security bond in public defender offices are independent contractors. Anyways so
the Washoe County District Attorney's Office as a basis for moving one for one, on behalf of
Washoe public vendors office
21
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155247318/3-19-13-0204-607-3913-TPO-Violation-RMC-CertProduction-Documents-Criminal-Complaints-Decl-PC-TPO-Copy-Copy-Copy-Copy
22
8:35 AM RCP 2012 000599 Washoe County be Zachary Coughlin
23
24
25
26
27
28
court to matters on the docket this morning versus Washoe I guess first will be State Bar of
Nevada or will we can do the Washoe County one first if that's what you would like to do
what's: it doesn't matter to me Your Honor Court reference
court: all right we will do Washoe County versus Zachary Coughlin now this is a application
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/155585798/12-18-12-1050am-599-TPO-Application-byWashoe-County-Against-Coughlin WCPD Jim Leslie's account of Coughlin visit to the
WCPD lobby to pick up the discovery (the discs of 911 calls that WCDA Young alleges he
propounded to the WCPD on 8/13/12 and 8/17/12, that the email Leslie alleges Coughlin sent
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
him on 12/12/12 is critical of Leslie for refusing to provide Coughlin in time for the trail in
rcr2012-065630, which had just taken place (partially), the day before, on 12/11/12:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFIzj4p-Tps leslie movie 599 0204 607 1080p hd
Its kind of hard to leave right away when one is waiting for the elevator, like
Coughlin, to take him from the 5th floor to the ground floor, one can hear Coughlin
touching the elevator buttons amidst Leslie histrionics and melodrama, which he was
stupid enough to carry on into his TPO Application and sworn testimony on 1/4/13 inw
rCp2012-000599). Particularly rich is Leslie's account (especially comparing that in his
TPO application and that in his sworn testimony, compared to the actual audio from
that interaction)
Later the same day as the email of December 12, 2012. Mr. Coughlin showed up at the
offices of the Washoe County Public Defender without an appointment, I and an
investigator went to the lobby to see him, since we had decided based on previous encounters
with Mr. Coughlin that it is best not to meet with him alone, With the investigator present
in the lobby, I asked Mr. Coughlin what he needed. He said he wanted his discovery
documents. Since we have had prior incidents where Mr. Coughlin received documents
from us and later claimed we did not provide them, I asked him to email me with his
request and that I would respond to the email. During our discussion I informed him that I
would be asking that our oflicc be relieved from his pending misdemeanor Obstructing and
Resisting criminal case. He became agitated and upset and I asked him to leave and to
schedule an appointment if he thought he needed one and to send me his email request.
He refused to leave, stating he was writing a note. I asked what the note was and he became
loud and verbally aggressive and said "None of your goddamncd business..." His demeanor
was visibly belligerent I asked him again several times to leave and he rose to his feet (he is
approximately 6'3" and I am 5'4") and went on a verbal rant against me. I continued to tell
him to leave while I turned to the front desk staff and asked them to call the police, He
tried handing me the note, and in response I held out my hand to receive it from him,
but then he pulled the note back from me several times in a taunting manner while
smiling. As we waited for the elevator, he kept saying he was "chipping" at me. As he left in
the elevator, he kept saying "chip, chip, chip .... , in a taunting manner.
I asked my investigator to summarize the encounter in writing. A
copy of that written summary is hereto attached as Exhibit "]-C".
Given Mr. Coughlin's demeanor and behavior, and given the "Cape
Fear" reference in the email earlier that day, I felt it appropriate to call the
police as result of Mr. Coughlin's refusal to leave, aggressive and hostile
demeanor and statements, and the concern that he might get physically
violent. He left the building before the police arrived.
As a result of the email and the encounter with Mr. Coughlin in
our lobby we have notified him via email that he is not to come to our
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
offices without prior confirmation of an appointment with his assigned

attorney. See Exhibit" I-D" attached hereto. We also advised the front desk
for the building, located on the first floor, of that limitation on his access
to our office. See Exhibit "1-E" attached hereto.
Based on what appears to be Mr. Coughlin's escalating animosity
toward out office and staff as reflected in the email reference to "Cape
Fear", Mr. Coughlin's expressions in the email of hostility toward several
of the attorneys in our office and his apparently bleaming of them for his
legal problems and criminal convictions, and his demonstrated
aggressiveness toward our staff, we are applying for the restraining
order to which this Exhibit "1" is attached.
Noticeably, WCPD Leslie's own Investigator, Evo Novak's statement that DDA
Watts-Vial attached to the very same TPO Application in 12-599 itself contradicts
Leslie's accounts (and Leslie contradicts himself and reveals his own professional
misconduct upon a review of the emails between Coughlin's then WCPD Leslie and
WCDA DDA Kandaras of 12/12/12 and 12/13/12...and upon a thorough review of those
emails and Coughlin's sent messages folder it is revealed that Couglin did not send
Leslie any email on 12/12/12 (which makes it apparent that the 12/12/12 email Coughlin
sent to the SBN and others was forwarded to Leslie by one of it's recipients, at which
point Leslie forwarded the same to WCDA DDA Kandaras, makingly particularly suspect
the dubious mistatements of the dates involved in Leslie's Ex.1 statement attached to the
Workplace Harrassment TPO filed on Leslie's behalf by DDA Watts-Vial (he of the
dubious 11/13/12 faxed objections to Coughlin's SCR 110 subpoenas in this matter) and
reveals the extent to which Leslie engages in violations of RPC 3.1, 3.3, 1.6, and,
possibly, 3.4, NRS 178.405, and RPC 1.14. Novak wrote:
Leslie, Jim From: Sent: To: Subject: Novak, Eva Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:51 PM
leslie, Jim Coughlin office visit 121212 11:58:11 am, 12-21-2012 23/32 Knowing Mr
Coughlin's volatile past behavior I was asked to accompany Jim leslie to the lobby to assist
Coughlin, He was seated in a chair writing a note, Jim leslie asked Coughlin what he
needed, Coughlin mentioned he needed some discovery from a case . Jim Leslie advised
him make any communications by way of email, he would handle that way, Coughlin asked
if I was present as witness, Jim Leslie confirmed that, Jim stated that he was going to ask
to be relieved from the current Coughlin case, Coughlin's demeanor became belligerent. Jim
Leslie asked Coughlin to leave the office, Coughlin refused claiming he was writing a
note, Jim Leslie asked what the note was. Coughlin said " it's none of your goddamn
business and walked past Jim and left the note at the reception desk, Coughlin was
advised several times by Jim Leslie to leave the office. Jim Leslie advised him that the
police were going to be called. At that point the elevator arrived, Prior to the elevator
door closing he continued his rant toward Jim Leslie until the door closed, Evo Novak
28
-
10
on a extended order for protection for harassment in the workplace and the order indicated
that the hearing would be at 815 and is currently on the courts clock 837 by standard course
begins 15 min. 838 by my iPhone that said there is still the burden in the statute NRS 33.270
which states that the hearing on an application filed pursuant to this subsection the request for
an extended order the employer must present evidence sufficient to support the granting of
the application. So it's not that we have a default situation words automatically grant. So, if
you want to go ahead and present your side, I will say. Mr. Coughlin does happen to show up
in the of the history of showing up like it's my intent to limit each side to 30 min. for their
presentation whether that be there case in chief or that their ball case that should be sufficient
so please keep track but I'm going to be keeping track of it appear and that will for both of
these cases and the subsequent case and that is twofold one because of the relatively simple
nature of this type of proceeding into quite frankly the court has other matters on the docket
as well and cannot commit the entire day to these two hearings so would be 30 min. each side
one hour for this hearing Mr. Watts the was here on behalf of the applicant Mr. Watts BL if
you want to proceed.
11
Watts: thank you Your Honor I would like to call Mr. Jim Leslie to the stand
12
court sure
13
court: good morning Mr. Leslie
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
14
15
Leslie: good morning
16
court before you had in there we you raise your hand you swallow Psalms swear the
testimony you are about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
17
Leslie yes.
18
Court Mr. Watts BL.
19
20
Watts: morning Mr. Leslie could use to your first and spell your last name for the record
please
21
Leslie James Leslie JAMA yes Leslie LESL I E
22
Watts: are you currently employed Mr. Leslie
23
Leslie yes
24
Watts where
25
26
Leslie at the Washoe County public defenders office where I've been employed there about 5
1/2 years
27
Watts: and what is your current job title
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
Leslie I am via chief criminal deputy and supervising Crippen criminal deputy vicariate case
was well
Watts could you describe some of your job duties as quickly for the court specifically with
regard to your supervisory duties
Leslie: I supervise number of other attorneys in the office that are on my team. I engage in
chief meanings with it are head assist in office what policies and policy issues such as
workplace protection and other matters
Watts: mischievous very familiar with Mr. Zach Coughlin
Leslie: yes
Watts: how
10
11
Leslie: until recently I was his attorney and additionally I supervise two attorneys that had
handled legal matters for him in our office
12
Watts:, use until recently euros attorney
13
Leslie correct
14
Watts why are you not his attorney now
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
order
County
Leslie yes
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 1 it was a patch the application for a protection order Mr. Leslie G recognize the
document
Leslie yes
Leslie I did
seeking the TPO
Leslie yes
them?
Leslie: yes and that was certainly my intention when I drafted the document
Watts Your Honor I have Exhibit 1 admitted Bush Mark
court are right will be admitted
Watts: are you Mr. Leslie can you give the court just a quick presentation of the events that
she summarize in exhibit number one
Leslie yes basically acknowledged that he was a client of ours at that time I acknowledged
that we anticipated that we would shortly be relieved from all further representations of those
cases and then I went on to indicate the e-mail that we had received from Mr. Coughlin on
December 12 I attached that is Exhibit 1 they and I summarize what I thought once about that
e-mail or some of the concerning forms being that the e-mail in the e-mail Mr. Coughlin
complained that various members of the local legal community including myself and several
other attorneys in our office the District Attorney's Office records themselves had deprived
him's rights that we had affected his life and then that complaints of his
into a
reference to a movie called keep beer and is summarized in the document in the movie keep
fear the website that his e-mail had directed to describe the movie as a convicted person who
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
had sought vengeance against his former public attorney for public defender and she blamed
for the incarceration in conjunction with his Mr. Coughlin's clear expression of frustration
from his perception was that the legal community here in Reno had deprived him of his rights
and the threat that I perceived led me to believe that he was making a threat against me and
against other attorneys in our office Miller Watts: you reference the movie keep your had you
seen the movie before
Leslie yes
Watts had you seen it before use of the word that the reference
12
Leslie is could you quickly summarize the court with the movie Cape fear is about as
basically I think it's Robert DeNiro plays a man who was previously convicted went to prison
was released and upon his release out former public defender handled the case that was
played by actor Nick Nolte Mr. Genaro basically stalks Stern Goldstein confronts him on
several occasions and attributes to Mr. Goldstein blames Mr. Nolte for his incarceration and
conviction and then throughout the movie district narrow limits is or attempted acts of five
points against his former public defender which ultimately culminates in a series of violent
occurrences
13
Watts: why did Mr. Coughlin's reference to Cape fear cause concern for you
14
20
Leslie: well because he expressed in the e-mail playing would be my word against the
prosecutor and against the public defenders that it represented him for his conviction on
various cases and for his not have a licensure with the bar anymore been suspended and then
that complaint of Mr. Coughlin is directly the tales into a quote from the movie and 280
website citation that takes the reader to to a website where a clip is played from the movie
and the clip former client Mr. Genaro has just had a violent encounter and is threatening to
continue his harassment and stalking of the former public defender and RA characterizes it as
veiled or indirect, but I thought it was very clear that Mr. Coughlin was making some kind of
threat of violence against me and others in our office either to her assess or intimidate us or
make us fearful.
21
Watts: Your Honor may I approach
22
court of course
23
24
Watts: sit here exhibit that was previously marked as 1 AM the application I don't know if
you want to market as exhibit to believe it is one name for the sake of reference
25
court: we'll leave it is one
26
Watts and one feels
27
Watts Mr. Leslie G recognize this document?
28
Leslie yes
8
9
10
11
15
16
17
18
19

-
Watts: can you probably describe what this document is?
Leslie: this is the e-mail that I have been discussing and that I referenced in Exhibit 1 which
was summary.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Watts:, and was the sin to you

Leslie: yes I am the first recipient in this section describe this to him and Mr. Bosler, and
Dogan, good night, Fortier those are the attorneys in our office and then there are several
other recipients in the local legal community
Watts: and from whom did this e-mail come:?
Should Leslie: it originated from the Zach Coughlin@Hotmail.com e-mail address which I
am familiar with because I've been corresponding with Mr. Coughlin for the past several
months through that e-mail address.
Watts: Do you remember the day on which you received this in?
12
Leslie yes it is stated December 12, 2012 and I remember that is the date that we received it.
13
Watts: can we mark this have exhibit the admitted and evidence?
14
court: it will be admitted
15
Watts: okay Mr. Leslie on it quickly look at this document let's go to page 2 and there's some
handwriting in about the middle of the page. His handwriting is that?
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Note it is professional misconduct for both Watts the Al whom is now trying to
recharacterized Leslie's application for the Apple case and wants the out file for Leslie on
1218 12 as something Leslie filed rather than what the out given the tenuous situation
Washoe County District Attorney's Office is and in that it now has yet one more amongst a
multitude of reasons for while why it should be conflicted out of prosecuting Coughlin
especially where Coughlin's filed numerous motions previous two that point including one of
12/3/12 in the case in which Leslie was able to obtain an unnoticed to Coughlin emergency
hearing on 12/18/12. Leslie has lied about his impetus for seeking to be removed as counsel.
As at this January 4 extension hearing Leslie indicated it was in response to the December
12, 2012 e-mail when in fact when Coughlin appeared in the Washoe County public
defenders lobby on that date requesting the discovery that Leslie had refused to provide him
which consisted to different discs the Washoe County district's attorney's office had
propounded on August 13 and August 17, 2012 that were of material relevant to Coughlin's
defense in the misuse of 911 case in 065630 which had just had a trial date the date for as
detailed in the December 12, 2012 e-mail of course no one not judge Pearson not Watts the
Al not Leslie not the State Bar of Nevada wants to talk about the import or content of
Coughlin's December 12 e-mail or the flagrant misconduct that is events therein by Jim
-
21
regard which manifests itself in Jim Leslie having an incredibly huge ego and being
unbearably vindictive at all times. Further it is quite noticeable the extent which neither the
State Bar of Nevada normal the Washoe County district attorney nor Leslie at or his
employer want to address the contents of both the audio link in the transcript provided
immediately incident thereto in the center of the page at the www.hark.com webpage link to
in the December 12, 2012 e-mail. There is no mention in either the state bars or the counties
protection order applications or any of the testimony put on or argument made at either of the
January 4 extension hearings as to the content of DeNiro speech and the word said therein
rather Leslie latches onto a brief synopsis of the commercial film Cape fear link to at the
bottom of the webpage wherein the audio clip accompanied only by a still image and the
transcript of the DeNiro speech as said within that audio clip, that simply sets out an
extremely general terms the plot of the movie Cape fear. Another thing that is particularly
noticeable by Leslie's testimony is that he completely skirts the issue as to what Cape fear is
really about which is the indignant felt by a criminal defendant upon realizing that one whom
has a professional duty to uphold to them has willfully disregarded it. In Cape fear DeNiro
express disdain for the extent to which Nolte quote "buried the report" that would have
proved relevant to DeNiro's defense and in fact one of DeNiro one of Nolte's fellow attorneys
in that movie in one scene expresses outrage at the fact that Nolte did that/. Further there is
nothing in the record of either of these workplace harassment protection order cases to prove
that the materials linked to at the tiny URL link in that 1212 12 e-mail actually links to that
which Leslie or King purports it to in fact clicking on that link now takes one to a website
home page where such site does not even to be involved in the business of providing links to
quotes from movies.
22
http://tinyurl.com/bgmlfdr
23
http://www.hark.com/search/cape+fear+1991
24
" In the hands of Martin Scorsese, what could have been a by-the-numbers thriller turned into
a Petri dish of emotional ambiguities. There are no good guys in Cape Fear. The Bowden
FamilySam, Leigh and Danielle, played respectively and excellently by Nick Nolte, Jessica
Lange and Juliette Lewishas specks of darkness sprinkled all over them. They are
unscrupulous and untrustworthy, floating along from one backstabbing to the next.
And these are the protagonists were talking about! You can only imagine what kind of
evil lies in the heart of Max Cady. For all the deserved hype that Heath Ledger received for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
25
26
27
28

-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
his Oscar nominated performance in The Dark Knight, were pretty sure it wouldnt exist
without Robert De Niros Max Cady. In what might be the last great performance that he
ever gives, Mr. De Niro chews through the scenery like a junkyard dog. Max Cady is The
Jokers southern uncle, complete with a similar maniacal laugh, a strict set of warped values
and the knowledge that his persecutors cannot take a single thing away from him that they
havent already. Cady is truly terrifying because he has absolutely nothing to lose.
(Coughlin's NOTE: it is this circumstance that seems to be what terrifies allegedly Patrick
King and Jim Leslie the most, but that is not Coughlin's fault and that is nothing Coughlin
has done to engender their allegedly a response. Further if these men were really so fearful
would they continue to act in such a callow unscrupulous patheic manner. It is the role of a
junkie that Jim Leslie and Patrick King most readily inhabit, judges Pearson and Clifton,
Watts-Vial, and Biray Dogan, too. Junkies who are at the mercy of their own addiction to
power and the consequence free environment that is being a justice court judge Dist. Atty. in
Washoe County public defender. When was the last time a public defender or Dist. Atty. was
disbarred in the state of Nevada. Judges of course exist in a warm sphere of judicial
immunity. It is it is this cozy bubble where the public defenders can year after year get away
with doing absolutely nothing to prepare a case such as that done by Leslie and Dogan here
that engenders a sort of somnubalent stasis, the likes of which would alarm even the most
craven Ambien or narcotic act out there.) "... Well probably fall asleep: We admit that Cape
Fear goes off the rails at the end, though that is most likely because Mr. Spielberg insisted
that Mr. Scorsese keep the Bowden family alive. The last act involves a boat, the biggest
rainsquall this side of The Day After Tomorrow, and Mr. De Niro speaking in tongues as
he drifts off to a soggy demise. ...Sam hires... thugs to take care of his nemesis. Bad idea.
Of course Cady turns the tables on his assailants and beats them to a bloody pulp
only then he hears something coming from behind the dumpster at the far end of the
parking lot. Sam is there to see his handiwork. Yikes! The monologue that De Niro-asCady spews is pure genius: I aint no white trash piece of shit, Im better than you all! I
can out learn you; I can out read you; I can out think you; and I can out philosophize
you; and Im gonna out last you! Note to our nightmares: come out come out wherever
you are"
If those words by Cady are not the very bedrock of the American Dream, what
is? (get a job as a bailiff, Assitant Bar Counsel (you can bring your dog to work! and
wear cargo pants to formal disciplinary hearings, and saunter up to Respondnets at
urinals during restroom breaks, both men's penis's in their hands, and ask "pretty good
grub, huh, Zach") WCDA or WCPD and live it up walking all over people and their
rights, hefty PERS pension included, don't need to be too smart or hard
working...dishonesty and unscrupulous is non-negotiable, however...) Leslie, King, and
Watts-Vial are three attorneys as whatever tyrannical, unjust, oppressive caste system
so many have fled over the years to come to the United States for. Cady's mantra is the
very message American's schoolchildren are fed constantly: you are not bound by your
circumstances if you are willing to work to change them. Perhaps that is where the
disconnect with Jim Leslie began its. Jim Leslie is unusually short he is a short man. He
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
notes himself and his protection order application that he is 5 foot three. King and his
testimony at his own extension hearing expresses concern over his allegation that Coughlin
informed him of Coughlin's own height and weight gain estimating and be 6 foot three or so
and 250 pounds. King indicates that he feels Coughlin made such commentary to him for the
purposes of establishing that Coughlin is a powerful man and otherwise implying some
threatening malevolence. In fact Coughlin made such expression to King during an earlier
meeting with him at the State Bar upon it becoming clear that kings go to move would be to
attempt to paint Coughlin as violent and threatening whereupon Coughlin pointed out to Ken
King that he's been 6 foot four 230 pounds or so most all of his adult life and that this
wouldn't be the first time someone attempted to reach for the quick easy you're a big
threatening guy card against him.
King is a pathological liar he knows very well that that was the context in which
Coughlin made that statement but instead King came to court on January 4 and completely
violated RPC 3.4 in a flagrant attempt to mislead the court. It's true Jim Leslie is 5 foot
three and there's pretty much nothing that's going to change that although the fact that
Leslie has managed to garner himself a $120,000 a year salary working for the public
defender's office in a setting where Coughlin himself has personally observed on a
number of occasions Jim Leslie wielding a vindictive fury towards his own clients,
clients other than Coughlin, one could be forgiven for thinking that Jim Leslie has been
allowed to feel just about as tall as he pleases. Leslie supervise Coughlin's other court
appointed Washoe County public defender Biray Dogan (whom 5'5" in height), they
intermittently handing off the case to one another and each sitting next to one another
on November 20, 2012 tittering to each other during the manifest miscarriage of justice
demonstrated by Judge Sferrazza and WCDA DDA Young raping the Fifth
Amendment repeatedly, during the trial the judge Sferrazza just insisted had to occur
on the 19th and 20th within two judicial days of Coughlin's November 14, 2012 formal
disciplinary hearing at the State Bar of Nevada. Coughlin cannot in good conscience not
express his concern for the fact that judge Sferrazza remains on the bench. Rule 2.15
seems to apply only the judges in the context of Canon to but rule 3.8 might require
Coughlin to divulge that his former client Pete Eastman whom at one time Eastman
(whom was apparently awarded some sort of medal of honor by the WCSO at one
point, though, to be fair, Eastman did attack Coughlin on or about March 28th, 2012
and assist Jeff Nichols in wrongfully dispossessing Coughlin, by force, of a rental that
Coughlin had worked for, fair and square, especially where Nichols committed perjury
on the stand during a hearing on an illegal lockout in late April 2012) alleges was a
courtroom bailiff for judge Sferrazza in the tribal courts and that on a number of
occasions on days when judge Sferrazza was presiding over matters on the bench in the
tribal courts,(where current RJC Bailiff John Holguin Reyes was also a bailiff, whom
Eastman alleges was a "brown noser" whom " would pick up the judges dry-cleaning
for them, a real kiss-ass" (Reyes m.o. Appears to be to curry favor with those in
positions of power and walk all over those whom he perceives to be underneath him on
that totem pole) Eastman was required to drive a too drunk to drive Judge Sferrazza
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
home. Coughlin somewhat reference Eastman's claims in a motion to disqualify judge

Sferrazza in RCR 2011 063341 which went on responded to by judge Sferrazza in the
justice court other than for the then Chief Judge Pearson to take over the case, how are
Pearson alleges he has no such ability to take over the case from a clearly out-of-control
judge David Clifton in the various matters to which Clifton inevitably winds up getting
his mitts into any criminal case involving Coughlin with especially questionable judge
Clifton's blas explanation for his suddenly taken over on February 27, 2012 065630
judge Lynch. Judge Clifton has the sort of judicial ethics that are only bred from one
being ensconced in a warm cocoon of prosecutorial immunity for a period of 25 years or
more.).
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Leslie's account of Coughlin's 12/12/12 visit to the WCPD to pick up the discovery reference
in teh 12/12/12 email Leslie and King allege provides a basis for the incredible overwrought
response by the RJC, themselves, and local law enforcement (which included a 2/8/13
incident where RPD Waddle pointed a gun at Coughlin's head from four feet away and arrest
Coughlin, where Coughlin was fraudulentlyu overcharged with a felony and a gross
misdemeanor incident to allegation of his violating a simple Workplace Harassment
TPO/EPO (which is in either case a simple misdemeanor, which it says right on the Orders
RPD detective Ytrubide (whose wife works for ECOMM 911 dispatcher alongside RPD
Duralde's wife), requiring Coughlin come up with some $800 to bail out, where the deadline
to file his Opening Brief in 62337 was looming as of 2/13/13 until Justice Pickering's order
striking the ROA (such order likely came before the arrest, though sufficinet to extend the
deadline).
as to portion of the 1/4/13 transcript beginning at 8:56 am the following transpires:
19
Watts: Kate what was the date of that e-mail.
20
Leslie: December 7, 2012 as I recall.
21
Watts was absent.
22
Leslie Mr. Coughlin.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Watts for what purpose.

Leslie it references what we call the 911 case. He was alleged. And I say alleged to have
called 911 without legal cause and the letter basically summarizes that once we were relieved
from his cases. At least with the 911 case because he had asked to self represent himself on
that case we were closing up that file, and there was a packet of documents up at the front
desk that we had left for him at his earlier request some months ago and as the letter says. We
left and there for you back at that time you didn't pick them up. We left them for you.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Another time you didn't pick him up and so what I did was I was basically e-mailing those
documents to him saying here you go.
(NOTE:
The very 12/12/12 email Leslie and the SBN's King alleged Coughlin sent and
attached to their respective TPO applications (neither managed to file the jurisdictionally
required EPO application, these guys aren't exactly work a holics or thorough, and neither
seemed to read any of the email beyond the first paragraph or so, when they seem to have
went for a deft head fake by the one time all-time leading in free throws attempted in boys
high school basketball for the State of Nevada (any division), and went about trying turn
some alleged hark.com audio clip link into the goose that laid the golden egg absolving them
of the work the misconduct they had been engaged in that should result in both of them being
disbarred immediately, and permanently, where such 12/12/12 email they attached as an
exhibit reads:
"The Trial yesterday in RCR2012-065630 featured extended discussions regarding the
failure of the WCPD, Dogan, and Leslie, to turn over discovery propounded by DDA Young
in the form of cd's featuring 911 calls DDA Young provided to the WCPD on 8/13/12 and
8/17/12... And the heavy hitters were there, too (Elliot Sattler).....despite numerous written
requests from Coughlin that the WCPD do so, and multiple trips to the WCPD personally by
Coughlin to pick such materials up, and despite more flip flopping on their story by Leslie
and Dogan regarding whether they ever gave Coughlin some package of materials
responsive to Coughlin's request for his "file"...But, Jim Leslie is stuck with the 7/27/12
date he mentions in his email, then he is stuck with what his recent email wherein he
purports to have therein digitally transmitted Coughlin his "file", which obviously does
not include the cd's of 911 calls (the one's DDA Young took up an enormous amount of
court time playing, over and over (well, Young only played over and over the particular calls
he felt were strongest for his case and most prejudicial, claiming some "cutting room floor
mishap" for the reoccurrence of certain calls, arguing that such a "happy accident" justified
playing them again and again, at ever increasing volumes, etc., etc.).'"
"Leslie's" 12/18/12 "instiutional protection order application" (there is not such
thing, Jim, and employer, under nRS 33.250 must apply for one on behalf of an
employee, not all the employees of an institution and despite Leslie and WCDA
Watts-Vial being the extremely overpaid legal eagles that they are, neither of them
figured that out in time for the 12/18/12 application, and then subseuqnetly WattsVial sought to characterize the 12 1812 application as having been Leslie's
application when in fact it is Watts the Al whom had his secretary attempt to serve it
on Coughlin. It is Watts the Al and sign the affidavit of attempted service, and it is
Washoe County listed in the caption rather than the Washoe County public defenders
office simply put the jurisdictional prerequisites to even entertain the original TPO
application are lacking (in addition to the jurisdictionnla mandatory minimum $100
cost bond, and considering this ordeal has required about $100,000 of legal work out
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
of Coughlin and likely cost him at least that much in additional damages incident to
the wrongfull arrest of 2/8/13 pursuant to the ensuing RMC prosecution for alleged
violation of the SBN's Workplace Harassment TPO/EPO in RCP2012-000607 (this is
a great reason for why the Truesdell decision is a horrific one) in RMC 13 CR 3913
and 13 CR 3914 (another bad Dan Wong creation, currently set for two trials,
unbifurcated, natch on August 23rd, 2013, and if anyone does not like the extent to
which their dirty laundry has been aired herein, feel free to thank Wong, Pearson,
Watts-Vial, Leslie, Detective Ytrubide, and the other malfeasors detailed herein for
placing such exigent circumstances upon Coughlin such that this is the best and most
responsible work product one could possibly expect of him, even if he will probably
need to go into the witness protection program soon) judge Pearson either Ms. that or
just figured, hey this is Zach Coughlin were talking about here. I'm in on the gang
bang as much as anybody else don't want to miss out on the party y'all, where do I
board this train y'all been runnin' on this "undesirable" (see Mitchums quote from his
cameo in the 1991 version of Cape Fear), huh? what the hey"
The Watts-Vial/WCDA Jim Leslie/WCPD hot potato whose Workplace
Harassment TPO application is it game went like this:
"Watts why are you not his attorney now
order
County
Leslie yes
Exhibit 1 it was an exhibit attached to the application for a protection order Mr. Leslie G
recognize the document
Leslie yes
Leslie I did
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
seeking the TPO
Leslie yes
them?
Leslie: yes and that was certainly my intention when I drafted the document"
That 12/12/12 email attached as exhibits in both Workplace Harassment TPO
applications (both lack a security bond, both lack a separate epo application, both fail on
insufficient service of process grounds, both damage the appearance/prestige of the RJC
where courthouse sanctuary rule is violated by RJC Bailiffs, etc., etc.) continues: "This is a
formal grievance against Dogan, Leslie, Bosler, Young...etc.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
If Svengali/Diann Ross Diva Jim Leslie is going to micromanage Dogan and Goodnight's
cases, and gag order them, he better be sure not to screw up the cases requiring a mistrial by
failing to provide the client the cd's of 911 calls DDA Young gave the wcpd on 8/13 and
8/17/12 in rjc rev2011-065630, and clearly, any packet from 7/27/12 wouldn't have them (not
to even get into the flip flopping contradictory accounts by Leslie and Dogan as to who gave
Coughlin the packet, or who didn't or blah blah blah)...and certainly Leslie email below only
contained a 57 page pdf...way to close to the 12/11/12 trial date, and containing materials
Coughlin had never been given before....so much easier, Jimmy Sleazy to email the client a
"digital transmittal" proving what you gave and when"....but, no, that would make it so hard
to fudge the accounts of what was contained therein, or who handed what to whom, or who
failed to pick up this or that, or Dogan's slippery nonsense:...So, now today, we get this Jim
Leslie email with all it's revisionist history...which only contradicts the position Leslie and
Dogan have taken that Coughlin already picked up this 7/27/12 packet (at first Dogan
claimed to have personally handed it to Coughlin, then changed his story 2 minutes later and
said he saw Leslie personally hand it to Coughlin....and Dogan asserts to the Court at the
11/27/12 Hearing in rcr2012-065630 that he has never spoken with Judge Dorothy Nash
Holmes (see materials regarding clandestine status conference of 2/27/12 and subsequent
fallout with Judge Nash Holmes of 2/27/12 a couple hours after Dogan secured his 2/27/12
1:31 pm Order for Competeny Evaluation in 065630 from Judge Clifton).""
he email of Coughlin's copied above goes on for several more pages detailign the prejudice to
admits to having failed to turned over the discs only propounded after that point. Further
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Leslie subpoened recordings from ECOMM on 10/3/12 in 11-063341 but never turned them
over to Couglhin, despite only being removed as counsel of record well over 15 days
thereafter, on 10/22/12.
It's not at all clear how a request and subsequent Order apparently prohibiting
Coughlin from calling, emailing or faxing the SBN would address the alleged threat of
physical harm. One cannot be physically harmed by a fax, email, or phone call. Further,
phone calls, faxes, and emails are common in pending litigations, even one's where postjudgment motions are being sought and where Coughlin has a duty to seek a stipulated
continuance of, say, the deadline to file an appeal brief in 62337 prior to filing a motion
seeking one. The EPO apparently would perhaps even forbid Coughlin from utilizing a
messenger service to deliver a filing to the SBN's Clerk of Court's Office for the securing of a
file stamp to beat a deadline, such as the 1/3/13, or 1/4/13 (depending upon whether holidays
are included in the 3 days for mailing calculus under NRCP 6(e) and the Deboer decision),
for Coughlin to file a NRCP 52 or 59 Motion as to the 12/14/12 NNDB Panel Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, which recommends that Coughlin be irrevocably disbarred
(disbarments became irrevocable in 2008). To curtail the time Coughlin had to prepare such
a motion, which was scant to begin with, by applying an onerous EPO application, or the
threat of arrest for anything arguably violative of it, would work and injustice, and has here,
as Coughlin was arrested and charged with a felony EPO violation for some alleged violation
in connection with his seeking from the SBN a stipulation to an extension of time to file his
appeal brief in 62337 on or around the deadlien to do so of 1/23/13. The SBN has failed to
respond to Coughlin's reasonable inquiries in that regard, as has the WCDA DDA Young
(rather, Coughlin is funneled to an Inspector Covington, whom is arguably committing the
unauthorized practice of law, and such circumstances only further underscore the extent to
which the WCDA Office should be disqualified form prosecuting Coughlin, particularly
where DDA Kandaras' above email admits to feeling Coughlin's competency is brought into
question, the events involving two former WCDA Criminal Division prosecutor's turned RJC
Judges on 2/13/13 in (an Order for Competency Evaluation signed and entered by Judge
Pearson at an 8:30 am hearing in 11-063341 was provided, in writing, to Judge Clifton in 12065630, with shall language, and DDA Young's willingness to go along with Judge Clifton
in refusing to follow NRS 178.405's mandatory stay is arguably impermissible. To have RJC
Bailliff's then Order Coughlin to remain at the RJC, then go into a hearing brought on an
Emergency Basis upon DDA Young making an Ex Parte Request for Judge Clifton to
resconsider his Order for Competency Evaluation
To wit
25
26
27
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NRS 33.240 Acts that constitute harassment in workplace. Harassment in the workplace
occurs when:
1. A person knowingly threatens to cause or commits an act that causes:
(a) Bodily injury to the person or another person;
(b) Damage to the property of another person; or
(c) Substantial harm to the physical or mental health or safety of a person;
2. The threat is made or the act is committed against an employer, an employee of the
employer while the employee performs the employees duties of employment or a person
present at the workplace of the employer; and
3. The threat would cause a reasonable person to fear that the threat will be carried out or
the act would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated or
harassed.
An employer or an authorized agent of an employer who reasonably believes that
harassment in the workplace has occurred may file a verified application for a Temporary
Order for protection against harassment in the workplace against the person who allegedly
committed the harassment. NRS 33.250(1). King offers no proof that he is an authorized
agent of the SBN or that he has been given authority to file his self serving TPO Application
in 607. Further, King's application is not verified. The declaration King signed on the last
page of his application fails to indicate that the unsigned, unattributed summary referenced
on page 2 of 8 of King's 12/20/12 APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY ORDER FOR
PROTECTION AGAINST HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE (NRS 33.250) is
incorporated by reference. Further, neither in that Application or any of the Exhibits 1A1D attached thereto, is there any indication as to who wrote the Summary in Exhibit 1,
which consists almost entirely of unattributed hearsay. There is a burden of proof that must
be met. Its not entirely clear just what that is in Nevada, but unattributed, unverified hearsay
could hardly be said to satisfy any standard. As such, the Summary contained in Exhibit
1 to King's 12/20/12 Application is less than evidence. Its nothing. Its certainly not
verified, which is required. By failing to utilize From B4-Continuation Page King failed to
include that which is found in Form B4, which reads: CONTINUATION PAGE
APPLICANTS NAME: ___(NOTE: BE SPECIFIC AS TO WHO COMMITTED WHAT
ACT OR ACT(S), AGAINST WHOM, WHEN, WHERE, WHETHER COMMITTED OR
THREATENED; INDICATE APPROXIMATE DATE(S) AND LOCATION(S).)
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2: THE ATTACHED APPLICATION INCORPORATES
THE CONTINUATION PAGE BY REFERENCE. Form B-4 Continuation Page. Further,
even if one where to accept the summary attached to King's TPO Application of 12/20/12
as satisfying the verified requirement (ie, that which is contained in the unattributed,
unsigned, unincorporated by reference summary attached at Exhibit 1A to King's
12/20/12 TPO Application fails to be incorporated by reference into King's Form B3 TPO
Application, therefore, the declaration by King on page 8 of 8 of his TPO Application fails to
apply to the unsigned, unattributed, largely irrelevant (it focuses on NNDB Panel Chair
Echeverria's unnamed employees, mostly...if Echeverria wants to get his employees an NRS
33.240 TPO or EPO, he is free to apply for one, but it makes little sense for King's TPO
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Application to rest largely on accusations involving conduct by Coughlin toward non-SBN

employees, like those in Echeverria's office.).
Page 2 of 6 of the Form B-3 used by King in his 12/20/12 TPO Application in 607
reads:
I reasonably believe that the Adverse Party has
threatened or committed an act or act(s) of harassment in
the workplace as defined above. The event(s) occurred as
follows: NOTE: BE SPECIFIC AS TO WHO
THREATENED OR COMMITTED WHAT ACT OR
ACTS AND AGAINST WHOM. INDICATE
APPROXIMATE DATE(S) AND LOCATION(S).
ALSO LIST SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE(S)/PERSON(S)
PRESENT AT THE WORKPLACE WHO ARE THE
FOCUS OF THE HARASSMENT OR WHOM THE
ADVERSE PARTY SHOULD BE DIRECTED NOT
TO CONTACT. THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD
(in the blanks thereafter following King has handwritten
in):
See Summary contained in Exhibit 1 including
exhibits 1A- 1D.)
NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THE BACKS
OF ANY PAGES; CHECK BOX IF YOU ARE USING
ADDITIONAL PAGES. Check if you use a
continuation page (to be incorporated by reference)
(See Exhibit 1
(not only did king fail to check the preceding box, he made a handwritten notation that is
vague at best and of little value, particularly where is appears to begin with an unmatched
parentheses followed by Exhibit 1, considering that King's 12/20/12 TPO Application
consists of Exhibit 1A-1D according to the handwritten notation by King at page 2 of 8 on
his From B-3 TPO Application of 12/20/12...as such, one is left to wonder what, if any, of
the materials comprising Exhibit 1 are purported to be verified. Of course, none of them
are. King wants it both ways, he wants to take advantage of the power of having a TPO/EPO
issued, subjecting Coughlin to arbitary restraints in the middle of a contentious, serious
litigation (such as no telephone calls, emails, faxes, or even, apparently, courier delivered
filings where time is of the essence).
(See, Standardized Forms for Mandatory Use in Stalking and Harassment, Workplace
Harassment and Harm to Minors at:
http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/viewdocumentsandforms/SelfHelpProSe/Standardi
zed-Forms-for-Mandatory-Use-in-Stalking-and-Harassment-Workplace-Harassment-andHarm-to-Minors/orderby,1/page,1/
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Form B3 - Application for Temporary Order for Protection Against Harassment in the
Workplace Download Date Posted: 11 Mar 2009 File Size: 109.12 Kb Downloads: 116 Form
B4 - Continuation Page Download Date Posted: 11 Mar 2009 File Size: 14.84 Kb
Downloads: 70
KING UTILIZED FORM B3 IN HIS 12/20/12 APPLICATION, HOWEVER, HE FAILED TO UTILIZED
FORM B4-CONTINUATION PAGE, AND INSTEAD APPARENTLY DECIDED TO INCLUDED INFORMATION IN THE
FORM OF A SUMMARY ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT 1A TO HIS TPO APPLICATION. HOWEVER, THE SUMMARY
HAS LESS THAN NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND CANNOT BE SAID TO CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING TOWARDS KING
MEETING THE BURDEN OF PROOF NECESSARY TO PROVE COUGLIN COMMITTED AN ACTION UNDER NRS
33.240 SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY ISSUING A TPO PURSUANT TO NRS 33.270 IN LIGHT OF THE UTTER
FAILURE BY KING TO INCLUDED A SINGLE VERIFIED FACT WITHIN HIS ANY TPO OR EPO APPLICATION IN
607 SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF NRS 33.250(2)(C).
SERVICE
OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER, THE NOTICE OF HEARING THEREON AND THE ORDER MUST BE
SERVED UPON THE PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED THE HARASSMENT PURSUANT TO THE
NEVADA
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. NRS 33.300(2).
12
THE VERIFIED APPLICATION MUST INCLUDE SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE WORKPLACE, AS WELL AS A
13
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS THAT ALLEGEDLY CONSTITUTED HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE AND
14
ORDER FOR PROTECTION AGAINST HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE IF IT APPEARS TO THE SATISFACTION OF
THE COURT FROM SPECIFIC FACTS SHOWN BY A VERIFIED APPLICATION FILED PURSUANT TO NRS 33.250
THAT HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE HAS OCCURRED. NRS 33.270(1)A TEMPORARY ORDER FOR
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
THE DATES ON WHICH THESE EVENTS OCCURRED.
NRS 33.250(2). THE COURT MAY ISSUE A TEMPORARY
PROTECTION AGAINST HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE MUST NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT THE GIVING OF
SECURITY BY THE EMPLOYER IN AN AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE COURT TO BE SUFFICIENT TO PAY FOR SUCH
COSTS AND DAMAGES AS MAY BE INCURRED OR SUFFERED BY THE PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED THE
HARASSMENT IF THE PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED THE HARASSMENT IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
WRONGFULLY ENJOINED OR RESTRAINED.
NRS 33.270(2).
(nOTE: coughlins is attaching his 5/1/13 of so Motion to Dismiss etc in RMC 13 CR 3913,
3914, though likely in a more legible one page per page version than that RMC Dilworth was
burdend with where Coughlins ubmitted s 4 per page one do to his indigency, when the RMC
has failed to recognize and where RCA Wong got the more legible one per page version but
the 1/16/13 RMC Judge W. Garner's Administrative Order prohibited Coughlin from email or
faxing to the RMC, so...
24
25
26
27
28
It is important to note that none of the attachments to King's 607 Application have
been verified, there is nothing from King attesting to whether or not they are true and correct
copies of what they purport to be, and, in fact, the WCPD, WCDA, and SBN needed to pay a
bit more attention to detail in their concerted assault upon Coughlin stemming from the
emails between WCDA DDA Kandaras, WCPD Leslie, and the SBN's King beginning on
12/12/12, as Exhibit 1A to the NRS 33.240 Workplace Harassment TPO Application
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
filed on behalf of (who knows? The application, like King's, fails to meet the requirement
that it specifically set forth which employe or employees it is being sought to protect), most
likely, Leslie himself, by way of husband to 2JDC lawyer/legal assistant to a family court
judge Laura Watts-Vial, WCPD DDA David Watts-Vial, Esq., in their 12/18/12 TPO
Application in RJC Rcp12-599, filed in retaliation about an hour after Couglin filed his own
application for a TPO against Jim Leslie in RCP12-598, which was in addition to Coughlin
moving for such a protection order against Leslie on 11/19/12 where Leslie was mocking,
heckling, and harassing Couglin menacingly in open court while purporting to act in his role
as standby counsel in 063341). A review of that Exhibit 1A to the TPO application for
Leslie and, as listed in the applicants section, apparently, Washoe County (as opposed to
just the WCPD), reveals that the purported 12/12/12 Couglin email to various individuals
(including Leslie and King) purportedly forward to King by Leslie has excised therefrom
approximately 29 attachments in pdf form that completely recontextualize all communicated
in that 12/12/12 email Leslie purports Coughlin sent him. Those attachments are clearly
displayed in the version of that purported 12/12/12 email from Coughlin to King and Leslie
(amongst many others, including complaints@nvbar.org, WCDA Kandaras and Young, Reno
City Attorney's prosecutors, SBN President Flaherty, all five members of the Panel in
Coughlin's formal disciplinary matter, etc., etc.) that Leslie/Watts-Vial attached to the TPO
Application in 599, begging the question: why are those attachments missing from the
version King purports Leslie forwarded him that King attached as Exhibit 1A to his own TPO
Application in 607?
Upon Coughlin being assigned an alternate defender (aside from the also conflicted
out APD) in privated defense attorney Bruce Lindsay, Esq., Couglin was able to obtain
documents from Mr. Lindsay that Lindsay was later castigated for turning over to Coughlin
by the WCPD, WCDA's Office, and RJC which include the following correspondence
between Coughlin's then WCPD James Briand Leslie and WCDA DDA of the Civil Division
Mary Kandaras. The following email exchange between WCPD Leslie and WCDA DDA
Kandaras reveals that Kandaras is confused...where she indicates I believe you should send
this (to the State Bar) on 12/13/12 at 10:20 am, despite the fact that Leslie had already
forwarded her the email wherein he did just (in Leslie's 12/12/12 2:59 pm email to DDA
Kandaras) that in writing to the SBN's King and forwarding what he purports to be
Coughlin's email to Leslie of 12/12/12 along therewith:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
High
Jim:
-

1
2
3


5
6
7
8
Thanks, please do. He came to our office after my email to you and caused a disturbance. We
called the police, but he fled before they arrived. jim
10
-----Original Message----From: Kandaras, Mary Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:17
PM To: Leslie, Jim Subject: RE: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd
discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012-065630
11
12
13
14

Coughlin.
15
16
17
18

in rcr2012-065630
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Mary:
perspective.
Thanks,
27
28
-
1
2
-----Original Message----From: Leslie, Jim Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:49 PM
To: 'patrickk@nvbar.org' Subject: FW: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911
call cd discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012 -065630
Mr. King:
The below email from Mr. Coughlin contains a reference at the end of the first paragraph to a
website containing a video clip from the movie Cape Fear. Please advise whether any action
is required of our office or yours regarding this possible veiled or indirect threat of violence
against attorneys in this office by Mr. Coughlin.
Thank you,
James B. Leslie, Esq. Chief Deputy Public Defender Washoe County Public Defender's
Office
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-----Original Message----From:
Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012
2:35 PM To: Leslie, Jim; Bosler, Jeremy; Dogan, Biray; Goodnight, Joseph W; Fortier,
Chris; Tuttle, Steve; Kandaras, Mary; Young, Zach; skauc@reno.gov; wongd@reno.gov;
kadlicj@reno.gov; complaints@nvbar.org; cvellis@bhfs.com; je@eloreno.com;
patrickk@nvbar.org; davidc@nvbar.org; rosec@nvbar.org; laurap@nvbar.org;
nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net; fflaherty@dlpfd.com; fflaherty@dyerlawrence.com
Subject: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd discovery of 8/13 and
8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in
rcr2012 -065630
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

volumes, etc., etc.).
Part of the disconnect between Coughlin the Washoe County public defenders offices
that Coughlin is been laboring under the delusion that the rules of professional conduct
applied to its representation of clients where is wash County public defender's office seems
secure in its belief that that is not the case and that they too should be imbued with the same
loving immunity given apparently the judges and prosecutors, such that judge Clifton's
disputing Coughlin's contention on 11 2712 that Coughlin seem to be the only person in the
room ready skin in the game was incorrect. Clearly, the Washoe County public defenders
position is that when one such as Coughlin request quote there file that entitles them to at
best nothing more than the discovery, which the state propounded near the start of the case.
Further, the Washoe County public defender believes that it has no duty to maintain any
records thereafter of any such file and perhaps not even the discovery the funny thing is if
one such as Coughlin wants to fire the Washoe County public defender. There's an enormous
resistance to allowing him to do so put up by the state and the Reno justice court judges bring
up the question what is it about the Washoe County public defender do they like so very
much as it would seem to be that they have some sort of function to fatten up defendants for
the Cal confused them keep them occupied and act as some sort of filter to the courthouse
whereby nothing the defendant wishes to file or seeking discovery or receipt to subpoena will
make its way into reality or become legally operative such that the states job would be any
harder or that local law enforcement liability could possibly be exposed, much less their
fraudulent. Ms. willful misconduct or that the judges of the RJC will have to make any tough
decisions which might come back to bite them come reelection time when traditionally all the
RJC judges trumpet the Norsemen of local law enforcement via prominent placement in all
their campaign materials and commercials.
"From:
zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To:
jleslie@washoecounty.us;
zyoung@da.washoecounty.us Subject: your professional misconduct Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012
13:41:27 -0700 Dear WC Chief Deputy Leslie and DDA Young, You have purported to
appear on my behalf at times in RCR2012-065630. Despite your office's admitted failure to
notify me in any way regarding various recent hearings, your associate, Biray Dogan,
deprived me of my right to a pre-trial hearing in this case, and held a clandestine status
conference on February 27th, 2012 (upon information and belief). I invite you to review the
court's records and your own files and place your office on a litigation hold notice with
respect to any materials related to such failure of your office to provide me notice of
hearings, including those "combo" hearings on August 6th, 2012 (please review the tape of
the July 16th, 2012 Trial in RCR2011-063341 where PD Jeremy Bosler and DDA Young are
insstructed to meet and confer an pick a date for the hearing on the pre-trial motions in that
case (after I was led away in cuffs back into custody, where DDA Young asked me to be
taken again on September 5th, 2012 because he can't compete with me unless I am locked in
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a cell and deprived access to a law library or even basic means of doign legal work, like some
guy born on third base patting himself on the back like he hit a home run), and Judge
Sferrazza indicates he doesn't want the witnesses to show up if the disposition of the motion
to suppress results in no Trial being held. You refused to verify that, and instead pressed
recklessly ahead in complete derogation of your duty to insure I am afforded zealous
advocacy and due process. Linda Gray has admitted to much regarding your office's failure to
provide such notice. Larry Carslon has admitted to some pretty sorry things too, same with
Evo Novak. Your office is hereby placed on a litigation hold notice as to all materials in any
way baring on your office's failure to zealously advocate on my behalf or perform in a
competent manner in connection with my various cases. I am demanding that you provide the
documentation you received in response to any subpoena or records request your office has
made in any of my cases, including the call records and any records baring on the iphone's
ownership for Cory Goble's purported phone. You have not provided these. Further,
your office has not provided me materials in response to my demand for a copy of my
file in RCR2012-065630. You made material misrepresentations to Judge Sferrazza
during the in camera hearing in that regard. Please immediately provide me a copy of my
entire file in all three cases on which your office appears on my behalf. Dogan failed to
inform me of or otherwise alert me to the July 31st, 2012 filign by DDA Young which
sought to amend the complaint in RCR2012-065630 to a crime that WOULD require Bar
Counsel to file a Petition for Suspension on the public record with the Nevada Supreme
Court for a conviction of a "serious offense" under SCR 111(6), whereas the original charge
(and neither the original or the amended Complaints contain a sufficiently supported or
specific recounting of facts to support each element of the crime alleged, and I demand your
office file a Motion to Dismiss or other appropriate filing in that regard after providing me a
draft thereof and an opportunity to confer with counsel prior to its filing....also, I want
Sargent Zach Thew of the RPD subpoened in that matter, Sargent Monica Lopez, RPD
Officer's Chris Carter, Sargent Sifre, RPD Officer Shaur, the cab driver mentioned in the
dispatch reports from the hours following my release from jail on January 12th, 2012, after I
was arrested for "jaywalking" and RPD Officer Duralde pulled me over with 5 other RPD
Officers or personnel near midnight, in an apparent attempt at witness intimidation. I want
Officer Ron Rosa (not "Dosa" as DDA Young continually indicates in his discovery and
Complaints, curiously, though it did not prevent the revelation of the 1994 lawsuit against
Officer Rosa in his official capacity, at least to Coughlin, if not the WCPD). Please see that
Officer Alaksa is there to testify as well. Please supboena the police reports and complaints
against the RPD that I submitted to the RPD, including that which I filed against Duralde,
and all the reports and any other documentation testified with regard to at the horrific bail
hearing, which was unnoticed, on July 5th, 2012, wherein Sargent Dye and Office Weaver
showed up to testify for higher bail, and RMC defender Loomis failed to objecdt on
relevancy grounds, then refused to subpoena those very records citing a lack of relevancy.
Please procure and provide a copy of the audio of that hearing from the RMC in 11 CR
12420 from July 5, 2012. Please correct any misstatement you made at Trial regarding any
purported threats to sue Duralde or the RPD. You were clearly winging it, and on a
reprehensible ego trip, much like Novak, refusing to do even basic aspects of your job or
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
fulfill your duties. You clearly confused Rob Dawson assaulting me with a skate board with
Cory Goble assaulting and battering me by projecting a lit cigarette at me, which exploded in
sparks on my left shoulder, on June 5th, 2012, and for which, upon information and belief,
Goble has been provided immunity by the DA, impermissibly, in exchange for his testimony.
Goble failed to appear at Trial on July 16th, 2012, and your office refused to move for a
dismissal despite my demands, in that regard. Further, RPD Officers Look and one other
officer whom refused to perform their jobs in response to my reports of my stolen Gary
Fisher mountain bike being spotted at Grand Sierra Resort on or about May 15th, 2012.
Soldal. Wheeler v. Coss. Also, while Cory Goble makes three addled 911 calls over a cell
phone on August 20th, 2011, lying about somone "socking a minor", then making statements
on those calls inconsistent with his subsequent written witness statement and testimony at
trial on August 29th, 2012, he is not charged with "misuse of 911". Coughlin was, and the
main ingredients there seem to be Coughlin asserting his Constitutional rights and or
reporting official misconduct or deprivation of his civil rights by a state actor. Are you sure
you want to co-sign all that, Mr. Young. Especially after your statement in Court on July
16th, 2012 where you contradicted yourself repeatedly with regard to whether you had any
knowledge of the reason for my attorney's sudden removal from the case. You argued to the
court that you "assumed" the removal was Coughlin's fault, then indicated you had no
knowledge of the events involved in the removal, then argued that it was clear that
Coughlin's misconduct caused the removal. That is sanctionable prosecutorial misconduct.
Additionally, I was subject to more witness intimidation by the RPD shortly after midnight
on September 4th, 2012. I had Trial in RMC 11 CR 12420 at 9 am hours later on September
4th, 2012. RPD Sargent Weaver (newly minted as a Sargent) mysteriously appeared suddenly
in a empty parking lot at the Caughlin Ranch Scolari's at approximately 12:15 am and
decided to attempt to intimidate me in connection with the wrongful arrest, in violation of
Soldal v. Cook County, US Supreme Court case. Then Sargent Dye's partner, RPD Officer
Weaver, made menacing gestures at me in court on September 4th, 2012 at Trial. The WCPD
has refused to procure and provide me with a copy of the audio from the TPO hearing in RJC
RCP2012-000287 by Milan Krebs against myself in connection with both the June 28th,
2012 arrest in RCR2012-067980 and the July 3rd, 2012 arrest in RMC 11 CR 12420 (I spent
approximately 20 days in jail starting on July 3rd after RMC Jill Drake made arguments not
supported by Nevada law resulting in my bondable $1,415 bail being increased to $3,000
cash only. DDA Young, this RPD misconduct amounts to witness tampering. You conduct in
co-signing the RPD and 911 dispatch attempts to cover up their own misconduct in
RCR2011-065630 is misconduct in itself. Nifong. I have previously doen so, and am doing
so again here placing the WCDA Office on a litigation hold notice with respect to any
materials in any way connected to any of my arrests or prosecutions this year, as well as
materials connected to the clandestine status conference DDA Young had with WCPD Dogan
on February 27th, 2012 (even though the defendant was informed in writing that it was
vacated) and any communications with the RMC or RMC Judge Nash Holmes in any way
connected to Coughlin or the various competency evaluations sought, including the one
Ordered in response to a "counter motion" or some other fugitive document purportedly
supporting Dogan's seeking such an evaluation. Further, the Litigation Hold Notice extends
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to any DA Office knowledge of or involvement in any events connected to the seizure of my

property, including my smartphone and other electronic data (which was not returned to me,
but rather destroyed) on February 27th, 2012 in RMC 11 TR 26800, in a Trial that occurred,
upon information and belief, just minutes after DDA Young and Dogan hald a clandestine
"status conference" in which Coughlin's alleged competency issues were communicated to
the RMC and or Judge Nash Holmes. Further, please subpoena any complaints I filed with
anyone with the RPD and any other police reports, records, internal memorandum, or
otherwise maintained by the RPD, the WCSO, or the WCDA. DDA Young, you have now
been provided a CD/DVD copy of all the excuplatory videos which you have previously been
provided by other means, so, attempting to assert the lame excuse RPD Officer Weaver
maintained upon his being provide, on June 17th, 2012 a video of the Northwinds Apartment
maintenance man assaulting me, if not possibly attempting extortion (he indicated he didn't
open the file because I was afraid my computer would get a virus) will be even further
unavailing. Respectfully, Zach Coughlin PO BOX 3961 Reno, NV 89505 Tel 775 338 8118"
WCPD apparently put a muzzle on both Goodnight and Dogan (if Goodnight really
had an issue with Coughlin, why was the last thing he said to Coughlin at the close of their
trial prep on 7/13/12 that he would see Coughlin the following Monday for the trial? Its
hearsay to allow Leslie to show at the hearing and alleged that Goodnight whom Coughlin
went through school with since 7th grade, had an issue, and its just reads as more of Jim
Leslie being a Svengali trying to sabotage Coughlins' case in the name of puttin' in big work
for the 'County. WCPD Leslie's own 12/7/12 email to Coughlin (which echo his testimony at
the epo extension hearing on 1/4/13 in rcp2012-000599) only prove that Leslie failed to
provide Coughlin essential discovery prejudicing Coughlin's defense for the 12/11/12 trial
date (even if he had provided a digital copy of the 911 call recordings via email (which
would have been insanely easy to do, and just highlights the extnet to which both the WCPD
and WCD a play this stupid little game where they refused to e-mail thanks such as discovery
your client files people and instead insist that people come and pick them up only to meet
them with protection orders for showing up to pick such things up on the case the DA having
security goons refused to let Coughlin ventured to the WCDA Office or lobby on the fourth
floor in conjunction with the harassment Coghlan faces from Olympik security personnel, the
Washoe County Sheriff Reno marshals and RJC bailiffs ect
"Subject: 911 Case? From: Leslie, Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us) This sender is in
your safe list. Sent: Fri 12/07/12 9:18 AM To: 'zachcoughlin@hotmail.com'
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Cc: Dogan,
Biray
(BDogan@washoecounty.us)
Attachments:
1 attachment Coughlin Discovery 911 Case.pdf (2.2 MB) Mr.
Coughlin: Attached are the discovery materials in the above-referenced case that you
had requested and we had made an additional copy of for you in response to your
request. Please note that the July 27, 2012, cover letter was for your pick up and you never
picked it up. Note also that the July 27, 2012, packet encloses a copy of the April 17,
2012, hand delivery transmittal of the very same documents which you received. Since
we have been removed from the 911 case, we are closing our file. The attached materials
were sitting at our front desk. Since you failed to retrieve them, we provide the attached
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
courtesy copy before final closure of our file. No response to this transmittal is required
from you. James B. Leslie, Esq."
Emails between Coughlin and Dogan form 7/27/12 Dogan and Leslie allegel
Coughlin's "file" in 065630 was left for him at the front desk, er., handed him by Dogan, er,
by Leslie as witnessed by Dogan, er, Leslie saying Coughlin failed to every pick it up so he
emailed it to Coughlin . Dogan did not send Coughlin one email that whole time and, in fact,
willfully obstructed Coughlin in his requests to obtain a copy of the 7/30/12 Motion to
Amend Criminal Complaint by DDA Young seeking to leverage SCR 111(6) in amending
the "misue of 911 case" (prejudicing Couglin where he would have to deal with RJC Judge
Clifton instead of a jury) to a NRS 199.280 "resisting a public officer" charge, which Dogan
attempted to hide from Coughlin, and it was only Coughlin's constant trips to the RJC filing
office to review his files, which so irritated Robbin Baker The words bailiff reyes and sexton
an apparently the judges and court administrator Steve Tuttle but it didn't irritate them
enough to levy any sanctions that Dogan for being an obstructionist jerk, or partake in any of
the "appropriate action" per Canon 2 Rule 2.15 that Judge Nash HOlmes so overloaded on in
11 TR 26800 (62337, FHE 4 and 5) where judge Clifton instead took a monumentally laissez
faire approach to the patent and evident misconduct by the Washoe County public defenders
office (Sgt. Mullen demonstrated a remarkable lan in violating RPC 3.8 and/or and NRCP
11 in a manner not commonly seen outside Richard Hill's office (sure he was testifying, but
the lines between judicial and executives are so completely blurred in the RJC that who even
notices anymore whose plane which role it's pretty much a binary system where there's the
people who are on the county payroll and people who are not, rather than the tripartite form
of government America's schoolchildren are brainwashed with), though his misstatements to
judge Pearson and his unnoticed impromptu testimony on may 23rd 2013 shortly before
Coughlin's arrest not like that got all the the bailiffs riled may not have been enormously
fraudulent, but he did demonstrate and ethics to negligence ratio that was sub richard Hill.
Can you imagine? Sub Richard Hill?)
This is an index of emails Coughlin sent Dogan, none of which help Dogan in
explaining his professional misconduct, or, for that matter. Leslie's failure to supervise
Dogan. Maybe the take-home guys is if you don't have the resources or woll to play kick the
can with the wrong attorney (and one a holler saved me to the judiciary. When the going gets
rough) don't make yer stupid baseless retaliatory, ego driven arrests. And don't compound
that by providing jackass level of representation, framed by a vindictive scattershot style of
prosecution. That seems to consist primarily of violating the mandatory stay required by
competency orders, Brady and RPC 3.8. And then don't whine like a little bitch when
somebody defends themselves and you get called out on the carpet for the very things that
burdened you with a conscience so guilty that you can't walk to your car without thinking
someone is going to You get the picture. Nothing Coughlin did put that fear in your head.
It is your own guilty conscience that put it there operating much the same way that the
synapses that send message to your brain telling it is in pain and to take your hand off the
scalding hot stove immediately function. They may do a fairly good job of creating the
illusion but one might suspect there's no such thing as not having any skin in this game,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
though at times it appears the only skin any of these public defenders have in the game is that
of their own conscience and it's an extremely thin skin at that.
"Coughlin:? From: Leslie, Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us) This sender is in your safe
list. Sent:
Mon 11/26/12 3:05 PM To:'zachcoughlin@hotmail.com'
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Cc: Dogan, Biray (BDogan@washoecounty.us) Mr. Coughlin:
I understand you continue to email Joe Goodnight even though he no longer represents you. I
see no reason for such communication and ask you to please direct your communications to
appropriate persons. At this point in time, me and Biray Dogan each have one case with
you, and Mr. Goodnight does not. Thank you, James B. Leslie, Esq." So why
Leslie recapitulates the attempt to coerce from Coughlin his Fifth Amendment rights
that Leslie joinined in with DDA Young and Judge Sferrazza in seeking through rCr2011063341, but attempting to coerce from Coughlin his sixth amendment right to representation.
"RE: Jim Leslie is a scrappy dude RE: Coughlin? From:
Leslie,
Jim
Fri 12/14/12 9:45 AM
To: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Mr. Coughlin: A hearing has been set
for Tuesday December 18, 2013, at 8:30 am in Reno Justice Court, at which we will ask to be
relieved as counsel in the remaining case you have with this office, RCR12-067980, based
on, among other things, (1) your prior expressed desire to represent yourself and (2) your
email to myself and several other recipients, including state bar attorneys, which contains an
I am in New York you will have no fear eight and is that even in put the big jail really
big deal by getting elected that that might be New York Newark have some respect. I
am not a jackass Bill. If you fail to appear at the hearing, the relief will be requested in
your absence upon the grounds stated above. If you choose to agree to self-representation
without argument, the second above-noted reason may or may not rise to the point of
discussion, although I would note that the email you sent with the express or implied threat
was disseminated by you to several recipients including representatives of the Nevada State
Bar, thereby breaching confidentiality by your own action. Pending the hearing, there is no
reason for us to meet in person or communicate by any means. Any communications from
you pending the hearing will be deemed to be made in waiver of attorney-client privilege and
are subject to forwarding to the Nevada State Bar and/or law enforcement as appropriate
pursuant to Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(c). James B. Leslie, Esq."
"oughlin? From:
list. Sent:
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Mr. Coughlin: Based on your behavior at our offices on
several past occasions, including today where we had to call the police due to you engaging
in behavior constituting disturbing the peace, you are hereby directed NOT to come to our
offices without first having confirmed in writing an appointment with your assigned attorney.
If you violate this email notification, we will contact law enforcement. James B. Leslie, Esq."
RE: LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE i was not faxed the 11 7 12 motion to quash
subpoena that? From:
list. Sent:
Mon 11/26/12 8:04 AM To:
Gray, Linda (lgray@washoecounty.us);
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Tibbals, Leslie (LTibbals@washoecounty.us) Cc:

'zachcoughlin@hotmail.com'
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Thank you. From: Gray, Linda Sent: Monday, November 26,
2012 7:41 AM To: Leslie, Jim; Tibbals, Leslie Subject: FW: LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE
i was not faxed the 11 7 12 motion to quash subpoena that For you Jim since he didnt
include you in email From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com] Sent:
Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:53 PM To: Tibbals, Leslie; Gray, Linda Subject:
LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE i was not faxed the 11 7 12 motion to quash subpoena that
please NOTE YOU ARE ON A LITIGATION HOLD NOTE TO RETAIN AND FAX
LOGS OR PROOF OF RECEIPT, TRANSMISSION, CONFIRMATION OF ATTEMPTED
TRANSMISSION ETC OF THE PURPORTED SERVICE OF THE NOVEMBER 7TH,
2012 MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FILED STAMPED 11/7/12 BY
BIRAY DOGAN IN RCR2011-063341. LESLIE TIBBALS SIGNED A CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE DATED 11/7/12. THIS DOCUMENT WAS NEVER FAXED TO THE FAX
NUMBER IT LISTS FOR ZACH COUGHLIN OF 949 667 7402. DDA YOUNG HAD THE
DOCUMENT IN COURT AND SHOWED IT TO THE DEFENDANT AT THAT TIME.
PLEASE ALERT THE COURT TO YOUR FRAUD. Zach Coughlin
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155635116/8-22-12-0204-063341-067980-065630-Emailto-WCPD-Leslie-Dogan-and-DDA-Young-I-Accept-State-s-Offer
"RE: Coughlin: petit larceny trial? From: Leslie, Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us) This
sender is in your safe list. Sent: Wed 8/22/12 5:04 PM To: 'Zach
Coughlin'
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Mr. Coughlin: Regarding today's 11 am appointment, we did
have it set, as reflected in my emails. I note also that you responded from your
zachcoughlin@hotmail.com address, which is the same address I noticed you for the
meeting, as per your request on the phone. Notwithstanding your failure to appear, I will
inquire, again, of my investigator to see about availability over the next couple/few days. I
and my predecessors have kept you reasonably informed. Please recall also our long face-toface meeting lasting over an hour and a half, at which we discussed your case, defense
theory, etc., at length. I do not have the time to provide written summations as you request, as
we have also discussed. Regarding your continuing accusations of conspiracies against you,
you are incorrect. Regarding providing documentation to you, you have been provided the
materials and moreover, I recall you showing up at our offices in an agitated emotional
state demanding additional copies, which we took the time to make for you, and you then
left without taking them. As to my withdrawl from your case, I do not believe it appropriate
or necessary. However, if you wish to represent yourself, please advise and I'll try to set up
a hearing for a proper court canvass to see if the Court will permit that. Finally, I am
informed that you called my staff today, were unreasonable on the phone, and then hung up
on her. Please refrain from doing that again. Thank you, James B. Leslie, Esq. Chief Deputy
Public Defender"
Whatever the case, where leslie's 8/22/12 email to Couglhin writes (as to an
unspecified one of the three case the WCPD was then currently handling for Coughlin despite
Coughlin's attempts have them removed: "Regarding providing documentation to you, you
have been provided the materials and moreover, I recall you showing up at our offices in an
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
agitated emotional state demanding additional copies, which we took the time to make for
you, and you then left without taking them."
One thing is sure, any such materials referenced by Leslie did not include the 8/13/12
and 8/17/12 911 call records the WCDA propounded to the WCDA in disc form on those
dates as evinced by Leslie's failure to included them with what he purported to be Coughlin's
discovery (despite Coughlin having requested his "file" in RCR2012-065630, as obvious
from a review of Leslie email of 12/7/12. Further, Leslie admits that such materials did not
included the identify of the 911 callers that the WCPD insisted on redacting from the version
of the ECOMM 911 call logs is provided Coughlin. So I say just think one of your loved ones
might be rotting in jail right now for the rest of their lives due to the Washoe County public
defenders choice to only provide redacted discovery consisting of 911 call logs, which
prevented your loved one from conducting a thorough review of the states quote unquote
evidence, including the ability to identify the ownership and identities of those making 911
calls. (see Coughlin's explication of the important thereof in his filings in RCR 2011
063341 and Leslie's blanket refusal to allow Coughlin access to such up through Leslie's
removal from the case on October 22, 2011. Such period of time including the all-important
hearing on the motion to suppress held on August 29, 2012 wherein the case was likely lost
due to the fact that Leslie not only lied about the fact that he is subpoenaed witnesses when
he had , according to material eye witness 12/ met his during the hearing, then refused to
answer. Coughlin queries prior to the hearing other than in non-Damon's on the record of
September 5, 2012 that he was 20/12 Forwarded formal complaint against state bar of
nevada, bar counsel king, Clerk of Court Peters,
12/19/12 court refusing to file documents and exhibits missing?
12/18/12 can you email me the 8/13/12 and 8/17/12 files on the discs provided to the wcpd??
12/17/12 FW: 12/11/12 Motion for Recusal, Conflict, Continuance etc. with 1651 page in
exhibit 2?
12/13/12 The Three E's; wcpd failure ... 911 call cd .. O065630?
12/04/12 formal.grievance against Skau, Young, Leslie, Dogan, etc. FW: 911 calls missing
City Attorney Skau?
11/30/12 PLEASE DIGITALLY TRANSMIT MY ENTIRE FILE TO ME
IMMEDIATELY?
11/23/12 Forwarded Chief Marshal Roper and Marshal Harley on setting the record straight
in NG12-0435?
11/22/12 Forwarded please indicate some response to my subpoena and discovery requests?
11/22/12 Washoe Legal Services Paul Elcano and State Bar of Nevada's Coe Swobe's
contacts with my family?
11/08/12 High priority RE: RCR12-065630?
11/07/12 (No Subject)?
11/02/12 Forwarded please email me the materials produced by ecomm/K. Odom/ dispatch
tapes?
10/11/12 RE: Coughlin: RCR11-063341 (Petit Larceny) and RCR12-067980 (Resisting)
065630 (misue of 911)?
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
10/10/12 DO NOT STIPULATE TO ANYTHING

10/02/12 problem with the file in RCR2011-063341?
9/21/12 DDA Youngs violati. O/27/12 178.405 2/28/12 Order at 1:31pm aYoungOpposition
2:55pm?
9/20/12 Forwarded misue of 911 case?
9/14/12 continuation of nrs 174.124?
9/14/12 Forwarded nrs 174.124?
9/13/12 request to meet, confer, and prepare for trial LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE?
9/11/12 Shoeless Jim Leslie?
9/11/12 please have vacate the upcoming trial a65630 and prepare for my approval a draft of
a Motion to Dismiss?
9/11/12 wrongful arrests, malicious/retaliatFW: Reno eviction noticed for Sparks Justice
Court?
9/08/12 Forwarded Dogan's professional misconduct?
8/29/12 FW: NEF: VS. WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ET AL.(D6): Supreme : CV1101896?
8/22/12 FW: RJC trial date - RCR 2011-066341?
8/22/12 I accept States offer to settle all three charges as detailed by Goodnight?
8/21/12 Coughlin NVB court hearing of 8/28/12 at 2pm conflicts with 8/28/12 9am trial
i063341?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
One almost has to feel bad for Dogan good night and Leslie this truly was the perfect
storm for them you had Coughlin the extremely hard working solo attorney, whom also
happens to be abnormally intelligent according to thousands of people who've told Coughlin
that throughout the course of his life (Coughlin himself still has some reservations respecting
that diagnosis...one can only have so many judges refer to them as brilliant before begins to
become more of a patronizing punchline highlighting the incongruity between such alleged
intelligence level and Coughlin's current financial personal and professional straits). Keep
yer "brilliance", give me my effin' munny. So anyway you've got these three public
defenders, whom I've grown abnormally well, actually completely normally used to the level
of performance. They have been held to who dig their heels in and it in insisting that they do
not have to perform to any certain standard for Coghlan, even where Coughlin is done all the
work for them and he merely wants to get some help with subpoenas and witness fees and
little things like that. Add to it that this solo attorney was only just recently fraudulently
arrested by Reno police officer Duralde in conjunction with the lies by a group of early
twentysomething skateboarders compounded by the fact that such resulted in a seven-day
incarceration during which time an eviction. A summary eviction for a wrongful summary
eviction was posted on Coughlin's door and that nine days after being released from that
summary from that seven-day incarceration Coughlin was again wrongfully arrested again in
violation of NRS 171.136 and 171.1255, to boot where the odds of that happening twice and
9 days spent outside of jail? And it becomes clear that an abnormally high level of motivation
on Coughlin's part, and in entirely deficient level of motivation and inspiration on the part of
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
these three public defenders has now gotten them into quite a sticky wicket. It's touching
almost the extent to which the RJC judges have been over backwards to attempt to bail out
the Washoe County public defender, including having their judicial Sec. Lori Townsend send
it correspondence to the State Bar. On April 11, 2012 which judge Clifton on for two 2013
ruled as irrelevant and refused even like Coughlin have marked as an exhibit in the trial and
065630 but that Lori Townsend correspondence that extrajudicial voluntary correspondence
sent to the State Bar interfering impermissibly with a disciplinary matter much the same way
that does that which resulted in misconduct finding in In re Ward and In re Erickson oddly
related that February 21, 2012 filing by Coughlin Townsend forwarded on to the State Bar
which made its way into Pat King's eight 2312 complaint related to Dogan's failure to appear
where he was required to pursuant to statute judge piercing and Clifton Stiller trying to argue
that this is not the case but it clearly is that where an attorney has and has appeared as Dogan
did in the case of a gross felont rose misdemeanor or felony. Co
maybe rather than trying to get Coughlin disbarred fraudulently it's time to admit that
the beast is gotten to beg and the extent to which the RJC the District Attorney's Office in
Washoe County public defender have to bend there at six at an inordinately alarming rate just
to feed the beast the beast being assist him of law enforcement wherein deputy sheriffs,
police DAS officers. Everyone are overpaid and have completely bloated pension that's
completely outsize in the relation to what someone like Coughlin and private practices
making and that's, that's to say nothing of the difference is in levels of accountability and
work that are required and comparing the private and public sector in Washoe County these
days. Coughlin did brilliant work in his criminal defense of the trespass case in RMC 11 CR
26405 and fraudulent idiot Pat King is a certain at the bases to get him disbarred rather to
make Coughlin, president of the State Bar or bronze as law school blue books or something
suitably deferential to the enormous debt all of Nevada. Those Coughlin for kicking a hole
through the dark ages shell in which it has been ensconced, deliverying it in swaddling
clothes to a bright, beautiful sunshiny tomorrow as it relates to the tenants rights, and him
sitting on the path to salvation from the gutter dwelling lowlife bottom feeder of the Western
states it has been for so many years in the area of tenants rights and nap it goes beyond
getting some law passed in the legislature as clearly that doesn't matter where it the RJC is
judges the Washoe County district attorney the public defender Reno Municipal Court and
the Sheriff and the Reno Police Department altogether crap what the legislature dies because
they're just gonna do it their way. Anyways and there way always consists of taking in ahead
of some poor tenant and eliminating whatever due process trimmings or procedural
protections the good men and women of the legislature five hard to make wine Nevada in
reducing the will of the very people whose taxes pay the salaries of these overfed, under
worked courthouse/law enforcement types, to black letter law.
The e whom had been declared indigent was entitled to representation at all stages of
the preceding and clearl an arraignment is a stage of the proceeding a critical one in fact
ymail of Coughlin's copied above goes on for several more pages detailign the prejudice to
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
admits to having failed to turned over the discs only propounded after that point. Further the
WCPD subpoened recordings from ECOMM on 10/3/11 in 11-063341 but never turned them
over to Couglhin, (or ECOMM/RPD failed to adn really Ecomm and the RPD need to quit
acting like they are distinct, regardless the subpoena was on Ecomm's Kelley Wood and
either she or someone with the WCPD or both have some 'splainin' to do where the
recordings between the RPD and Ecomm were not provided) despite only being removed as
counsel of record well over 15 days thereafter, on 10/22/12.
"
Exhibit 1D consists of a printout of a webpage at www.hark.com (ie, not even the
url linked to in the email King alleges Coughlin sent to various individuals (including
some, like Coughlin's then Washoe County Public Defender, Jim Leslie, whom then
forward that same email to individuals listed amongst the recipients of the original
email itself (ie, the SBN's King), in a class Leslie-style bit of pointless, insipid
melodrama, along the lines of his adorable jibberish stylings such as the phrase
Leslie and his junior associate WCPD Biray Dogan, are wont to do, which is have
Dogan he himself handed the client his discovery several weeks prior, only to change
his story a couple minutes later to say he saw Leslie hand it to the client, only to have
Leslie then idiotically email the client and indicate that the client failed to ever pick it
up, and identifying such as discovery of a 7/27/12 date, while failing to explain why
neither Leslie nor Dogan released to there then former client Coughlin the 8/13/12
and 8/17/12 updated 911 call discovery discs propounded to them by WCDA Zach
Young while Dogan and Leslie were still representing Coughlin (ie, Leslie taking
over Goodnight and Dogan's cases, and in an attempt to get a raise, setting out to
purposefully deliver the cheapest, quickest, convictions of Coughlin in all three of the
baseless, retaliatory prosecutions brought by the WCDA's Office after Leslie had
succeeded in depriving Coughlin of his right to accept a plea bargain disposing of all
three matters then pending on 8/27/12, which would have resulted in no SCR 111(6)
convictions in any of those matters.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Leslie's is referencing a July 27, 2012 time frame (as well detailed in Coughlin's
12/14/12 email to Leslie explaining the incongruity of Leslie and his associate Biray Dogan's
inconsistent and oft changing positions regarding whether they ever gave Coughlin such
discovery package (first Dogan alleged he himself have it to Coughlin, then Dogan switches
up and indicates he personally saw Leslie give it to Coughlin, only problem is that Leslie
then later indicates Coughlin failed to ever pick it up....shucks, get on the same page, guys!
(not the support for the "scrap, scrap, scrap" attempt to Ameliorate the lame and said out of
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
frustration "Scrappy-Doo" blast by cloacking such as really having been "Scrappy Dude",
versus Leslie's "chip, chip, chip". Coughlin has never once in his life made a disparaging
comment about someon's height, and really, "Scrappy-Doo" analogy relates more towards the
low character Couglin perceives inherent to Leslie's constantly picking antagonising situation
with people on to then sick Bailiff Reyes on them (something Coughlin personally witness
Dogan, Goodnight, and Leslie do with varying Bailiffs and Sheriffs....Coughlin has known
Dogan and Goodnight since about 1990 and both seem to have become pretty bad mother
effers what with the Sheriff and Bailiff's providing the "muscle" (if by muscle one means
"guns" and "bades"/color of law) to suit their every sand kicked in their face at the beach
revenge fantasy, somethign that Bailiffs Sexton and Reyes appear to view as the preeminent
perk of their positions, doing it constantly, usually for no good reason (Medina too, but in a
more 7th grade maturity level sort of way...)"im Leslie is a scrappy dude RE: Coughlin?
Fri 12/14/12 1:24 AM To:
(jbosler@washoecounty.us); fflaherty@dlpfd.com (fflaherty@dlpfd.com);
fflaherty@dyerlawrence.com (fflaherty@dyerlawrence.com); davidc@nvbar.org
(davidc@nvbar.org); mpickesq@msn.com (mpickesq@msn.com) Dear Jim Leslie, Esq.,
Jim, I need to get my discovery for the resumption of the trial in rjc rcr2012065630...Despite your cries of "wasting county assets" at 9:05am on 11/20/12 when, in
your standby counsel role, you attempted to assist DDA Young and Judge Sferrazza in
further coercing from me my Fifth Amendment rights...you seem intent on wasting county
assets, as your failure to turn over the discovery (the cd recordings of 911 calls DDA Young
alleges he produced to my WCPD on 8/13/12 and 8/17/12 has not materially prejudiced my
defense in rcr2012-065630, in much the same way your failure to timely transmit my file in
rcr2011-063341 did, including your failure to produce the results and response and
production in connection with the subpoena of 10/3/12 (NOTE: Coughlin was mistaken, such
subpoena was from 10/3/11 and appears to have been issued by Goodnight, and served on
ECOMM"s Kelley Wood by NOvak, it was stupid of Coughlin to think Leslie would have
supoenead anything) , and given you were note removed as counsel of record until at the
earliest 10/22/12...Kelley Dodma, ECOMM, and you have some 'splainin' to do. Now you
allege that you filed a false police report. Jim, please keep a copy of any communications you
have made to the RPD, and of course the call you reference will be subpoenaed, and if there
exists any recordings (video/audio, whatever) of the "incidents" you describe (not sure
dropping of a written request for one's file/discovery to your receptionist given the fact that
time is of the essence here is "distrubing the peace", but, to each his one, I guess...however,
its curious you never seem to place any restrictions on your continuing to cash your sweet
paychecks week after week, Jim...now you seem to be seeking some sort of protection against
being served written notices or having them delivered, or making my ability to do some
contingent upon your scheduling a meeting (any such meeting would likely terminate after
five minutes, as they have in the past, with you pulling your Diana Ross-diva act....DDA
Young got a good knowing laugh out of that one on 12/11/12.....). Jim, please do me a favor
and reply to this email, copying the SBN and President of the State Bar and describe just
exactly what occurred during these recent "past several occasions"...and put it in an
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
affidavit...also, will you finally put in an affidavit your contentions that you "know" your
office sent me notice in writing of the 8/6/12 combo-hearing date in 065630 and 067980
(please also put in writing your refusal to send out subpoenas (easy under nrs 174.345) to
ECOMM for any calls to 911 or dispatch related to me in any way since 8/20/12) and any
dispatch to law enforcements recordings, and recordings made by law enforcement or
submitted to law enforcement by private parties, since that date as well. Please further
indicate in writing why you are refusing to send the WCSO a subpoena duces tecum for any
materials related to me in any way from their civil division (that served process of the items
detailed in the variosu affidavits of services by Machen et al that have become of issue in 11
tr 26800, 067980, etc., etc., subpoena Northwinds Lou Cadia and Duane Jakob...)....See, Jim,
you are still getting paid, you need to do some work here, guy... So cute how Biray Dogan,
in the 8/21/12 Hearing in 065630 mentioned how he "left a voice mail" for Linda Gray,
but just couldn't, gosh darn it, get an answer from her about whether she did send out
written notice of the 8/6/12 combo hearing...(you know, the one you testified about
during our closed Mardsen-lite conflict hearing in 063341...where you alleged you
"knew" for sure that notice was sent, but then refused to provide any specifics as to how you
'knew" or what you did to make sure of that..." Gray admitted to Coughlin on the phone that
she did not mail out any written notice of the 8/6/12 hearing to Coughlin because your office
had marked his "PO BOX 3961" address as "no longer good" at that time (and the audio of
the 7/16/12 aborted Trial date clearlye establishes Coughlin was not provided the 8/6/12 date
at that time, because the temporary replacement for the suddenly disappeared WCPD
Goodnight, and DDA Young were directed to meet in the hall/counter after the conclusion of
the proceeding on 7/16/12 and pick a date and time, by which time Coughlin was taken back
into custody (where he was serving 18 days in jail due to the fraudulent bail increase in rmc
12 cr1240 (another bogus "disturbing the peace charge" by the RPD...that even the City of
Reno prosecutors had to drop (and we all know how adverse they are to dropping any
charges, ever). Jim, why don't you just go wash the RPD's cars or something if you want to
suck up to them so bad? Please then explain to those listed above why your cross
examination of Cory Goble on 8/29/12 in 063341 seemed to consist solely of an attempt on
your part to defeat the NRS 171.136 problem the State faced, including the exclusionary rule
application, where the testimony as to the value of the phone by the "victim" Goble was
"about $80" valuation...well under the $250 needed at the time to support a "oooh, thats a
felony" grand larceny charge (to quote Officer Duralde), and therein vitiate the legitimacy of
any such arrest or search incident thereto (unless a citizen's arrest could be
established....which is what you spent your entire cross of Goble trying to establish, for the
State's benefit...because you are a sleazy, spiteful, lazy, mean spirited, petty, hateful
individual whom the DA wants on the case anytime it really, really needs a win. Just because
you have ascended to Chief Deputy status doesn't mean you are any good at what you do,
Jim, nor does it, in my opinion, provide some sheen of integrity to your act). NRS 171.136
When arrest may be made. 1. If the offense charged is a felony or gross misdemeanor, the
arrest may be made on any day, and at any time of day or night. 2. If it is a misdemeanor, the
arrest cannot be made between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., except: (a) Upon the direction
of a magistrate, endorsed upon the warrant; (b) When the offense is committed in the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
presence of the arresting officer; (c) When the person is found and the arrest is made in a
public place or a place that is open to the public and: (1) There is a warrant of arrest against
the person; and (2) The misdemeanor is discovered because there was probable cause for the
arresting officer to stop, detain or arrest the person for another alleged violation or offense;
(d) When the offense is committed in the presence of a private person and the person makes
an arrest immediately after the offense is committed; (e) When the offense charged is battery
that constitutes domestic violence pursuant to NRS 33.018 and the arrest is made in the
manner provided in NRS 171.137; (f) When the offense charged is a violation of a temporary
or extended order for protection against domestic violence issued pursuant to NRS 33.017 to
33.100, inclusive; (g) When the person is already in custody as a result of another lawful
arrest; or (h) When the person voluntarily surrenders himself or herself in response to an
outstanding warrant of arrest. Sincerely, Zach Coughlin":
) Which is obviously prior to the August 13 and 17th, 2012 propounding of the discs of 911
calls in rcr2012-065630)
Watts let's go back to December 12. You said you had received an e-mail from Mr. Coughlin
did you have any other interaction with Mr. Coughlin on December 12, 2012.
Leslie: yes. Later that day he came to the office.
Watts: for what purpose?
20
Leslie: well, no clear purpose that I can discern (NOTE: really Jim, for no clear purpose
that you can discern the the 12 1212 e-mails harping on your failure to turn over the two 911
discovery discs propounded in mid August and Coughlin's reference to such in the lobby to
verbally and in writing you in no which seems to of disappeared as the Washoe County
public defender never did provide Coughlin with those discs but rather Washoe County Dist.
Atty. young had to provide another copy. This is amongst Leslie's biggest prevarications that
he couldn't discern just what it was Coughlin was seeking that day when he appeared in the
public defenders lobby 8:57 AM,) but he showed up unannounced and I was notified by the
front desk that he was there and I was asked to come up and see him.
21
Watts: and did you do that?
22
Leslie: I did. I first got Mr. Novak. He is our chief investigator and I asked Mr. Novak to
accompany me because basically at the office level. We had decided that it's best not to meet
with Mr. Coughlin along.
15
16
17
18
19
23
24
25
26
27
28
Watts: how come?

Leslie: safety concerns and additionally the concern that he would and I regret saying this but
the concern based on experience that he might fabricate what had transpired in any
conversation. (NOTE: Leslie can rest assured there is means to make sure that no one
fabricated anything with regard to what transpired in the conversations between Leslie and
Coughlin and the Washoe County public defenders office and that won't require relying upon
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the testimony of the various investigators, including Evo Novak and Larry Carlson that Leslie
arrange to have come the his witness with Carlson admitting he knew nothing of Coughlin's
cases during the August 21, 2012 meeting Coughlin had with he and Leslie, but simply that
Carlson was there to be Leslie's witness much as Novak admitted to during this December 12
interaction with Coughlin in the lobby. Additionally, Dogan and good night. At times insisted
on speaking to Coughlin jointly on the phone sort of tag teaming activity by the public
defenders offices interesting, notice the "concerns for the personal safety is only broache with
a leading question and well after Leslie relays his concerns regardin his alleged fear that
Coughlin would "fabricate what transpired" in their meetings")
Watts: did you have any concerns for your personal safety.
Leslie: yes and the general sense and that's part of why I agreed to have Mr. Novak go up
with me (NOTE: suuuuuure, Jim, you "agreed" to have Novak accompany you, uh-huh,
right....8:58:27 am)
Watts: can you relay what happened when you wind up and met Mr. Coughlin.
Leslie: well, I summarized it in the exhibits but basically I got out there he was sitting in our
lobby outside the elevators. Mr. Novak and I walked up to him and stood a few feet away
from him. I said what do you want Zach and he muttered something....(NOTE: here Leslie
pauses because he realizes that he has a problem where he earlier testified that he couldn't
discern the reason for Coughlin's visits the lobby that day with the reality that he is now
likely stock with the no Coughlin handed him which was in writing seeking such discovery
please also stuck with Coughlin's asking for such and the e-mail of earlier that day December
12, 2012)... He, um.... And I basically said I don't have anything really to discuss with you
unless you put it in an e-mail and By the Way, Mr. Coughlin. We are going to be conflicted
off your remaining cases. He became agitated and up said and I said it's probably time for
you to leave and he said he didn't want to leave. 8:59 AM
Watts: did you do anything in response to him, saying he didn't want to leave?
Leslie: well, he said I'm writing a note so I don't have to leave or something to that effect.
And I said well what's the note about and he kind of slammed his hand on the note and said
none of your God damn business and stood up and took a step towards me. I didn't think he
was gonna do anything but at that point he was not agreeing to leave. He was becoming
verbally aggressive and so I turned to Paula at the front desk and I said call the police and so
she shut the door and went ahead and call the police.
Watts: did Mr. Coughlin never hand you the note.
Leslie: not really. He said I have a note here and he was going to give it to the front desk. I
am assuming he saw that she had slid the door shut, or the glass shut and and then he held it
out to me and as I described it just got very strange. I reached out for it and he pulled it back
and I pulled my hand back and then he put it back out there again and we played this sort of
-
1
2
odd little back-and-forth game and I kind of said are you going to give it to me or not, and he
either handed it to me or at one point he threw it on the ground. I'm not sure.
Watts: and did that little interaction with him where he's handing the paper and pulling it
back and then handing it to you in pulling it back. Did that cause you concern for your
personal safety?
Leslie: a little bit, yeah.
Watts: can you explain why?
Leslie well, I thought two things because it took a couple or few seconds for it to occur. And
I thought, and this was speculation on my part but I thought and my been suckered into upon
chair in my being drawn in and that didn't happen but the other concern I had was our hands
were going back and forth and we were standing at one point maybe 18 inches apart from
each other well within the arms reach, and I thought we are going to slap hands against each
other or something and one of us is gonna take that the wrong way and act defensively or
something and I thought this is really a risk that this is gonna get physical. And that's when I
kind of, I think I stopped putting my hand out and maybe that's when he put the note on the
ground.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(Note it is noticeable. The similarity between both Leslie in King and that they both have
extremely guilty consciences and just assumed that someone is going to violently physically
attack them at any moment. Perhaps that says something about our legal system where rather
than to make Leslie and King out to be cartoon villains one might need to consider whether
they operate in settings where they are overwhelmed by the power of those dominating the
setting such as the District Attorney's Office or the judges whom in Coughlin's disciplinary
matter seemed to of been doing quite a bit of voodoo behind-the-scenes and who are Leslie or
King to attempt to operate independently of those monolithic influences and clearly they
normally do not need to as most attorneys cave into the big me a call, but whether they're
guilty or not and certainly most indigent criminal defendants provide far less of a likelihood
that anyone will go to anywhere near the lengths and with anywhere near the skill that
Coughlin has to expose the fraudulent practices of the Washoe County public defenders
office and the State Bar of Nevada and others involved in the situation as well).
22
23
24
Watts: and then did he leave at that point.
26
Leslie: I was telling him throughout this you need to leave and we hit that elevator button and
we were waiting for that. And as the elevator was coming up. He was agreeing to leave at
that point but he was still being kind of confrontational.
27
Watts: how was he being confrontational?
28
Leslie: well, he was. He kept saying I'm shipping at you. I'm shipping at you.
25

-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Watts: what did you understand that to mean?

Leslie: I was in 100% sure what he meant but I took it to mean I'm annoying you. I'm
bugging you, I'm messing with you, essentially those are my words and he said see I'm
chipping at you. I'm chipping at you and as the elevator doors open I said here we go. Zach,
time for you to leave and he got in and then as the doors were beginning to close. He kind of
jabbed his finger at me and said Chip chip chip chip and I said okay (laughing) goodbye and
that was basically the end of that.
Watts and you indicated did you have the staff call 911.
Leslie yes.
Watts in what was the extent of that. Did any police arrive
Leslie yes two RPD's arrived shortly. Mr. Coughlin, left they came up. I relate them what had
happened in very condensed form and they said they would check the building and then they
left." (9:02 AM)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Compare Leslie's account to what was actually said, verbatim during that interaction
in the WCPD lobby between Leslie Novak and Coughlin on December 12.
Leslie Hey, Zach.
Coughlin hello Mr. Leslie how are you doing today? Good day Mr. Novak how are you
doing?
Novak okay.
Coughlin did you I'm sorry I didn't hear what tiy said.
Leslie I said what do you need.
21
Coughlin oh I need the discovery discs of what was propounded on 8/13 and 8/17.
22
Leslie put it in writing and I will respond. Send me an e-mail.
23
Coughlin I did. Earlier today.
24
Leslie send me an e-mail.
25
Coughlin (to Inspector Novak): are you just here to be a witness?
26
Leslie: Yes.
27
Novak: I just came out here to say hi
28
-
Coughlin Oh, hey, how are you doing?
Leslie: Anything else? (1:17 mark)
Coughlin: okay, are we going to do any prep for 067980?
Leslie: I am you to ask to be relieved.
Coghlan: from what?
6
7
8
9
10
11
Leslie: from you.

Coghlan: from what?
Leslie: Uh... If you have something that you need put it in writing, Mr. Coughlin, alright.
Coughlin okay.
Leslie, go ahead and leave.
12
Coghlan: well, I am just finishing up my note here.
13
Leslie: what are you writing?
14
Coughlin: None of your god damn business, Jim.
15
Leslie: Alright, Beverly, call the police.
16
Coughlin: Scrappy-Doo at work! (Coughlin stands up to leave from his seat ten feet in front
of the WCPD's 5th floor elevator and presses the button to summon the elevator to take him
downstairs)
17
18
19
Coughlin: what did you say Jim? (clearly, at this point Coughlin again presses the elevator
summoning button)
20
Leslie we are calling the police on you,
21
Coughlin: here is this Jim this is in writing I'm going to give it to your people.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Leslie: drop it.

Coughlin okay, I'm going to give it to her.
Leslie: put it on the counter and get out.
Coughlin: here you go, Jim. (Coughlin holding out note to Leslie, fearful of venturing into
the physical space of the WCPD's Office given Leslie is already told him to leave and that
he's calling the police on Coughlin and where Leslie had told Coughlin, whom was standing
in front of the elevator waiting for it to arrive to quote dropped the note presumably on the
floor upon which Coughlin was standing which arguably is not under the exclusive control
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Washoe County public defenders office as far as Coughlin at that time and would
therefore be given the old Washoe County Sheriff Reno justice court bailiff Reno Municipal
Court marshal treatment where Coughlin's the documents. Coughlin submits for filing are
characterized as trash and thrown away rather than filed. See the may 23rd 2013 arrest and
reports these are the bailiff Ramsey's conduct on may 22nd 2013 and other dates (and Bailiff
Hiebert, Medina, Reyes and Sexton's recapitulation, which also took place with RMC
Marshal Scott Coppa on numerous occasions (and Coppa, Moser and Harley all need to sign
NRS 22.030(2) affidavits incident to Judge Holmes 2/28/12 and 3/12/12 Orders in 11 TR
26800 purporting to find Coughlin in contempt, summarily, incident to allegations of conduct
occurring outside the immediate view and presence of Judge Holmes (similar to the NRS
22.030(2) affidavit requirement avoiding practice by Judge Pearson in referencing numerous
unnamed bailiffs or clerks in his 2/25/13 Order to Show Cause in the "Administrative Order"
that he alternately (case numbers as musical chairs tactice makes it rather hard to defend
against, bravo, Judge Pearson) shoehorned into its own caption, then RCR2012-065630
(making Lindsay's no show on 3/19/13 trial in that case sanctionable, as Lindsay can
"appear" in ways other than some inappropriate Rule 2.13 direct administrative appointment
by he whom Lindsay refereed to as "Dave" in explaining to Coughlin how much "Dave" does
not like Coughlin and therefore that whole global resolution that Lindsay indicated had been
agreed to an approved by both the WCDA and both Judges Pearson and Clifton was a no go
as to RCR2012-065630 (sort of a high will sell you this car at this price with all these extra
add-ons except for the fact that you won't get any the add-ons after you paid us the price
(allegedly, Coughlin maintains that he did not agree to an Consent ORder obviating the
requirement that the RJC prove his guilt as to the bullying 2/25/13 Order to show cause in the
'Administrative Order" matter that Lindsay apparent (ol 401K) got paid for in appearing at
the combo-hearing (everything has been a "combo-hearing" for Coughlin in the RJC the last
two years as the WCDA, RJC, WCPD, and Lindsay are constantly trying to get the most
bang for their buck of time, due process and prejudice to Coughlins' defense be damned, its
pathetic really what they do...ultimately, on 3/14/13 Judge Pearson had that 12/20/12
Administrative Order opened as a "new case" given the criminal case number RCR2013071437, which is the Order upon which Chris Hick's 5/30/13 Criminal Complaint stemming
from the attack on Coughlin by Bailiff Reyes on 5/23/13 flows) references as "a previous
court order" that Reyes alleged command to Coughlin of 5/23/13 was premised, and or
Coughlin's alleged infraction of such order provided sufficient justification for Reyes to go
berzerker on Coughlin).
and the WCSO Deputy Greg Herrera (wherein the coordinated harassment of Coughlin by
the RMC, RJC, Olympkin Security, and RJC is discussed and gameplanned, in addition to
the threat Deputy Meyers had made to Coughlin in front of the family court elevators on the
third floor the same day Deputy Stroup had followed Coughlin up to the family court, and
right outside the CAAW run TPO office (see 60302, 60317, DV08-00168, FV09-00866 J.
Uribe v. Karina Valdez and the docket entry showing WLS breckenridge gathering the
recording of Coughlin's working therin at the 3/12/09 TPO hearing representing a male
victim of domestic violence, gathered per the docket therein by Brecknridge on 4/10/09,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
where the fhe3 from Coughlin's 11/14/12 formal disciplinary hearing (see 62337) was not
entered until 4/13/09 (see Breckenridges and WLS Exec. Directors insconsistent and pretextual, judicial prestige of 2JDC L. Gardner impermissible leverage incident to Coughlin's
firing and the closeting of the J. Uribe matter wherein CAAW run TPO Office advocate
"Roxy" complained about Coughlin's work therein, as may have Master Edmondson (whom
is listed as bff's with Judge Linda Gardner in some interview Judge L. Gardner did for a
Nevada publication related to women in business or something along those lines, then
compare Master Edmondson granting an incredibly suspect dv TPO to Coughlin's former
domestic Partner Melissa Ulloa shortly after the RJC Bailiff Reyes attack resulting in
Coughlin's incarceration. Further, whilst its promising to not be dealing entirely with former
prosecutors turned jduges anymore incident to Judge Hardy moving all of Coughlin's case to
Judge Stiglich (Judge Sattler failed to recuse himself from CV11-01955 despite sitting on
WLS's board, and it must be a record in that case where his predecessor sat on the other codefendant's board (Judge Elliott on CAAWs) where neither of them mentioned that or
recused themselves, but Elliott did manage to pull out every trick in the book to grant a
dismissal not on the merits only to then award attorney's fees that are only allowable if a case
gets to the merits...huh? Judge Elliott's summary incarceration of then practicing attorney
Coughlin on 4/19/12 in CR12-0376 is a very shameful thing, indeed, one for which he shoudl
face plenty of Rule 2.15 consternation an "appropiate action"). E-mail that was forcefully
ripped out of Coughlin's hands some time in May 2011 after it had been voluntarily given to
Coughlin by the Olympic security team incident to Coughlin squaring them as to whether
they were ordering him to do one or thing or another. Given the extent to which both the
Washoe County District Attorney's Office and the Sheriff were constantly playing little
games with the administrative order that Coughlin was subject to the two different ones one
being that of January 16, 2013 by the Reno Municipal Court which was nothing but a
verbatim reproduction of the December 20, 2012 administrative order by then chief judge
Sferrazza, which was subsequently ratified by now Chief Judge Pearson's 2/25/12 (back then
the caption lack a true case number, but subsequently, on 3/14/13, after the fraudulently sham
of a combo hearing of the various baseless ORders to Show Cause/allegations of probation
violation that the 3/11/13 hearing was (old 401K himself, R. Bruce Linsday, Esq. was only
given permission by Coughlin to appear as co-counsel on the RCR2011-063341 probation
violation allegation matter, and not to appear at all on the Administrative Order (which Judge
Pearson alterantely shoehorned into RCR2012-065630, as the NRS 4.240 docket entry shows
a 3/5/13 Order to Show Cause hearing (which represented to one ultimately held on 3/11/13,
as Judge Pearson did indicated on the record on 3/5/13 that he was moving the
Administrative Order's 2/25/13 Order to Show cause into the "iphone case" of RCR2011063341 (despite that vitiated any notice, opprotunity to be heard or other due process
trimmings required (and Coughlin asserted that he was not waiving any such rights thereto
and that he was not agreeing to anything other than a co-counsel arrangement with Leslie
merely to the portion of rcr2011-063341 that related to the contempt or probation violation
allegation that formed the basis for the 2/1/13 warrantless arrest of Coughlin in his home by
DAS Officer Ramos and Wickmon in violation of NRS 171.136, at 7:02 pm where they
ordered Coughlin to exit his home upon Coughlin inquiring if he was required to...furthter,
-
10
the 2/25/13 Order to Show Cause for the "Administrative Order 2012-01 In the Matter of
Zachary Coughlin (which lies in alleging Coughlin had been "admonished" previously by
"Judge Pearson" when clearly, such was not the cases, and there is absolutely no record of
that, but one thing that is clear is that in the RJC extrajudicial communications between
Sferrazza Clifton Pearson and Schrader have greatly prejudice Coughlin's defense and a
variety of landlord tenant matters and criminal matters, including those extrajudicial
communications between Pearson and Clifton on February 5, 2013, and between Clifton and
Sferrazza incident to Coughlin submissions of November 15, 2013, wherein the discs
Coughlin attached to filings before both judges conveniently turned up missing despite the
fact that RJC clerk Robbin Baker headed dated they were there when Coughlin submitted
those filings when Coughlin queried her about such on November 28, 2012 approximately
where bailiff LeMond and had remove those filings the filing office and walked out to the
center point between the RMC and the RJC and attempted to hand them back to Coughlin
after Coughlin had gone to serve those filings on the District Attorney's Office) order to
show cause that Ramsey served on Coughlin in the courthouse on February 28, 2012)
11
Leslie You are going to jail, you're going to jail.
12
26
Coughlin here you go, Jim. (Leslie dramatically holds his arms out resembling the underside
of an airplane, or some crucificion pose, as if to demonstrate how thoroughly he is refusing to
accept the written request Coughlin is attempting to hand him where Coughlin is posting up
by the elevator's entrance, anxiously waiting for the elevator to arrive so he can avoid going
to jail, as Leslie is now gleefully exclaiming he will have occur. At this point. Coughlin is
desperate. He greatly wants to affect the legal consequences upon the Washoe County public
defenders office of Coughlin, providing yet another written request first discovery one
delivered by a personal service rather than e-mail or fax which Coughlin was fearful may not
satisfy some technical rule where his personal service typically does with Coughlin,
considering the further delay that would be inherent to attempting to affect constructive
service by mailing on the Washoe County public defenders office Coughlin decides against
dropping the note on the lobby floor as he figures Leslie will leverage that to argue that
Coughlin failed to serve any such written notice on the Washoe County public defenders
office and thereafter Coughlin despite his fearfulness (after all Leslie had previously directed
Coughlin to drop it. With respect to the note only to then thereafter direct Coughlin to put it
on the counter and get out meaning Leslie a given Coughlin to conflicting directives leaving
Coughlin with a set of circumstances where no matter what he did Leslie would say Coughlin
failed to follow his directive) of setting foot in Washoe County public defenders office does
venture into their entryway and sets his written request for the discs of discovery propounded
by the Washoe County District Attorney's Office to the Washoe County public defender on
August 13 and 17th 2012 onto the sort of ledge or desk window where she was behind the
closed glass and then Coughlin immediately walks to the elevator).
27
Leslie
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ote it is professional misconduct for both Watts the Al whom is now trying to recharacterized
Leslie's application for the Apple case and wants the out file for Leslie on 1218 12 as
something Leslie filed rather than what the out given the tenuous situation Washoe County
District Attorney's Office is and in that it now has yet one more amongst a multitude of
reasons for while why it should be conflicted out of prosecuting Coughlin especially where
Coughlin's filed numerous motions previous two that point including one of 12/3/12 in the
case in which Leslie was able to obtain an unnoticed to Coughlin emergency hearing on
12/18/12. Leslie has lied about his iAnd I basically said I don't have anything discuss with
you Mr. Coughlin unless you put it in an e-mail and By the Way, Mr. Coughlin were going to
be conflict it off your remaining cases he became mpetus for seeking to be removed as
counsel. As at this January 4 extension hearing Leslie indicated it was in response to the
December 12, 2012 e-mail when in fact when Coughlin appeared in the Washoe County
public defenders lobby on that date requesting the discovery that Leslie had refused to
provide him which consisted to different discs the Washoe County district's attorney's office
had propounded on August 13 and August 17, 2012 that were of material relevant to
Coughlin's defense in the misuse of 911 case in 065630 which had just had a trial date the
date for as detailed in the December 12, 2012 e-mail of course no one not judge Pearson not
Watts the Al not Leslie not the State Bar of Nevada wants to talk about the import or content
of Coughlin's December 12 e-mail or the flagrant misconduct that is events therein by Jim
regard which manifests itself in Jim
http://observer.com/2009/01/single-persons-movie-icape-feari/ Cape fear would hardly be
the enduring piece of cinema it is if it was just a by the numbers Michael Bay Jerry
Bruckheimmer cartoon villain gets destroyed by super cops popcorn flick. The whole bases
for the movie been interesting is that is very emotional ambiguities that that viewer is
confronted with and being forced to empathize with the Nero's character however scared they
may be of him or detestable they may find his actions to be and in. But to be clear is DeNiro
who dies in the end of this movie not Nolte. So, can Coughlin now moved for a protection
order and alleged that Watts the Al and Patrick King and Jim Leslie want him to die at their
hands? http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/18567/why-martin-scorsese%E2%80%99s-capefear-is-among-the-finest-thrillers-of-the-1990s
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"Cape Fear concludes with a protracted struggle aboard the fleeing Bowdens
houseboat. As a storm rages and rain lashes the vessel, the film descends into an overlong
dervish of shouting...Interestingly, Scorsese denies both Sam Bowden (Nolte) and his
audience the satisfaction of a bloody, macho pay-off: as Sam prepares to deliver a killing
blow with a huge rock held aloft, the raging waters of Cape Fear drag Cady into the depths,
leaving him to drown in a babble of religious ecstasy".
While Coughlin certainly does not approve of violence or advocate it in any way, he
does appreciate a good cleansing ritual. They need to put their feet in the river. Shucks, they
need a chuch full of black people throwin' them up in the air, old timey revival type ish, bass
player takin' it for a walk while carnival barker preacher tellin' that true talk, y'all. Mass
group clap-a-long, swayin' to tha gospel rhythmn. Yep, they need to put those feet in the
rivuh (of course, after rolling up their suit pants legs...er., well for Pat King, rolling up his
cargo pant, but you get the idea).
11/14/12 NG12-0204 FORMAL DISCIPLINARY HEARING - Vol. I, (Page 189:12
to 189:20) "A Are you wearing cargo pants at a bar hearing? Q -- "from his practice of
law." MR. ECHEVERRIA: Excuse me. Did you just interrupt again? Sir? THE WITNESS:
I thought he was done. MR. ECHEVERRIA: No, you didn't. You couldn't have. Please, sir -THE WITNESS: I was taken aback by the fact that he's wearing cargo pants to a Bar
hearing. Sorry."
HEARING Vol. I, (Pages 73:23 to 75:5) "MR. COUGHLIN: So we're not here today
based on what's been noticed?
"HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 175:25 to 181:11) BY MR. KING: Q Mr. Coughlin, you
received that because Bar counsel forwarded it to you; is that correct? A I don't
remember how I received this. I imagine it would -- I don't think a stranger sent it to
me. I don't know. Q Did you respond to the allegations to Bar counsel, the allegations
made in the letter by Judge Holmes, and the accompanying documents; did you respond to
that investigation? A Actually, I'm trying to remember -- did I get this letter attached to like
an SCR 117 petition? Can you help me out? Did I get it soon after -- I think you were kind
of coy about this, actually, Pat. Right? You kind of -- you were kind of coy about having it.
You didn't just get this letter, and then I don't think you mailed it to me on March 14th. MR.
ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, the question is did you reply to it? THE WITNESS: I don't
know -- MR. ECHEVERRIA: I'm sorry. The question is: Was it forwarded to you? THE
WITNESS: That's what I was expounding upon. I'm trying to remember when did I first get
this letter. Because this is like a gut punch if you've devoted your life to becoming an
attorney. And, in fact, I didn't get her March 28th letter -- I mean her March 28th order that
was entered. I didn't even get that until I saw it attached to an SCR 117 disability petition in
case number 60975. I guess I kind of figured she just wasn't going to make an order, you
know. And she mailed this one, the one for February 28th, she mailed it to the old River
Rock address where I was evicted from, despite the fact it appeared, at least a couple other
departments in her court had a more recent address for me. And then I have -- if I had been
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
noticed on this -- I have a lot of these letters. I meticulously kept the envelopes. I kept the
change of addresses. I think I might have sent Pat these with the yellow -- I had a lot of the
yellow stickers on my letters, you know, where they were like -- and the court, the court had
these too. The muni court. And I had a big ordeal with the post office incident to they didn't
want to give me a key to the mailbox. This eviction, the evil work that you sanctioned, Pat,
that I mentioned earlier, it has a fallout necessarily. In my opinion -- MR. ECHEVERRIA:
Mr. Coughlin, excuse me. Do you remember the question? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR.
ECHEVERRIA: What was the question? THE WITNESS: Did I receive this. MR.
ECHEVERRIA: And the answer? THE WITNESS: I'm working my way through it
mentally as to how I got this. MR. KING: If I'm not mistaken, we're past that. You said you
did receive it. He doesn't recall how. And my follow-up question was: Did you respond to
the allegations by Judge Holmes that are contained in that letter, and by the accompanying
documents? MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, if you could focus on answering that
question, that would be helpful to the panel. THE WITNESS: One, this letter is not to me. I
would like to read it. Again, that's where the notice part of due process is key, you know. If I
was noticed on the idea that I didn't respond to this -- and I'll enter my objection. I would like
to see where in the complaint it says Mr. Coughlin failed to respond or cooperate with Bar
counsel. It might. I'd just like to be sure. Where does it say where -- was I noticed the import
of today was going to include, the relevant inquiry today that I have been put on notice for,
was going to include the idea that I didn't appropriately respond to this? So if I go to the
complaint, I'm just wondering where in the complaint might I be put on notice that I would
be expected to know when I got this today, and respond intelligently in that regard. (Exhibit 9
marked.) MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, may I move on? MR. ECHEVERRIA: You may. THE
WITNESS: May I answer as best as I can remember then? MR. ECHEVERRIA: If you will
answer the question, it would be helpful. But these rambling discourses are not helpful. THE
WITNESS: They're not winning any points on notice and due process? MR. ECHEVERRIA:
This is a preliminary investigation. Bar rules require attorneys to cooperate with the
preliminary investigation. As I understand, Mr. King is trying to establish whether or not you
did so. That's an issue that I believe is relevant to the determination of the degree of
punishment, if any, that should flow to you as a result of your conduct. So, Mr. King, move
on, please. MR. KING: Thank you. THE WITNESS: Your Honor, can I just quickly attempt
to more thoroughly address that issue? MR. ECHEVERRIA: I think you've been afforded
adequate opportunity to do so. How you choose to respond is up to you. Mr. King, next
question, please. MR. KING: Thank you. THE WITNESS: That's the whole notice thing.
You're asking me to answer a question based upon a two-page letter where I haven't been
noticed on the idea that I will be asked to. And then if I don't -- if I'm working through it,
you're cutting me off, not letting me put it in the record. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. King, you
cited in one of your pleadings a request that all issues pending before you be heard at one
hearing. There was a letter you sent to the state Bar that you quote in one of your pleadings.
THE WITNESS: I requested that? MR. ECHEVERRIA: Yes, sir. THE WITNESS: You
haven't read my pleadings. My whole point was bifurcating, how ridiculous it is to glom all
these together. I'm so glad you just said that on the record. BY MR. KING: Q Could you
please take a look at this document that's been marked as Exhibit No. 9, and tell me if you
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recognize that? A You actually just said that. My whole point was -- Q Mr. Coughlin, there
is a question pending -- A -- separate hearing. The sole purpose of the 60838 suspension, on
a candy bar. That was my whole point. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, those issues
have been resolved. Mr. King has asked you a question. THE WITNESS: By an order you
entered the day after you were empaneled."
The disruption must have occurred in the courtroom. One cannot disrupt a tribunal
with conduct outside of the courtroom. In re Michael Stuhff, 108 Nev. 629, 837P.2d 853
(1992)
The 12/14/12 FOFCOL by a confused at best Echeverria tries to make chicken salad
out of King's offerings: "...(CC) The record also establishes that Coughlin was less than can
did with the Court in two separate applications to proceed in forma pauperis, when he failed
to disclose his true occupation as an attorney and instead indicated he was self-employed as a
"Jack of all Trades" failed to identify any income from the practice of law after having rep
resented to the court that his incarceration would adversely affect his clients. Supra 31 &
32
(31. On March 7,2012 Coughlin caused to be filed an "Affidavit of Poverty in Support
of Motion to Proceed Informa Pauperis." See Hearing Exhibit 9. In his Affidavit, Coughlin
represented that he was self-employed as a "Jack of all Trades." See Hearing Exhibit 9. The
Affidavit does not identify Mr. Coughlin as a lawyer or identity any income from the prac
tice of law. (NOTE: The SBN's King's 8/23/12 Complaint fails to make any such allegation
or in any way notice-pled to Coughlin that he will be required to defend against any such al
legation at the hearing, ROA 2: "...17. Respondent filed Affidavits of Poverty in Support of
his Motion to Proceed Informa Pauperis, wherein he fails to disclose that he is a licensed at
torney and instead under Employment and Self-Employment he identifies himself as a "Jack
of All Trades". " It is as though King and the Panel realized that page 1 of Coughlin's three
page 3/7/12 filing obviously disproves their "fails to disclose that he is a licensed attorney"
charge (which, again, is completely idiotic (at best, more like fraudulent and disbarment
worthy) given the chronology of the hearing and the filing, duh) so they attempt to cook up
some not notice-pled "charge" of failing to "identify any income from the practice of law", as
though, even had Coughlin been making any money at all at that point (he wasn't, his one big
client Keller ($4,500 flat fee) had finished making monthly payments on that agreement by
that point, and Coughlin's other clients were all in a state of not paying or having paid up,
Coughlin was having a very difficult time financially (being burglarized by the WCSO, Hill
and Baker on 11/1/11, and then again by some still unidentified people on 12/14/12, and then
being fleeced by the RJC on 12/20/11, did not help). Regardless, even if one assumes
Coughlin did have any "income from the practice of law" (Eastman's case was a flat $3,500
or so, Eastman paid a grand up front in September, and maybe another $300 sometime there
after then never paid Coughlin any more money (Eastman was likely understandably wonder
ing just how much the summary incarcerations by Howard, Holmes, Elliott, etc. were affect
ing Coughlin's ability to deliver...(Dana Harris's custody case and UIFSA matter where flat
fee deals (around $2,500 to do both case total), Harris becoming a client in October of 2011,
paying something like a grand or so (probably $300 or so up front then $100 each month
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
thereafter until he paid around $1,000 at which point the UIFSA matter was pretty much over
and Coughlin had filed a NRCP 60(b)(4) in the custody matter, and Coughlin never got paid
any more...the Carptentiers probably paid about $1,000 up front in October 2011 or so, then
another $500 sometime a few months later (it was a flat fee $1,500 arrangement), and that
was it by the 3/7/12 filing in in 26800, though the Carpentiers opted to (and Coughlin did not
know this would happen) enter an agreement for Coughlin to file somethign like a NRCP 59
or 60 to Flanagan's 4/19/12 Order)... As for Robert Bell, he paid about $1,000 in equal month
installments between August 2011 and Marcy 2011. but regardless, even if Coughlin "failed
to identify any income from the practice of law" (and really, if Coughlin did identify his in
come as coming from "the practice of law" would the Panel find Coughlin failed to identify
any incomed from being his own receptionist, paralegal, investigator, handyman, janitor, or
secretary? "jack of all trades" is more accurate....a public defender makes money from the
"practice of law", and believe me, they don't do a damn thing that doesn't fall just right square
within there extremely limited definition of what that involves, and even then, they still pretty
much don't do s, right Joe Goodnight?) Regardless, the Complaint did not allege Coughlin
"failed to identify any income from the practice of law", it merely accused Coughlin of fail
ing to identify himself as an attorney. The point is, even looking beyond that lack of notice
pleading such a "failed to identify any income form the practice of law" deficiency in the
case, such is not a grounds for finding misconduct, as say, would be, failing to identify any
income from anything whatsoever had, in fact, it had been the case that there was some more
income than that which was disclosed, duh.)
18. Despite a claim of poverty in the above mentioned affidavits, (for good reason,
(this is the stupidest of all of King's "allegations", a true government lawyer, that King...what
does this even mean? Would not Coughlin arguing that an incarceration would affect his cli
ents sort of also disclose Coughlin's being an attorney? Is it somehow a logical fallacy to
suggest that an attorney can be in poverty and still have a summary incarceration affect his
ability to represent his clients? What am I missing here? I don't speak Pat King, it doesn't
come natural to me, just like I am not a laughing hyena) Respondent told the Court that his
incarceration for contempt would adversely affect his clients. ") See Hearing Exhibit 9.
(NOTE: Pat King committs fraud sufficient to disbar him here where he provided FHE9 to
the Panel, it including only 2 of the 3 pages of the 3/7/12 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pau
peris and Affidavit of Poverty (hint, page 1, the one King excised from the exhibit that Judge
Nash Holmes attached to her 3/13/12 Order Striking Fugitive Document (the bates stamping
from King's SCR 105(2)(c) consolation prize (1700) and the inclusion, absent mindedly, ap
parently, by King of the Certificate of Service of Holmes 3/13/12 Order Striking Fugitive
Document as the final of the three pages of FHE9 reveal the extent to which King has per
petuated a fraud where the page one King excised from Coughlin's 3/7/12 filing in 26800
clearly identified Coughlin as an attorney ("Esq.") and even gave his Nevada Bar Number,
not to mention the ridiculous fact that such "Affidavit" (which, again, began on page 2 of a
three page filing) was filed on 3/7/12, where Coughlin pleaded with Judge Holmes on
2/27/12 upon her announcing her egregious power trip, er, 5 day summary incarceration of
Coughlin, for a stay of some length, at the very least, to arrange for the avoidance of preju
dice to the client's he was then actively representing in the practice of law).
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
32. The record also indicates that Coughlin had also filed a motion on November , 2011 pro
ceed In Forma Pauperis in case number 11 CR (NOTE: actually Judge Howard's Order con
tains a scrivenors error as Coughlin's Motion to Proceed IFP in that matter was actually file
stamped 12/14/11, not 11/14/11, and similarly, Coughin's pleading with Howard for a stay of
the summary incarceration to arrange for avoidance of prejudice to his client's affairs on
11/30/11, necessarily makes King's allegation insipid) in the Reno Municipal Court before
Judge Kenneth R. Howard. Exhibit . Howard's Order denying Coughlin's motion specifically
noted that Coughlin's "affidavit of poverty" did not identify any income from the practice of
law yet Coughlin had implied to the court when sentenced to incarceration for contempt that
his incarceration would adversely affect his clients. Exhibit , , -23. )
11/14/12 NG12-0204 Formal Disciplinary HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 182:2 to
187:16) BY MR. KING: Q The question is: Do you recognize what's been marked as
Exhibit No. 9? A I'm sorry for that. To the extent that's true. I don't know that it's that
noteworthy, but I do want to convey my respect for this panel, and I'll try to mitigate that
more. MR. ECHEVERRIA: There's a question pending, I believe. BY MR. KING: Q Do
you recognize that document, Mr. Coughlin? A This is the affidavit? Q It has a title of
Affidavit of Poverty in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. A I don't see a
caption on it, Mr. King, so that's throwing me off a little. Was there no caption on it? Maybe
-- oh, this is Page 2. So maybe Page 1 is missing. Q It looks like there is a Page 1, and a
signature notarized. And the next question I have is: Is that your signature? A On Page 3?
Q On Page 2. Page 3 is Certificate of Service. A Not on mine. Page 2 is the first page. The
first page is Page 2. Q Do you recognize that document? A I would object to that based on
it being an incomplete document. MR. KING: I'm going to move to have Exhibit No. 9
admitted. THE WITNESS: It looks as though page -- MR. KING: Affidavit submitted to the
court, filed into the court by Mr. Coughlin, notarized. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Any objection,
Mr. Coughlin. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, your Honor. The first page has a 2 at the bottom.
That's what I mean by it's Page 2. It seems to be missing Page 1. And I would object to the
fact it doesn't appear to be a complete document. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Does that appear to
be your handwriting? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Is that your signature
affixed to what's identified as Page 3, Bates stamp 1699? THE WITNESS: It looks like a
partial signature. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Exhibit 9 will be admitted. MR. KING: Thank you.
(Exhibit 9 admitted.) BY MR. KING: Q This is dated -- it says it was filed in municipal
court March 7th, 2012. Is this a document or a part of a document that you had filed with the
court seeking in forma pauperis status? A I recall responding to this March 14th letter. I just
don't recall when I got it. Q I'm talking about your affidavit. We're on Exhibit No. 9, Mr.
Coughlin. You're looking at the letter that's no longer at issue at the moment. Could you look
at your affidavit -- A I thought the letter referenced this in some way. Q No. This affidavit
is something you filed in the municipal court in Reno. I'm asking you if you caused this to be
filed into the court? A I don't believe I caused anything that's started on Page 2. So if you're
referring to a portion of a document. Q Whatever this document is, part of a bigger
document, did you submit this to the municipal court seeking in forma pauperis status? A Did
I submit a partial document? Q This document. As part of a document or on its own? This is
the document I have in front of me that you've acknowledged you signed, and I'm asking if
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
you filed it with the municipal court. If you don't know, you don't know. But if you know, I'd
like you to answer. A It looks like an IFP, I recall. Q It says in your household, one dog,
three years old. Do you have a dog? Is that your writing? A I believe it is. Q And then
under self-employment you've checked you're a jack-of-all-trades to the court. You were a
lawyer barred at the time. Did you believe you were being truthful with the court? A I
always find this interesting when people -- MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin -- THE
WITNESS: I'm answering his question. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin. Why do you
believe I'm interrupting you now? You don't get it yet? You were interrupting Mr. King. I've
asked you to please refrain from doing so. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. His question was
compound, so I was trying to answer the first part of it. MR. ECHEVERRIA: If you have an
objection to his question, make the objection, but don't interrupt. THE WITNESS: Actually,
I think he was done with the first part of his question, and I was answering it. MR.
ECHEVERRIA: Proceed with your question, Mr. King. BY MR. KING: Q The question is:
When you identified yourself as a jack-of-all-trades as opposed to informing the court that
you were a licensed attorney in Nevada, do you believe you were being truthful with the
court? A I've always found it interesting when this subject is brought up -- MR.
ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, that question calls for a yes or no answer. THE WITNESS: I
think I've been truthful at all times. Maybe too truthful. MR. ECHEVERRIA: So the answer
is: Yes, that was a true statement? THE WITNESS: Yeah. And I think it's interesting the
idea that just because I have a law license -- MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, you're now
arguing. You've answered the question. You will have time to argue later. Mr. King. MR.
KING: Has Exhibit No. 9 been admitted, the affidavit? I'm moving for -- MR.
ECHEVERRIA: Do you have an objection, Mr. Coughlin? MR. COUGHLIN: It's not a
complete document, and it's not certified. MR. ECHEVERRIA: The ruling of the chair will
be that Exhibit 9 will be admitted. The first two pages appear to be a complete document in
and of itself entitled an Affidavit and concluding with a signature, and a notarized signature,
together with a proof of service by the Reno Municipal Court. Exhibit 9 will be admitted.
(Exhibit 9 admitted.) MR. ECHEVERRIA: I have a question on that. What is jack-of-alltrades, Mr. Coughlin? MR. COUGHLIN: To me it meant somebody struggling to make a
living is what I was doing to pay some bills."
HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 187:17 to 189:11) (Exhibit 10 marked.) BY MR. KING: Q
Handing you, Mr. Coughlin, a copy. If you look at the bottom right-hand side of the paper,
you will see this is a certified order. I would ask that it be admitted as Exhibit No. 10. A Oh, I
know. Q It is an order by Judge Kenneth Howard. If you'll look at the bottom of the first
paragraph, you'll see, "Appellant Coughlin requested that he be provided the trial transcript at
public expense on the basis that he was indigent. On November 14th, 2011, Defendant
Coughlin filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis wherein he seeks a waiver of certain
fees due to his asserted indigence." MR. ECHEVERRIA: Exhibit 10 has been offered. Any
objection, Mr. Coughlin? MR. COUGHLIN: I don't believe this is noticed in the complaint.
MR. ECHEVERRIA: I couldn't hear that. You had your hands covering your mouth, and
you mumbled. MR. COUGHLIN: I don't believe it was noticed in the complaint. So my
objection, I guess, would be relevancy, lack of notice, SCR. It wasn't in the DowSoE. I don't
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
believe the designation of witnesses summary is evidence. So it's kinds of a, hey, gotcha here
today. Oh, you're not prepared to rebut this because we didn't notice it? MR. ECHEVERRIA:
Any other objection? MR. COUGHLIN: No, sir. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Overruled. Exhibit
10 will be admitted. (Exhibit 10 admitted.) MR. KING: You will see it's Bates stamped
document 01831. Or actually 080 sequentially as showing that it was produced to Mr.
Coughlin. BY MR. KING: Q If you will look at the second to the last paragraph on Page 2.
It reads, "Mr. Coughlin is a licensed attorney at law who implied during trial that his
incarceration for contempt would adversely affect his clients. Yet, Mr. Coughlin, in his
'affidavit of poverty' does not indicate any" --...HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 189:25 to 190:24)
BY MR. KING: Q It says, "Yet, Mr. Coughlin, in his 'affidavit of poverty' does not indicate
any income from his practice of law. Of note, Mr. Coughlin posted cash bail during the
litigation of the instant matter. "This Court has not been provided sufficient information to
determine Mr. Coughlin's indigency status and will not grant him carte blanche authority to
continue the fishing expedition he conducted during the trial of this matter. Appellant's
motion to further pursue this matter at public expense is denied." MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr.
King, it's now 1:45. Do you have much further? MR. KING: I have no more witnesses to
call, and I only have a couple of documents to admit. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Okay. THE
WITNESS: Excuse me, sir. Was there a question or was he just reading -- he was just reading
it into the record? MR. ECHEVERRIA: He read part of what was in Exhibit 10, which has
been admitted. He read portions of that exhibit into the record. Yes, that's what he did. THE
WITNESS: Okay. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Do you have any further questions of Mr.
Coughlin? (NOTE: actually Exhibit 10 had not been admitted by that point: HEARING Vol. I, (Page 3:19 to 3:19) 10- Order in Case 11CR 22176
(page marked page
admitted) 187 188"
HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 215:24 to 216:7) "MR. ECHEVERRIA: Well, what is it
exactly that you're offering now? MR. COUGHLIN: The audio from the trial. MR.
ECHEVERRIA: I don't want it just played into evidence. MR. COUGHLIN: You let him
just read stuff into evidence from an order. MR. ECHEVERRIA: No, it was after it was
admitted into evidence."
HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 188:24 to 189:1) MR. ECHEVERRIA: Overruled. Exhibit
10 will be admitted. (Exhibit 10 admitted.) HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 187:17 to 189:1)
(Exhibit 10 marked.) BY MR. KING: Q Handing you, Mr. Coughlin, a copy. If you look at
the bottom right-hand side of the paper, you will see this is a certified order. I would ask that
it be admitted as Exhibit No. 10. A Oh, I know. Q It is an order by Judge Kenneth Howard.
If you'll look at the bottom of the first paragraph, you'll see, "Appellant Coughlin requested
that he be provided the trial transcript at public expense on the basis that he was indigent. On
November 14th, 2011, Defendant Coughlin filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
wherein he seeks a waiver of certain fees due to his asserted indigence." MR.
ECHEVERRIA: Exhibit 10 has been offered. Any objection, Mr. Coughlin? MR.
COUGHLIN: I don't believe this is noticed in the complaint. MR. ECHEVERRIA: I
couldn't hear that. You had your hands covering your mouth, and you mumbled. MR.
COUGHLIN: I don't believe it was noticed in the complaint. So my objection, I guess,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
would be relevancy, lack of notice, SCR. It wasn't in the DowSoE. I don't believe the
designation of witnesses summary is evidence. So it's kinds of a, hey, gotcha here today. Oh,
you're not prepared to rebut this because we didn't notice it? MR. ECHEVERRIA: Any other
objection? MR. COUGHLIN: No, sir. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Overruled. Exhibit 10 will be
admitted. (Exhibit 10 admitted.) HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 177:23 to 179:6) R.
ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, excuse me. Do you remember the question? THE
WITNESS: Yes. MR. ECHEVERRIA: What was the question? THE WITNESS: Did I
receive this. MR. ECHEVERRIA: And the answer? THE WITNESS: I'm working my way
through it mentally as to how I got this. MR. KING: If I'm not mistaken, we're past that. You
said you did receive it. He doesn't recall how. And my follow-up question was: Did you
respond to the allegations by Judge Holmes that are contained in that letter, and by the
accompanying documents? MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, if you could focus on
answering that question, that would be helpful to the panel. THE WITNESS: One, this letter
is not to me. I would like to read it. Again, that's where the notice part of due process is key,
you know. If I was noticed on the idea that I didn't respond to this -- and I'll enter my
objection. I would like to see where in the complaint it says Mr. Coughlin failed to respond
or cooperate with Bar counsel. It might. I'd just like to be sure. Where does it say where -was I noticed the import of today was going to include, the relevant inquiry today that I have
been put on notice for, was going to include the idea that I didn't appropriately respond to
this? So if I go to the complaint, I'm just wondering where in the complaint might I be put on
notice that I would be expected to know when I got this today, and respond intelligently in
that regard. (Exhibit 9 marked.)
HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 177:23 to 179:6) "MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin,
excuse me. Do you remember the question? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. ECHEVERRIA:
What was the question? THE WITNESS: Did I receive this. MR. ECHEVERRIA: And the
answer? THE WITNESS: I'm working my way through it mentally as to how I got this. MR.
KING: If I'm not mistaken, we're past that. You said you did receive it. He doesn't recall
how. And my follow-up question was: Did you respond to the allegations by Judge Holmes
that are contained in that letter, and by the accompanying documents? MR. ECHEVERRIA:
Mr. Coughlin, if you could focus on answering that question, that would be helpful to the
panel. THE WITNESS: One, this letter is not to me. I would like to read it. Again, that's
where the notice part of due process is key, you know. If I was noticed on the idea that I
didn't respond to this -- and I'll enter my objection. I would like to see where in the complaint
it says Mr. Coughlin failed to respond or cooperate with Bar counsel. It might. I'd just like to
be sure. Where does it say where -- was I noticed the import of today was going to include,
the relevant inquiry today that I have been put on notice for, was going to include the idea
that I didn't appropriately respond to this? So if I go to the complaint, I'm just wondering
where in the complaint might I be put on notice that I would be expected to know when I got
this today, and respond intelligently in that regard. (Exhibit 9 marked.)"
2/27/12 trial in 11 TR 26800 part 1 (portion before the one restroom break clearly
revealing that Judge Holmes lied in her opportunisitc, transparent attempt to mislead the
disciplinary panel in her sworn 11/14/12 testimony in attempting to establish that she
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
interrogated Coughlin about whether he was "recording" and whether he had "recording
devices" prior to the one restroom break, and that such was an impetus for Coughlin to,
allegedly, "disassemble" and "hide" parts of a recording device in the bathroom, incident
thereto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q0V-DZTZS0 Judge Nash Holmes needs to be
removed from judicial office yesterday. She needs to be removed from judicial office,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_vRiNyfa0g recording RMC held out as "certified
copy" of the 2/27/12 traffic citation trial (King also finally provided Coughlin a copy of what
he purports to be what the RMC provided to the SBN), of the second portion, that from the
end of the one restroom break until the conclusion fo the proceeding where Judge Nash
Holmes went full on crooked tyrant.
HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 152:14 to 154:1) endant lying to the court in response to
direct questions posed by the court with regard to his recording the proceedings? A The
opinion is self-explanatory. I do not have it in front of me, Mr. Coughlin. You have access to
the tapes and the opinion. And I stand by what I wrote, and I stand by the proceedings that
day. Q But it's kind of hard to pick inconsistencies in your testimony today and those
materials when you refuse to testify now, isn't it? MR. ECHEVERRIA: Argumentative, Mr.
Coughlin. You are not assisting yourself here. MR. COUGHLIN: I'm asking her. It's a
question. MR. ECHEVERRIA: No. MR. COUGHLIN: Is that not true that she is subverting
the legal process by refusing to testify instead of saying, well, read the order and read -- listen
to the recording, and therefore she is not subjecting herself to putting forth any further
inconsistencies. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, the time for argument is later, not
now."...HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 150:2 to 153:18) You wrote, defendant lying to the court
in response to direct questions posed by the court. What were the lies in your vague order that
lacks any specificity to support a summary contempt finding, what were those lies that you
failed to elucidate in your order? MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, that question is
argumentative. Do you want to rephrase it? MR. COUGHLIN: Sure. BY MR. COUGHLIN:
Q What were you referring to when you wrote, "Defendant lying to the court in response to
direct questions"? A Well, it would be explained in the order there. I don't remember
everything at this time because I don't have it in front of me. But I do believe that you lied
about or misrepresented that you were not recording, because I believe you probably were. I
don't know. I believe you probably were. At the same time there were things that you and the
prosecutor were arguing about with regard to discovery. And she disagreed with you and said
you were lying to her about that. And there were other items that you went back and forth
about that appeared to me that you were not totally honest about. Q So when -- MR.
ECHEVERRIA: Excuse me. Mr. Coughlin, let the record reflect that it's 12:18. I'll afford
you two more minutes. MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, sir. BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q When
you say, alternately you were probably lying. And then you put in your order, "I find by clear
and convincing evidence that he lied," is that ambiguous there? How do you reconcile that?
A How do I reconcile what? Q The fact that your order says you find by clear and
convincing evidence? A Because that's what I wrote. I did find by clear and convincing
evidence. I found by absolutely convincing evidence that you were behaving improperly in
court, as you are now, apparently. Q You're saying you found by clear and convincing
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
evidence that a licensed attorney lied to the court. And then you characterize that as probably,
well, I kind of think he was. I think he was, because I know some unattributed hearsay that
I'm going to base it on. I'm going to get the order I think is wrong about the bathroom break.
I'm not going to have a marshal sign an affidavit. Then I'm going to remix a criminal
contempt statute with a summary contempt statute and pick and choose and make it as
retaliatory as I possibly can. Isn't that a fair characterization of your approach as a judge?
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Judge, you don't need to answer that question. That was way out of
line, and extremely argumentative. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Do
you want to ask a legitimate question, Mr. Coughlin? BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q What basis
do you have to assert in your order that defendant lying to the court in response to direct
questions posed by the court with regard to his recording the proceedings? A The opinion is
self-explanatory. I do not have it in front of me, Mr. Coughlin. You have access to the tapes
and the opinion. And I stand by what I wrote, and I stand by the proceedings that day. Q But
it's kind of hard to pick inconsistencies in your testimony today and those materials when you
refuse to testify now, isn't it? MR. ECHEVERRIA: Argumentative, Mr. Coughlin. You are
not assisting yourself here. MR. COUGHLIN: I'm asking her. It's a question. MR.
ECHEVERRIA: No. MR. COUGHLIN: Is that not true that she is subverting the legal
process by refusing to testify instead of saying, well, read the order and read -- listen to the
recording, and therefore she is not subjecting herself to putting forth any further
inconsistencies. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, the time for argument is later, not now.
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. So I'm objecting. It's nonresponsive. BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q
What was your basis -- MR. ECHEVERRIA: That objection is overruled. Now it's 12:20. If
you have anything further of significance that's relevant to the issues in this case, please ask
that question,..." HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 144:12 to 145:21) Q Yet you testified today
that Mr. Coughlin asked to use the bathroom right after I asked him about recording. How do
you explain that? A I don't know the sequence of events. I don't recall -- Q You just said
you -- A I listened to the audio at the time when things happened. And when you came back
from the bathroom, either way I determined from -- I concluded that you were most likely
recording without my permission. Q Earlier your testimony was that you asked Mr. Coughlin
if he was recording, and he got real squirmy and asked to use the bathroom. Is that correct? A
Yes. Q Now are you remixing that testimony? A No. Q You just said, I don't know the
sequence of events. A Well, I don't recall the sequence of events. I know that I asked you if
you were recording. You denied you were. I asked you a couple times if you were recording,
if you had gotten permission to record, what you were doing. And at some point it was
determined that you most likely were. Q You know there is an audio of these things you're
testifying to, right, that we can like compare to what you're saying; right, Judge? MR.
ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, please exhibit a civilized tone. BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q
You're aware there's an audio? A Yes, there's an audio. I have not -- Q That we can
compare -- A -- I'm giving you my best recollection at this time...." HEARING - Vol. I,
(Page 143:17 to 143:19) BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q Was there one bathroom break during the
trial? A There was one bathroom break...." HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 139:8 to 142:15)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q Judge Nash Holmes, what did your
marshals tell you about a bathroom break? A I'm sorry. What marshals when? Q Well, the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ones you reference on the audio from the March 12th hearing? A Well, again, which -- my
marshals. Could you be more specific, please, in your question? Q How much have they
told you about the hearing -- MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, you interrupted the judge.
She asked you a question. Do you want to be specific as to a particular conversation? BY
MR. COUGHLIN: Q Yeah. There was one bathroom break in the hearing. What were you
told during the bathroom break by either a marshal or the city attorney? MR. ECHEVERRIA:
With respect to any particular issue, Mr. Coughlin? BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q No. Just
anything. Anything connected to me? MR. ECHEVERRIA: That's what I'm asking. Is it
involving you, sir? MR. COUGHLIN: Yes. MR. ECHEVERRIA: All right. THE WITNESS:
Mr. Coughlin asked for a bathroom break. I originally said I would not give the break. And
then I said that I would, but he had to leave all his materials in the courtroom. And I said that
because I suspected that he was tape-recording the court proceedings without my permission,
and without asking permission first. Because he's apparently been known to do that. MR.
COUGHLIN: Objection, hearsay. Lack of foundation. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: So I required one of my marshals to accompany him to the restroom. MR.
COUGHLIN: She just gets to say a bunch of hearsay? MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin,
she is responding to your question. Go ahead, Judge. THE WITNESS: When the marshals
came back from the restroom, they told me that Mr. Coughlin had, in fact, been recording the
proceedings because he had disassembled a device and left parts of it in the bathroom. Or left
-- disassembled parts of it, and then they discovered parts of it. In any case, when he was
taken into custody and held in contempt of court at the jail, he had physically two recording
devices on him, a cell phone -- either two cell phones or a cell phone and some other
recording device. I assumed that was pieces of which he was messing with in the bathroom.
BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q Which marshal told you that? A I'm sorry? I can't hear that. Q
Which marshal -- MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, you don't need to yell. THE
WITNESS: It was Marshal Harley that told me that, Joel Harley, H-a-r-l-e-y. He said when
they went in and checked the bathroom after Mr. Coughlin left, and he had found evidence
that he had disassembled some object or something in there. BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q What
evidence, and what object? A I just described it as some sort of a recording device. Whether
it was a cell phone and he took the SIM card out or whatever it was, I wasn't sure. But I had
asked you, Mr. Coughlin, point blank in court if you were recording, and you told me no.
And then you asked immediately to go to the bathroom, and I said no. And then you begged
and squirmed and said you had to relieve yourself, and I had to let you go to the bathroom.
And then when you did that, you went into the bathroom -- BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q
Really? A Took apart and disassembled a recording device. Q Really? Would audio show
that, Judge?..." MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. So I'm objecting. It's nonresponsive. BY MR.
COUGHLIN: Q What was your basis -- MR. ECHEVERRIA: That objection is overruled.
Now it's 12:20. If you have anything further of significance that's relevant to the issues in this
case, please ask that question, I'll allow you one more. BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q What was
communicated to you during the bathroom break, and by whom? MR. KING: Asked and
answered. MR. ECHEVERRIA: I think you've asked that. MR. COUGHLIN: I don't think
she answered it. MR. ECHEVERRIA: She did. Do you have another question, Mr.
Coughlin?..."
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HEARING - Vol. I, (Page 141:14 to 141:24) BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q Which

marshal told you that? A I'm sorry? I can't hear that. Q Which marshal -- MR.
ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, you don't need to yell. THE WITNESS: It was Marshal
Harley that told me that, Joel Harley, H-a-r-l-e-y. He said when they went in and checked the
bathroom after Mr. Coughlin left, and he had found evidence that he had disassembled some
object or something in there"
"HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 141:25 to 142:9) BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q What
evidence, and what object? A I just described it as some sort of a recording device. Whether
it was a cell phone and he took the SIM card out or whatever it was, I wasn't sure. But I had
asked you, Mr. Coughlin, point blank in court if you were recording, and you told me no.
And then you asked immediately to go to the bathroom, and I said no. And then you begged
and squirmed and said you had to relieve yourself, and I had to let you go to the bathroom.
And"
hearing - vol. i, (pages 139:22 to 141:13) by mr. coughlin: q yeah. there was one
bathroom break in the hearing. what were you told during the bathroom break by either a
marshal or the city attorney? mr. echeverria: with respect to any particular issue, mr.
coughlin? by mr. coughlin: q no. just anything. anything connected to me? mr. echeverria:
that's what i'm asking. is it involving you, sir? mr. coughlin: yes. mr. echeverria: all right.
the witness: mr. coughlin asked for a bathroom break. i originally said i would not give the
break. and then i said that i would, but he had to leave all his materials in the courtroom. and
i said that because i suspected that he was tape-recording the court proceedings without my
permission, and without asking permission first. because he's apparently been known to do
that. mr. coughlin: objection, hearsay. lack of foundation. mr. echeverria: overruled. the
witness: so i required one of my marshals to accompany him to the restroom. mr. coughlin:
she just gets to say a bunch of hearsay? mr. echeverria: mr. coughlin, she is responding to
your question. go ahead, judge. the witness: when the marshals came back from the
restroom, they told me that mr. coughlin had, in fact, been recording the proceedings because
he had disassembled a device and left parts of it in the bathroom. or left -- disassembled parts
of it, and then they discovered parts of it. in any case, when he was taken into custody and
held in contempt of court at the jail, he had physically two recording devices on him, a cell
phone -- either two cell phones or a cell phone and some other recording device. i assumed
that was pieces of which he was messing with in the bathroom..." hearing - vol. i, (pages
141:17 to 142:10) which marshal -- mr. echeverria: mr. coughlin, you don't need to yell. the
witness: it was marshal harley that told me that, joel harley, h-a-r-l-e-y. he said when they
went in and checked the bathroom after mr. coughlin left, and he had found evidence that he
had disassembled some object or something in there. by mr. coughlin: q what evidence, and
what object? a i just described it as some sort of a recording device. whether it was a cell
phone and he took the sim card out or whatever it was, i wasn't sure. but i had asked you, mr.
coughlin, point blank in court if you were recording, and you told me no. and then you asked
immediately to go to the bathroom, and i said no. and then you begged and squirmed and said
you had to relieve yourself, and i had to let you go to the bathroom. and then when you did
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that, you went into the bathroom --..." (nothing says tyrant on the bench like a good "you
begged and squirmed...")"
"HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 81:3 to 82:2) BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q Yeah. You throw
out, "You made it up after the fact." And then I say, no, Rich, it's October 19th, it's pled
there, it's pled in the tenth affidavit, it's dealt with extensively at trial. A lot of questions and
testimony at the trial which was later remixed into a -- so is that demonstrating candor on
your part to assert that I made it up after the fact when there's all this documentation that
says, no, Rich, it's right there, it's commercial tenancy? A Mr. Coughlin, as you know, I did
not attend that trial, nor have I read the transcript. I will note though that Judge Sferrazza
ruled that you did not prove anything that you attempted to try to prove. Q So you just said
-- A That speaks very loudly to your competence and what you put in the record in that court.
And it was affirmed on appeal. Q Can you tell me, when you say you didn't plead that, you
didn't bring it up. But then a minute later you say, I didn't go to the trial, and I didn't read this
and that. How can you say you didn't bring that up, you made it up after the fact, and
reconcile that with the statement that you didn't go to the trial? MR. KING: Objection.
Argumentative."
In Re Crane, 23 ill.2d 398, 178 n.e.2d 349 (Ill. 1961). "While the conviction is
conclusive evidence of guilt, it does not preclude the consideration of other evidence for the
purpose of determining the appropriate disciplinary action. After all, a respondent is being
disciplined not because of his conviction but because of his conduct. the actual conduct itself
is certainly relevant to a determination of the appropriate discipline to be accorded. just as
every conviction of a crime does not require the same punishment, so all convictions of
crimes involving moral turpitude do not require *401 the same discipline. thus, a
consideration of the actual conduct of the respondent is not only proper, but may be
indispensable, to an informed appraisal of the appropriate disciplinary action. respondent
sought to show, by his own testimony, that the trial in the federal court involved substantially
three different items. one was a fee which, on his income tax returns, respondent spread over
three years, but which the federal authorities contended should have all been reported as
income in one year. the second concerned a payment which respondent omitted entirely from
his income tax returns, but he claims that the omission was due to negligent oversight rather
than fraud. the third item concerned the cost basis of certain stock, the respondent stating that
the basis he used was derived from others and was true to the best of his knowledge and
belief. although the oral testimony of respondent seems hardly the most appropriate method
of proving what was involved in the federal trial, the commissioners sustained the objection
to the offer of proof on the basis of substance rather than of form, and it seems clear that their
ruling was based primarily upon what he was trying to prove, rather than how he was trying
to prove it. the report of the commissioners indicates that in arriving at their recommendation
they took into consideration the fact that the federal judge suspended imposition of sentence
and placed respondent on probation conditioned upon his paying a fine of $10,000 and costs,
that such fine and costs have been paid, that respondent's practice of law has suffered
appreciably, that no assessment has been made against respondent with respect to his civil
liability for income taxes for the years in question, that a number of witnesses, including
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
practicing attorneys and sitting judges, testified that respondent's reputation in his community
was that of an honored and respected member of the illinois bar, that no other disciplinary
measures have been brought *402 against respondent, and that no proceeding has been
brought to disbar him from practice in the federal courts. the commissioners, however, as
already stated, felt it improper for them to consider any evidence relating to the nature and
circumstances of the conduct of the respondent which resulted in his conviction. as we have
already indicated, we feel that such matters are proper subjects of consideration for the
purpose of determining the appropriate nature and severity of the discipline, and we **351
have considered such proffered evidence in arriving at the discipline to be administered.
taking into consideration all the extenuating circumstances we feel that respondent was guilty
of conduct which is not to be condoned on the part of a member of the legal profession and
that he is deserving of the censure of this court. respondent censured. " in re crane, 23 ill.2d
398, 178 n.e.2d 349 (ill. 1961).
10
"Buried the Report"
11
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/c/cape-fear-script-transcript-scorsese.html
12
(NOTE: Wesley Strick wrote the screenplay for the 1991 Cape Fear remake, getting
bashed by Scorsese and Jessica Lange in no less than three interviews published in major
publications. Strick had written an earlier screenplay containing similar defense attorney
themes in "True Believer", that 1990 drama feautring James Woods as a pony tail defense
attorney, and a young Robert Downey, Jr.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Believer_(1989_film). A far cry from ol' Jimmy Sleazy's
"he's wasting County assets, Your Honor!" and "Your Honor, if you feel he is dragging his
feet, I am happy to step in in my role as stand by counsel". While NRS 282.020 "Form of
official oath" may require "Members of the Legislature and all officers, executive, judicial
and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and
subscribe to the following oath: I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect
and defend the Constitution and government of the United States, and the Constitution and
government of the State of Nevada Leslie is completely wrong to suggest that a judge must
"protect and defend...the government of the State of Nevada" by overlooking the fraudulence
and police misconduct of RPD Officer Nicholas Duralde and WCDA DDA Young and
WCPD Jim Leslie, Esq. It does Nevada's government no good to wind up with a black eye
like this, no matter whether or not is saves "County assets" (hey, here's an idea RJC Judges,
quit handing out summary eviction where all the jurisdictional prerequisites are lacking...then
you would save yourself the dozen or so evictions of Coughlin that followed as goonish local
law enforcement chased a stumbling Coughlin, trying to get back on his feet, or another 18
months, applying a multitude of types of misconduct to remove him from 121 River Rock,
1422 E. 9th St., Northwinds Apartments (three different rentals there), Superior Mini-Storage
(Judge Pearson has forgotten about his awful work there, apparently , given his commentary
on 7/16/13 in RCR2011-063341, where Coughlin reference Pearson judicial misconduct in
Rev2012-001048), and failing so far in attempts to remove him from 1471 E. 9th St.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an0KM_bb4bmhnu4/cape_fear_1991_discussing_cadys_case_part_2/
"Tom (Notle's attorney friend): He's not gonna do anything. He just got out of prison. He
doesn't want to go right back. Call Lee Heller. Lee's a colorful character, but he's still the best
criminal lawyer in the state. Good. Get me Lee Heller. You defended this guy, right? Right.
So what makes you think he wants to harm you?
Nolte (Sam, the former public defender): Yesterday I was getting in my car. The guy comes
up. We have a conversation. He says to me, "You're gonna learn about loss. "
Tom: That'd hardly qualify under the terrorist threat statutes.
Nolte: Come on, Tom! The guy's an ex-con! You know as well as I do what that means. Last
night, there he was behind our house.
Tom: - Attempted b and E.
Nolte:- No, not exactly. He was sitting on a wall that bounds our property.
Tom: That's not even trespassing, Sam. What can I say? Get a restraining order.
Nolte: I filed one this morning. The hearing's in ten days.
Tom: Good. Anything I can do.
17
Nolte: Tom, years ago... in this case, I had a report on a victim. It was a rape case. That's
right, rape and aggravated sexual battery. I had a report on this victim, and it came back that
she was promiscuous. And, uh... I buried it.
18
Tom: Whew. Anybody else know?
19
Nolte: No, I buried it. I didn't show it to the client, to the prosecution. But if you had seen
what this guy had done to this girl...
16
20
21
22
23
24
Tom: "In every criminal prosecution, the accused shall have... the assistance of counsel for
his defense. "
Nolte: I know the Sixth Amendment, but ...I believe in the Sixth Amendment. That's why I
left the public defender's office.
25
Tom: Some folks just don't have the right to the best defense? (NOTE: particularly where
providing less than is a career move for Dogan and Leslie).
26
Nolte: Of course they deserve the best defense! But if you had seen what he did to this girl...
27
Tom: Buried the report.
28
Nolte: If it was your own daughter, Tom...

-
Tom: Buried the report. Jesus, Sam.
Nolte: Oh, God. But I don't see how he could know that. He was illiterate. I had to read
everything to him: The probable cause affidavit, the arrest reports, everything. There's no
way he could know that."
3
4
5
Later in a scene between Max Cady (De Niro) and his former public defender, Sam
(Nolte): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V_FcDZAOpE
"Cady: Afternoon, Counselor.
Nolte: What do you want, Mr. Cady?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cady: Mmm, mmm-mmm-mmm! They're great at that age, ain't they? All those discoveries
ahead of them. You're lucky, Counselor. My own daughter, she don't even know me. After I
went inside, her mama told her I was dead. Which, in a way, I was.
Nolte: Look, Mr. Cady, I realize that you suffered. I understand your problem, but I mean,
why me? I was your lawyer. I defended you. Why not badger the D.A. Or the judge?
Cady: "Badger"?
Nolte: Why not them?
Cady: Badger. Why not? Best I remember, they was just doin' right by their jobs.
Nolte: I didn't do my job? Is that right? I pleaded you out to a lesser included offense. You
could've gotten rape instead of battery.
Cady: I'd have been up for parole either way in seven years.
Nolte: Rape is a capital offense. You could've gotten life. You could've done death. You
could be sittin' on death row right now.
Cady: I learned to read durin' my stretch. First, Spot Goes to The Farm, then Runaway
Bunny, then law books, mostly. Did you know that after I discharged you, I acted as my own
attorney? Applied several times for an appeal.
Nolte: No, I didn't know that.
Cady: Mm-hmm. So, here we are... two lawyers, for all practical purposes, talkin' shop.
Nolte: How much do you want, Mr. Cady? How much do I want what? How much money do
you want?
Cady: Money? Counselor, do I look destitute to you?
Nolte: I'm open to discussion, within reasonable limits.

-
1
2
3
Cady: You ever been a woman? A what? A woman. Some fat, hairy, ugly hillbilly's wet
dream.
Nolte: I realize that you suffered. There's no question about that.
Cady: You don't know what sufferin' is, Counselor. Like it says in Galatians : "Have ye
suffered so many things in vain?" I learned from the get-go in the joint... to get in touch with
the soft side of myself, the feminine, nurturing side.
Nolte: Well, I'm open to some sort of discussion... on compensation.
Cady: What shall be my compensation, sir, for being held down and sodomized by four
white guys? Or four black guys? Shall my compensation be the same? What is the formula
for compensation, sir? How about $10,000 in cash?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Cady: Do I... Let's just break that down. That figure just came to the top of my head. Let's
break it down. For argument's sake, let's say $10,000. $30,000. I'll tell you what, let's say
$50,000. $50,000 into 14 years. Fourteen years times days... I'd say is about 10,000 days.
You divide that by $50,000 and that's like $ 10.00 a day. That's not even minimum wage! To
say nothing about the family that I lost, the respect. I don't think you really, really
understand... what we're talkin' about here. Fourteen years. Whoops! Uh-oh! Gotta git. I'm
late for another appointment."
18
Later in the 1991 remake, Robert Mitchum (whom starred in the 1962 original) makes
a cameo as a member of the district attorney's office, upon Sam (Nolte) alleging Cady (De
Niro) killed his dog, though he lacks and proof of that whatsoever. What results is Cady
being subjected to a "full body strip search", revealing a large tatoo on his back with the libra
scale of justice (Coughlin's a libra, natch) with "truth" on one side of the scale, and "justice"
on the other side, interestingly...:
19
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POR5t4hjtPg
15
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
"Mitchum: Trouble is, poisoning a dog is just a fine. But if he's unemployed, he's gotta have
money or we'll bust him for vagrancy. We'll give him a full-body strip search. Jerk a knot in
his tail. All right. We got so many ways on the books to lean on an undesirable.(NOTE:
Coughlin has been incarcerated wrongly 18 times since the initial fraudulent arrest of
8/20/11, and wrongfully summarily evicted (though never based upon non-payment of rent,
interestingly) around a dozen times since then as well) He'll feel about as welcome around
here as a case of yellow fever.
Some Sheriff's Office Goon:- Hands against the wall. - Spread 'em!
Mitchum: That him? One-way mirror. He doesn't know you're here.
Nolte: Yeah, that's him.
Sheriff's Goon #2: Get the shirt off. Come on, hurry up. Just pass it over to him. Hand it to
me. Knock off the shoes. Hand 'em to the other officer. Pass 'em to him. Come on. Let's put
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the arms out. Put the arms out straight. - Roll your palms. - Do what he says. Turn around,
slow.
Mitchum: Sheesh. I don't know whether to look at him or read him.
Sheriff's Goon: Stand still. One more step for you. You know the routine. Against the wall.
DA Mitchum: We searched his apartment. His car registration, everything's in order. There's
no guns or any weapons, but we found these. Cady's savings account. $? His mother died, the
farm got sold. He got the proceeds. Well, he's got money. Where does that leave us? We nail
him for the dog. What happened? You let the dog out. Cady abducted him?
Nolte: No, uh... we didn't let the dog out.
DA Mitchum: Cady came into your house? That's illegal entry with intent! Nolte: No, no, no.
He didn't come into the house. I don't know exactly how he did it, I just know that he did it.
DA Mitchum: That's not good enough, Mr. Bowden. You're a lawyer. You damn-well
know that.
Sheriff's Goon: Get off the pants.
Mitchum: He's gonna screw up. The Sheriff assured me that they always do. He's gonna get
the message in no uncertain terms.
Nolte: I'd still like to kill him."
Eventually Leslie, er, Nolte, hires some goon, Kersek, (Nevada Court Services Jeff
Chandler, Ryan Wray, Joel Durden, Western Nevada Managements Sue King, Jared Scalise,
NV Energy, RPD Officer Chris Carter, Jr. Sargent Marcia Lopez, Sargent Paul Sifre, Officer
Jason Schaur, Officer Nick Duralde, Detective Yturbide, ECOMM Operators and RPD
Officer wives Jessica Duralde and Jodi Yturbide (rich how Judge Clifton chastizes Coughlin
for prompting him to reveal that Deputy AG Rhonda Clifton is his spouse, and as to whether
the share a residence, implication Canon 2 Rule 2.11 ("don't bring up people's spouse" where
Clifton's AG Office was on 62821, and where Coughlin wished to query Duralde (whose
fraudulent arrest was at issue in an earlier retaliatory prosecution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiW0vnGv6l4 In that case RCR2011-063341, now on
appeal in CR12-2025, WCDA DDA Young failed to turn over Brady material revealing that
he and Officer Duralde lied about the basis for the alleged "reasonable suspicion" or probable
cause" justifying Duralde's Terry Stop and or subsequent search incident to arrest (A search
incident to an illegal arrest is also illegal. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. McCain v. State, 194
Md. App. 252, 4 A.3d 53 (2010). ere the officers only means of being informed of the
"possible fight" Duralde and DDA Young constantly harped on about, was via the text
messages sent only to the screens located in there patrol cars, where they were already out of
there cars and on the scene by that point. Check mate. Further, WCPD Goodnight's 12/19/11
Request for Production/Subpoena required the WCDA to turn over such materials. Reno City
Attorney Skau performed similar fraudulent attempts to hide such evidence, in addition to
obtaining an illegal ex parte hearing in conjunction with the same WCPD's Office that had
already been removed from the case by November 2012, with such hearing, ridiculously,
being held the day before Coughlin's formal disciplinary hearing with the SBN. Judge
Sferrazza should be removed from the bench immediately. He is a menace to society. He
regularly receives ratings in bar surveys that yield ratings that are phenomenally lower than
any other judge. He spent his entire career prior to becoming a judge, for the most part,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
being a politician, which, is just about the worst training and experience for being a judge
imaginable. Coughlin repeatedly prompted Leslie, whom insisted suddenly on taking over
the case for Joe Goodnight minutes before the 7/16/12 Trial date, despite the fact that Leslie
does not handle misdemeanor cases, to make argument and put on evidence establish the
defense and basis for excluding "evidence" incident to the fact that RPD Officer Duralde
made an illegal arrest, in that NRS 171.136 forbade his making an arrest, for an alleged
misdemeanor occurring outside his presence, between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm. Instead,
Leslie spent the entirety of his cross examination of liar Cory Goble attempting to establish
an alleged. So, WCPD Leslie did not so much "bury the report" as Max Cady's former public
defender Sam did, but, rather, Leslie took it a step further an attempted to intentionally
sabotage Coughlin's defense and do that which WCDA DDA Young was too uninformed and
lazy to even come up with, attempting to establish a "citizen's arrest" basis sufficient to form
an exception to the exclusion of anh "fruit of the poisonous tree" (ie presence of an iPhone in
Coughlin's pocket that ultimately was proven not to even belong to Goble) (but really,
Coughlin did not steal anything, so it is only "fruit" in the sense that you give Judge Sferrazza
anything and he will apply his agenda to it). Further, Leslie refused to put on evidence or
elicit testimony to further develop defense attendnat to the fraudulent overvaluation of the the
iPhone by RPD Officer Duralde, and Duralde's indications that he was purposefully
overvaluing the iPhone in question's value for the purposes of getting around the prohibition
against making a misdemeanor arrest for an alleged misdemeanor occurring outside the
officer's presence between 7 am and 7pm ("there's certain benefits to charging this as a
felony"...and "Ooooh, that's a felony", and, upon Coughlin identifying himself as a lawyer,
Duralde exclaiming "I don't respect you at all), all statement by Duralde before, during, and
after the arrest .
Unfortunately for Leslie, however, Coughlin built his paper trial (one of the reason
Leslie had such a hissy fit upon Judge Sferrazza ruling that Coughlin could email Leslie his
concerns in an attempt by Sferrazza to pacify Coughlin long enough to keep him quite for the
time it would take Leslie, Young, and Sferrazza to accomplish their malevolent and
fraudulent agendas.
"FW: legal research on plain feel doctrine, misdemeanor arrest where conduct outside
officer presence, moral turpitude crimes affecting law license? From:Zach Coughlin
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Sent:
Fri 10/14/11 10:57 PM To:
jgoodnight@washoecounty.us; enovak@washoecounty.us Dear Sirs, Here is some legal
research that looks relevant, Zach Coughlin, Esq. 121 River Rock St. Reno, NV 89501 775
338 8118 Licensed in Nevada ....http://www.box.net/shared/6h4r1vvxvbaevbsn8zp4 misdemeanor arrest officer's presence.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/tdepkpc1ec2hexphbyme - police misdemeanor arrests.pdf ...
http://www.box.net/shared/pokrt3kuvh307sao4jc7 - police overcharging offenses.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/vnbp4m3yq514s1r7o92p - overcharging TAKING THE COP
OUT OF COPPING A PLEA ERADICATING POLICE
PROSECUTION.pdf ...http://www.box.net/shared/6hnm32hmq5x5vlhelmp9 - What
constitutes possession of stolen property to establish requisite element.pdf"
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS of 8/29/12 in RCR2011-063341:

(11_18 A.M.), (Pages 55:18 to 56:10) (Leslie): "The alleged offense of allegedly taking the
phone in question was not committed within your presence, was it? A No. Q You were
not a direct witness to that? A No. Q Okay. And the hour of the day that you arrived on
scene again was what, approximately? A I recall it being between -- anywhere between
11:00 and 12:00 P.M. at night. Q Okay. So certainly after the hour of 7:00 P.M.? A Yes. Q
Very well. Thank you, your Honor. I have no further questions."
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS (11_18 A.M.), (Pages 57:6 to 59:13)
BY MR. YOUNG: Q Mr. Leslie was just asking you the alleged taking of the phone was
not done in your presence; do you recall that question just a couple of questions ago and you
said "No?" A Yes. Q Mr. Did Mr. Coughlin hand you, on his own volition, the phone
that was taken from his left front shorts pocket? A No. Q You took that from his pocket
after you arrested him and were conducting a search incident to arrest? A Yes. Q So
while you were present, he was still in possession of this phone in his left front pocket? A
Yes. MR. LESLIE: Objection. THE COURT: Objection to what? MR. LESLIE: An
improper conclusion. THE COURT: What's the objection to the question? MR. LESLIE:
Well, he ran the witness through a series of questions and then asked the words at the end so
and asked the witness to conclude and I think that was an improper conclusion under the
circumstances. MR. YOUNG: I'm not asking anything with respect to the stolen nature. I'm
just asking if -- all I'm asking is while Officer Duralde was on scene dealing directly with Mr.
Coughlin, was this phone that he ultimately recovered from his pocket still in Mr. Coughlin's
pocket, that's all I'm asking? MR. LESLIE: You said while he was on scene, that's asking for
a conclusion as to an indefinite duration of time period and asking him to conclude that Mr.
Coughlin had possession of something that was disputed. THE COURT: Could you narrow
it down? MR. YOUNG: Maybe I could rephrase the question. BY MR. YOUNG: Q But
from the point that you arrived on scene and made contact with Mr. Coughlin, did you see
anybody place that phone or Mr. Coughlin place that phone into his pocket? A No. Q
Okay. And you've already testified that upon your arrest of Mr. Coughlin, you removed a
phone which is the subject of this Suppression Hearing from his pocket? A Yes. Q
Okay, good enough? THE COURT: That's fine. MR. LESLIE: I have no further questions."
DDA Young simply did not see the NRS 171.136 issue, even despite Coughlin's
8/29/12 Pre-Hearing Brief spelling it out on page 28 thereof. There was absolutely no
testimony at the hearing on the Motion to Suppress to support any finding (had the State even
made the argument, which it did not), that some NRS 171.136(2)(d) exceptions to the rule
requiring the fruits of any search incident to an unlawful arrest be excluded: "(d) When the
offense is committed in the presence of a private person and the person makes an arrest
immediately after the offense is committed;".
Leslie and WCPD Goodnight (whom stupidly (at best, lazily, is more like it) failed to
include Coughlin's NRS 171.136 arguments respecting the basis to exclude the results of the
search incident to arrest (Coughlin did the legal research and provided it to Goodnight with
the argument, and what does Goodnight do? He fails to cite to the statute or make the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
argument, then he, in his 2/15/12 Motion to Suppress, borders on making an argument that a
citizen's arrest was made were he wrote that Coughlin was "surrounded" by the youths upon
the officer arriving. However, still, DDA Young was too busy doing sudoku puzzles or
whatever it is he occupies himself with and was completely oblivious to the facts and law in
this case (as he was on the whole "of another" part of the Staab and Shepp argument and
authority respecting the fact that a "thief cannot receive the fruits of his crime from himself"
and that Coughlin would have had to know that any such phone was "stolen" "by another"
(not "from another" as McGeorge graduate Young confused himself with), "another" being
someone other than Coughlin, and here, nothing whatsoever indicates that the still
unidentified man that Zarate testified to as seeing pick up the phone an offer it up had
"stolen" such phone. Indeed, the testimony was that such man made an effort to place it
where it belonged.
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS (11_18 A.M.), (Pages 35:23 to 36:17)
Q They were standing in a half circle around him? A Yes. Q So he was surrounded by
approximately 8 to 12 mid-teen or young adults? A Yes. Q And when you arrived there,
was yelling going on? A I don't recall. Q Did the youths appear agitated? In fact, at one
point, you had to tell them to back off, didn't you? A Yes. Q They were upset? A Yes. Q
At the man you identified as Mr. Coughlin? A Yes. Q And they were surrounding him? A
Yes."
The public defender's office jealously guards what they see as their "right" to do as
little work as possible for their clients, and anyone who makes a stink about that gets
retaliated against by the likes of Dogan, Leslie, and Goodnight, such as here, where
Goodnight and Leslie attempted to make an argument for the State that DDA Young was to
dim to even pick up on.
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS (11_18 A.M.), (Page 38:7 to 38:16) Q
Okay. So I think when we broke for lunch, I believed we had established that when you
arrived on scene, you saw the man that you have identified as Mr. Coughlin sitting on a
railing in a seated position surrounded by several young people, some standing, some sitting,
some as close or six to 10 inches and that they were visibly upset with him; is that a fair
summary of the setting as you arrived on scene? A Yes...." PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS (11_18 A.M.), (Pages 61:17 to 62:1) When the officer arrives on scene, he
sees what he describes as a large of group of people and it's these youths or young adults that
we've talked about and some mid-teens. I think we've described them in various terms. They
are sitting in close proximity to and standing in close proximity to and according to the
officer, surrounding and emotionally agitated or upset with Mr. Coughlin who is in a seated
position and frankly is surrounded...." PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
(11_18 A.M.), (Page 92:3 to 92:4) Mr. Coughlin appeared to be the one surrounded by the
young people. ..."
pre trial brief in rcr2-11-063341? From: Zach Coughlin
Wed 8/29/12 5:14 AM To:
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
zyoung@da.washoecounty.us; jleslie@washoecounty.us; jbosler@washoecounty.us;

jgoodnight@washoecounty.us; rjcweb@wasoecounty.us Attachments:
1 attachment pre
trial brief state of nevada v coughlin rcr2011-063341.pdf (233.8 KB) Zach Coughlin" (page
28 thereof contains the argument as to NRS 171.136 providing a basis for excluding any
evidence culled from the search and
Further, Leslie, the WCDA, and the RJC fraudulently wish to characterize the 8/27/12
hearing resulting in Coughlin's having "rejected" the plea deal, which is completely false (and
its patently offensive for Coughlin's own then attorney Leslie to be arguing to the court that it
cannot accept Coughlin's plea where Coughlin is standing there under oath asserting that he
is voluntarily accepting the plea deal):
"RE: Coughlin: petit larceny -- right to testify or not testify? From: Zach Coughlin
Tue 8/28/12 12:31 PM To: Leslie, Jim
(Jleslie@washoecounty.us); jbosler@washoecounty.us Cc: jgoodnight@washoecounty.us
Please quit taking $150k a year while failing to uphold the sixth amendment. I saw your
conflicts memo about me and you have a DIY to disclose the contents and import thereof to
the court. File a continuance bAsed on ecr conflict, Leslie's calling me manic and off my
meds, failure to subpoena byington et al. Wcpd needs tos withdraw, enforce mhc agreement,
candor regardinv failure to notice coughlin on two recent hearings and refusing to vacate trial
dates set therein , -----Original Message----- From: Leslie, Jim Sent: 28 Aug 2012 18:39:26
GMT To: 'Zach Coughlin' Subject: RE: Coughlin: petit larceny -- right to testify or not testify
Mr. Coughlin: Regarding your email below in which you purport to "accept" the plea bargain
deal which you rejected at yesterday's hearing, I believe it's too late. The 8/24/12 email said
the offer expired 8/27/12, and the State confirmed at the 8/27/12 hearing that if you did not
take the offer and plead to it in that hearing, it expired. Your below email certainly comes
after the ending of the 8/27/12 hearing, as well as after the close of business 8/27/12."
Further, it is preposterous for the State and RPD Duralde to now claim that they did
not trumpet Duralde's lies about being "informed by dispatch about a possible fight" as a
means of justifying either a finding of reasonable suspiciion for a pat down (and Duralde
conducted several, even well after Coughlin was handcuffed, and after Duralde himself
admits he had already discerned that Coughlin did not have a weapon on him from the
knowledge gained from his initial overly invasive penis touching with his bare skin "pat
down" by Duralde:
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS (11_18 A.M.), (Page 61:8 to 61:16) If
I may summarize, I think the important facts are as follows: The officer is dispatched to
something that by his testimony initially is described by dispatch as a disturbance or possible
fight but before the officer arrives, he's updated by dispatch and it's indicated that it's a
larceny. Now, I'm not arguing some kind of supplanting of the information but I am pointing
to the fact that that clarification changes it from a fight issue to a larceny issue.
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS (11_18 A.M.), (Page 63:7 to 63:22)
We've cited the statute and some case law in the motion, it says that an officer, under
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
172.1232, can't conduct such a search, cannot put his hands on a citizen and feel their body
for any purpose other than he reasonably believes that two things are occurring. Number one,
that Mr. Coughlin was armed with a dangerous weapon and number two, that Mr. Coughlin
is a threat to the safety of the officer or another officer. The officer testified that in addition to
what he's testified here today, there's no other evidence that he had in his mind back at the
time to think Mr. Coughlin either had a dangerous weapon or was some kind of threat to the
safety of the officers. Mr. Coughlin couldn't have fled, and the officer didn't think that he was
a flight risk."
The usual sanction for an illegal arrest is not dismissal of charges against the accused,
but suppression of statements or physical evidence discovered as a result of the arrest or
detention. Biggers v. State, 317 Ark. 414, 878 S.W.2d 717 (1994); State v. Miller, 257 Kan.
844, 896 P.2d 1069 (1995); City of Fargo v. Stutlien, 505 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 1993); State v.
Henderson, 51 Ohio St. 3d 54, 554 N.E.2d 104 (1990). Regarding the effect of the illegality
of an arrest, see Am. Jur. 2d, Arrest 129, 130. Regarding searches and seizures, generally,
see Am. Jur. 2d, Searches and Seizures 1 et seq.. See NSCt. 60838, CR11-2064, CR122025 and the violations of NRS 171.136 and 171.1255, and the recent illegal arrest of
attorney Coughlin while going to, attending, and leaving court in RCR2013-072675, and the
arrest in 11 TR 26800, and "booking into evidence" well after the period for any "search
incident to arreest" (question, if she booked Coughlin's alleged "recording devices" into
evidence for 37 days, and they were returned to Coughlin wiped of all data, then should not
the "clear and convincing evidence" necessary to a finding of a violation of any RPC require
some physical proof of whatever vague accusations Judge Nash Holmes made about
Coughlin's "lying" vis a vis recording or recording devices? Especially where she relies on
alleged conduct "outside the court's presence, and failed to have Marshal Harley sign a NRS
22.030(2) affidavit, just as the RJC failed to have any of its Clerks or Bailiffs do.
AMJUR Arrests: IV. Manner of, and Procedure in, Making Arrests A. In General 2.
Night and Sunday Arrests 72. Permissibility of arrest at night , Arrest k65, 67, 68(6)
West's Key Number Digest, Civil Rights k1376(6)
An officer may be exposed to civil
rights liability if he or she executes a warrant in the middle of the night, absent exigent
circumstances, or a controlling statute to the contrary, at least in the case of a misdemeanor
arrest. Cipes v. Graham, 386 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D. Conn. 2005). Under other statutes, an
individual cannot be arrested in his or her home at night for a misdemeanor offense
committed at some other time and place without the express direction of a magistrate
endorsed upon the warrant for arrest. Plumlee v. Travis, 254 Mont. 96, 834 P.2d 1386 (1992).
Such a statute has no application when the misdemeanor is committed or attempted to be
committed in the officer's presence, however. Government of Virgin Islands v. Rodriguez,
300 F. Supp. 860 (D.V.I. 1969). AMJUR ARREST 72
25 Arrest at unlawful or unreasonable time [32 Am Jur 2d FALSE
IMPRISONMENT] The time when an arrest may be made is determined by the common law
and statutes. 92 An arrest at an unlawful or unreasonable time may impose liability for
damages, 93 especially when combined with other elements of unlawfulness. 94 Footnotes
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Footnote 92. See 5 Am Jur 2d, Arrest 96. Footnote 93. MacDonnell v McConville, 148
App Div 49, 132 NYS 1085, affd 210 NY 529, 103 NE 1126. Footnote 94. Bryan v
Comstock, 143 Ark 394, 220 SW 475, 9 ALR 1346 (arresting a reputable citizen late at night
for driving his automobile without the necessary lights, refusing to permit him to make bail,
and jailing him because of unwillingness to disturb a magistrate, constitute an abuse of
discretion rendering the officer liable for wrongful arrest). For the following, both the 2/1/13
DAS arrest after 7 pm at Coughlin's home and the 1/12/12 custodial arrest (where the
Officer's refused to tell Coughlin what he was being arrested for or that he was being
arrested) are violative: 27 Failure to declare authority and intention to arrest [32 Am Jur
2d FALSE IMPRISONMENT] An officer attempting to make an arrest should, if the
opportunity exists, make known his or her purpose and the official capacity in which he or
she is acting, as well as the cause of the arrest. Such notification is sometimes required by
statute. 98 In jurisdictions where there is such a statutory duty, failure to comply with the
requirements of informing the arrestee of the intention of, cause for and authority for the
arrest may divest the person making the arrest of an otherwise applicable privilege or deprive
the arresting person of justification for the arrest, 99 unless there is a showing of
circumstances relieving the officer or other arresting person of compliance with the
requirement of advising of the fact of arrest and the authority for making the arrest. 1 In
other jurisdictions, the officer's failure to convey such information, even when required by
statute, does not necessarily impose liability on the officer for false imprisonment. 2
Footnotes Footnote 98. See 5 Am Jur 2d, Arrest 92-94. Footnote 99. McFarland v Skaggs
Cos. (Utah) 678 P2d 298 (among conflicting authorities on other grounds noted in Miskin v
Carter (Utah) 761 P2d 1378, 90 Utah Adv Rep 19). Footnote 1. Sprague v Burley, 109 Idaho
656, 710 P2d 566 (reasonableness of officer's conduct, including compliance with these
requirements, is a jury question, going ultimately to the existence vel non of qualified
immunity). Footnote 2. Elliott v Haskins, 20 Cal App 2d 591, 67 P2d 698. The fact that the
arrestee is not told that he or she has been arrested generally does not affect the validity of the
arrest. Bauldock v Davco Food, Inc. (Dist Col App) 622 A2d 28.
One. General Principles VII. Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction A. 439.
Effect of unlawful arrest Digest, Criminal Law k99 Treatises and Practice Aids Ringel,
Searches & Seizures Arrests and Confessions 23:27 Jurisdiction obtained by means of an
unlawful arrest or seizure is valid.[FN1] Generally, if a defendant physically appears before a
court, either because he or she is held in custody after an arrest or because he or she has
appeared in person after giving bail, the invalidity or illegality of the original arrest does not
preclude a court from trying a defendant.[FN2] The illegality of the defendant's detention
does not deprive the government of the opportunity to prove the defendant's guilt through the
introduction of evidence wholly untainted by police misconduct.[FN3] The usual sanction for
an illegal arrest is not dismissal of charges against the accused, but suppression of
statements or physical evidence discovered as a result of the arrest or detention. Biggers v.
State, 317 Ark. 414, 878 S.W.2d 717 (1994); State v. Miller, 257 Kan. 844, 896 P.2d 1069
(1995); City of Fargo v. Stutlien, 505 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 1993); State v. Henderson, 51 Ohio
St. 3d 54, 554 N.E.2d 104 (1990). Regarding the effect of the illegality of an arrest, see Am.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jur. 2d, Arrest 129, 130. Regarding searches and seizures, generally, see Am. Jur. 2d,
Searches and Seizures 1 et seq. [FN4] Observation: While an illegal arrest is a violation of
the Fourth Amendment,[FN5] a conviction of the defendant will not be overturned on the
basis of an illegal arrest alone. Mere irregularities in the manner in which one is brought into
custody of the law do not entitle one to say that he or she should not be tried at all for the
crime for which charged in a regular indictment.[FN6] [FN1] Payton v. New York, 445 U.S.
573, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1980); U.S. v. Duarte-Acero, 296 F.3d 1277 (11th
Cir. 2002); Winston v. State, 355 Ark. 11, 131 S.W.3d 333 (2003); State v. Barros, 131 Idaho
379, 957 P.2d 1095 (1998); State ex rel. Jackson v. Brigano, 88 Ohio St. 3d 180, 2000-Ohio292, 724 N.E.2d 424 (2000). [FN2] Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 63
L. Ed. 2d 639 (1980); U. S. v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 100 S. Ct. 1244, 63 L. Ed. 2d 537
(1980); Higgins v. State, 317 Ark. 555, 879 S.W.2d 424 (1994); State v. Johnson, 227 Conn.
534, 630 A.2d 1059 (1993); State v. Miller, 257 Kan. 844, 896 P.2d 1069 (1995); Com. v.
Carter, 537 Pa. 233, 643 A.2d 61 (1994); State v. Crow, 504 N.W.2d 336 (S.D. 1993); State
v. Farmer, 193 W. Va. 84, 454 S.E.2d 378 (1994). [FN3] U. S. v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 100
S. Ct. 1244, 63 L. Ed. 2d 537 (1980); U.S. v. Sitton, 968 F.2d 947, 36 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 282
(9th Cir. 1992); State v. Johnson, 227 Conn. 534, 630 A.2d 1059 (1993); State v.
Hendrickson, 283 Mont. 105, 939 P.2d 985 (1997); State v. Masat, 239 Neb. 849, 479
N.W.2d 131 (1992); Graves v. State, 112 Nev. 118, 912 P.2d 234 (1996). [FN4] Biggers v.
State, 317 Ark. 414, 878 S.W.2d 717 (1994); State v. Miller, 257 Kan. 844, 896 P.2d 1069
(1995); City of Fargo v. Stutlien, 505 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 1993); State v. Henderson, 51 Ohio
St. 3d 54, 554 N.E.2d 104 (1990). Regarding the effect of the illegality of an arrest, see Am.
Jur. 2d, Arrest 129, 130. Regarding searches and seizures, generally, see Am. Jur. 2d,
Searches and Seizures 1 et seq. [FN5] U.S. Const. Amend. IV. [FN6] Ker v. People of
State of Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 7 S. Ct. 225, 30 L. Ed. 421 (1886). . AMJUR CRIMLAW
439
Page 28 of Coughln's 8/29/12 "Pre-Trial Brief, Motion for Summary Judgment"
(which Leslie acknowledge on the record on 8/29/12 with having been provided with in
advance of such hearing on the Motion to Suppress, yet Leslie refused Coughlin's demands
that he make argument directed towards excluding the "fruits" of such an unlawful arrest)
preserved for appeal that which Leslie refused to:
"A similar gaming of the system is revealed in Duralde overcharging Coughlin for a
felony, for a three and a half year old iPhone that was barely worth $300 new, and which
would have only been worth approximately $65.00 at the time of the arrest, assuming it was
in good condition and would come with a short warranty upon purchase, which is not clear at
all.
NRS 171.136 When arrest may be made:
" 1. If the offense charged is a felony or gross misdemeanor, the arrest may be made on
any day, and at any time of day or night. 2. If it is a misdemeanor, the arrest cannot be
made between the hours of 7 p.m. And 7 a.m., except:
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(a) Upon the direction of a magistrate, endorsed upon the warrant;

(b) When the offense is committed in the presence of the arresting officer;... (d) When the
offense is committed in the presence of a private person and the person makes an arrest
immediately after the offense is committed; It would be inaccurate to suggest Goble et al
made a citizens arrest. The video from just prior to the RPD arriving demonstrate (as do the
RPD dispatch records) that Coughlin himself made 911 call and , on the video, Coughlin is
heard suggesting everyone relax and wait for the police to arrive in a peaceful approach to
resolving the situation. That being the case, Officer Duralde (and this is belied by the smug
commentary he made to Coughlin indicating as much) was left overcharging the crime (by
inflating the value of the iPhone) sufficient to make a felony charge, thereby overcoming the
problem with the fact that, as it was after 7 p.m., and the alleged offense was not "committed
in the presence of the arresting officer", Officer Duralde would have otherwise been able
only to issue a citation, rather than conduct a search incident to arrest and a custodial arrest
(much less inflate Coughlin's bail and cause Coughlin the greater embarassment of a felony
arrest on his record, all added benefits to charging Coughlin with a felony that (Duralde)
openly and smugly remarked on to Coughlin. But, Officer Duradle's clever gaming of the
system was not over yet....Goble's 911 calls says just the opposite, ie, that Coughlin "is being
super aggressive and given us all sorts of trouble".
"Subject: Shoeless Jim Leslie From:
Tue 9/11/12 3:51 PM
To: jleslie@washoecounty.us; jbolser@washoecounty.us; bdogan@washoecounty.us;
jgoodnight@washoecounty.us
Dear Mr. Leslie, Please explain why you refused my express demands to make
arguments at Trial and the Suppression Hearing and cite to specific laws, cases, and
statutes, or otherwise put on evidence related to the valuation of the property alleged
stolen (it clearly was worth less than the $250 required, as even Goble testified at Trial that is
was worth about $100 at the time of the arrest, and I provided to Goodnight, and therefore
you, evidence and support that it was worth even less than that.
Please get your investigators working. Carlson admitted he has done no work on the
case, but merely sat in on two hearings, supporting my contention that you like to leverage
your coworkers for your own CYA purposes, rather than do any actual work, Dogan included
(your conduct in this manner even extended into the courtroom at Trial, amazingly....). I
think you need to prepare a Draft for my review immediately of some Motion for Relief from
the ORder following the Suppression Hearing, including, but not limited to, your failure to
cite to and argue the existing facts that support the following: NRS 171.136 When arrest
may be made:... 2. If it is a misdemeanor, the arrest cannot be made between the hours of 7
p.m. and 7 a.m., except: (b) When the offense is committed in the presence of the arresting
officer;... (d) When the offense is committed in the presence of a private person and the
person makes an arrest immediately after the offense is committed;"
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(NOTE: Leslie refused to pursue the avenues of defense Coughlin provided to him
(Coughlin getting none of the paycheck, yet doing all the legal research and creating all the
legal argument), as well, with respect to overcoming any NRS 171.136(d) exception to the
exclusionary application which should necessarily issue should the State even make such
argument, which is failed to...the only problem is the extent to which the State now, on
appeal, may attempt to argue that Leslie made the argument for them, or at least purposefully
elicted testimony from Goble, and Zarate in hopes of establish such an evidentiary basis for
an application of that exception to the benefit of the State. Leslie completely refused to make
such argument or put on any testimony related thereto at the hearing on the Motion to
Suppress, even where Coughlin provided him evidence, legal authority, and argument in
support thereof. Further, DDA Young was clearly oblivious to NRS 171.136(d)'s import, and
under DCR 13(3) and or Polk v. State, or notice-pleading principles, or Breliant, Judge
Sferrazza is not permitted to make the State's case for it, although anyone whom has watched
Judges Sferrazza, Clifton, or Pearson in action now (especially Pearson and Clifton) knows
that they constantly do so, seemingly possessing a fund of knowledge that consists
exclusively of pro prosecutor precedent. Indeed, they going so far as to cut DDA Young's
meat up into little pieces for him so he can chew it more easy now that they have taken him
off the Gerber, because he gets awfully crabby when trying to "practice" law gets him all
tuckered out ("I'm not submitting anything!" Young snarled at Judge Sferrazza upon being
ordered to submit some documentation and explanation in support of the call for a third of so
competency evaluation of Coughlin (such evaluations always being granted to the WCPD
everytime they needed a timeout upon Coughlin cornering them into looking into the mirror
of their own misconduct and malpractice, Leslie demanding a circular room), poor lil guy, so
much to expect of him, after all his law school education as part of the McGeorge Mafia only
cost him $35,000 per year compared to the seven stacks Coughlin's cost his when he and
Chris Hicks, Esq. were breakin' hearts ("scorecast" always called for a blizzard when you was
partyin' with Chrissy..."started from the bottom now we here", indeed) down there in Vegas
at an unaccredited law school in a bombed out abandoned elementary school with a faculty
dominated by militant lesbians what pistol whipped JAG recruiters whom dared to spread
their "don't ask don't tell" message ("you wanna know why I pistol whipped ya? Don't ask,
don't tell mother effer" some say Dean Mary LaFrance is said to have snarled at one point)
well three and a half the first year, (shout out Benson, Baker & Bertoldo for that LSAT
scholly, your welcome for my scores being added to your averages, Boyd),
Further, Leslie attempted to obstruct Coughlin's ability to establish that, under NRS
171.136, the "offense" was not "committed in the presence of a private person" whom
"makes an arrest immediately after the offense is committed". Indeed, Leslie's refusal to turn
over to Coughlin the call records and identifying phone numbers for both the 911 calls (the
WCPD insisted on redacting such phone numbers and refused to subpoena the ownership
information thereof) and the calls to and from the iPhone in question during the relevant
times, despite the extent to which such would ultimately reveal that those witnesses whom
sworn, under penalty of perjury that they saw Coughlin "receive" or "take" the phone in
question, whether from "another" (ie, the unidentified man) or "from the ledge" where Goble
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lied about setting it down (testimony and or evidence (some of which Judge Sferrazza refused
to admit for no good reason, pulling out every lame crooked trick in his bag to accomplish
such agenda, from rushing Coughlin, to misdirection, to every other low rent bit of
trickeration Judge Sferrazza has added to his arsenal over the years) revealed the phone was
set down on the concrete ground in the middle of the skate plaze in front of City Hall, and
that absolutely non of the witnesses testifying under oath that day actually witnessed
Coughlin "take" or "receive" the phone from the still unidentified man whom Zarate
ultimately admitted had pick it up and asked for someone to claim it (Zarate committed flat
out perjury, and, curiously, claims not to have witnessed the man then threaten to throw the
iphone in the river, despite Zarate being caught on video attempting to dissuade Nicole
Watson from contradicting the lies Zarate told RPD Officer Duralde and wrote in Zarate's
Witness Statement of 8/20/11 in a video Coughlin filmed immediately after being released
from 7 days in jail, finding the group of early twenty-somethings assembled in the downtown
skate place. Of course, Judge Sferrazza ruled such video inadmissible as well.).
Coughlin's 9/11/12 email to Leslie continues: "The arrest in this matter fails on every
element of NRS 171.126(2)(b)-(d). Further, while it is quite questionable to infer evidence of
guilt based upon the fruit of an impermissilble search, DETAINING, terry pat down, or
SEIZURE of Coughlin himself (if the police want to know if someone is a diabetic, they can't
hold them somewhere until they go into a coma from lack of insulin, likewise, they can't hold
Coughlin around until they figure out a way to conduct a "search" (calling the phone), while
Coughlin was handcuffed, despite the pat down apparently being over, according to DDA
Young, and no exigent weapons or safety concern being present (there is an argument that
Coughlin could have taken a number of actions to which he would have been entitled, on a
Fifth Amendment basis and otherwise, had he not continued to be handcuffed and detained
(Coughlin himself was essential being "seized")
Further, the excuplatory videos, and tape of Coguhlin's own 911 call clearly establish that a
citizen's arrest was not made. Further, the witness testimony at trial shows that as well. So,
clearly, given the alleged conduct was outside the officer's presence, anthing culled form a
SITA is subject ot the exclusionary rule. Your failure to even argue these basis supports the
contention that you were being the "Shoeless Joe" of the WCPD, a lawyer Kevorkian of
sorts. Not a good thing. Coughlin can be heard on the video of the moments prior to the
arrest and on Coughlin's own 911 call (and even on Goble's) suggesting they all wait
peacefully until the police arrive to address what the RPD would have deemed a "civil issue"
had Coughlin been the complaining party (witness Coughlin's May 15th, 2012 attempts to
obtain police help in connection with the discovery of Coughlin's stolen bicycle, or a recent
911 all wherein Coughlin reported a gas station (7 eleven by Home Depot in Northwest
Reno) bilkiing him out of several dollars, etc.).
26
NRS 171.126(1) : Arrest by private person.:
27
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in the persons presence.
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Mr. Leslie, I would like you to explain the rationale for the questions you were asking at
Trial. Why ask questions related to whether Coughlin was being held against his will by the
youths prior to the RPD arriving? What was your rationale for doing that, other than a
purposeful attempt to please the prosecution and support a "citizen's arrest" argument seeking
to vitiate the import of the officer's abscence during the alleged conduct? Further, your
questions regarding some alleged expressed intent to sue Duralde by Coughlin are quite
curious, especially considering Coughlin's statements at the August 27th, 2012 hearing.
Please provide support for your contention that Coughlin ever made such statements, and
then explain what useful purpose was served by interjecting such an attribution to Coughlin
during your cross?
Further, please explain why you chose to go against Goodnight and Coughlin's own
previous contentions in their various filings (including the one's of Coughlin that merrily
chimed in on in agreement with DDA Young and the Court in seeking to have them stricken
from the record, and thereby vitiating 90% of the useful legal work done on the defense of
this case....work that actually did some novel legal research and provided explication of just
what would justify a Terry Pat down and support for the contention that facts gleaned from
an impermissible pat down cannot for the basis for a subsequent probable cause to arrest and
conduct a SITA determination. The video demonstrates Duralde instructing Coughlin not to
say anything or speak any further before Coughlin is even able to provide a response to the
Officer's question regarding whether or not Coughlin had "the phone" (check the tape to see
if Duralde said "his phone"), etc.). That goes directly to whether Coughlinw was
demonstraring, as Duralde testified "uncooperation") which had material significance given
that DDA Young harped on Coughlin's non-compliant demeanor and "being difficult" in
justifying the further detaining Coughlin (which I instructed you to challenge as an issue, but
which you appear to have failed to). Certainly, by following Duralde's order that he not
speak any further, Coughlin was being cooperative and compliant, and not confrontational.
Further, the arrest video demonstrates quite a bit of cooperation and compliance on
Coughlin's part. Additionally, there are numerous statement's by Goble, Rosa, Zarate,
Duralde, and Alaksa that impeach all three of the witnesses testimony, particulary Goble's
statement that "he might have switched it to the other pocket" when commenting on the
phone being "not there". Better boot up the old County laptop, Mr. Leslie. Oh wait, you will
try to say that is a "threat" and attempt to have RJC Bailiff's come over, once again, and play
bullying enforcer for you in your quest to maintain a well paid position in a consequence free
environment, devoid of any skin in the game. I have never threatened you with any physical
harm, nor have I ever threatened to do anything illegal to you or anyone with the WCPD, and
your receptionist Jessica's lies, Hylin's lies, the lies you imply Goodnight is making (and I
suspect its more a case of you and Bosler wanting more of a ringer for the DA on the case
than Goodnight was able to provide...enter Jim Leslie, Esq.).
NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal
behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations.
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under
circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is
about to commit a crime.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain the persons
identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the persons presence abroad. Any
person so detained shall identify himself or herself, but may not be compelled to answer any
other inquiry of any peace officer.
NRS 171.1231 Arrest if probable cause appears. At any time after the onset of the
detention pursuant to NRS 171.123, the person so detained shall be arrested if probable cause
for an arrest appears. If, after inquiry into the circumstances which prompted the detention,
no probable cause for arrest appears, such person shall be released.
I am demanding that Leslie and the WCPD provide, in writing, research and investigatory
support directed to defending against a contention that "probable cause" was culled sufficient
to meet whatever standard applies. Must factual support be found for each element of the
charge? Please provide legal research and precedent (including mere persuasive precedent)
for an argument that Duralde's failure to perform any investigation directed to the elements of
"taking" "carrying away" "receiving", etc. vitiate any probable cause finding. Please provide
the results of your legal research directed to the impact of Duralde's only subsequently to
arrest noticing that the Witness Statements mentioned the "guy with a six pack" who held the
phone aloft....support for the contention that such incongruities vitiate the probable cause
finding. Please indicate what a fine tooth comb review of the Trial audio or transcript show
with regard to whether Duralde ever did actually do any investigation with respect to the
phone's valuation prior to his intial statement upon arriving that he was going to arrest and
search and get the phone back from Coughlin, as well as before the technical point of arrest.
Just when did Goble indicate the phone's value to Duralde? Provide citation to explain just
how such valuations must be done, what factors must be considered, and whether Duralde's
according absolutely no devaluation to a phone that was bought, allegedy (Goble's
attatements in Drualde's narrative conflict with Goble's trial testiomny as to whom bought the
phone. I am demanding notes on and any recordings anyone with the WCPD made of the
"meetings" with Goble and Zarate that I have been afforded so little explanation of or
opprotunity to participate in by you, Goodnight, Novak and Carlson. Please conduct follow
up investigatory interviews with those witness and others to the extent allowed under the law.
Zarate's satements to Duralde are heard on the arrest video, the "I saw what happened".
However, nothing is said beyond that. No real indication of what exactly happened. Further,
whether Coughlin had a larcenous intent at the time of allegedly taking possession of the
phone IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL UNDER NEVADA LAW, and you have failed to address
that through legal argument to the court in any way whatsoever or otherwise ask questions or
put on evidence of teh witnesses in that regard. Additionally, you fail to impeach statements
by Goble directed to just how quickly he became aware of Coughlin having the phone, the
extent to which Coughlin lingered around the scene prior to Goble and his two companion
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
aggressors approaching Coughlin (I want you to investigate and determine the name of the
aggressor whom was "not even a friend" but whom was apparently, invested enough in the
situation to, in goble's testimony, be the one whom was most physical and aggresive towards
Coughlin.
Additionally, please conduct investigation, legal research, and draft argument for my review
related to the obvious inconsistencies in Zarate's testimony with respect to whether he was
"across the skate plaza" when the phone allegedly lit up in Coughlin's pocket, or whether
Zarate was there, or close enough, to have personally witnesses any such occurence,
including Zarate's subsequent assertion that he also saw Coughlin turn the phone over. And,
if Coughlin was so quick to leave after allegedly receiving the phone, and Goble was able to
verify that, then why did Zarate testify that he called another friend first to see if it was their
iphone, then communicated some more and pieced together information? Maybe it woudl be
worthwhile to actually interviewing Lucy Byington or Nicole Watson to verify whether
Coughlin rode passed then a time or two in a loop around the skate plaza prior to any such
alleged retrieval of the phone, or otherwise demonstrated a complete lack of "fleeing" or
felonious attempt to quickly "carry away". Judge Sferrazza (who is really, really smart)
picked up on the importance of that. Jim, you come across as not even really comprehending
what the elements of the crimes charged are? You completely failed to address many of
them, including, but not limited to the "taking", "carrying away", intent element (see my pretrial memorandum in that regard), and the valuation element.
Mr. Leslie, you approach, beyond what at times appears to be an attempt to just throw the
case, at other times indicates that you decide to find a thing or two to argue, and thereby
deem your work "good enough" not to get disbarred or sued. That is a risky approach,
liability wise. You can do it, champ! You don't have to rely on these tacky moves you cling
to, where you demand the bailiff's come in and wreck shop for you on anyone pointing out
your sleazy, lazy, incompetent tactics. Merely addressing the Court in a slow,
hyperpretentious delivery just is not going to cut it. Dig deep. Judge Sferrazza is getting a
bit tired of your spin, and it shows. When he says things like "I realize that" after you respond
to a pointed inquiry he makes with some vague high school civics level schlock about facts
and presentation and how you understand them (ie, you don't, you didn't bother to do much
more than debase Goodnight's "meh" Motion to Suppress with a highlighter. Clearly, the
filings I submitted on this case are light years ahead of anything either of you did. Jim, you
haven't even filed anything. You presented some Memorandum on attorney client conflicts,
that wasn't even on pleading paper, and did not contain a single actual fact related to the
instant cases (hey, Jim can copy and paste from a Wikipedia result after a Google search,
right on....).
I can still see that look in your eye, Jim, when you looked at the ocr'd, text searchable, 1,000
page pdf file I had on my laptop of the universe of this case, revealing that you were just
beginning to come to grips with the fact that the game had passed you by..."What's that....is
that WordPerfect?"....Its OpenOffice. "The County laptop takes a while to boot up".
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Please querry Goble (to the extent legally allowable at this point) by an interview before the
Trial resumes (you don't get to chill until the competency evaluation comes back and then
burst headlong into trial and continue on with your reprehensible derogation of your duty to
your client and your office) as to what exactly occurred and was communicated to and with
him between Duralde and Rosa and Alaksa, especially from about the 3:35 minute mark on
the arrest video to the 5:00 minute mark. The arrest video is time stamped by its filed name,
and this is verified by the police reports time stamping, and, perhaps, by the call records you
allege to have subpoened (in a curiously rapid fashion...I would like to see the subpoena and
the records produced, your "hide the ball" from your client approach is absolutely disgusting,
as is your base attempts to coopt modern psychiatry and innuendo in your quest to avoid
doing any actual work, while also buttering up your political connects). I wish to be present
or afforded a recording of any such investigatory interviews with Goble to the extent legally
allowable. Contrary to Mr. Bosler's take, my research does not reveal any of you are free
from potential personal liability for your misconduct and or malpractice here, and that
includes the mysteriously disappearing Joe Goodnight. Go ahead with your threats Jim,
though you might be careful about putting all that convenienet innuendo on the record
regarding Coughlin's alleged misconduct having some role in Goodnight's removal from the
case at the absolute eleventh hour, thereby terribly prejudicing Coughlin's defense, wasting
court resources, and unnecessarily exposing the County and PD's office, much less the Court,
to the downside of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, if not more. It would seem,
given this is a community property state, any of your spouses might be entitled to informed
consent with respect to the extent to which you all continue to recklessly pursue this tact
where you take a bullying negligent approach in performing your obligation and duties,
rather than doing some actual work.
NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal
behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations... I. The officer may
detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain the persons identity and the
suspicious circumstances surrounding the persons presence abroad. Any person so detained
shall identify himself or herself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of
any peace officer...
22
Obviously, DDA Young's Complains are a study in laziness. Yet the WCPD failed to
make any of the challenges I myself did the work involved to discover.
23
Zach Coughlin"
24
Shortly after Judge Sferrazza ridiculously refused to accept the plea deal Coughlin
voluntarily entered into on 8/27/12, the RJC violated both Marsden and Stankewitz (and still
refused to release the sealed portions of such proceedings) in refusing to allow Coughlin to
remove Leslie as his counsel, on top of having refused to accept Coughlin's filing a Notice of
Appearance/Substitution of Counsel in February 2012 while he was still an attorney licensed
to practice law in Nevada. Additionally Sferrazza denied Coughlin a continuance where
material witness Nicole Watson (Coughlin attempt to put into evidence a video/audio of
25
26
27
28

-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Watson admitting to having seen a still unidentified man pick up a phone off the ground and
exclaim that he would "throw it in the river" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=UYZfEVWGqfA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ6Wp_xOPEE) if someone did not
claim it immediately, was, of course, refused by the same Judge Sferrazza whom readily
granted every ridiculous "hearsay exception" DDA Young sought to invoke as to Officer
Duralde's "testimony" wherein Duralde regularly made statements purporting to justify his
conduct during his investgiation based on unattributed, vague "statements" by witnesses).
Despite Coughlin having moved to appear as co-counsel and or have the WCPD removed six
months prior to the August 29th, 2012 trial date, Judge Sferrazza refused to allow Coughlin
to represent himself, as, clearly, some might say, his agenda was much more readily
accomplised with "Shoeless" Jim Leslie, AKA Jimmy Sleazy, AKA, The Cooler, on board.
Sferrazza readily ignored the perjury by Nathaniel K. Zarate and the suborning thereof by
sleazy WCDA DDA Zachary "Nevada's Norman Nifong" Norman Young, Esq.) exception to
such a defense, ie, that Goble made a "citizen's arrest") whom apparently was removed from
the police force for being too much of a slime, to "investigate" (Evo Novak, "attorney"
Covington, etc), and he threatens Cady:
"Waitress: And here you go. Cady: I'm sorry. I haven't ordered yet. That fellow over there
sent this over, paid for. Cady: Which one? Waitress: That guy that's just leaving. Excuse me.
Kersek: Hey, Cady! Come here. Wait a second. I've been in a real bad mood lately. You
know what you can do to brighten my mood? - No. - Get the hell outta here. I don't mean this
town. I mean the whole state. I don't wanna see ya, hear ya, and i don't wanna smell ya. Are
you my friend? No, I'm not your friend. I thought maybe you were my friend, because I like
to plan my comin's and goin's with friends. But if you're not my friend, I'd call that presump
tuous. I'd call it downright rude, 'cause I ain't your porch-baby. Well, gee-golly-gosh. I sure
am sorry I offended you, you white-trash piece of shit. Ooh, I got the all-over fidgets on that
one! You've really shaken me up. I'm shiverin' all over. It's not necessary to lay a foul tongue
on me, my friend. I could get upset. Things could get outta hand. And then in self-defense, I
could do somethin' to you that you would not like. You feel squirrelly. You just jump. You
threatenin' me? - You threatenin' me? - You catch on fast. 'Cause I'm well within my rights to
be here. And if I stay here, what you gonna do? I don't give a rat's ass about your rights. You
watch your step. What you gonna do, arrest me? You a cop, or were you not good enough to
remain on the force? That's the feelin' I'm gettin' here.
"
and he winds up getting Nolte to sign on to his plan to work outside of the law in hiring
goons to attack Cady:
"Yo, Sam! I thought I'd catch you here. Well, that little smart aleck made me. He what? It
wasn't my fault. He was lookin' to be covered. There is a lot of cutsie-cutsie in that little
prick. I told ya. You know where he was? At the public library reading Thus Spake Zarathus
tra, by Friedrich Nietzsche. He's this German philosopher. Said that God is dead. We can
keep goin' this way, but it's gonna get expensive. I'm not so concerned about days. Stay on
him a few more nights. Do you really want to resolve this situation? I'd love to resolve it.
Then I've got a suggestion. There's men that can be hired, by me, to do a little hospital job on
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Cady. What are we talkin' about here? Two pieces of pipe, a bicycle chain. Sam, he won't be
so scary after that. Are we agreed that I'm a lawyer? Maybe
years ago we'd have taken this
guy and stoned him to death. I can't operate outside the law. The law's my business."
People v. Samuel Bowden (Nolte): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7xJxo223YA
"Cady: The people call Samuel G. Bowden! Do you swear to tell the truth, so help you God?
Somebody's got to man the boat. Did you swear? Nolte: - I'll do it. Cady: - Sit, Danielle.
Don't make light of your duty. You're the jury. Nolte: I swear to tell the truth. What do you
want to know? Cady: Was a prior sexual history ever prepared in connection with my
defense? Was a prior sexual history ever prepared in connection with my defense? It's... I'm
sorry, Your Honor. I agree. That was argumentative. An investigator did prepare a prior
sexual history... on the alleged victim, true? I can ask leading questions. He is a hostile
witness. Would you care to tell the court what the gist was of this report? Nolte: It was
fourteen years ago. I can't remember that. Danielle: How can he answer when you're hitting
him! Cady: 'Cause he's perjuring himself. He knows exactly what it said! Don't you? Nolet: It
said that she was promiscuous. It said that she had three lovers in one month. Cady: At least
three! And did you show this report to the D.A.? Nolet: - No. Cady:- No, I had to. I only
discovered it after I petitioned to represent myself. Six years into my sentence! There it was
in the court file! But back in '78 you buried it! Would you care to tell the jury why? Would
you care to tell the court why? Nolte: Because I know he brutally raped her and beat her.
Cady: Talk to me! I'm standing here! Nolte: Just because she was promiscuous didn't give
you the right to rape her....You were a menace! Cady: You were my lawyer! That report
could have saved me fourteen years! Nolte: - You're probably right. Cady:- You selfrighteous fuck! Cady: I'm Vergil and I'm guiding you through the gates of hell. We are now
in the 7th Circle, the Circle of Traitors. Traitors to country! Traitors to fellow man!
Traitors to God! You, sir... are charged with betrayin' the principles of all three! Quote for
me the American Bar Association's Rules of Professional Conduct, Canon Seven. Nolte:
"A lawyer should represent his client... " Cady:"Should zealously represent his client within
the bounds of the law. " I find you guilty, Counselor! Guilty of betraying your fellow man!
Guilty of betraying your country and abrogatin' your oath! Guilty of judging me and
selling me out!...Forget about that restrainin' order, Counselor..."
21
Leslie: that's mine.
22
Watts what did you put that there is a Leslie: because I was trying to focus the readers
attention on the quotation that I have put this summary in Exhibit 1 and is circling the web
site address that was referenced in the e-mail and no and so that was so the reader can focus
on what I was going to.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Watts: Your Honor if I may approach again

court of course
Watts Your Honor am handing in exhibit that was previously marked as exhibit 1B to the
application Mr. Leslie to recognize that document
-
Leslie yes
Leslie this is the website that I was directed to when I put the website address in the e-mail
into my Web server and this page that I was taken to
3
4
Watts and who created this document?
Leslie: I printed this apron that question am I computer and printed out the website
Watts was there and have sure application for a protection order
Leslie correct
Watts and what was the purpose of including this document?
Leslie: simply to show the reader what it was that I saw when I fall that website to his
destination and saw the description on their of the movie Cape fear as I summarize Exhibit 1
quote and time
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Watts check for missing the previous and him and him and want to Mr. Leslie continuing in
exhibit 1B on the right-hand side there is a box that starts with Cape fear 1991
Leslie: yes
Watts: have you had a chance to read the information that box
Leslie yes
Watts cause you any concern?
Leslie: I quoted this and I indicated in my summary that this was description
Watts: can I get you to turn to page 5 of exhibit 1A
e-mail
Leslie are Watts correct staff about a what is your is the one who is Mr. Coughlin, some
questions
(Exhibit 1B consists of NNDB Panel Chair John Echeverria's 11/16/12 Order in Case
No: NG12-0204, NG12-0434, and NG12-0435, which reads:
It has come to the attention of the Panel Chair that Zachary B. Coughlin ("Re
spondent") has been contacting the Reno and Las Vegas Offices of Bar Counsel, the Panel
Chair's law office and the Court Reporter who recorded the disciplinary proceedings at the
State Bar office.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
That Respondent immediately cease and desist contacting anyone at the State , Bar of
fices, the Panel Chair, the panel chair's staff, any of the Panel Members or their staffs, or
the Court Reporter including her employer, Sunshine Reporting while this matter is
pending decision Respondent is hereby reminded that the Panel will be deliberating at a
future date and may take this conduct into consideration.
DATED this 16th day of November, 2012. by John P. Echeverria, Esq., Chair,
Formal Hearing Panel. (The Certificate of Service attached thereto is signed by Laura
Peters, an employee of the State Bar of Nevada)
(Then Pat King the fraud alleges at the 1/4/13 hearing to extent the TPO in RCP12607 that Coughlin was harassing just about everyone in trying to get a copy of the
record/transcript of the 11/14/12 disciplinary proceeding...only problem is, King failed to an
swer any of Coughlin's requests for such starting the day after the hearing...despite his being
required to under SCR 119. King finally responded to Coughlin's requests one month later,
after King was able to obtain an unfair advantage in having the transcript ahead of Coughlin:
"Transcript? From: Patrick King (PatrickK@nvbar.org) This sender is in your safe list.
Sent: Tue 12/18/12 3:07 PM To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Cc: David Clark (DavidC@nvbar.org) Attachments: 1 attachment Transcript
receipt_121812.pdf (41.8 KB) December 18, 2012 Good Afternoon Mr. Coughlin, I am ad
vised that you called the State Bar to ascertain how you may obtain an official copy of the
transcript of your disciplinary hearing. David Clark asked me to respond to your request.
While I cannot give you legal advice, I can direct you to Supreme Court Rule 119. Pursuant
to that rule, The record of a hearing shall be made available to the attorney at the attorneys
expense on request made to bar counsel. See SCR 119 1. I have asked Sunshine Reporters to
provide me with the amount it will cost to purchase a copy of the transcript. The cost of the
transcript is $2,518.20. You may purchase a copy of the transcript directly from Sunshine
Reporting. A copy of the invoice that Sunshine sent us is attached. Patrick King, Assistant
Bar Counsel"
So King argues for a Workplace Harassment TPO/EPO based on his non-sequitur al
legation that Coughlin "called the court reporter" seeking a transcript (which King alleged
somehow "frightened" her), only for King to then write Coughlin and direct him to seek any
purchase of a copy of the transcript directly through that very firm...
Such is similar to King's ridiculous act of sending Coughlin a letter demanding that he
call the SBN ahead 15 minutes to announce if he would be appearing to file a document, then
alleging Coughlin scared him and the SBN so bad by doing just that, calling ahead and an
nouncing he would be there shortly to do so.)
Further, what becomes clearer upon a review of the 1/4/13 EPO Hearing is that the
synergy one hears between King, Peters, and Judge Pearson explains a lot in considering the
nearly identical approach to obstructing justice taken by all three (King even praises the RJC
for its insipid, fraudulent, unlawful, specious, and callow 12/20/12 "Administrative Order
2012-01" at one point, bringing to mind the question, how would King have known about
that at such point...and do any such back room contacts with judges violated the principles
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
elucidated in In Re Ward, and In Re Erickson and there ilk, as outlined in Coughlin's 1/24/13
email to DAS Officer Celeste Brown, which seems to have begat RPD Detective Yturbide's
1/25/13 commencing of his, uh, investigation, at least as much as Coughlin' 1/24/13 email to
the WCDA and SBN (Judge Pearson made clear his EPO did not apply to anything other then
the physical space inhabited by the SBN's Northern Office, so such email is not a violation
either).
Additionally, King and Peters ridiculous contention that Coughlin "had no business
left to do with the" State Bar speaks, interestingly, both to their utter incompetence and lack
of knowledge with regard to the law attendant to the positions they are so overpaid to inhabit,
but also to their fraudulence in general. Clearly, there is quite a little bit to do immediately
after a disciplinary panel's recomendation comes down, and, allegedly (its really not that hard
to believe because she sounds like a stoner on the phone, an airheaded one at that...actually, I
apologize, that's an insult to honest, hard working, intelligent stoners everywhere to compare
them to Laura Peters) Peters was unaware of all the required by SCR 105 joint appendix
making, the NRAP 10, and NRAP 11 issues, etc. etc., not to mention that fact that SCR
119(3) makes NRCP applicable, which often entails the filing of, say, NRCP 52/59/60 Mo
tions, Motions for New Trial, Motions to Alter or Amend both the FOFCOL and to whatever
extent said FOFCOL is viewed as an "Order" or "Judgment", etc., etc., plus Chair Echeverria
clearly provided Coughlin with the opportunity to present post-hearing briefing and motion
work.
The 2/13/13 ROA in 62337 before the Nevada Supreme Court is material defi
cient in a multitude of respects, including, but not limited to, the following documents
Coughlin submitted for filing being missing from the Record on Appeal: 1) a 10/31/12 filing
title Pre-Hearing Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law
(42 pages long with Exhibit 1 in disc form) 10 31 12 0204 Pre Hearing Motion to Dismiss
and for Summary Judgement and Memorandum of Law (Responsive Pleading).pdf (10.4
MB)
FW:
From:
Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sun 11/11/12 7:50 AM

To: skent@skentlaw.com (skent@skentlaw.com); mike@tahoelawyer.com (mike@
tahoelawyer.com); nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net (nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net); patrickk@n
vbar.org (patrickk@nvbar.org); fflaherty@dlpfd.com (fflaherty@dlpfd.com); davidc@n
vbar.org (davidc@nvbar.org); complaints@nvbar.org (complaints@nvbar.org); tsusich@n
vdetr.org (tsusich@nvdetr.org); je@eloreno.com (je@eloreno.com); cvellis@bhfs.com (cvel
lis@bhfs.com)
3 attachments
10 31 12 0204 Pre Hearing Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgement and
Memorandum of Law (Responsive Pleading).pdf (10.4 MB) , 10 31 12 subpoena on
peters and waiver of service.pdf (541.5 KB) , ex x harris silverman coughlin garin 0204 11
11 12.pdf (9.8 MB)
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
...
Please find attached the file stamped versions of the 10 31 12 subpoena duces tecum for
which SBN Laura Peters signed a waiver of service or similar
and the 10 31 12 Pre Hearing Motion to Dismiss Summary Judgment/Memorandum of Law
(Response)...
-11/9/12 Emergency Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss or Quash or Otherwise Challenge
Sufficiency of Service and of Process, of Complaint and Notice of Intent to Take
Default and DoWSoE; and Preserving for Appeal Objection to All other Due Pro
cess Violations; and UNDER PROTEST...RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT (digital
file faxed and emailed to SBN was titled 11 9 12 response under protest 0204 and vari
ous motions and notices 0204 etc.pdf; 88 page document submitted for filing (index to
exhibits: 1. exhibit 1: cd with relevant materials copied via digital transmission as well)
Photographs and other evidence detailing the personal delivery of this document and
Coughlin's presenting such for filing and file stamping to the SBN shortly before 5 pm
(the SBN had its doors locked and a sign on the front door indicating the following
Monday, 11/12/12, being a holiday, would see the SBN closed, to reopen on 11/13/12
(relevant to any less than 11 days NRCP 6 analysis given that Monday was a non-ju
dicial day (SCR 105(2)(c) provides for access up to within 3 days of the formal hear
ing) on 11/9/12 were gathered and are now presented following the Proof of Service to
that filing. Even where the SBN may dispute whether or not its doors (and therefore the
doors to the court and filing office (ie, the file stampe that apparently only SBN
Clerk of Court Peters is able to utilize) were closer prior to 5 pm on 11/9/12, the failure
to included or memorialize the 88 page document Coughlin submitted for filing and the
Exhibit 1 on a disc attached thereto in either of the ROA's submitted to this Court by
the SBN is troubling, unexplained, and unjustifiable.
While Bar Counsel asserted some timeliness deficiency with respect to various documents
submitted for filign by Coughlin, any such contention does not justify King unilaterally
controlling the Clerk of Court and enjoying the advantage of excising from the record
those filings by Coughlin that are particularly destructive to the OBC's Complaint. Fur
ther, the applicability of NRCP Rule 12(a)(4)(A) (...if the court denies the motion or
postpones its disposition until the trial on the merits, a responsive pleading shall be
served within 10 days after notice of the courts action...) in light of SCR 119(3) and
SCR 105(4) makes the overly narrow time for response set out in Chair Echeverria's
11/7/12 Order (which Couglin would not even have had, under NRCP 6(e), constructive
notice of by the 11/9/12 deadline set out therein).
24
26
Besides personally delivering the 88 page (with disc attachment) 11/9/12 Emergency
Mtn...to the SBN minutes prior to 5 pm on 11/9/12, Coughlin also faxed and emailed
the same:
27
Emergency Ex Parte Motion NG12-0204, 0434,0435
25
28
Sun 11/11/12 4:13 AM

-
To: (skent@skentlaw.com) (skent@skentlaw.com); (mike@tahoelawyer.com) (mike@

tahoelawyer.com); (nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net) (nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net); (patrick
k@nvbar.org) (patrickk@nvbar.org); (fflaherty@dlpfd.com) (fflaherty@dlpfd.com);
(davidc@nvbar.org) (davidc@nvbar.org); (complaints@nvbar.org) (complaints@n
vbar.org); (tsusich@nvdetr.org) (tsusich@nvdetr.org); (je@eloreno.com) (je@eloreno.
com); (cvellis@bhfs.com (cvellis@bhfs.com)
1
2
3
4
5
...Emergency Ex Parte Motion NG12-0204, 0434,0435

please find attached 88 page Emergency Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss or Quash or Other
wise Challenge Sufficiency of Service
6
7
8
9
10
and of Process, of Complaint and Notice of Intent to Take Default and DoWSoE; and Pre
serving for Appeal Objection to All other Due Process Violations; and UNDER
PROTEST...RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
submitted for filing with the State Bar of Nevada on November 9th, 2012...
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
11 9 12 response under protest 0204 and various motions and notices 0204 etc.pdf
Coughlin submitted for filing minutes prior to 5 pm on 11/9/12 a filing suffi

cient to meet any non-void Order of 11/2/12 or 11/7/12 or otherwise by the Panel Chair in
this matter, though, curiously, that 88 page filing (with a voluminous attached Exhibit 1, in
cluding the submission of a form thereof on digital disc with vast hyperlinking and Skydrive
access) is not to be found in either of the versions of the ROA submitted for filing in 62337
by the SBN. Of course, this is of material relevance to the FOFCOL's finding and conclusion
that some purported failure on Coughlin's part to so comply with those Orders (which imper
missibly depart from NRCP 12's dictates vis a vis affording a party at least 10 judicial days to
file an Answer upon such party's Motion to Dismiss being Denied, with NRCP made applic
able via SCR 119(3). It sure is curious how the documents submitted for filing by Coughlin
that are the most damaging to the SBN and various greivant's cases, and which containing the
most inflammatory (though, completely true) information continually seem to be lost or
otherwise not included in the ROA by the SBN, even where, say,
11/30/12 amended MOTION FOR FURTHER RECOGNITION OF IN FORMA PAU
PERIS STATUS AND FOR PUBLICATION OF TRANSCRIPT AT BAR'S EX
PENSE OR WITHOUT PAYMENT UP FRONT OR FOR RELEASE OF RECORD
INGS AND OR ROUGH DRAFT OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AND FOR
COPY OF ALL FILINGS SUBMITTED WHETHER FILE STAMPED OR NOT AND
FOR FILE STAMP TO BE APPLIED TO ALL SUBMISSION PAST, PRESENT,
AND FUTURE GIVEN PERMISSION TO FILE BY FAX WAS PREVIOUSLY
PROVIDED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2012; and MOTION FOR MISTRAIL DUE TO
... (16 pages with a Disc for Exhibit 1; index to exhibits: 1. exhibit 1: cd with relevant
materials copied via digital transmission as well filename for that copied by fax, and
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
email in addition to personal delivery to SBN and NNDB: 11 30 12 0204 amended

motion for further recognition of ifp.pdf).
Further, the extent to which the SBN has manipulated the settings on the scanner utilized
to creat copies for the ROA of the documents Coughlin submitted for filing is now bor
dering on the absurdly fraudulent. What else explains the fact that all the instances of
Coughlin attaching USPS Track & Confirm printouts for the various Certified Mailings
and Receipts that became of material relevance in this matter. Such issues resulted in
the inclusion, by the SBN, at page 216 of the ROA, of such a printout, which appears to
border on professional misconduct where such printout was clearly placed in the SBN
filed only after Coughlin's 11/8/12 Well Would you Look at that Filing and Cough
lin's 11/8/12 Notice of Non-Service of Notice of Intent to Take Default of 10/9/12
placed the SBN on notice as to the fact that the SBN's own error (placing an insufficient
amount of postage on the 10/9/12 NOITTD, and thereafter only mailing such filing via
one method (certified mail) prevented Coughlin from receiving that 10/9/11 NOITTD,
which, obviously, had a material effect on the legitimacy of the Notice of Formal Hear
ing and the continued holdering thereof in consideration of the dictates of SCR 105(2)
(c) and the required number of days afforded Coughlin thereof to provide sufficient no
tice and time to prepare for his opportunity to be heard.
Https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?
cid=43084638f32f5f28&page=self&resid=43084638F32F5F28%214689&parid=43084
638F32F5F28%21121&authkey=%21AOivjWACR61EcE&Bpub=SDX.SkyDrive&Bsrc=SkyMail
2. Further, the SBN, NNDB, and Panel have been particularly obstructionist with re
gard to allowing Coughlin any access to any docket in the matter appealed in 62337
(even where the 12/14/12 FOFCOL repeatedly refers the reading to See Pleadings
Docket
6. Coughlin appropriately submitted a request for the Transcript of the 11/14/12 Hear
ing and even where offerring to pay for it, under protect, the SBN,NNDB, and Panel
failed to allow Coughlin to procure such a transcript (despite long prior therto having it
themselves) until King sent Coughlin, on December 18th, 2012 information in that re
gard. Furhter, the ROA 's Hearing Exhibits (one of which, Exhibit 16, was created sua
sponte by Chair Echeverria and not provided to Coughlin, and is not a complete copy of
what the Chair Purports it to be, and furhter, a multitude of cd/dvd disc attachments to
Coughlin's various filings have not been sent by the SBN/Clerk of Corut to the Nevada
Supreme Court Clerk's Office, on top of the SBN/its Clerk of Court failing to file stamp
in a number of Coughlin's filings, for no apparent reason, which is particularly troub
ling where the Notice that Laura Peters Affidavit of 10/9/12 is Whopper Chocked makes
some extremely damning allegations with respect to fraudulent conduct by Peters and
the SBN in failing to file in Coughlin's filings.
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SCR Rule 105(3). Review by supreme court....(a) Time and manner of appeal. A de
cision of a hearing panel shall be served on the attorney, and service shall be deemed No
tice of Entry of Decision for appeal purposes. Except as provided in Rule 105(3)(b), a de
cision is final and effective 30 days from service, unless an appeal is taken within that
time. To the extent not inconsistent with these rules, an appeal from a decision of a
hearing panel shall be treated as would an appeal from a civil judgment of a district
court and is governed by the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure....(b) De novo re
view of public discipline.... Review under this paragraph shall be commenced by bar
counsel forwarding the record of the hearing panel proceedings to the court within
30 days of entry of the decision..
The 12/14/12 FOFCOL by the Panel is just that, a Findings of Fact; Conclusions of
Law...not a decision sufficient to invoked SCR 105(3), just yet. The use of the term re
cord in SCR 105(3)(b), along with SCR 119(3), arguably makes applicable NRAP 10 and
11.
SCR 105(4): 4. Rules of procedure. The chairs, after consulting with their respect
ive disciplinary boards, may adopt rules of procedure, subject to approval by the board of
governors. Despite numerous attempts by Coughlin to be afforded, in writing, any such
rules adopted by the NNDB, Coughlin has been unable to obtain any such expression, and,
despite looking for quite some time, unable to find any published adopted rules.
SCR Rule 109. Service.. 2. Other papers. Service of other papers or notices re
quired by these rules shall be made in accordance with Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 5, un
less otherwise provided by these rules. Bar Counsel David Clark is a registered electronic
filer with with Nevada Supreme Court, as such, he, and thefore the SBNs OBC have con
sented to electronic service (including fax), in writing...to go along with the express indica
tions that Coughlin was permitted to do so made by Laura Peters, whom both Peters and Bar
Counsel Clark have held out to Coughlin, verbally and in writing, as the SBN's Clerk of
Court, and to go along with numerous other instances wherein the SBN'c OBC has permitted
other Respondents to file by fax. Further, it is a reprehensible waste of the Bar's and the
Nevada Supreme Court's resources that Pat King is not a registered efiler, and given Mr.
King's track record of extremely dubious attempts to gain a head start on Respondent's and
otherwise manipulate the playing field, the infusion of some digital accountability into King's
professional life is sorely needed. And Mr. King should go easy on the SCR 106 at every
turn approach.
Rule 119. Additional rules of procedure.... 1. Record. The record of a hearing shall
be made available to the attorney at the attorneys expense on request made to bar
counsel....ard or hearing panel having jurisdiction, but will not justify abatement of any dis
ciplinary investigation or proceeding....3. Other rules of procedure. Except as otherwise
provided in these rules, the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and the Nevada Rules of Appel
late Procedure apply in disciplinary cases.
Couglin has previously, verbally and in writing, made a request for the record of the
hearing to bar counsel. Just what is included within the purview of those two terms is not
clear (arguably is should extend beyond the transcript and Hearing Exhibits to all pleadings
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on file, and all correspondence (including faxes and emails between the Respondent, Bar
Counsel, NNDB, Panel, and SBN Clerk of Court), and all documents submitted for filing,
even where such were not actually filed in by the SBN's Clerk of Court (or, like with Cough
lin's 10/31/12 Pre-Hearing MTD, MSJ, Memorandum of Law, those that were filed in by the
Clerk, but which, mysteriously, are absent from the ROA), and certainly all exhibits attached
to any filings or documents submitted for filings (King made embarassingly contradictory
statements at the formal hearing with regard to his contention that he copied each member of
the Panel on all of Coughlin's filing in their entirety (many of which included cd/dvd discs at
tached as exhibits containing pdfs, videos, audio transcripts etc., which strongly disprove the
many spurious claims made against Coughlin, all of which seem to lead, in one way or anoth
er, back to one Richard G. Hill, Esq.), and to then be forced to admit that he had not copied
the Panel members on the discs Coughlin attached as Exhibits (Panel member Kent had a
particularly suspect offering in that regard, arguably justying a mistrial), indicating that
neither he, nor, apparently, anyone at the SBN or OBC was equipped with the knowledge of
how or ability to copy a cd/dvd disc, a fact misleadingly hidden from Coughlin throughout
the proceedings. NRCP 59, 52, and 60 are not inconsistent with these rules (a la SCR
119(3)), therefore, King and Clerk of Court Peters ought be required to explain why they
have failed to file in Coughlin's various post-Hearing Motions, including those following the
12/14/12 FOFCOL by the Panel (and an allegation that Coughlin violated an EPO granted the
SBN by allegedly having a courier deliver a Rule 59 and or 52, etc. Motion on the last, or
next to last day to file such, is particularly offensive, as were the statements King made dur
ing the formal hearing with respect to the extent to which he blatantly attempts to rig entire
proceedings and records on appeal, and the appendix to make up for his lack of ethics, in
dustry, or skill. See, In Re Boles (61170, especially the 8/10/12 Opening Brief, pretty much
captures the Pat King way of doings things to a t.).
With deference to Chief Justice Pickering's indication in her 2/7/13 Order (Our pre
liminary review of the record in this case reveals that the record is not submitted in the proper
format. The three-volume record contains double-sided pages, each volume exceeds 250
pages, and not all pages are consecutively numbered. The rules of appellate procedure require
that only one side of the paper may be used; moreover, each volume of the appendix is not to
contain more than 250 pages, and each page is to be numbered consecutively in the lower
right corner. NRAP 30(c)(1), 30(c)(2), 32(a)(1)(A), 32(b). Accordingly, we direct the clerk
of this court to strike the three-volume record filed December 24, 2012, and we order the
State Bar of Nevada to re-submit the record in the proper format.)
NRAP RULE 10. THE RECORD
(a) The Trial Court Record. The trial court record consists of the papers and exhib
its filed in the district court, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, the district court
minutes, and the docket entries made by the district court clerk.
(1) Retention of Record. The district court clerk shall retain the trial court record.
When the Supreme Court deems it necessary to review the trial court record, the dis
trict court clerk shall assemble and transmit the portions of the record designated by
the Supreme Court to the clerk of the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of Rule 11. Any costs associated with the preparation and transmission of the record shall be
paid initially by the appellant, unless otherwise ordered.
(b) The Appellate Court Record.
(1) The Appendix. For the purposes of appeal, the parties shall submit to the Supreme
Court copies of the portions of the trial court record to be used on appeal, including all
transcripts necessary to the Supreme Courts review, as appendices to their briefs. Under
Rule 30(a), a joint appendix is preferred.
(2) Exhibits. If exhibits cannot be copied to be included in the appendix, the parties
may request transmittal of the original exhibits to the Supreme Court under Rule 30(d).
(c) Correction or Modification of the Record. If any difference arises about whether
the trial court record truly discloses what occurred in the district court, the difference
shall be submitted to and settled by that court and the record conformed accordingly.
Questions as to the form and content of the appellate court record shall be presented to
the Supreme Court.
Under Waters the SBN is an arm of the Court, the Nevada Supreme Court,
and it is not clear that the SBN is a district court a la NRAP 10...However, Coughlin
has attempted to seek correction or modification of the record in line with NRAP 10(2)
(c), but given the SBN's propensity for baseless histrionics (stay away letters, calling
the police upon a Respondent complying with an SBN Order to call ahead 15 minutes if
they are headed to the SBN to file something with Clerk of Court Peters, filing for
workplace harassment protection orders, though failing to put up the statutorily re
quired bond and failing to withdrawal upon King becoming a witness where previously
he was, allegedly, only counsel, having indigent Coughlin arrest upon some specious al
legation of his violating a TPO and the subsequent EPO (both of which are subject to
attack on numerous grounds and where obtained on a questionable default basis where
service of the TPO and notice of the extension hearing may have been deficient, violat
ive of both the courthouse sanctuary rule, and the immunity often accorded to attor
ney's and litigants when accessing justice in court and filing offices. Coughlin has been
declared indigent as recently as in a 1/9/13 Order by a Second Judicial District Court
Judge, and such arrest required some $750 cash to bail Coughlin out, and seemed to be
little more than an attempt to obstruct Coughlin's ability to pursue this appeal and or
intimidate him out of pointing out that which has necessarily prejudiced Coughlin's
ability to do so, and were such was a mitigating factor attendant to all the various alleg
ations against Coughlin, none of which actually have merit.
26
NRAP RULE 11. PREPARING AND FORWARDING THE RECORD
27
(a) Preparation of the Record. Upon written direction from the Supreme Court, the dis
trict court clerk shall provide the Supreme Court with the papers or exhibits comprising the
28

-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
trial court record. The record shall be assembled, paginated, and indexed in the same manner
as an appendix to the briefs under Rule 30. If the Supreme Court determines that its review of
original papers or exhibits is necessary, the district court clerk shall forward the original trial
court record in lieu of copies.
(1) Exhibits. If the Supreme Court directs transmittal of exhibits, the exhibits shall not
be included with the documents comprising the record. The district court clerk shall place ex
hibits in an envelope or other appropriate container, so far as practicable. The title of the
case, the Supreme Court docket number, and the number and description of all exhibits shall
be listed on the envelope, or if no envelope is used, then on a separate list.
(2) Record in Proper Person Cases. When the Supreme Court directs transmission of
the complete record in cases in which the appellant is proceeding in proper person, the re
cord shall contain each and every paper, pleading and other document filed, or submit
ted for filing, in the district court. The record shall also include any previously prepared
transcripts of the proceedings in the district court. If the Supreme Court should determine
that additional transcripts are necessary to its review, the court may order the reporter
or recorder who recorded the proceedings to prepare and file the transcripts....
Coughlin is temporarily suspended (as WCDA DDA Watts-Vial pointed out in his last
minute 11/13/12 faxed objection to Coughlin's subpoenas upon 2JDC Judges and personnel),
and, as such, should be accord pro per status hearing, as he was in 60302 (which, along with
60317 (a matter presided over by a Judge who was on the Executive Board of the entity
Coughlin had joined as a defendant in the wrongful termination suit against WLS and Paul
Elcano, whom the Bar called as a witness at Coughlin's formal disciplinary hearing, despite
constructive notice thereof only being provided to Coughlin the day prior to the hearing, and
where the Bar sought to have Hill provide expert testimony thereto. Coughlin hereby re
quest this Court Order the preparation of additional transcripts, at public expense, that are
necessary to its review (including the transcript of both hearings in 11 TR 26800, that res
ulted in NG12-0434 and arguably were required to have already been prepared upon indigent
Coughlin filing (since stricken) multiple Notices of Appeal of such final appealable Orders as
those of 2/28/12 and 3/12/12 in that matter, RMC 11 CR 26405 (which became 61901, and is
at issue in 60331 and 61383). Further, the summary eviction proceeding involving Richard
G. Hill, Esq., (the grievant in NG12-0204, outside of whose office the traffic citations the
subject of the trial in 11 TR 26800 that begat NG12-0434 (and therefore NG12-0435 consid
ering the fact that Bar Counsel obtained the Formal Hearing Exhibit 3 via it being passed
from the judge to her brother, whom was the judge on the criminal trespass trial in 11 CR
26405, where Hill signed the criminal complaint therein, upon his lying to the police result
ing in the wrongful arrest of Coughlin (and there is a multitude of videos of these various ar
rests of an exculpatory nature that Bar Counsel King and the Panel have curiously avoided
like the plague, sufficient to justify this Court requiring the SBN to transmit copies of all the
Exhibits in this matter, including those attached to documents Coughlin submitted for filing,
but, for whatever reason, the SBN chose not to file, curiously, including all the audio tran
scripts of the various hearings at issue in King's 8/23/12 Complaint and the multitude of in
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
sufficiently notice subject matter not included therein that found its way into the 12/14/12
FOFCOL). That summary eviction from Coughlin's former home law office in RJC Re
v2011-001708, and the appeal thereof (Hearing Exhibit 1 emanates from that appeal in
CV11-03628, though not plead in the Complaint in any way...whereas the jaywalking arrest
that Hill succeeded in subjecting Coughlin to on 1/12/12 was pled in the Complaint, though
the Panel refused to admit a video thereof....including footage of Hill's prevarications to the
police). The dates of the summary court eviction that are necessary and should be tran
scribed are 10/13/11, 10/25/11, 11/7/11, 12/20/11, and the Show Cause hearing in the appeal
thereof on 3/23/12 and 3/26/12. Further, given the primacy accorded to a bankruptcy Judges
testimony, especially where such was only constructively noticed to Coughlin the day before
the hearing, the scant appearances before that Judge ought be transcribed, or at least the audio
transcripts furnished and transmitted at public expense (NVB 10-05104, 11-05077 and 1105078), or, such testimony stricken, given the enormously prejudicial nature thereof, the viol
ations of SCR 105.5 and gratituitous Coe Swobe name dropping therein, and the utter paucity
of specifics provided or opportunity to cross-examine given the enormously overreaching
nature of the testimony, and curious peripheral coincidences attendant thereto. Additionally,
the Trial from which NG12-0435 springs, in DV08-01168 is necessary and should be tran
scribed as well. Coughlin provided the audio transcripts of all of these matters as Exhibits to
his various documents submitted for filing.
Additionally, the matter resulting in Couglin's now nine month long temporary sus
pension, the 11/30/11 Trial in RMC 11 CR 22176 (and the 10/10/11 arraignment) ought be
transcribed (involving an allegation of Coughlin consuming $14.00 worth of a candy bar
and cough drops while shopping for an paying for $83.82 worth of groceries at and Indian
Colony owned Wal-Mart, where an arrest was made by tribal police that violated NRS
171.1255, and Coughlin was denied his Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel, and the RMC
failed to adhere to this Court's 2008 Indigent Defense Order and order the preparation of the
transcript at public expense pursuant to NRS 189.030, denied Coughlin a single continuance
despite a multitude of factors weighing in favor of such, likely violate NRS 1.235 in finding
Couglin in direct contempt following his making a motion to disqualify the Judge therein,
and where Couglhin was summarily incarcerated, prejudice to his client's be what it may, for
three days, despite being denied counsel for both the underyling petty larceny charge (Aiger
singer requires such) and the civil contempt charge that the Judge indicated would issue ten
minutes into the Trial (indicating such would issue at the Trial's conclusion, whereupon
Coughlin requested to be appointed counsel in that context as well, Feiock). Additionally,
incident to the criminal trespass matter in 61901, there is a transcript of the 6/18/12 Trial in
11 CR 26405, however, this matter would benefit greatly by the transcription of the hearings
therein on 2/2/12, 4/10/12, and 5/8/12, especially where the matters addressed on the record
therein are so pertinent to the allegation of numerous violations of the mandatory stay in NRS
178.405, recusal and disqualification motions, right to counsel, and RPC 1.2 issues related to
court appointed defenders, and more).
27
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SCR 105(3)(b): The parties shall not be required to prepare an appendix, but rather
shall cite to the record of the disciplinary proceedings. If no opening brief is filed, the matter
will be submitted for decision on the record without briefing or oral argument.
Couglin requests leave to submit such an appendix, and an extension of time to do so,
especially given the lack of communication or cooperation in creating a joint appendix on
Bar Counsel and the SBN's part. NRAP 30
NRAP RULE 30. APPENDIX TO THE BRIEFS
(a) Joint Appendix; Duty of the Parties. Counsel have a duty to confer and attempt to
reach an agreement concerning a possible joint appendix. In the absence of an agreement, the
parties may file separate appendices to their briefs.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
(b) Contents of the Appendix...(1) Transcripts. Copies of all transcripts that are neces
sary to the Supreme Courts review of the issues presented on appeal shall be included in the
appendix.
(2) Documents Required for Inclusion in Joint Appendix. In addition to the tran
scripts required by Rule 30(b)(1), the joint appendix shall contain:
(A) Complaint, indictment, information or petition (including all amendments);
(B) All answers, counterclaims, cross-claims and replies, and all amendments
thereto;
(C) Pretrial orders;
15
(D) All jury instructions given to which exceptions were taken, and excluded when
16
offered;
17
(E) Verdict or findings of fact and conclusions of law with direction for entry of
judgment thereon;
18
19
20
21
(F) Masters report, if any, in nonjury cases;

(G) Opinion;
(H) All judgments or orders appealed from;
(I) All notices of appeal; and
22
(J) Proof of service, if any, of:
23
(i) the summons and complaint;
24
(ii) written notice of entry of the judgment or order appealed from;
25
(iii) post-judgment motions enumerated in Rule 4(a); and
26
27
(iv) written notice of entry of an order resolving any post-judgment motions enumer
ated in Rule 4(a).
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
(3) Appellants Appendix. If a joint appendix is not prepared, appellants appendix to

the opening brief shall include those documents required for inclusion in the joint appendix
under this Rule, and any other portions of the record essential to determination of issues
raised in appellants appeal.
(4) Respondents Appendix. If a joint appendix is not prepared, respondents appendix
to the answering brief may contain any transcripts or documents which should have been but
were not included in the appellants appendix, and shall otherwise be limited to those docu
ments necessary to rebut appellants position on appeal which are not already included in ap
pellants appendix.
(5) Reply Appendix. Appellant may file an appendix to the reply brief which shall in
clude only those documents necessary to reply to respondents position on appeal.
(6) Presentence Investigation Report. If a copy of appellants presentence investigation
report is necessary for the Supreme Courts review in a criminal case and a copy of the report
cannot be included in the appendix, appellant shall file a motion with the clerk of the Su
preme Court within the time period for filing an opening brief or fast track statement that the
court direct the district court clerk to transmit the report to the clerk of the Supreme Court in
a sealed envelope. The motion must demonstrate that the report is necessary for the appeal.
(c) Arrangement and Form of Appendix. The appendix shall be in the form required
by Rule 32(b), shall be bound separately from the briefs, and shall be arranged as set forth in
this Rule.
(1) Order and Numbering of Documents. All documents included in the appendix
shall be placed in chronological order by the dates of filing beginning with the first document
filed, and shall bear the file-stamp of the district court clerk, clearly showing the date the doc
ument was filed in the proceedings below. Transcripts that are included in the appendix shall
be placed in chronological order by date of the hearing or trial. Each page of the appendix
shall be numbered consecutively in the lower right corner of the document.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(2) Page Limits; Index of Appendix. Each volume of the appendix shall contain no
more than 250 pages. The appendix shall contain an alphabetical index identifying each doc
ument with reasonable definiteness, and indicating the volume and page of the appendix
where the document is located. The index shall preface the documents comprising the ap
pendix. If the appendix is comprised of more than one volume, one alphabetical index for all
documents shall be prepared and shall be placed in each volume of the appendix.
(3) Cover. The cover of an appendix shall be white and shall contain the same informa
tion as the cover of a brief under Rule 32(a), but shall be prominently entitled JOINT AP
PENDIX, or APPELLANTS APPENDIX, or RESPONDENTS APPENDIX or AP
PELLANTS REPLY APPENDIX.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(d) Exhibits. Copies of relevant and necessary exhibits shall be clearly identified,
and shall be included in the appendix as far as practicable. If the exhibits are too large
or otherwise incapable of being reproduced in the appendix, the parties may file a mo
tion requesting the Supreme Court to direct the district court clerk to transmit the ori
ginal exhibits. The Supreme Court will not permit the transmittal of original exhibits
except upon a showing that the exhibits are relevant to the issues raised on appeal, and
that the Supreme Courts review of the original exhibits is necessary to the determina
tion of the issues.
(e) Time for Service and Filing of Appendix. A joint appendix shall be filed and served
no later than the filing of appellants opening brief. An appellants appendix shall be served
and filed with appellants opening brief. A respondents appendix shall be served and filed
with respondents answering brief. If a reply brief is filed, any reply appendix shall be served
and filed with the reply brief.
(g) Filing as Certification; Sanctions for Nonconforming Copies or for Substantial
Underinclusion.
(1) Filing an appendix constitutes a representation by counsel that the appendix consists
of true and correct copies of the papers in the district court file. Willful or grossly negligent
filing of an appendix containing nonconforming copies is an unlawful interference with
the proceedings of the Supreme Court, and subjects counsel, and the party represented,
to monetary and any other appropriate sanctions.
(2) If an appellants appendix is so inadequate that justice cannot be done without requir
ing inclusion of documents in the respondents appendix which should have been in the ap
pellants appendix, or without the courts independent examination of portions of the original
record which should have been in the appellants appendix, the court may impose monetary
sanctions...
The ROA filed by the SBN is materially deficient given the applicability of NRAP
32 (see 2/7/13 Order in this matter): NRAP RULE 32. FORM OF BRIEFS, THE AP
PENDIX AND OTHER PAPERS
(a) Form of a Brief....
(1) Reproduction.
(A) A brief shall be reproduced by any process that yields a clear black image of
letter quality. The paper must be opaque and unglazed. Only one side of the paper may
be used.
(B) Text must be reproduced with a clarity that equals or exceeds the output of
a laser printer...
(4) Paper Size, Line Spacing, Margins, and Page Numbers... Margins must be at least
1 inch on all four sides.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Coughlin requests permission to file an additional few pages to supplement this Mo

tion beyond the 10 page limit.
SCR 105(4). Rules of procedure. The chairs, after consulting with their respective dis
ciplinary boards, may adopt rules of procedure, subject to approval by the board of gov
ernors.
Coughlin diligently attempted to obtain express indications from the Clerk of
Court/sbn/nndb/and paenl respective the applicable rules of procedure in this matter incident
to the dicdtates of scr 105(4), but was given the runaround or had the rug pulled out from un
der him by all involved:
Coughlin has been met with silence in his attempts to have the NNDB/Panel/OBC
provide him something in writing or directions as to how I may obtain a copy of any rules ad
opted pursuant to SCR 105(4) pr any other procedural polices, rules, or procedures? Does
the NNDB have a position respecting the misrepresentations made by King and Clerk of
Court Peters vis a vis the SBN asserting the 8/23/12 mailing as a basis for a finding of SCR
109 compliance? Is it the position of the SBN and NNDB that Asst. Bar Counsel King may
communicate with the Panel outside of Coughlin's presence as to substantive and procedural
matters?
From: tsusich@nvdetr.org To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com CC: PatrickK@nvbar.org
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:58:01 -0700 Subject: RE: referral to Northern Nevada Disciplin
ary Board Dear M. Coughlin: I am in receipt of your request for a hearing before the
Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board. I have forwarded your request to the Nevada State
Bar's Northern Office for processing. Please communicate directly with the State Bar con
cerning your case. They are the ones who will process your request and set up any appro
priate hearings. If you have questions you can contact Pat King, the Northern Nevada Bar
Counsel. Sincerely, J. Thomas Susich, Esq. From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcough
lin@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:30 AM To: Tom Susich Subject: re
ferral to Northen Nevada Disciplinary Board Dear Mr. Susich, I am writing to request a
hearing before the Northen Nevada Disciplinary Board and to make sure the Board has the
correct contact information for me. I am representing myself. Sincerely, Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961.
23 ----Filing of papers: Under the statute, the clerk's duties include the obligation
to file all papers properly before him. Hamilton v Department of Industry, Labor & Human
Relations, 56 Wis 2d 673, 203 NW2d 7 (ovrld on other grounds Re Pewaukee (Wis) 241
NW2d 603). The acceptance of the filing of a complaint is a mere ministerial act, and the of
ficer charged with the responsibility of receiving the same is required to accept what is
tendered to him if it is accompanied by the proper fee. State ex rel. Kaufman v Sutton (Fla
App) 231 So 2d 874. As a ministerial officer, it is the mandatory duty of the clerk of the
Court of Civil Appeals to file and forward to the Supreme Court any document tendered to
him appertaining to an appeal in any cause pending in that court which is addressed to the
Supreme Court. Wagner v Garrett, 114 Tex 362, 269 SW 1030. A paper is filed with the
clerk of court when it is delivered to him for that purpose. Morthland v Lincoln Nat. Life Ins.
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Co., 220 Ind 692, 42 NE2d 41, reh den 220 Ind 734, 46 NE2d 203. Footnote 17. State ex rel.
Wanamaker v Miller, 164 Ohio St 174, 57 Ohio Ops 151, 128 NE2d 108.
It is not incumbent upon one who has the ministerial function of accepting the filing of
a complaint to judicially determine the legal significance of the tendered document. State ex
rel. Kaufman v Sutton (Fla App) 231 So 2d 874.
At the 11/14/12 Formal Hearing, Bar Counsel King set out his curious take on just
what is to be included in the ROA, and under just what circumstances the documents Cough
lin submits for filing will actually be filed (and, in the case of the 10/31/12 Pre-Hearing Mo
tion to Dismiss, and for Summary Judgment, and Memorandum of Law that Coughlin has a
file stamped copy of (and see Exhibit 14 from the 11/14/12 formal hearing for a pretty darn
good idea of just what that 10/31/12 file stamped filing missing from the ROA looks like,
with special attention on the file stamping that is obscured through being scratched out,
noting the curious choice of Chair Echeverria in copying the more legible of the the two
choices (between Exhibit 14 and 15) from which to draw his choice for Exhibit 16. Further,
King's Exhibit 12 and 13 were not admitted.
It is the duty of the clerk of the municipal court to file notice of appeal whether
presented in time or not; the determination of the question whether the appeal was properly
taken is the province of the Appellate Term on motion to dismiss. People ex rel. Trost v Bird,
184 App Div 779, 172 NYS 412. Footnote 24. Alexandria Naval Stores Co. v J. F. Ball Bro.
Lumber Co., 128 La 632, 54 So 1035. Footnote 25. Brelsford v Community High School
Dist., 328 Ill 27, 159 NE 237. Footnote 26. State v Gillette's Estate (Tex Com App) 10 SW2d
984 (use of words "at law").
24 Custody and care of records: It is the duty or function of a clerk of court to make and
keep an accurate record 27 of the proceedings in his court 28 and of what the court orders
and adjudges. 29 In the performance of these duties the clerk acts ministerially 30 and un
der the exclusive jurisdiction and direction of the court, 31 and has no power to pass on or
contest the validity of any act of the court which purports to have been done in the perform
ance of its judicial function. 32 Where required by statute the clerk must make some record
of the filing of a paper presented to him, 33 keep a current general index of recorded instru
ments, 34 and keep a trial 35 or special proceeding docket. 36 It is the clerk's duty to care
fully preserve in his office papers filed with him and not to permit their withdrawal or remov
al, 37 except with leave of court. 38 A retiring clerk of court must turn over to his successor
in office all records, books, and property of his office. 39 While it is recognized that a clerk
of court may maintain mandamus proceedings to obtain from his predecessor in office books
and papers in the latter's possession belonging to the office, 40 it has been held that manda
mus will not lie against a private individual acquiring possession of the records sought to be
recovered, though possession was obtained under a pretended claim to the office of clerk,
where no de jure or de facto status was accorded to the claimant. 41 It is the ordinary duty of
the clerk of a court of record to extend the records of the court from the processes and plead
ings on file, and he cannot resort to extrinsic evidence for that purpose. 42 He has the right
to regard as correct, the entries made and the processes issued by his predecessors, and if,
from the inaccuracy of his predecessors, errors are found in the records as extended by the in
cumbent clerk, the fault is not his. 43 He has only the powers incident to his duties as cus
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
todian of the records, and consequently he has no authority to make alterations therein. 44
In fact, he cannot alter the record of his own acts, since the making of the record has ex
hausted his authority, and his only remaining powers are to keep and preserve the record
safely. 45 It is the province of the court alone to correct clerical errors, to effect the restora
tion of papers which have been improperly altered or defaced, and to provide for the substitu
tion of new ones when the originals are lost or stolen. 46 The clerk, as custodian of the re
cords, is subject to the general rules governing custodians of public records with respect to
the rights of abstracters and members of the public generally to inspect or copy. 47 Footnotes
Footnote 27. State v Rockerfeller, 9 Ariz App 265, 451 P2d 623, cert den 396 US 920, 24 L
Ed 2d 199, 90 S Ct 247; Long v Sphaler, 89 Fla 499, 105 So 101; Brelsford v Community
High School Dist., 328 Ill 27, 159 NE 237; State v Furry, 252 Ind 486, 250 NE2d 590; Bush
v Bush, 158 Kan 760, 150 P2d 168; McKay v Coolidge, 218 Mass 65, 105 NE 455; State ex
rel. Caldwell v Cockrell, 280 Mo 269, 217 SW 524; People ex rel. Harris v Lindsay, 21 App
Div 2d 102, 248 NYS2d 691, affd 15 NY2d 751, 257 NYS2d 176, 205 NE2d 312; State ex
rel. Journal Co. v County Court for Racine County, 43 Wis 2d 297, 168 NW2d 836. The
court will take judicial notice that the clerk of court is the legal custodian of the records in his
office. Maroon v Immigration & Naturalization Service (CA8) 364 F2d 982, 2 ALR Fed
292. Footnote 28. State v Rockerfeller, 9 Ariz App 265, 451 P2d 623, cert den 396 US 920,
24 L Ed 2d 199, 90 S Ct 247; Robertson & Wilson Scale & Supply Co. v Richman, 212 Mich
334, 180 NW 470; State ex rel. Morris Bldg. & Inv. Co. v Brown, 228 Mo App 760, 72
SW2d 859; Foglio v Alvis (CP) 75 Ohio L Abs 228, 143 NE2d 641. Footnote 29. State v
Rockerfeller, 9 Ariz App 265, 451 P2d 623, cert den 396 US 920, 24 L Ed 2d 199, 90 S Ct
247; Henderson v Freeman, 205 Ark 856, 171 SW2d 66; Stanton v Arkansas Democrat Co.,
194 Ark 135, 106 SW2d 584; Bush v Bush, 158 Kan 760, 150 P2d 168; Foglio v Alvis (CP)
75 Ohio L Abs 228, 143 NE2d 641; Commonwealth use of Orris v Roberts, 183 Pa Super
204, 130 A2d 226, revd on other grounds 392 Pa 572, 141 A2d 393, 71 ALR2d 1124;
Humphrey v Mauzy, 155 W Va 89, 181 SE2d 329. A prothonotary has an absolute statutory
duty to properly index all judgments and his failure to do so renders him liable on his bond.
Commonwealth use of Orris v Roberts, supra. Footnote 30. State ex rel. Druissi v Almand
(Fla) 75 So 2d 905; People ex rel. Pardridge v Windes, 275 Ill 108, 113 NE 949; State ex rel.
Caldwell v Cockrell, 280 Mo 269, 217 SW 524; Barrett v Barrett, 207 Okla 234, 249 P2d 88.
Footnote 31. People ex rel. Pardridge v Windes, 275 Ill 108, 113 NE 949; Barrett v Barrett,
207 Okla 234, 249 P2d 88. Footnote 32. State ex rel. Druissi v Almand (Fla) 75 So 2d 905.
Footnote 33. State v Brubaker, 352 Mo 414, 177 SW2d 623. Footnote 34. Land v Lewis, 299
Ky 866, 186 SW2d 803, 159 ALR 601 (clerk not required to go back prior to his term of of
fice and make up general index which should have been but was not kept up currently). Foot
note 35. Little v Employer's Casualty Co. 180 Okla 628, 71 P2d 687. Footnote 36. State Trust
Co. v Toms, 244 NC 645, 94 SE2d 806. Footnote 37. Brelsford v Community High School
Dist., 328 Ill 27, 159 NE 237; Ohio Farmers Co-op. Milk Ass'n v Davis, 59 Ohio App 329,
13 Ohio Ops 116, 25 Ohio L Abs 551, 17 NE2d 924. Footnote 38. All papers in a cause
should be preserved by the clerk and should not be taken from the office except with leave of
court. Brelsford v Community High School Dist., supra. Footnote 39. Underwood v Watson,
223 NC 437, 27 SE2d 144. Footnote 40. See State ex rel. Wells v Cline, 29 Okla 157, 116 P
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
767 (by implication). Footnote 41. State ex rel. Wells v Cline, 29 Okla 157, 116 P 767, where
the relator alleged that ever since the organization of the court he had been the de jure and de
facto clerk. Footnote 42. Frink v Frink, 43 NH 508. Footnote 43. Frink v Frink, supra. Foot
note 44. Frink v Frink, 43 NH 508. The duties of a clerk will vary with the nature of the court
and its requirements; thus, in the Supreme Court of the United States, which exercises an al
most entirely appellate jurisdiction, the copies of the record of the case are an essential
part of the procedure, and the clerk is responsible to the court for the correctness and
proper indexing of the printed copies of the record, for their presentation to the justices
in the form and size prescribed by the rules, and for their delivery to the parties entitled
thereto. Bean v Patterson, 110 US 401, 28 L Ed 190, 4 S Ct 23. Such a duty would rarely
be performed by the clerk of a trial court. Footnote 45. Elliott v Lessee of Peirsol, 26 US
328, 7 L Ed 164. Footnote 46. Lewis v Ross, 37 Me 230; Frink v Frink, 43 NH 508; Remick
v Butterfield, 31 NH 70; Chichester v Cande (NY) 3 Cow 39; Hollister v Judges of Dist.
Court, 8 Ohio St 201. Even the court cannot direct the alteration of a true record of what has
been said or done, even though perjured testimony is a part thereof. Coppock v Reed, 189
Iowa 581, 178 NW 382, 10 ALR 1407. Footnote 47. See 1 Am Jur 2d, Abstracts of Title
8-11; 66 Am Jur 2d, Records and Recording Laws 19 et seq. Enforcement of right of in
spection by mandamus, see 37, infra.
27 Effect of breach of duty on rights of litigants:
Those dealing with the clerk of a court concerning an action or matter then pending
have a right to expect that he will perform the ministerial duties connected with his office,
and his neglect or failure to do so should not prejudice their rights. 75 This principle has
been frequently applied in cases where a party seeks relief from a judgment rendered against
him by reason of some mistake or default of the clerk. 76 However, where no duty exists,
77 or where the negligence of the attorney or suitor intervenes, 78 relief will be denied
them, even where they relied on promises or statements of the clerk, 79 or where the clerk
failed to answer letters of inquiry about the status of the case and judgment was rendered
without their knowledge. 80 It may be noted here that the improvident exercise of authority
by the clerk, as where an order of sale is issued by him without the direction of the party en
titled thereto, may not prejudice the rights of innocent purchasers. 81 But where a writ of as
sistance is granted by the clerk, without action of the court, to the holder of a sheriff's deed
on a mortgage foreclosure, the writ is void and should be vacated on direct attack. 82 A clerk
of court is, generally speaking, liable personally and on his official bond to a litigant injured
as a result of his negligence or misconduct. 83 Footnotes Footnote 75. Williams v Tyler, 14
Ala App 591, 71 So 51, cert den 198 Ala 696, 73 So 1002; Hogs Back Consol. Mining Co. v
New Basil Consol. Gravel Mining Co. 65 Cal 22, 2 P 489; Silverman v Childs, 107 Ill App
522; May v Wolvington, 69 Md 117, 14 A 706; Thompson v Sharp, 17 Neb 69, 22 NW 78;
Hopkins v Niggli (Tex) 6 SW 625; Black v Hurlbut, 73 Wis 126, 40 NW 673. Footnote 76.
Ivester v Mozeley, 89 Ga App 578, 80 SE2d 197. Annotation: 164 ALR 552 et seq., III.
Failure of the clerk to notify an appellant of completion of the transcript is good cause for re
fusing to dismiss an appeal on the ground that a certified copy of the judgment and the grant
ing of the appeal was not filed in the appellate court by the clerk, in the time required by stat
ute, particularly where the clerk affirmatively stated that illness of a deputy and rush of busi
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ness had prevented him from completing the transcript in time to file it. Parks v Marshall,
322 Mo 218, 14 SW2d 590, 62 ALR 835. Footnote 77. Trala v Melmar Industries, Inc. (Del)
254 A2d 249; Western Union Tel. Co. v Griffin, 1 Ind App 46, 27 NE 113; Jackson v Jones
(Ky) 336 SW2d 565; Valley Finance Co. v Campana, 112 Ohio App 405, 13 Ohio Ops 2d
472, 83 Ohio L Abs 577, 167 NE2d 654, motion overr. Footnote 78. Western Union Tel. Co.
v Griffin, 1 Ind App 46, 27 NE 113. Footnote 79. Bernier v Schaefer, 11 Ill 2d 525, 144
NE2d 577; Libert v Turzynski, 129 Ill App 2d 146, 262 NE2d 741 (deputy clerk); Western
Union Tel. Co. v Griffin, supra. A clerk of court is not liable, because a party relied upon his
gratuitous advice on a matter having no relation to the duties of his office. Trala v Melmar In
dustries, Inc. (Del) 254 A2d 249. Footnote 80. Williams v Wescott, 77 Iowa 332, 42 NW
314; First Nat. Bank v Wentworth, 28 Kan 183; Ganzer v Schiffbauer, 40 Neb 633, 59 NW
98; Pulaski Oil Co. v Conner, 62 Okla 211, 162 P 464. Footnote 81. Sowles v Harvey, 20 Ind
217, plaintiff obtaining judgment in mortgage foreclosure proceeding may not set aside sher
iff's sale by reason of clerk's unauthorized issue of order of sale on judgment. Footnote 82.
Williams v Sherman, 35 Idaho 169, 205 P 259, 21 ALR 353, wherein a motion to vacate writ
on the ground that it was granted by the clerk without notice was held to be a direct, not a
collateral, attack. Footnote 83. 28 et seq., infra.
28 Negligence or misconduct:
The principle that a public officer should be held to a faithful performance of his official du
ties and made to answer in damages to all persons who may have been injured through his
malfeasance, omission, or neglect 84 applies to the negligence, carelessness, or misconduct
of a clerk of court. 85 As a public ministerial officer, the clerk is answerable for any act of
negligence or misconduct in office resulting in injury to the complaining party. 86 In order
to render the clerk of court and the sureties on his official bond liable for the clerk's misfeas
ance, both a breach of duty and consequent damage must be shown. 87 Moreover, to war
rant relief, the wrong and the resulting injury must concur; the clerk's misconduct or negli
gence must be the direct and proximate cause of the injury. 88 If the injury would have fol
lowed notwithstanding the misconduct, or if the injured party contributed to the result in any
degree by his own fault or neglect or that of his attorney, he has no legal ground of complaint
and the clerk cannot be held responsible. 89 Under applicable statutory provisions, a clerk of
court may be held liable on his bond for failure to issue a writ, citation, or process; 90 for the
improper issuance of letters of guardianship whereby an unauthorized person was able legally
to procure funds of another and squander them; 91 for negligence or misconduct in issuing a
warrant of arrest; 92 for failure properly to docket a judgment; 93 for failure to properly in
dex a judgment; 94 for failure to enter an attachment within the time fixed by law; 95 for
failure to tax costs; 96 for failure to include a judgment on a mortgage certificate furnished
in connection with a partition sale; 97 for failure to reject a surety bond executed by a person
ineligible to act as surety under the statute; 98 for not requiring a surety to qualify upon a
bond executed by him as such surety; 99 or for failure properly to keep records of a case and
for informing the court inaccurately of its status. 1 In those jurisdictions where a clerk of
court serves also as recorder of deeds and mortgages, breach of his duties as a recording of
ficer may give rise to an action on his official bond as clerk, 2 such as his failure to record
an instrument lodged with him for recording.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28 ----Negligence or misconduct Applicability of judicial immunity to acts of clerk of

court under state law, 34 ALR4th 1186. Case authorities: A county clerk of court did not
have sovereign immunity against an action for indemnity by a title insurance company where
the an employee of the clerk's office improperly indexed a document which affected the title
to a parcel of real estate because the clerk had a statutory duty to properly record and index
documents in the public records and public policy considerations favor accountability by the
clerk for negligence. First American Title Ins. Co. v Dixon (1992, Fla App D4) 603 So 2d
562, 17 FLW D 1708, review den (Fla) 613 So 2d 3. Sovereign immunity did not protect
state from liability for failure of county clerk to timely docket judgment since act of record
ing judgment was not discretionary. National Westminster Bank v State (1989, 1st Dept) 155
AD2d 261, 546 NYS2d 864, app gr 75 NY2d 706, 552 NYS2d 929, 552 NE2d 177 and affd
76 NY2d 507, 561 NYS2d 541, 562 NE2d 866. A clerk of court is liable in a civil action for
a negligent omission to perform a statutory duty which proximately causes injury to another,
unless the injured party was contributorily negligent. Maddox v Astro Invest., 45 Ohio App
2d 203, 74 Ohio Ops 2d 312, 343 NE2d 133. The failure of the clerk of the Court of Com
mon Pleas to docket and index a certificate of judgment for several days after it is delivered
and filed constitutes negligence. Maddox v Astro Invest., 45 Ohio App 2d 203, 74 Ohio Ops
2d 312, 343 NE2d 133. 752 SW2d 118. Footnotes Footnote 84. See 63 Am Jur 2d, Public
Officers and Employees 287 et seq. Footnote 85. Lick v Madden, 36 Cal 208. Footnote
86. Eslava v Jones, 83 Ala 139, 3 So 317; Clerks of the Superior Court are no less liable for
the negligent performance of their official duties than for a failure to perform such duties.
Touchton v Echols County, 211 Ga 85, 84 SE2d 81. Footnote 87. Neal-Blun Co. v Rogers,
141 Ga 808, 82 SE 280. Footnote 92. Stine v Shuttle, 134 Ind App 67, 186 NE2d 168, hold
ing that the clerk of court was liable in damages for false arrest based on his negligence or
misconduct in issuing a warrant of arrest. . Footnote 94. Shackelford v Staton, 117 NC 73, 23
SE 101. A prothonotary has an absolute statutory duty to properly index all judgments and
his failure to do so renders him liable on his bond. Commonwealth use of Orris v Roberts,
183 Pa Super 204, 130 A2d 226, revd on other grounds 392 Pa 572, 141 A2d 393, 71
ALR2d 1124. Footnote 98. People v May, 251 Ill 54, 95 NE 999, error dismd 232 US 720,
58 L Ed 814, 34 S Ct 602.See, Stephen v Drew (DC Va) 359 F Supp 746, involving an ac
tion against a clerk of court and others for wrongful commitment of the plaintiff for mental
illness, wherein the court stated that, although some decisions have articulated a "quasi-judi
cial" immunity of clerks of court, clerks of court enjoy no immunity at all. There is no im
munity from suit for clerks of court in the performance of their ministerial duties, such as the
filing of papers. McCray v Maryland (CA4 Md) 456 F2d 1.
As such, Bar Counsel 11/2/12 argument within his Ex Parte Emergency Motion to
Quash Coughlin's subpoena on Clerk of Court Peters should not benefit from an SCR 106 ap
plication (nor should a subpoena on bar counsel, really, especially where Coughlin was re
peatedly forced to testify, while acting as his own counsel in self representing, to the very
sorts of matters to which Coughlin sought to question King and Peters, including whether
they received this or that, what the envelope on the 10/9/12 filed Notice of Intent To Take
Default indicated (Coughlin witnessed downtown USPS Clerk Tim make a handwritten
notation thereon upon refusing to provide such certified mailing to Coughlin due to the insuf
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ficient postage the SBN had affixed to mailing, one for which the SBN sent to Coughlin by
one, and only one method, a single certified mailing (in steadfastly refusing to acquiesce to
Coughlin's requests that the OBC/Clerk of Court/NNDB/Panel copy Coughlin on every such
filing or communication via fax or email or both (domestic violence victim issues, USPS Of
ficial Change of Address Issues, Coughlin essentially being to scared of local law enforce
ment for some time to make his physical address public, etc.).
PETERS AND THE sbn violate whitman, sullivan, donoho, barnes and their progeny
where refusing to file coughlin's submission and NRCP 5(e).
SCR 105(2)(f) does note permit the SBN to fail to transmit the Respondnet the ROA's
volume 3:
(f) Court reporter. All formal hearings shall be reported by a certified court reporter,
which cost may be assessed against the attorney pursuant to Rule 120. Any party desiring to
have any other disciplinary proceedings reported must arrange in advance for a certified court
reporter at the partys own expense.
\
scr 105(3). Review by supreme court.
(a) Time and manner of appeal. A decision of a hearing panel shall be served on the at
torney, and service shall be deemed Notice of Entry of Decision for appeal purposes. Except
as provided in Rule 105(3)(b), a decision is final and effective 30 days from service, unless
an appeal is taken within that time. To the extent not inconsistent with these rules, an appeal
from a decision of a hearing panel shall be treated as would an appeal from a civil judgment
of a district court and is governed by the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure
In titling the 12/14/12 FOFCOL as it did (the title of the filing under the caption indic
ates it to be a Findings of Fact; Conclusions of Law...failing to identify such, in any way,
as a Recommendation, Decision, Ruling, Order, or any other similar designation sufficent to
invoke SCR 105(3), the Panel has failed to enter a decision sufficient to satisfy SCR
105(3), making the SBN's filing of either version of the ROA premature, as, also, is the issu
ance of any Briefing Schedule. Further, Chair Echeverria clearly provided for, on the record,
during the 11/14/12 formal hearing, for the submission of post-hearing briefs, and King, and
SBN Clerk of Court Peters have failed to faithfully included such and the exhibits attached
thereto in the ROAs that they have submitted to this Court.
Is it that NNDB/panel/ and obc's psoition that motions for new trial are impermiss
ible? does the sbn /clerk of court have the authority to unilaterally not filethem in? (scr oh,
and there is definitely a part to the conversation with Laura Peters of 9/11/12 where Couglin
expessly, specifically makes clear to her that he is not indicating one way or the other wheth
er he received the Complaint (that that actual receipt of the Complaint mattered much in
60302 when it came to Elcano and Washoe Legal Services...parties are entitled to demand
strict and actual compliance with service rules vis a vis complaints.
will you please stipulate to the 5 day extension at least, and more preferably the 30 day exten
sion?
Couglin has sought to finally be provided something in writing from each the SBN,
SBN Clerk of Court, Panel Chair and Chair of the NNDB representing the actual state of the
law in this Disciplinary District under SCR 105(5), please? i don't think it is acceptable to go
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
inserting in page 216 in the ROA, nor is it acceptable only mail Appellant two of the three
volumes.. How is it permissible to just place an RJC TPO/EPO in RJC RCP2012-000607
into the ROA in 62337 disciplinary matter, not even as an attachment to some filing in
62337, but just as some odd stand alone fixture placed into the ROA? How is it okay to sud
denly decide to put a 10/9/12 Affidavit of Laura Peters in the file where reodering the Alpha
betical index according to chronology reveals that Affidavit (which lacks a caption, and a
proof of service, etc., etc)...there is no division between the NNDBPANELSBNCLERKOF
COURTOBC....May I please have a file stamped copy of the cover page and of the cd/dvds
attached to the motion for new trial and the supplment/amended mtn for new trial, etc.?
Is it that NNDB/panel/ and obc's psoition that motions for new trial are impermissible?
does the sbn /clerk of court have the authority to unilaterally not file them in? The SBN is
apparently resting upon some contention that Coughlin violated a TPO and EPO in RJC
RCP2012-000607 in the alleged manner in which he submitted for filing on 1/3/13 a Motion
for New Trial, etc. and an amended or supplemental version thereof (in compliance with
NRCP 15) on 1/17/13 or thereabouts (and prior to any Opposition thereto being filed by the
SBN or the expiration of the time period in which such was permitted). Even if Coughlin's
allegedly submitting a filing by fax on 1/17/13 (and, to be clear, the SBN/Panel/NNDB/OBC
had previously communicated to Coughlin that such was a permissible method of submitting
filings, and at no point was it ever communicated to Coughlin that such procedure had been
altered or any permission to do so withdrawn...and the curious and unexplained appearance
of the 10/9/12 Affidavit of Laura Peters, and the shuffling of the positioning thereof in con
sidering its placement in the 11/8/12 delivered 3,200 page production to Coughlin of a sort of
consolation for the the SBN violation SCR 105(2)(c) in forbidding Coughlin the access he
was entitled to (allegedly, pursuant to Chair Echeverria's 10/31/12 Order), then in the first
ROA filed herein on 12/24/12, then, again, in a third different position in the second ROA
filed on 2/13/12. That 10/9/12 Affidavit of Laura Peters is an unique thing indeed. How it
got in the file is unexplained. To what filing it belongs or was attached is never made clear,
nor is the matter of why it lacks a caption or Proof of Service on Coughlin.
Further, the proximity of Coughlin's arrest on 2/1/13 after 7 pm considering Coughlin
email to WCDA Criminal Division early morning 2/1/13 is troubling. Additionally, WCDA
DDA Watts-Vial's refusal to respond to Coughlin's properly issued subpoenas in his formal
disciplinary hearing (see Watts last minute 11/13/12 fax to Coughlin refusing to have 2JDC
Judges and Administrators appear or to produced materials requred by Coughlin's subpoena
duces tecum, all properly issued under SCR 110, and where no fees were required give SCR
105(4) and SCR 119(3), and where the Panel Chair's 11/7/12 Order Quashing subpoenas on
RMC Judges is void anyways given jurisdiction to so rule, under SCR 111(4) resides with
NNDB Board Chair Susich, not Panel Chair Echeverria, and where such does not apply to
supboenas issued to 2JDC Judges and personnel. Coughlin sought to have 2JDC and or
Watts-Vial compelled to so produced such at the peril of contempt at the 11/14/12 formal
hearing. Further, even if NRCP 45 was applicable, as DDA Watts-Vial's 11/13/12 fax indic
ates, Coughlin has been characterized as an attorney and Coughlin was authorized to prac
tice and appear pro se in that matter in State Bar Court of the SBN, including by express as
sertion made to Couglin on 10/15/12 by Asst. Bar Counsel King, relaying Chief Bar Coun
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
sel's David Clark's decision vis a vis Coughlin's right to issue his own subpoenas (versus
goign to the SBN and have Clerk Peters do so), and further in consideration of the 7/27/12
writing to Coughlin by NNDB Chair Susich directing Coughlin to confer with and obtain any
such indications from Bar Counsel, versus the NNDB.
This is what happens shortly after a suspended attorney tenant whom has been burglarized at
least four times this year by local law enforcement under the guise of conducting eviction
lockouts (the wcso doesn't feel like posting such lockout orders then waiting the 24 hours
required by statute, as the Legislature's work is a suggestion at best to Washoe County's poor
Sheriff's most of whom could use the exercise anyways...absolute power has corrupted
absolutely...Plus, Coughlin had just sought to review the files in Rev11-001708, Rev2012000374, rev2012-1048, and RCR2013-065630 (the RJC, cutely, failed to turn over the JAVS
audio transcript of Coughlin's cross-examination of
presenting the SBN and testifying as a witness at the 1/4/13 extension hearing) Coughlin
would likely get another visit from RPC Officer Waddle, whom would probably point his
loaded gun at Coughlin's head from four feet away again for no good reason whatsoever
incident to making another fraudulent arrest at the direction of RPD Detective Ytrubide
(whose wife is a 911 ECOMM dispatcher alongside the same dispatcher Jessica Duralde
whom is married to the same RPD Officer Nick Duralde's whose wrongful, ego drive arrest
of Coughlin on 8/20/11 coincided with the August 2011 wrongful summary eviction of
Coughlin from his former home law office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiW0v...
(8/20/11 wrongful arrest of Coughlin by RPD Duralde)
Judge Clifton, in the hearing right before Coughlin's on 11/20/12 in RCR2012-065630,
laughably found WCPD Jim Leslie, Esq's testimony to be "more credible" in light of Leslie
slowly remember more and more of that which the WCDA's Officer would have needed him
to inform his client of, where initially Leslie could not remember various things, but upon the
judge prompting him as to the need for Leslie to have told his former client of the
immigration and criminal law sentencing enhancements consequences attendant to LopezPastrana, and Leslie thereafter recapitulating.
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/...
So, RJC Judge Pearson just happened to issue a 3/22/13 "Administrative Order 201301" (http://www.wcbar.org/documents/AdminO...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155230762/3-22-13-0204-1048-374-1708-RJC-Chief-JusticePearson-Administrative-Order-2013-01-Within-24-Hours-of-ReceiptAdminOrder2013-01 ) just days after Coughlin's 3/19/13 presentation in RCR2012-065630
and cross-examination of RPD Sargent's Paul Sifre and Marcia Lopez, and RPD Officer
Nicholas Duralde revealed the extent to which the criminal trespass conviction Coughlin
sustained in 61901 involved both a burglary by the Washoe County Sheriff Deputy John
Machen and attorney Casey D. Baker, Esq., and fraudulent conduct by landlord Matt Merliss,
his attorney Richard G. Hill, Esq., and RPD Officer Chris Carter, Jr. and Sargnet Marcia
Lopez.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155231238/5-23-13-0204-071437-1708-1492-Coughlin-sWritten-Request-to-RJC-for-Documents-and-Access what Coughlin submitted to the RJC

Bailiff Heibert in the Mills Lane Justice Center lobby, returned by Heibert with a date
"received" stamp...where Bailiff Reyes attacked Coughlin approximately six minutes later
claiming that Coughlin had refused his Order to wait in the lobby for that which Heibert had
already given Coughlin, especially where both Heibert and Bailiff Ramsey (whom had
admitted to Coughlin to having thrown away the documents Coughlin submitted for filing in
RCR2011-063341 and Rev2011-001708 the day prior, on 5/22/13) admit that they had both
informed Coughlin he would not be permitted to view any files that day, 5/23/13, Heibert
informing Coughlin that an unnamed filing office clerk was refusing to allow Coughlin to
view any material in the criminal division or civil division, and Ramsey informing Coughlin
that he is not permitted to view any of the dozen or so cases in which he has been summarily
evicted since August 2011, indicating to Coughlin "the filing office told me you can't view
any cases because all of your cases are closed and are in Carson now". Here are the
documents Coughlin submitted for filing with the RJC by leaving them with RJC Bailiff
Ramsey:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155231292/5-22-13-02041708-03628-Emergency-NoticeMotion-Request-for-Subm-With-Exh-1-Detailing-12-13-22-11-Supersedeas-Bonds
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155231371/5-22-13-0204-063341-Emergency-Notice-andMotion-and-Request-for-Submission-First-Page-Not-Stamped-RJC-Bailiff-s-Heibert-andRamsey-Rejected
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155231432/5-16-13-0204-063341-Note-From-RJC-Deliveredby-Bailiff-Heibert-on-5-22-13-Stapled-to-Coughlin-s-5-16-13-Request-in-Eviction-as-toDeficiences-in-ROA-a
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155231447/5-16-13-0204-063341-Note-From-RJC-Deliveredby-Bailiff-Heiber-on-5-22-13-Stapled-to-Coughlin-s-5-16-13-Request-in-Eviction-as-toDeficiences-in-ROA-an
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155248350/3-22-12-0204-374-RJC-Stancil-DeclarationRegarding-Failure-to-File-3-16-12-Notice-of-Appeal
The RJC has further violated Nevada law in failing to accord Coughlin the hearings he
is entitled to under NRS 118A.390 where Coughlin filed a Verified Petition for Expedited
Relief from Illegal Lockout in all of the Northwinds Cases: Rev2012-001048 (upon Chandler
filing/posting and Amended 5 Day Unlawful Detainer Notice on 6/28/12, his and Northwinds
continuing to attempt to lock Coughlin out (not to mention seek to have him arrested for
"trespass", not to mention Chandler's "misconduct" at the 7/5/12 Hearing on the Motion to
Vacate (and Judge Schroeder's vast misconduct therein and beyond in that and other matters):
So, the RJC clerks, bailiffs and judges just steadfastly refuse to follow the law or abide
by their duties (failing to transmit Notices of Appeal, failing to accept documents for filing or
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
keep any record thereof, refusing to accept the $250 Coughlin attempted to post as a
supersedeas bond per NRS 40.385, etc., etc.)
So ironic that the very documents that Ramsey and the RJC violated criminal law in
failing to retain even copies of, much less file in, chronicle the "rampant misconduct" by RJC
Bailiffs and clerk attendant to Robbin Baker, Cathy Wood, Christine Erickson (Chief Civil
Division clerk who allegedly does not know that JCRRT 10 does not apply to "landlord
tenant matters" per JCRRT 2, as she has a smug, hostile John Reyes respond to Coughlin's
various attempted filings in Rev2011-001708 by bringing out a highlighted copy of JCRRT
10, which Bailiff Heibert alleges Robbin Baker told him was the basis for rejecting
Coughlin's criminal case filings, the only problem is (See WDCR 18), JCRRT 2 provides that
nothing in JCRRT applies to criminal cases, and the law prohibits courts from applying ticky
tack civil action local rules related to formatting to matters involving the potential loss of
liberty. Heibert repeatedly refused to file in (he says the RJC Clerks will not take them at
times, then other times he says he is rejecting Coughlin's filings) Coughlin's filings in a host
of criminal cases: RCR2011-063341, RCR2012-065630 (a case in which both Bailiff Reyes
announced, on the deadline day for Coughlin to file his post-trial motion, and after Coughlin
had already submitted filings that day, that Coughlin's filings of such a time sensitive
document related to a liberty interest was being rejected by Reyes, sua sponte, in his
"interpretation" of the 12/20/12 Administrative Order in that Reyes was applying a "no more
than one filing per day" wrinkle to the Administrative Order. Upon Coughlin pointing out
the problems associated with this Reyes invaded Coughlin's personal space and dropped
approximately five "f-bombs" with his inimitable cartoon bully swagger. Coughlin reserves
any and all objections to matters not included in the Complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155244644/12-6-12-0204-063341-AO12-01-Email-to-RJCCourt-Administrator-Tuttle-and-RMC-Chief-Marshal-Roper-Bailiff-s-Detaining-MeCourthouse-Sanctuary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155246566/2-5-12-0204-Coughlin-s-TPO-Application-AgainstRJC-Bailiff-Reyes
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155247052/2-28-13-0204-063341-WCDA-DDA-Hezler-2-2513-Letter-With-New-Handwritten-Note-Remailed-Threatening-TRO-TPO
The thing is, Nicholas Hasset, over 18 year old, non-party, served on the RJC, and
Karen Stancil, and Court Administrator Steve Tuttle a SCR 110 subpoena, which was
properly issued (even if NRCP is deemed applicable, which it is not, the SBN/NNDB/Clerk
of Court/OBC expressly indicated to Coughlin that SCR 105(4) and SCR 119, as they relate
to SCR 110, allow even a "temporarily suspended" attorney such as Coughlin to issue his
own subpoenas in his role as as self representing respondent. The RJC is in contempt and
should be subject to SCR 110(3)-(4), and David Watts-Vial, Esq. must withdrawal from
RCP2012-000599 (further, the WCPD is an independent contractor and not appropriately
represented in such Workplace TPO/EPO by the WCDA, and Watts-Vial attempted to
massage that at the 1/4/13 EPO hearing by suggesting the TPO application was filed by Jim
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Leslie on behalf of the WCPD...one, Leslie cannot file a Workplace Harassment TPO
Application that seeks to protect hiimself, his employer must do it for him, and the WCDA's
Office is not Leslie's employer, beyond the extreme impropriety in Leslie violating his duty
of confidentiality a la RPC 1.16).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155245650/2-6-13-Email-to-Watts-WCDA-Please-Responde-toMy-Subpoenas
1 13 12 Coughlin obtains confession from RPD Sargent Lopez regarding RPD's fraudulent
11/13/11 custodial arrest for criminal trespass of Coughlin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVmDXb...
(which is an awful case for the WCDA and RJC and Schroeder, truly a potentially
career ending debacle, especially considering the arrest of Coughlin in RCR2012-067980 by
the same WCSO Deputy Machen whom had already burglarized Coughlin's former home law
office on 11/1/11 while alleging conducting a lockout (in one fell swoop Machen admits to
having posted the lockout order on the door while nobody was home, and changing the
locks, then lying in his Affidavit of Service in alleging he "personally served" such Order on
Coughlin...the RJC ignored Coughlin's 10/30/11 SCR 110 Subpoena on its Custodian of
Records, and Administrator Steve Tuttle and Chief Civil Division Clerk Karen Stancil, and
on 7/18/13 Judge Pears poo-poohed Coughlin's report to him, on the record in RCR2012072675 (a ridiculous prosecution of Coughlin incident to RJC Bailiff Reyes' attack of
Coughlin in the six videos now posted online) that Reyes had managed to put in more work
for the RJC on 7/15/13 in (for about the tenth time, though Reyes did not gloweringly drop a
bunch of f-bombs inches from Coughlin's face that time) refuse to accept for filing
Coughlin's NRS 1.235 Motion to Disqualify the patently biased former 25 year veteran of the
WCDA's Office, and husband of Nevada Deputy AG Rhonda Clifton, RJC Judge David
Clifton (interestingly, Coughlin's legal argument during the 3/19/13 portion of the spurious
"misuse of 911"/"resisting a public officer" trial Clifton insisted upon holding in rejecting the
plea deal Coughlin accepted on 8/27/12 (along with some assistance by Judge Sferrazza), a
trial and subsequent appeal that had greatly interfered with Coughlin's defense of his law
license in 62337, in much the same way the RJC Judges endorsement, and, some might say,
rewarding of RJC Bailiffs Reyes, Sexton, Medina, Heibert, and Ramsey for abusive Coughlin
and obstructing his access to court files in the public record that would easily evince the
rampant misconduct of the RJC Judiciary, Gayle Kern, Esq., Richard G.Hill, Esq., Nevada
Court Services, etc. in the abomination of an assault on tenant's rights in Washoe County)
incident to the flagrantly wrongful issuance of a summary eviction order on 6/28/12 to an
unauthorized practitioner of law in Nevada Court Services where all jurisdictional
prerequisites under NRS 40.253(3)(b)(1)-)3) were missing (not to mention the fraudulent
declaration of service of 6/14/12)don't expect NVB Judge Beesley to go all Canon 2 Rule
2.15 upon being informed of the RJC Judges, uh, approach to this, either...but Beesley, a
decades long fixture down at the State Bar of Nevada, will, out of concern, really, (no,
really!) makes some calls, gossip with 'other judges" he knows then violate SCR 105.5, etc.,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
etc., participate in the barbecue/ambusih 11/14/12 hearing where Beesley inclusion as a

witness was constructively noticed to Coughlin only the day before the hearing, in flagrant
violation of SCR 105(2)(c), etc. ...(like the one whose confiscation of Coughlin's smartphone
and micro sd card not incident to arrest, but after such had been booked into Coughlin's
property, warrantless style, no written court order by Judge Nash Holmes either, Beesley and
Elcano's McGeorge 1977 classmate, that one? About that 3/30/12 filing in NVB 10-05104 by
Coughlin detailing the prejudice to his client inherent to Judge Holmes refusing to grant any
stay of her outrageous 5 day summary incarceration of then practicing attorney Coughlin,
then having her RMC Marshals retrieve items out of Coughlin's personal property already
booked into such at the jail...especially where Coughlin's smartphone and micro sd card were
wiped of all data prior to being returned to him 37 days later, in the interim Coughlin filing
on 3/30/12 in NVB 10-05104 that which Judge Beesley seemed to want to appear completely
unaware of during his specious testimony at Coughlin's formal disciplinary hearing ) Please
copy the RJC or Judges Clifton or Richard G. Hill or Patrick O. King (SBN) should any
allegation of ex parte contact seem possible incident to cases 63342, 62337, 61901, 61383,
etc., etc.. not indicating one way or another if this account is associated with attorney
Zachary Coughlin, Esq. (whom is temporarily suspended in Nevada, yet the USPTO has so
far chosen not to temporarily suspend Coughlin, seemingly thinking so little of the
jurisprudence in Washoe County...). Due to the RJC's 12/20/12 Administrative Order against
Coughlin (wherein Judge Sferrazza seems to purposefully remix Nev Const Art. 6 Sec. 6 to
get around the fact that he is not a "District court" judge but rather a justice of the peace of a
limited jurisdiction justice court (one that regularly refuses to comply with Aikins in failing
to strictl adhere to the limited statutory remedies in NRS 40.254 and NRS 40.253 in summary
eviction) and the Workplace Harassment EPO RJC Judge Pearson gave the SBN's upon Asst
Bar Counsel Patrick O. King, Esq. violating RPC 3.7 in both representing the SBN and
testifying as a witness at the 1/4/13 extension hearing) Coughlin would likely get another
visit from RPC Officer Waddle, whom would probably point his loaded gun at Coughlin's
head from four feet away again for no good reason whatsoever incident to making another
fraudulent arrest at the direction of RPD Detective Ytrubide (whose wife is a 911 ECOMM
dispatcher alongside the same dispatcher Jessica Duralde whom is married to the same RPD
Officer Nick Duralde's whose wrongful, ego drive arrest of Coughlin on 8/20/11 coincided
with the August 2011 wrongful summary eviction of Coughlin from his former home law
office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiW0vnGv6l4 (8/20/11 wrongful arrest of
Coughlin by RPD Duralde)
http://transparentnevada.com/salaries/search/?
q=yturbide&t=name&j=reno&y=any&s=default
http://transparentnevada.com/salaries/search/?q=duralde&t=name&j=reno&y=any&s=default
Judge Clifton, in the hearing right before Coughlin's on 11/20/12 in RCR2012-065630,
laughably found WCPD Jim Leslie, Esq's testimony to be "more credible" in light of Leslie
slowly remember more and more of that which the WCDA's Officer would have needed him
to inform his client of, where initially Leslie could not remember various things, but upon the
judge prompting him as to the need for Leslie to have told his former client of the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
immigration and criminal law sentencing enhancements consequences attendant to LopezPastrana, and Leslie thereafter recapitulating.
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/244/244.F3d.1025.00-10146.html
So, RJC Judge Pearson just happened to issue a 3/22/13 "Administrative Order 2013-01"
(http://www.wcbar.org/documents/AdminOrder2013-01.pdf ) just days after Coughlin's
3/19/13 presentation in RCR2012-065630 and cross-examination of RPD Sargent's Paul Sifre
and Marcia Lopez, and RPD Officer Nicholas Duralde revealed the extent to which the
criminal trespass conviction Coughlin sustained in 61901 involved both a burglary by the
Washoe County Sheriff Deputy John Machen and attorney Casey D. Baker, Esq., and
fraudulent conduct by landlord Matt Merliss, his attorney Richard G. Hill, Esq., and RPD
Officer Chris Carter, Jr. and Sargnet Marcia Lopez.
1 13 12 Coughlin obtains confession from RPD Sargent Lopez regarding RPD's fraudulent
11/13/11 custodial arrest for criminal trespass of Coughlin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=XVmDXbT13Yk
1/12/12 RPD Sargent Sifre helping Richard G. Hill, Esq. prevent Coughlin from gathering
evidence of wrongful eviction and fraudulent conduct by Hill and his contractor NBI's Phil
Stewart: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBu9zflGALE
1/14/12 Sifre responding to Coughlin's 911 call reporting domestic violence by saying he
arrested Coughlin for "putting yourself in a situation where you are a victim":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU3t_kRR0RA
Even if a court were to view all of that which is contained in the 39 page Exhibit 1 to
King's 12/20/12 TPO application as verified (which, clearly, it is not), nothing asserted
therein suffices to constitute harassment in the workplace under NRS 33.240 for a multitude
of reasons. One, nothing contained therein provides any support for the view that Coughlin
knowingly did anything that could be said to threaten to cause or or commit and act that
causes any of the ills detailed in NRS 33.240(a)-(b), and neither the 12/20/12 TPO Order or
the 1/4/13 EPO Order specify in any way whatsoever just which, if any, of those subsections
the court found to have been dispositive as to. There has been absolutely no assertion by
anyone that Coughlin actually committed any act which cause any bodily injury to anyone or
damage to anyone's property. Only to most attenuated hypchondriac, histrionic fit thrower
would assert Coughlin committed any act sufficient to have already caused substantial harm
to the physical or mental health or safety of a person.
So, one must assume that the court's justification for issuing both the TPO and EPO was
based upon a finding that Couglin threatened to cause: bodily injury to the person or anoth
er person, or, damage to the property of another person; or, substantial harm to the physical
or mental health or safety of a person
27
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Neither TPOs nor EPOs may be granted on a default basis. Even if an adverse party fails
to oppose any such application or attend any such hearing, the court is still required to evalu
ate whether the requirements of NRS 33.240, 33.250, and 33.270 are met.
So, just what, if anything in King's TPO application may suffice to meet those standards?
Again, nothing, as the 8 page application is completely devoid of any factual assertions,
much less any with any degree of specificity, and nothing in any part of the 39 page Exhibit
is verified sufficient to satisfy NRS 33.250. Even had such Exhibit 1 in its entirety been
sufficiently verified, nothing therein satisfies those standards either. What possibly could?
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Fear_(1991_film)
King's 39 page Exhibit 1, including Exhibit 1A-1D follows:
"Exhibit 1
On November 14, 2012, the Office of Bar Counsel held a disciplinary
hearing at its Reno office with two sheriff personnel in attendance as a measure of pro
tection. As a result of the hearing the panel unanimously agreed to permanently disbar
Mr. Coughlin from the practice of law. On Friday, December 14, 2012 the Panel's Order
was filed and copies were mailed to Mr. Coughlin both by regular and certified mail.
Mr. Coughlin continues to make repeated calls to the State Bar demanding copies
and information. He is getting increasingly antagonistic and will not listen to our at
tempts to reason with him. This morning he announced that he "would be there in 15
minutes" It is our fear that if he shows up we won't be able to get rid of him we are not
able to satisfy his demands and that just seems to aggravate the situation. He has shown
up after hours presumably to file documents; eventually he has used the mail slot for
the documents but has sat in his car in front of the office flashing his lights to get atten
tion. Employees have been afraid to leave and, on a couple of occasions, the police
have been called we don't know if they have shown up because once he leaves, we
leave. On one particular occasion, a female employee was in the office alone. Mr. Cough
lin knocked on her window and gestured to the front door so he could gain access to the
building. Eventually the employee was able to get him to leave and the police were called
but did not arrive before Mr. Coughlin left the premises.
This past Monday As
sistant Bar Counsel Pat King did dispatch the police because Mr. Coughlin again an
nounced that he was coming to the office two officers did show up and one was dis
patched to the Panel Chair's office (9432 Double R Blvd.) because Coughlin has also
threatened and intimidated John Echeverria's office staff. When Coughlin called the
Echeverria law firm that particular day he stated that he needed some "face time"
with John. Mr. King has received numerous e-mails detailing what Mr. Coughlin per
ceives to be a miscarriage of justice in his discipline matter and has indicated that he will
"expose him as a liar and a fraud".
In a letter dated November 7, 2012, pri
or to the discipline hearing, the Office of Bar Counsel sent Mr. Coughlin a letter ask
ing that he refrain from coming to the State Bar offices without calling beforehand. On
November 17, 2012, after the discipline hearing, the Panel Chair issued an Order in
structing Mr. Coughlin to refrain from contacting any member of the Panel, the
Court Reporter (whom Mr. Coughlin had contacted by phone at her residence), any of
the Panel Chair's office staff, or either office of the State Bar of Nevada.
On
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
one occasion, an e-mail was sent to several recipients, including four (4) employees of
the State Bar, which included a link to a violent scene from the movie "Cape Fear".
The State Bar feels that this is a direct suggestive threat to office staff and Bar person
nel. Therefore, the State Bar requests that a Protective Order be and that Mr. Coughlin be
prohibited from contacting the Bar's Reno and/or Las Vegas Office by telephone, by email or by fax. Because he is currently temporarily suspended from the practice of law
and his disciplinary hearing has concluded Mr. Coughlin has no business on State Bar
property (9456 Double R Blvd or 600 E. Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas, NV). The record
of his disciplinary matter will soon be submitted to the Nevada Supreme Court for a
de novo review at which time he will receive a complete set of all of the pleadings, both
filed and unfiled, in this matter.
It should be noted that the State Bar and its
Reno staff find it very difficult to work under these conditions. Mr. Coughlin continues
to monopolize our time and resources and is causing an unnecessary amount of stress."
(NOTE: the above Summary fails to indicate Coughlin is causing fear of that required
by NRS 33.240, but rather that the State Bar and its renot staf find it very difficult to
work under these conditions (such as Coughlin requesting copies of documents, seeking
the copy of the record/transcript of the 11/14/12 proceeding that he is entitled to under
SCR 119, which requires that he contact Bar Counsel to obtain such, which Coughlin at
tempted to do on numerous occasions immediately after the 11/14/12 disciplinary hearing
both by telephone and in writing, which the Bar and King failed to respond to until
12/19/12, with Chair Echeverria's 11/17/12 Order seemingly void in that it, depending on
one's interpretation of contact or contacting would have precluded Coughlin from so
seeking a copy of the transcript pursuant to SCR 119 where such 11/17/12 Order reads.
Further, it appears that Laura Peters herself from the Summary which would not only
vitiate any first hand knowledge requirement being met even assuming the illogical leap
to incorporate by reference that contained in Exhibit 1 is made, despite the failure of
King's Declaration on page 8 of his TPO Application to so incorporate or even reference
such materials, and the failure of King to check the box on page 2 (applicants are directed
to do so if the wish to incorporate by reference that contained in the mandatory Form
B-4 Continuation Page, which itself contains language specifically incorporating by
reference that which is contained therein on such Continuation Page into the Applica
tion itself sufficient to make the contents of such Continuation Page verified in com
pliance with NRS 33.250.
This is not a case of a pros se non-attorney filling out the application, or pre
sumably, even, the Summary included in in Exhibit 1 of King's application. As such,
King must be held to the technical requirements of the statutes, include NRS 33.250 and NRS
15
Exhibit 1A consists of an 11/7/12 letter from King to Coughlin, which reads:
Dear Mr. Coughlin: Yesterday you arrived at the State Bar office after 5:00 p.m. To file
several documents. When you discovered that the front door was locked, and although
there is a mail slot in the door, you elected to walk around the outside of the building until
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
you found someone inside. You stood outside an employee's window, got her attention and
asked to he let in. This employee unlocked the door and took receipt of your documents
after which you continued to ask further assistance.
Your behavior is becoming increasingly disturbing and harassing. Therefore, except for
your formal hearing, which will take place on November 14, 2012, beginning at 8:45 a.m.,
you are not to arrive at the Reno Office of the State Bar unannounced. If you have papers
or pleadings to present tor filing, you are hereby instructed to either mail them or to call
the office (329-4100) prior to your arrival. Please be advised that if you appear at the State
Bar in the future, except for the November 14, 2012, hearing or in the case of your need to
file a document (for which you must call ahead), the police will be summoned immedi
ately. Sincerely, /s/ Patrick O. King, Esq. Asst Bar Counsel
Exhibit 1B consists of NNDB Panel Chair John Echeverria's 11/16/12 Order in Case
No: NG12-0204, NG12-0434, and NG12-0435, which reads:
It has come to the attention of the Panel Chair that Zachary B. Coughlin ("Re
spondent") has been contacting the Reno and Las Vegas Offices of Bar Counsel, the Panel
Chair's law office and the Court Reporter who recorded the disciplinary proceedings at the
State Bar office.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
That Respondent immediately cease and desist contacting anyone at the State , Bar of
fices, the Panel Chair, the panel chair's staff, any of the Panel Members or their staffs, or
the Court Reporter including her employer, Sunshine Reporting while this matter IS
pending decision Respondent is hereby reminded that the Panel will be deliberating at a
future date and may take this conduct into consideration.
DATED this 16th day of November, 2012. by John P. Echeverria, Esq., Chair,
Formal Hearing Panel. (The Certificate of Service attached thereto is signed by Laura
Peters, an employee of the State Bar of Nevada
Exhibit 1C consists of the twenty-four page 12/14/12 FOFCOL in Case No:
NG12-0204, NG12-0434, and NG12-0435. It does not contain a single assertion of
any threatening on Coughlin's part, so it is rather unclear why King felt it appropriate
to attach it to his 12/20/12 TPO Application in 607. Similarly, King and Peters felt it
appropriate to attach filings in 607 to their initial attempt at an Record on Appeal in
62337 of 12/24/12, but apparently were either scolded for doing so or thought better
of it (likely the former) and refrained from including any such materials in their
second attempt to file a somewhat professional, competent, and ethical ROA on
2/13/13.
Exhibit 1D consists of a printout of a webpage at www.hark.com (ie, not
even the url linked to in the email King alleges Coughlin sent to various individuals
(including some, like Coughlin's then Washoe County Public Defender, Jim Leslie,
whom then forward that same email to individuals listed amongst the recipients of the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
original email itself (ie, the SBN's King), in a class Leslie-style bit of pointless, insip
id melodrama, along the lines of his adorable jibberish stylings such as the phrase
Leslie and his junior associate WCPD Biray Dogan, (perhaps somewhat not coincid
entally, Dogan is about 5 foot 5 inches tall...and that Chris Hicks needs to quit walk
ing around acting like his is so tall, six foot eight or not) are wont to do, which is
have Dogan he himself handed the client his discovery several weeks prior, only to
change his story a couple minutes later to say he saw Leslie hand it to the client, only
to have Leslie then idiotically email the client and indicate that the client failed to
ever pick it up, and identifying such as discovery of a 7/27/12 date, while failing to
explain why neither Leslie nor Dogan released to there then former client Coughlin
the 8/13/12 and 8/17/12 updated 911 call discovery discs propounded to them by
WCDA Zach Young while Dogan and Leslie were still representing Coughlin (ie,
Leslie taking over Goodnight and Dogan's cases, and in an attempt to get a raise, set
ting out to purposefully deliver the cheapest, quickest, convictions of Coughlin in all
three of the baseless, retaliatory prosecutions brought by the WCDA's Office after
Leslie had succeeded in depriving Coughlin of his right to accept a plea bargain dis
posing of all three matters then pending on 8/27/12, which would have resulted in no
SCR 111(6) convictions in any of those matters.
Getting beyond the fact that the printout of a page with an audio clip only (played over
a still frame photo of actor Robert De Niro in a placid stance) comes from a different url than
the one included in the 12/12/12 email King largely basis his decision to seek a TPO and an
EPO on, such audio only file and the quotation transcribed beneath it contain the following
bit of dialogue from the 1991 remake by Martin Scorsese of the film Cape Fear:
I ain't no white trash piece of sh*t. I'm better than you all. I can out leam you. I can
out read you. I can outthink you, and I can out philosophize you. And I'm going to
outlast you. You think a couple of whacks to my good old boy guts gonna get me
down? Ifs going to take a hell of a lot more than that, Counselor, to prove you're bet
ter than me! Max looks around in an attempt to find where Sam is hiding. (the web
page is adorned with a number of links to other materials and advertisements as well).
Exhibit 1D continues on with a 12/13/12 email from Pat King to obc; Kim
berly Farmer; fflaherty@dlpfd.com; David Clark printed from Laura Peters email
account as, apparently, King's forwarding an email he received from Couglin's then
WCPD Jim Leslie (which itself forwards to King and email Leslie alleges Coughlin
sent to Leslie, which, as Leslie would necessarily be able to discern from reading a
list of the recipients such email purports to be addressed to, was also addressed to Pat
King, making Leslie forwarding such to King rather redundant, apparently). The
email from King that Peters printed out via her Microsoft Outlook utility reads:
Subject: FW: The Three E's;wcpd failure to provide essential 91 call cd discovery of
8/13/ and 8/17, 2012 to Coguhlin in rcr2012-065630
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This attorney feels that his law firm staff was threatened by Zach Coughlin. I
am concerned for our staff. Please advise. Patrick King
Thereafter, King's email forwards or contains what purports to be an email to King
from Coughlin's then WCPD Jim Leslie, of 12/12/12, addressed only to King, which reads:
Mr. King: The below email from Mr. Cogulhin contains a reference at the end of the first
paragraph to a website containing a video clip from the movie Cape Fear. Please advise
whether any action is required of our office or yours regarding this possible veiled or indirect
threat of violence against attorneys in this office by Mr. Coughlin.
Thank You, James B. Leslie, Esq., Chief Deputy Public Defender, Washoe County Public
Defenders Office
http://www.scribd.com/doc/154904224/6-14-12-67980-1254pm-Northwinds-Rev2012001048-Krebs-Notices-Wray-Ncs-Chandler-Rev2012-001182-Wcso-Machen
Oh, NCS"s Jeff Chandler and Ryan Wray...'gonna be a problem that sworn Declaration of
Service by "licensed process server" (yeah, he's bonded!) Ryan Wray given he swears therein
that he "personally served" Coughlin on 6/14/12 the above 5 Day Unlawful Detainer Notice
for Breach, when this video don't exactly support such a contention, do it, Ryan? At the 2:45
minute mark at this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIGEeXI32OI Coughlin's
questions Wray as to his fraudulent Declaration of Service of 6/14/12: Coughlin: Mr. Wray,
you did not personally serve me and you signed a sworn affidavit saying you did. Wray:
Actually, I did. Coughlin: How so? Wray: Cuz, plain and simple, once you touch the
paperwork, you've been served, 'mkay? Coughlin: How do you know anybody touched the
paper? Wray: Because, I got it on video, I'm not stupid. Coughlin: What does the video
show? Wray: It shows you grabbing it, good day." At the 3:45 minute mark Jeff Chandler
purports to inform Coughlin he has been "86'd" from the property, informing him he must
check in with the "landlord" before going on the property...despite Chandler later admitting
that Coughlin still has two other valid leases to which Chandler had not yet obtained an
summary eviction order for, which makes Chandler's statements on the record at the Motion
to Vacate Hearing of 7/5/12 where Chandler seems to indicate that he and or Northwinds
Apartments burglarized Coughlin's other two rentals well prior to the deadline for Coughlin
to file a Tenant's Answer (which the Washoe County Jail and or RJC refused to do)
at 35 seconds Schroeders indicates "according to stories I've heard he is in jail..." Schroeder
is all over the unauthorized practice of law. Schroeder is beat by judicial estoppel where at
1:35 minute mark Chandler argues that Coughlin will just go back to "residing within a
storage unit, which as you well know your honor is against state law"...only problem
dumbass Chandler is your own landlord's affidavit characterizes matters as your having
rented Coughlin a dwelling place, so, for those counting at home, NCS (the jackasses
practicing law without a license that Judge Schroeder and Judge Scott Pearson and Judge
Sferrazza allows to do, and in so countenance NCS's criminal violation of the law (NRS
40.253(5) in no way allows for Chandler to cross the bar, file pleadings, make argument, etc.
he can serve, and probably even draft a notice and an unlawful detainer affidavit, but that's it,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
he can't show up to hearings on Motions to set aside,e tc..also, Chandler is fraudulently

maintaining these positions here where he filed an Amended 5 day notice on 6/28/12 upon
Coughlin pointing out, at the time Coughlin was being arrested incident to the burglary by
the Washoe County Sheriff's office in effecting Schroeder's egregiously negligent and
amateur hour summary eviction order in rev2012-001048 (RCR2012-067980), that NCS"s
6/14/12 5 Day Unlawful detianer affidavit listed Sparks justice court as the forum for tenant
to file an answer, which violated NRS 40.253(3)(b)(1), of course Judge pearson made that all
go away for NCS and Northwinds because he is a terrible judge, period.
https://www.youtube.com/edit?video_id=LDEn3pOnJBA&ns=1 at the 2:10 mark Chandler

alleges knowledge of some specific unit "on the same property" that Coughlin's property that
was in unit 29 was moved to, indicating that Chandler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SvV59vUJwM
10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-XxWBCCQ5c
11
12
RJC Schroeder cheering for another arrest of Coughlin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=LDEn3pOnJBA
13
How about an arrest of Schroeder?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Funny thing, unauthorized practitioner of law Nevada Court Services Jeff Chandler's 6/27/12
"affidavit of landlord for breach" admits that: " I, That your affiant is the landlord of certain
dwellings or apartments within the jurisdictional confines of Reno Township, Washoe
County. Nevada." One, Chandler then is barred by judicial estoppel from later asserting
Coughlin was being evicted for "breach of the rental agreement" for some unnamed violation
of the agreement (he fails to specify, simply attaches an alleged rental agreement...Chandler
lies in alleging that he "is the landlord".(why, its not clear, without a law license Chandler
likely is not bound by RPC 3.7 the way, say, Kern or Casey D. Baker, Esq. would be, right?)
Chandler's affidavit further contradicts he claims at the 7/5/12 and 7/31/12 hearing in
Rev2012-001048 where he alleged Coughlin's breach was using a "storage shed" for a
"residence" (Jeff, your own affidavit indicates you "rent a certain dwelling or apartment to
zach coughlin", " He was hired by the landlord, an out of state corporation doing business in
ten state acg-ampi (way to go Judges Schroeder and Pearson, let the behemoth out of state
corporation trash Coughlin's life in the process of fraudulently obtaining a wrongful summary
eviction, while NCS commits the unauthorized practice of law to boot. Nice to see the RJC
Judges don't get blinded by their own vindictiveness or tendency to rule for anyone in law
enforcement (even if Chandler and his wannabe sheriff process servers probably don't
count...).. Well, at least Judge Schroeder, in fraudulently issuing a summary eviction order on
6/28/12 where the 5 Day Notice was patently invalid in that under NRS 40.253(3)(b)(1) it
listed "Sparks Justice Court" (Schroeder even received a fax from Sparks Justice Court
alerting him to this, beyond Coughlin calling the RJC on at least two occasions and apprising
it of the jurisdictional deficienceis and writing the RJC on 6/26/12, right Karen Stancil?
(Hurry, Karen, remove Coughlin's 6/26/12 correspondence from the file!). Judge Schroeder,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
fresh of his granting Richard G. Hill, Esq. a ridiculous TPO on 1/12/12 against Coughlin, and
rested from his similarly jurisdictionally challenged 3/15/12 summary eviction order against
Coughlin garnered through the fraud of Gayle Kern, Esq. (oh, Gayle, might want to read that
Mayes case, 's going to be a bit of a crystal ball for you and Sue King of Western Nevada
Management). Chandler doesn't get the fact that his posting an amended 5 day notice on unit
29 on 6/28/12 withdraws the wrongful eviction order granted on 6/28/12 or otherwise creates
a new tenancy (ie, you don't get to have it both way Jeffie, ie, pretend you are given the
tenant 5 days to get there stuff or file a tenant's affidavit, whilst also threatening them with a
trespass arrest, while also showing up to the 7/5/12 hearing and making arguments about
living in a storage shed that run directly counter to the "dwelling place" attestations in your
Jeff Chandler of NCS (on behalf of Northwind's Apartment's, though his affidavit merely
identifies him as the "landlord" which may be contstrued as an attempt to allow his appearing
pro se and making legal argument and practicing law on his own behalf, which is a fraudulent
assertion were he is appearing for an out of state corporation) affidavit.
Maybe Judges should be wary of believing everything bailiffs tell them, even stuff the
judges want to believe, and which would be more convenient for the judge if it were true,
because some litigants are a pain in their neck anyways...but that's the thing, though, 'bout
being a judge...little higher standard, and all they are held to, 'posed to call it fair and square,
not call it how they wish it was (and 'specially don't go characterizing doing that as doing that
which in "in the interest of justice, judicial economy, inherent authority to control...blah blah
blah, crooked is crooked, no matter if you dress it up in fancy pretense of "administrative
efficiency"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGySulILtG8 5 23 13 0204 bench 1624to26
162506to162510 removed by WCDA
why is four seconds chopped out? Why do the witness statements lie about the fact
that Heibert had already returned to Coughlin the stamped copies of the filings/documents
Coughlin submitted? RPC 3.8, and Brady. Then, whats Reyes big rationale for his
ridiculous behavior? That Coughlin was "waiting" for something that Ramsey was checking
on? Couldn't be something Heibert was checking on, right, given Reyes was "relieving"
Heibert, not just doing his typical Reyes stalk and harass Coughlin all around the courthouse
act, right? Okay, so, if Ramsey threw away Coughlin's 5/22/13 filings, which he admits, and
told Coughlin he was not permitted to view any files in the RJC, then what was Coughlin
waiting for such that he would be required to wait in the "RJC's lobby". And why was
Coughlin not told to "wait" in the lobby between 4:17 and 4:25, that 8 minutes, where's the
order to wait in the lobby? Further, even if there was such and order, and even if Coughlin
refused to obey it (two what ifs that are far from clear or proven or provable), what of this
"he said he was going to go to family court" thing ...thing is, Coughlin never said anything
about Reyes family court case. Coughlin, whilst seated next to Reyes, may have asked Reyes
if he was going to follow him up to family court like the other Bailiffs had been doing (this is
where Deputy Turner and Reyes are lying in their Witness Statements, the only
problem for them is they think that the search incident to arrest would have revealed
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
any recording device that may have, say, capture the exact conversation between Reyes
and Couglhin by the cafe....big trouble, guys, big trouble...in the lawsuit sense, don't go
tryin' to get yourself some more mileage incident to all your trumped up "fear". budget crisis,
huh? Couglhin has a combination of six Bailiff's/Marshals/Olympik Security/Sheriff's
Deputies following him around at all times in the courthouse (they have even watched
Coughlin grind it out for what seems like 8 straight hours on the westlaw in the law library
before, until that just became to enormously boring for even them...though, clearly, the
advent of smart phones has helped all these security/law enforcement types pass the time a
lot easier, especially the City of Reno Marshals, whom are always buried in their
smartphones, probably doin' some pinterest type stuff, no doubt. If there is really such a
clammoring for courthouse security, how's about banning the smartphones, huh? Deputies,
Olympik Secuirty, Marshals and Bailiffs all the time looking at their lcd screens sort of takes
the steam out of "Coughlin is a public menace that requires a huge increase in the amount of
tax dollars allocated to justiying our existence, yada yada yada...how's 'bout focusing on
being a court, huh? providing, like, due process, justice, fairness, and whatnot. maybe get it
right with the whole not having the sheriff burglarize tenant's in the name of conducting
lockouts one measly day sooner. that ethics to negligence ratio is sub Richard Hill. can you
imagine?
Actually, from the discovery the WCDA waited until a couple minutes before the 7/18/13
"pre trial hearing" to propound (real useful, those pre-trial hearings where no opportunity to
review discovery, as Coughlin was obstructed in his attempts to access such by physically
picking it up from the WCDA (thanks to Reyes and the same Olympik Secuity details Perez
and others that thwarted Coughlin's attempt to timely file a Motion to Disqualify under old
Canon 3E and NRS 1.235 Judge Clifton and the RJC as a whole on 7/15/13.
The biggest lies from that collection of witness statements relative to the 5/23/13
arrest of Coughlin by Reyes, shortly after Reyes attacked Coughlin (remember, Reyes put
Couglin in a control hold earlier in that day too, right before Coughlin's appearance in CCP
court (no allegation of Couglin talkin' smack about Reyes "divorce" (don't you guys mean
domestiv violence TPO application (not granted, of course, tough to get one of those against
law enforcement in Washoe County, though one was granted against Coughlin for an alleged
"pattern of harassing behavior" of the same ex whose absconding with his dog and at least
two months of his rental shares begat, in some part, what has occurred since August 2011
(apparently a litigation demand letter for one's dog and the rent and consequential damages is
"harassing" to Master Edmonson, but not so to Judge Stiglich, whom denied the EPO request
of Miss. Melissa Ulloa))/divorce?...anyways) Reyes lies where he wrote:
"I asked Coughlin what he needed and he said he wanted to file a request for a report from
RJC, so I asked him for the request. Coughlin refused to provide the request to me, then gave
it to Ramsey, who went to the RJC Criminal Div. At that time, Coughlin adressed me
directly, asking several questions regarding how my family court case was going, and then
tauntingly recited information about by financial disclosure, my minor children and some
written qoutes made by my wife, in an obvious effort to let me know that he's researched
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
public records about my personal information. I made no comments during this line of
questioning, neither confirming nor denying, as I was acutely aware that Coughlin may be
stalking and was now, indeed, harassing me."
Its cute how law enforcement types think lawyers just "lie and lie". There conception of
what lawyers do and what is a lie and what is not is so rudimentary its hard to even put it in
to words. When there are two shoes on the table and someone testifies that there are three
shoes on the table, thats a lie. When someone is handed an object and does not know for
sure whether it is a phone, a smartphone, an ipod, an ipad, a treo, or any other number of
devices, and testifies that they are "not sure" whether such object was a phone, much less
whether it was "someone else's phone" (ie, if the object is abandoned, and would have been
thrown in the river but for someone claiming it, just whose object is it really? The law is less
clear than law enforcement types like DAS Celeste Brown and Bailiff Reyes indicated they
believe it is...regardless, Coughlin didn't lie about what dispatch told him to attempt to patch
together some basis for finding reasonable suspicion to do a Terry Stop/weapons frisk and or
to support a finding of probable cause to make an arrest and conduct a search incident thereto
that OFficer Duralde announced almost immediately at the beginning of his "investgiation"
that he was going to do regardless of what his "investigation" revealed...(pretextual,
much?)...and Coughlin, unlike Duralde, did not lie about what the value of the object alleged
stolen was just to get around NRS 171.136's bar against making a custodial arrest for an
alleged misdemeanor (so Duralde mentioned the "certain benefits of charging this as a
felony..." to Coughlin with a knowing, nauseating smug grin) betweenthe hours of 7 pm and
7 am where Duralde admits such was not committed in his presence...And Coughlin, unlike
Austin Licthy, Cory Goble, and Nathaniel Zarate, did not lie about any number of things
related to that 8/20/11 occurrence and arrest (see all there lies, or a lot of them dissected in
glorious detail in the attached filings from RCR2011-063341). Anyways, back to what
Reyes lied about, where in his 5/23/13 written statement he wrote:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155477772/5-23-13-0204-72675-71437-Arrest-Police-ReportTroup-Turner-Heibert-Reyes-PC-Sheet-Witness-Statement-by-Olympik-s-Perez-and-5-2813-by-Virgo
"On 05/23/2013, at approx. 1620 Hrs., I went to the 1st floor in Reno Justice Court
(RJC), to relieve Bailiff D. Hiebert near the front entrance to the building, directly adjacent to
the "Sipriano's Cafe". Hiebert had been engaged in obtaining document requests from
Zachary Coughlin, who had seated himself on one of the benches beyond the front security
screening line. As I approached within approx. 20 feet of Hiebert and Coughlin, Coughlin
saw me and immediately began to make loud, unsolicited and disparaging comments about
my presence. I heard him say "Oh, and here's Bailiff Reyes, Mr. Tough Guy.", along with
other similar comments I ignored. I was accompanied by Bailiff D. Ramsey and I observed
WCSO Deputies C. Turner and J. Troup standing in close proximity. In addition, Olympic
Security Services Officers A. Virgo and P. Perez were standing a short distance away, at their
assigned posts. Hiebert did leave when Ramsey and I arrived
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Earlier on this day, at approx. 1330 Hrs., I was present when Bailiff A. English,
WCSO Deputies C. Turner and J. Troup were speaking to Coughlin adjacent to the men's
restroom and "Sipriani's Cafe" on the first floor in RJC (reference case # RJC13-095). At
issue, was Coughlin's failure to comply with RJC Administrative Order 12-01, when he
disregarded the requirement for him to wait for an RJC Bailiff to escort him beyond the front
security screening line when present for RJC business. Coughlin was scheduled to appear at
the RJC Court Counseling Compliance hearings at 1400 hrs. I heard court radio traffic,
indicating that WCSO Sergeant Mullins wanted Coughlin to be detained until he could arrive
from the 2nd District Court building across the street. When Coughlin was advised of this, he
said he was now going to go to Family Court (where, after inquiring with the Family Court, it
was discovered that Coughlin does not have any active cases in that court) and I advised him
that he must remain where he was, to await WCSO sergeant Mullins' arrival. Coughlin
ignored me and began to walk around the assembled officers. I then took Coughlin's right
arm and applied a bent-wrist control hold, and had him stand against the wall adjacent to the
men's restroom (reference case # RJC13-097). I held him there for less than a minute, until
Sgt. Mullins arrived. Sgt. Mullins had a 10-15 minute discussion, sometimes heated, with
Coughlin. Sgt. Mullins did appear in front of Judge S. Pearson to testify about Coughlin's
behavior.
I asked Coughlin what he needed and he said he wanted to file a request for a report
from RJC, so I asked him for the request. Coughlin refused to provide the request to me, then
gave it to Ramsey, who went to the RJC Criminal Div. At that time, Coughlin adressed me
directly, asking several questions regarding how my family court case was going, and then
tauntingly recited information about by financial disclosure, my minor children and some
written qoutes made by my wife, in an obvious effort to let me know that he's researched
public records about my personal information. I made no comments during this line of
questioning, neither confirming nor denying, as I was acutely aware that Coughlin may be
stalking and was now, indeed, harassing me.
I became aware that Coughlin, without escort and of his own volition, had passed
through the security screening moments after Bailiff Hiebert walked away to fulfill
Coughlin's earlier request. According to Olympic Screening Services Officers A. Virgo and
P. Perez, Coughlin had told them that he was going to the men's restroom, but instead, went
straight to the bench and sat down, where I found him within the building unescorted. I asked
Coughlin to walk back to the area designated for him in front of the security sreening line,
while waiting for his RJC requests, per RJC Adnistrative Order 2012-01 and past practice.
Coughlin refused to do so, even after I directed him to do so a few more times. I informed
Coughlin that if he did not do so voluntarily, I would have to physically escort him there.
Coughlin still refused to follow my direction, so I reached for his right arm, to place him into
a straight-arm escort hold, but he immediately dropped to his left side on the bench and then
slid to the floor, physically resisting my efforts for him to follow my directions. I then placed
Coughlin into a takedown control hold, in order to force him to stand, rather than require me
to pick him up. Once on his feet, Coughlin stated "So, I guess you're going to give up that
$5000 pension when I finish suing you." I guided Coughlin towards the designated area and
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
as we were passing through the walk-through metal detector, I noticed that Coughlin was
attempting to run into it's leading edge. Before I could react, with both hands controlling
Coughlin, the metal detector fell away and onto the floor. The metal detector broke apart
upon hitting the floor. Olympic Screening Services Officers A. Virgo and P. Perez were now
redirecting uninvolved court visitors to an alternate direction. I continued forward and placed
Coughlin on the bench in front of the middle Xray machine. Coughlin leaned backwards and
allowed himself to fall on his back, tipping the bench over and pulling down the stanchions
aligned behind him, in an effort to make it appear I had used unessessary force upon him.
At about that time, Chief Bailiff M. Sexton had arrived and upon explaining to him on
what had just occurred and surveying the damage, he authorized Coughlin's arrest. I informed
Coughlin that I was initially placing him under arrest for destruction of property and
resisting/obstructing/delaying an officer, to which, Coughlin stated "No, you're not. I'm
leaving!", then stood up and took a step towards the exit. I stepped forward, took control of
Coughlin's arms, then placed him under arrest for the following violations: 206.310 NRS
(Destruction of property), based on Coughlin's failure to comply, requiring his physical
escort and resulting in the damage to the metal detector. The metal detector was deemed to be
in excess of $5000 at that time; 206.140 NRS (Nuisance in a building/trespass/disturbance),
based on Coughlin's attempt to solicit a confrontation with an officer by reciting personal
information about the officer's Family Court business, other verbal comments and,
eventually, his physical behavior, resulting in property damage while other citizens were
conducting business within Mills B. Lane building, and his distracting me of my normal
duties; 203.119 NRS (Interfering with peaceful conduct of business in a public building),
based on his loud, unsolicited comments, refusal to obey directions and causing court visitors
to be kept at a distance and re-routed to their destinations within the building; 53.140 NRS
(Resisting/obstructing/delaying an officer), based on Coughlin's refusal to obey lawful
directions by an officer, his willful resistance while being escorted and statement regarding
his refusal to be placed under arrest and attempt to leave when being advised of the arrest;
22.100 NRS (Contempt of Court), based on Coughlin entering RJC premises without an RJC
bailiff escort and his continued disregard for RJC Administrative Order 12-01, page 2, lines
24-25 and page 3, lines 1-2, which states:
"1. Zachary Barker Coughlin shall not enter the premisis of the Reno Justice Court at
One South Sierra Street except as follows: a. If Zachary Barker Coughlin wishes to file a
document with the Reno Justice Court or attend a hearing in the Reno Justice Court he must
notify the security personnel at the main security entrance on One South Sierra Street and
wait for a bailiff of the Reno Justice Court to respond to his location."
Coughlin and his property were escorted to the 2nd floor, West holding room, where I
completed a full search of his person in the presence of Bailiffs D. Hiebert, A. Medina, A
English and surveillance cameras. Coughlin was transported to WCSO Detention Facility for
booking by Bailiffs Medina and Hiebert. Included with this report are written statements
from WCSO Deputies J. Troup and C. Turner, and Olympic Screening Services Officers A.
Virgo and P. Perez; 2 DVDs containing videos of Coughlin entering unescorted into the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
premisis of RJC, Coughlin being physically escorted to the main entrance lobby and the
damage to the metal detector. There are also photos of the damage to the metal detector on
the DVD, which were provided by WCSO Sgt. Mullins. End of report."
The Arrest Report and Declaration of Probable Cause written by Reyes (beyond
fraudulently overcharging Coughlin worth of $16,000 in bondable bail, and where DAS
curiosly came over and tacked on another $500 cash only bail on top of that, causing massive
damages to Coughlin case load where the jail so thoroughly obstructs ones ability to access
justice for the time it took ol' Chris Hicks, Esq. to amend down the ridiculous overcharging
of two felonies and two misdemeanors (all competeting for title of most redundant and
unsupportable charge), to two misdemeanors and, still, $1,000 bail (funny DDA Stege nevers
shows up to hearing in RCR2011-063341 and he does not get the five days in jail self
representer Coughlin go on 2/12/13 in rcr2012-065630 for allegedly being late to court,
especially where the circumstances involved were so terribly full of mitigating
circumstances...). (note worthy is that Bailiff Reyes laughed off Coughlin's assertion that he,
as an attorney, was immune from arrest while going to, attending, or leaving court) Reyes PC
Decl reads:
"The Arrest Report and Declaration of Probable Cause, wherein RJC Bailiff Reyes
idenitifies himself as "a police officer" and "declares under penalty of perjury" that "At
approximately 1620 hrs, I ordered Zachary Coughlin to voluntarily move to the RJC front
entrance lobby, to await documents he requested, after he refused several requests to do
so. I placed Coughlin in a control hold to escort him to the desired location. While
passing through the "magnetometer unit", Coughlin upturned it onto the floor in a willful
manner, since he was resisting. When advised he was under arrest, Coughlin told me
"no, you're not, I'm leaving!".
The same WCSO Deputy Troup whom had wrongfully denied Coughlin tier time
during at least one of his wrongful incarcerations since August 2011 (causing vast damages
by her doing so), also lied quite a bit in her Narrative of 5/23/13: "On April 23, 2013, I,
Deputy Troup, was working at The Second Judicial District Court located on 1 S. Sierra St.
Deputy Turner and I were both 10-8 available and standing by at the magnetometers near the
entrance to the Mills Lane courthouse, when Zach Coughlin entered the building. I
recognized Mr. Coughlin due to our multiple dealings with him daily at the courthouse. Mr.
Coughlin has a court order restricting his movement within certain areas in the Mills Lane
building located at 1 S. Sierra St. The order also states the he needs an escort for any Reno
Justice business or Reno Municipal business. Mr. Coughlin came into the building and
informed the Court Street Security Officers of his business in the building, which is part of
his court order. Mr. Coughlin was looking to complete some filings for Reno Justice. An RJC
Bailiff responded, retrieved Mr. Coughlin's filing paperwork and took it to the filing office.
Mr. Coughlin waited for a few moments outside of the magnetometer, where he has been
asked to wait for return of his filings. After a few minutes, Mr. Coughlin entered through the
magnetometers and sat on a bench directly inside security. When the RJC Bailiff returned,
Mr. Coughlin immediately began to question him about his paperwork. The Bailiff explained
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that the filing clerk was working on his filing request. Mr. Coughlin continued to ask
multiple times about where his files were and about the Bailiff getting his files. The Bailiff
returned to the filing office to check on the status of the filings. At that time, RJC Bailiff
Reyes and Ramsey came down from the second floor to relieve the bailiffs that were down
stairs with Mr. Coughlin, whose shifts were ending. As soon as Mr. Coughlin saw Bailiff
Reyes, he immediately became aggravated and loudly stated "Oh great it's you Reyes. I don't
like dealing with you." Bailiff Reyes stood by with Mr. Coughlin as Bailiff Ramsey took
more paperwork from Mr. Coughlin and went to the filing office. I observed Mr. Coughlin
and Bailiff Reyes exchanging words. I could tell the conversation was escalating due to their
voices becoming louder. I stepped closer to Mr. Coughlin and Bailiff Reyes as did Deputy
Turner. I could hear Mr. Coughlin taunting Bailiff Reyes by talking about what "a piece of
shit he is" and about Bailiff Reyes current divorce. Supplement No 0 0 0 1 Bailiff Reyes
told Mr. Coughlin that he needed to wait on the other side of the magnetometer for his
paperwork. ((NOTE: not according to Olympik's Perez (who wrote: "Heibert returned with
Coughlin's paperwork after Coughlin had his paperwork in his hand Reyes asked Coughlin, if
he had any more business at the courthouse. Coughlin told Reyes no. Reyes then asked
Coughlin to leave.") and Virgo, whom both claim that Mr. Coughlin refused to move. Bailiff
Reyes asked him multiple times, and Mr. Coughlin continued to state, "No I am not moving."
Bailiff Reyes reached in to take control of Mr. Coughlin's right arm to assist him up to move.
Mr. Coughlin again stated, "No I am not moving" and pulled in his arms tight to his chest to
keep Bailiff Reyes from being able to get control of his arm and moved his body away from
Bailiff Reyes. I called Sergeant Mullen over the radio and informed him that the RJC Bailiffs
were having problems with Mr. Coughlin, since Sergeant Mullen had dealt with Mr.
Coughlin multiple times earlier in the day. Bailiff Reyes then took control of Mr. Coughlin's
right arm and placed him in a rear wrist lock. I believed that Bailiff Reyes was going to be
detaining Mr. Coughlin at this point, so I moved closer to assist, in case Mr. Coughlin
resisted. Deputy Turner also stepped in to assist (see Deputy Turner's primary report for more
information). Bailiff Reyes then stood Mr. Coughlin up and began to escort him towards the
front area on the other side of the magnetometers where he was asking him to move
originally. I pulled out my X-2 taser out due to Mr. Coughlin's resisting Bailiff Reyes in
taking control of him. I followed behind Bailiff Reyes and Deputy Turner. As they attempted
to walk Mr. Coughlin through the magnetometer, the entire device was knocked down and
broke into several pieces. Bailiff Reyes and Deputy Turner sat Mr. Coughlin down on the
bench and he then proceeded to throw himself over the other side of the bench in a very
dramatic manner, making it appear as if he was thrown down. He began to yell about
bumping his head and needing the video footage of the incident. Mr. Coughlin was alert,
conscious and stood up almost immediately after he threw himself to the ground. Deputy
Turner attempted to assist Mr. Coughlin but as he stood there were no visual signs of injury
and he was walking and talking fine. He then sat back down on the bench and waited. Bailiff
Reyes had walked away from the incident but returned and took Mr. Coughlin into custody
(reference RJC case#1 3-096). The RJC Bailiffs took Mr. Coughlin and booked him into the
Washoe County Detention Facility. Nothing Further."') Mr. Coughlin refused to move.
Bailiff Reyes asked him multiple times, and Mr. Coughlin continued to state, "No I am not
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
moving." Bailiff Reyes reached in to take control of Mr. Coughlin's right arm to assist him up
to move. Mr. Coughlin again stated, "No I am not moving" and pulled in his arms tight to his
chest to keep Bailiff Reyes from being able to get control of his arm and moved his body
away from Bailiff Reyes. I called Sergeant Mullen over the radio and informed him that the
RJC Bailiffs were having problems with Mr. Coughlin, since Sergeant Mullen had dealt with
Mr. Coughlin multiple times earlier in the day. Bailiff Reyes then took control of Mr.
Coughlin's right arm and placed him in a rear wrist lock. I believed that Bailiff Reyes was
going to be detaining Mr. Coughlin at this point, so I moved closer to assist, in case Mr.
Coughlin resisted. Deputy Turner also stepped in to assist (see Deputy Turner's primary
report for more information). Bailiff Reyes then stood Mr. Coughlin up and began to escort
him towards the front area on the other side of the magnetometers where he was asking him
to move originally. I pulled out my X-2 taser out due to Mr. Coughlin's resisting Bailiff
Reyes in taking control of him. I followed behind Bailiff Reyes and Deputy Turner. As they
attempted to walk Mr. Coughlin through the magnetometer, the entire device was knocked
down and broke into several pieces. Bailiff Reyes and Deputy Turner sat Mr. Coughlin down
on the bench and he then proceeded to throw himself over the other side of the bench in a
very dramatic manner, making it appear as if he was thrown down. He began to yell about
bumping his head and needing the video footage of the incident. Mr. Coughlin was alert,
conscious and stood up almost immediately after he threw himself to the ground. Deputy
Turner attempted to assist Mr. Coughlin but as he stood there were no visual signs of injury
and he was walking and talking fine. He then sat back down on the bench and waited. Bailiff
Reyes had walked away from the incident but returned and took Mr. Coughlin into custody
(reference RJC case#1 3-096). The RJC Bailiffs took Mr. Coughlin and booked him into the
Washoe County Detention Facility. Nothing Further."'
Sure is funny how ol' Bailiff Don Ramsey did not seem to put together a "Narrative"
or "Witness Statement", nor did Bailif Heibert, especially given both were reference
extensively in Bailiff Reyes explanation of why he attacked Coughlin and Olympik
Securities' Aaron Virgo and Amos Patrick Perez's shaky retellings of these events:
Now, WCSO Deputy Turner got a few things right, and a few things wrong in his
Narrative: "On May 23, 2013 I, (Deputy Turner #3867) was assigned to the Second Judicial
District Court of Nevada located at 1. South Sierra Street. During my time assigned to
District Court over the past five months, I have been briefed on an individual identified as
Coughlin, Zachary. As I understand it, based on multiple briefings, there are several court
orders restricting the movement of Mr. Coughlin to move freely throughout a variety of areas
located in the Mills Lane Justice building. Based on my knowledge and previous orders of
the court, Mr. Coughlin is in need of an escort provided by Reno Justice Court Bailiffs to
gain access to these restricted areas. Over the last several months, Mr. Coughlin has
increasingly pushed and tested the limits of the court order in attempts to disrupt the daily
operations of law enforcement personal located at the court house. It is my understanding that
Mr. Coughlin enters the Mills Lane Justice building and informs the Court Security Officers
that he needs to gain access to a restricted area of the building. At that time, Mr. Coughlin is
required to wait for his escort provided by Reno Justice Court Bailiffs. However, Mr.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin fails to wait for an escort, and proceeds to an unknown area located in the building.
Court Control notifies law enforcement personnel in an attempt to locate Mr. Coughlin in the
building. Upon our arrival, Mr. Coughlin is always located in an area where his movement is
not restricted, and then he denies ever stating his desire to access a restricted area. On
multiple occasions, I have made contact with Mr. Coughlin on concerns of accessing
restricted locations. During these encounters with Coughlin, he has been very argumentative
and border line disruptive, however, he was not located or proven to be in a restricted area.
On 05/23/12, I had made contact with Mr. Coughlin several times throughout the day. During
these encounters, he was highly agitated and argumentative. It appeared to me as if Coughlin
was luring law enforcement personnel into a conflict, to gain a reaction for his benefit. At
approximately 1620 hours, I was standing at the Mills Lane Justice building entrance, next to
the magnetometers. During this time, I witnessed Mr. Coughlin enter the building and inform
the Court Security Officers that he had paperwork to be filed. An RJC bailiff met with Mr.
Coughlin, prior to passing through the magnetometers. The RJC Bailiff collected the
paperwork to be filed in the RJC filling office from Mr. Coughlin and proceeded to do that.
After the bailiff left the immediate area, Mr. Coughlin passed through the magnetometers and
proceeded to sit on a bench adjacent to stairs leading to the second floor of the building. RJC
Bailiffs John Reyes and Don Ramsey met with, and remained with, Mr. Coughlin as he sat on
a bench. Several minutes later, I heard the conversation between Mr. Coughlin and RJC
Bailiff Reyes escalate, as their voices continued to get louder. Deputy Troup, who was also in
the vicinity, and I approached the scene to give a visual presence. As I approached, Mr.
Coughlin was taunting RJC Bailiff Reyes, referencing his current divorce case, repeatedly.
RJC Bailiff Reyes disengaged from the conversation and stood quietly by as Mr. Coughlin
continued the taunts.
After failing to gain a rise out of Bailiff Reyes regarding his current divorce hearing,
Mr. Coughlin turned to Bailiff Ramsey and inquired about past filings. Bailiff Ramsey
indicated that he was unsure what filings Mr. Coughlin was referencing. Mr. Coughlin then
verbally attacked Bailiff Ramsey, accusing him of deliberately losing his paperwork. Bailiff
Ramsey indicated that Mr. Coughlin had left his paperwork unattended and left the building.
Mr. Coughlin then requested the status of past filings. Bailiff Ramsey asked what filings he
was referencing, and he would research it for him. Mr. Coughlin handed Bailiff Ramsey a
piece of paper indicating what filings he was referring to, and Bailiff Ramsey began to
research Coughlin's request. Once Bailiff Ramsey left the area, Bailiff Reyes requested that
Coughlin wait on the other side of the magnetometers. Mr. Coughlin refused to wait on the
other side. Bailiff Reyes told Coughlin repeatedly that he must wait on the other side of the
secured area, until his requested information was received. Mr. Coughlin began to argue,
stating that he was not going to leave but go to the third floor family court. Mr. Coughlin was
then informed that he could not leave the immediate area without finishing his business with
Justice Court. Mr. Coughlin refused to leave the bench. Bailiff Reyes indicated that if he did
not voluntarily wait on the other side of the secured area that he would be physically
escorted. Bailiff Reyes applied light touch to Mr. Coughlin's left arm to assist him in
standing. Once Bailiff Reyes made contact, Mr. Coughlin immediately began to resist by
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
turning away and pulling his arms tight into his chest. Bailiff Reyes then placed Coughlin
into a rear wrist lock. At that time, I made the assumption that Mr. Coughlin was going to be
taken into custody. I gained control of his left arm by placing it into an arm bar. Bailiff Reyes
began to escort Coughlin to the other side of the magnetometers as I continued to maintain
control of his left arm. As we attempted to exit through the magnetometers, the device was
struck and knocked to the ground, causing it to break into several pieces. Bailiff Reyes and I
avoided the damaged device and sat Mr. Coughlin on the bench adjacent to the
magnetometers. As we let go of Mr. Coughlin, he proceeded to throw himself over the
backside of the bench as if we threw him. Mr. Coughlin began to yell, stating that he had
struck his head on the ground. Mr. Coughlin then made a reference to obtaining video for a
future lawsuit. Mr. Coughlin came to his feet without assistance and took a seat on the bench
next to the incident. He.showed no sign of injury and made no further complaint. Bailiff
Reyes left the immediate area as I stood by with Mr. Coughlin for further information. Bailiff
Reyes returned moments later and took Mr. Coughlin into custody (refer to RJC case #13096). Mr. Coughlin was booked into Washoe County Detention Facility by RJC Bailiffs. He
was screened and cleared by medical staff at the jail. Nothing Further."
anyways, maybe this is what happened:
besides the 10/12/11 incident where RJC Bailiff Reyes snarled at Couglhin "I'll put my foot
up your ass" whilst Reyes was standing, glowering over Coughlin, whom was seated in the
lobby of the second floor in the RJC, with WCPD Jim Leslie and Joe Goodnight seated
beside him, shortly after Coughlin was told to go sit down by Leslie and the Bailiffs whilst
Leslie and Goodnight sat next to Coughlin., and besides Coughlin continuing to be bothered
by Reyes, and feeling Reyes' behavior was just having too material of an effect on Coughlin
various criminal defense of self and summary eviction defense for self cases to continue,
Coughlin filed a stalking/harassment TPO Application against Reyes..pretty benign, certainly
could have included a lot more and been a lot more serious looking, on 2/15/12 in RCP2012000070. Of course it was denied, just like Cathy A. Reyes TPO Application against Bailiff
Reyes was on 5/2/12.
Anyways, the antagonism by Bailiff Reyes continues. Some highlights include on
December. Bailiff Reyes jabbed his forearm and Coughlin's midsection in the DAS closeted
wins. Bailiff Reyes purported to serve Coughlin judge Sferrazza specious November 28,
2012. No faxing order in all cases all departments against Coughlin only premised upon
application of justice court rule Reno Township 10 which doesn't even apply the criminal
cases or landlord tenant matters which just happened to be the only types cases Coughlin had
at that point besides the odd stalking, harassment protection order application against Reyes
or the one against Coughlin by Richard Hill. Reyes then on December 19th, 2012 while
Coughlin was checking in with the executive branch's DAS office in their closet Reyes again
purported to serve Coughlin a document which the order itself bills to include, amongst those
individuals order to service the RJC bailiffs, much like purported proof of service of
December 26, 2012 by RJC bailiff English in the state bars protection order against Coughlin
case RCP 2012 607 Washoe the temporary protection order for workplace
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin believes that it was in response to Reyes and/or some filing office clerk such as
Cathy wood or Robbin Baker make us walk Damon Coughlin made a Reyes where Reyes
attempted to serve Coughlin the Washoe County public defenders TPO of 12 on 1219 2012
while Coughlin after Coughlin after wrist and to serve Coughlin such all Coughlin was
checking in with DAS, whereupon Coughlin then sought to attempt to review of file in the
RJC's filing office and/or file a document at which point Reyes continued glowering around
Coughlin. Coughlin made a comment to Reyes about how it there's an appearance of
impropriety where the Bailiff is taking upon himself to serve documents for the same County
that he works for against Coughlin while Coughlin is attempting to access the court system,
especially where Coughlin fault protection order against Reyes previously etc., etc. such was
Coughlin's you later characterizes Coughlin making a disturbance in the filing office
sufficient to justify the extraordinary and intervention by judge Sferrazza then chief judge
Sferrazza said out in his December 20, 2012 administrative order against Coughlin
essentially putting in place the procedures which caused some problems so many problems
here and which are premised upon judge Sferrazza's fraudulent misstatement of the Nevada
Constitution where judge Sferrazza wrote that article 6 sections takes of the Nevada const
tuition in views quote Nevada court's with certain abilities that it only in views quote District
Court's with which is particularly suspect were Joe Sferrazza's a limited jurisdiction court
judge or justice of the peace subject to Nevada Constitution article 6 section 49 section 6.
Rinses harassment Coughlin continued over the months Coughlin even made no
during the four during April 2, 2012 trial where in RCR 2012 065630 where judge Clifton
took a page out of judge Sferrazza's book in forcefully coercing a waiver of one's Fifth
Amendment rights against one self representing in an artful display of refusing to allow such
a person to put on any evidence of mice they live their Fifth Amendment rights and
steadfastly refusing allow authentication of any audio or video materials by any other means
Reyes of course managed to get called and in the room were some in her whatever at the
exact moment that Coughlin began his testimony something Coughlin commented on on the
record.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxrqMs6XU-o
immediately before that Aprils second 2013 trial Coughlin's preparation therefore was
necessarily prejudiced by the RJC's failing to provide Coughlin at all much less in a timely
manner. The jazz audio transcript it agreed to buy him of the March 19, 2013 trial date the
entire afternoon portion some three and half hours of Coughlin cross examining RPD Sargent
Sifre, Sargent Lopez, and Officer Duralde, Coughlin filed a petition for writ in CR 13 0552
detailing the NRS 178.405 violations incident to the February 5, 2013 hearings before judge
Pearson in RCR 2013 063341 and judge Pearson in RCR 2012 065630:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155488668/4-2-13-0204-0552-63041-Email-to-2JDCEmergency-Submission
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155493019/4-7-12-CV11-03628-2813884-Mtn-Alter-or-AmendJudgment-as-to-3-30-12-Order-Denying-Appeal
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155493058/4-8-13-Efile-User-Agreement-Fee-WaiverApplication-Denied-by-2JDC-Chief-Judge-Hardy
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155493384/4-5-13-0204-Efile-User-Agreement-Marke-asReceived-by-Amanda-of-2JDC-Given-to-Purdy-eFlex
Once Coughlin begins making a stink about the missin' 12/22/11 filings (again)
in Rev2011-001708 and the failure to transmit the notices of appeal in that case of 12/26/11
and in rev2012-000374, its time to really begin operation Bailiff harassment of Coughlin:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155493463/5-15-13-0204-063341-1708-03628-03051-Coughlins-Request-RJC-Notice-4-1-13-Suppl-03628-Still-Missing-12-21-22-26-11-Filings-1708063341-IFP-JAVS-of
However, Reyes and Medina were already amping that up throughout March (Couglin was
arrested thrice in 10 days, all wrongfully) between February 1 2013 and Febraury 12, 2013,
spending 12 days incarcreated between 2/1/13 and 2/16/13, the RJC, DAS, and RPD/SBN
keeping Coughlin busy, with Jduge Clifton doing his part in refusing to accept to plea
agreement Coughlin voluntarily entered on 8/27/12 and insisting on plowing ahead with the
trial in rcr2012-065630, in the process committing judicial misconduct on a number of
occasions, including on 2/5/13 in violating nrs 178.405 so egregiously.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155494260/12-22-11-0204-1708-Coughlin-s-Notice-of-PostingSupersedeas-Bond-Where-is-My-Stay-Req-Subm-and-Sferrazza-Note-Order-Denying-It
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155494494/12-22-11-0204-03628-1708-Receipt-From-RJC-forCouglhin-s-Posting-250-Supersedeas-Bond-Pursuant-to-NRS-40-385-61383
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155494334/12-22-11-0204-03628-1708-Notice-of-Posting-andAcceptance-of-Supersedeas-Bond-on-Appeal
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155494898/12-26-11-With-RJC-Fax-Header-for-First-and-LastPage-NOA-RJC-May-Have-Failed-to-File-Stamp-for-12-21-11-Sferrazza-Order-ResolvPers-Prop-Lien-0204-170
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155495302/12-22-11-0204-03628-1708-Tenant-s-Notice-to-NoAgreement-or-Settelment-Was-Made-or-Entered-Into-by-Tenant-at-12-20-11-Hearing-onContest-Pers-Property
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155494081/4-5-13-0204-03628-1708-Notice-That-SupplementalTransmitted-on-4-1-13-and-Filed-in-2JDC-Was-Not-Served-on-Coughlin-Request-for-CopyThereof
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155491966/4-2-13-0204-Email-to-2JC-Asst-Clerk-of-CourtWise-Re-SCR-110-Copied-to-NNDB-Board-Chairman-Susich
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155488721/4-2-13-0204-065630-063341-0552-EmergencyPetition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus-and-IFP-Motion
of course former WCDA turned judge, Judge Sattler struck such petition for no good reason,
resulting 62821.
Coughlin was content to redact Reyes in his wife's name from the TPO application she
filed against him when he attached it to a May 10, 2013 filing in the appeal of the iPhone
case seeking an extension of time to file his brief, which, in part necessitated by the RJC
dragging its feet with respect to actually getting an official transcript made and/or allowing
Coughlin access to the file which Robbin Baker never did some points in early December the
RJC decide caught when was no longer allowed to view the file.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155478944/5-10-13-0204-CR12-2025-Motion-forExtension-of-Time-to-File-Brief-and-to-Strike-RJC-s-ROA-and-Quasi-Transcripts-andExceed-Page-Limitations-A9
Reyes did, in a 11/21/12 conversation with Coughlin criticize Coughlin's trial
presentation incident to the 11/19/12 and 11/20/12 trial dates in RCR2011-063341, telling
Couglhin he did "a lot of things wrong" and then expressing disgust for what Reyes
characterized as Coughlin's being less than truthful under oath (Reyes mentioned Coughlin's
testifying with regard to a lack of certainty whether some object was the type of object DDA
Young assumed it was, or to whom possession/ownership of such object belonged, etc.,
etc....it would be interesting to know whether Reyes has any issue with RPD Duralde and
DDA Young lying about what the officers "were told by dispatch about a possible fight", and
how such information played such a key role in the officers probable cause and reasonable
suspicion analysis given the officers received no such information from dispatch given they
were on seen at the time and out of their vehicles when the one text involving any such report
of a "possible fight" was sent, and such message sent only to the screens in their
vehicles....Reyes also expressed to Coughlin profound sorrow for the "little kids" the mean
man Coughlin had taken advantage of, or attempted to, in trying to "steal their phone",
despite the alleged victim being 24 years old at the time, and where hostile testimony
indicated that the phone in question was found abandoned on the concrete in the middle of
the skate plaze at 11:20 pm on Saturday 8/20/11, and where Coughlin testified, and was
refused in his attempts to introduce a video of Nicole Watson admitting to this before
Nathaniel Zarate attempted to dissuade her from any further undermining the lies he told the
police, that the unidentified man threatened to throw what he characterized as a phone
(Coughlin could not be sure the item was what the unidentified man claimed it to be given
Coughlin was on the, say, western end zone of the skate plaze, where the man holding up the
item was on the eastern twenty yard line). Further, Reyes then critiziced Coughlin for what
legal scholar Reyes believes was a matter of Coughlin attempting to misrepresent the import
of the very case law Coughlin was citing to Judge Sferrazza in closing argument, which
Judge Sferrazza did in fact attempt to spin against Coughlin, but which only really reveals the
extent to which Judge Sferrazza has the tenuous grasp of the law (as it relates to courtrooms)
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that one might expect a lifelong politician turned judge in his sixties (fine, some tribal court
experience, but Eastman's statements in that regard bring some question to the utility of
that...its not a question of intelligence with Judge Sferrazza though, because he has plenty of
that).
Anyways, Bailiff Reyes seemed to go beyond recapitulating the passig inference made
by Judge Sferrazza (which was completely wrong to begin with) that Couglhin had somehow
cited to cases that actually proved his guilt (to be sure, Staab, Shepp, Clifford, etc, prove
Coughlin's innocence, and beyond that, they prove how deeply dysfunctional Judge Sferrazza
and DDA Young's work was on this case, as neither understood (or even seemed to care to,
which is fraudulent of th em) the "receiving stolen property" charge (incredibly short shrift
was given to it in every way, which, under Shepp, requires a mistrial, indeed).
For instance, the transcript form 11/20/12 for the protions Reyes was criticizing
Coughlin to his face, while Coughlin was leaving court after having checked in with DAS,
included: "And let's start from learning very basic things, I think anyone could have read the
230 page motion for mistrial memorandum of law that Mr. Young has had since October
18th, I believe, well over 30 days prior to today. Well, if today's the 20th. But I see a lot of
growth was there relevant to the issues here, Staab v State, all this case law I cited herein,
urn, is extremely applicable to things like the amended charge. And I don't want to misstate it
now by citing the wrong case, but I will just say there is cases, and I set them out, and there
is, I believe, mandatory authority in Nevada that if 109 the prosecutor does not plead from
another -THE COURT: Sir, it does say from another. MR. COUGHLIN: I'm sorry, sir, I
meant specify. I believe in my --it needs to specify from who, or provide facts in support
thereof. THE COURT: In looking at the complaint, it says the property of Cory Goble in
Count One and Count Two -MR. COUGHLIN: Sir, I'm trying to use my time to argue Mr.
Young THE COURT: I understand, okay, go ahead. MR. COUGHLIN: I should follow your
prompts. THE COURT: Just try to focus your attention on what the complaint actually says.
MR. COUGHLIN: I probably spent 12 hours one day reading exactly what the complaint
says and breaking it down...And let's start from learning very basic things, I think anyone
could have read the 230 page motion for mistrial memorandum of law that Mr. Young has
had since October 18th, I believe, well over 30 days prior to today. Well, if today's the 20th.
But I see a lot of growth was there relevant to the issues here, Staab v State, all this case law I
cited herein, urn, is extremely applicable to things like the amended charge. And I don't want
to misstate it now by citing the wrong case, but I will just say there is cases, and I set them
out, and there is, I believe, mandatory authority in Nevada that if 109 the prosecutor does not
plead from another -THE COURT: Sir, it does say from another. MR. COUGHLIN: I'm
sorry, sir, I meant specify. I believe in my --it needs to specify from who, or provide facts in
support thereof. THE COURT: In looking at the complaint, it says the property of Cory
Goble in Count One and Count Two -MR. COUGHLIN: Sir, I'm trying to use my time to
argue Mr. Young THE COURT: I understand, okay, go ahead. MR. COUGHLIN: I should
follow your prompts. THE COURT: Just try to focus your attention on what the complaint
actually says. MR. COUGHLIN: I probably spent 12 hours one day reading exactly what the
complaint says and breaking it down. ...So it appeared like it was about 250 pages, but it was
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
about 80 pages, and it boiled down that search and seizure law, it went into that. ... 112...Urn,
but I think it's clear that one in Nevada it's mandatory authority, if you found that I got the
phone, or took the phone, or anything of that sort, if you don't find that I had felonious intent
at that time, at that time, this mandatory authority in Nevada says thatoughlin shouldn't have
to order three different occasions including that of April 4, 2013. Such hearings of February
5, 2013, especially where they now have material relevant to this new alleged probation
violation charge in RCR 2011 063341 Coughlin's contention that the obey all laws
condition of his probation and be seen from use of alcohol and/or other conditions were
excised from his provision Richard Pearson in that case and likely on that day. Further, that
the administrator order was amended to even in the supported by the documentary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155488721/4-2-13-0204-065630-063341-0552-EmergencyPetition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus-and-IFP-Motion
Olympik Security's Aaron Virgo's written statement of may 23rd 2013 reads quote on
Thursday five 23 2013 at around 1625 hrs. Mr. Coughlin came to the security checkpoint
of the Mills Lane courthouse after he had been escorted out. Mr. Coughlin approach court
security officer Perez requested a escort from the RJC Reno justice court bailiffs bailiff
Heber responded to the call and took the paperwork. Mr. Coughlin gave to him and went to
the clerk's Mr. Coughlin sat on the bench in the court lobby right now papers until bailiff
Heber returned. Hebert and Coghlan were talking when Coughlin began to act agitated but
then told Hebert he had no more business. Bailiff Heber then return to his duties, after a
minute or so. Mr. Coughlin approach screening area stating he needed to use the restroom
and refused a escort. Coughlin cleared screening and immediately sat on the bench in the
security area and started writing on more paperwork. Bailiff Hebert returned to talk with Mr.
Coughlin while they were talking bailiff Ramsey came towards them and Mr. Coughlin
started to accuse Ramsay of throwing his paperwork away in the trash. At this time bailiff
Reyes approach the group after a short time. I then heard bailiff Reyes tell Mr. Coughlin
leave the building at which time Mr. Coughlin refused Bill Frist continued to tell Mr.
Coughlin to leave with every request refused by Mr. Coughlin bailiff Reyes, as well as other
law enforcement personnel then told Mr. Coughlin to stand up and then began to escort
Coughlin out. Mr. Coughlin then began to resist and tried to pull away. Bailiff Reyes told Mr.
Coughlin not to resist as they would went through the screening area. Coughlin continued to
try to pull away and as going through the magnetometer someone knocked into it, resulting in
it falling and breaking. Due to my position. I could not see who headed, only knowing the
Reyes and Coghlan were passing through it at the time. After the magnetometer Phil, Reyes
Pl., Mr. Coughlin on the bench. Mr. Coughlin then what look like fell dramatically onto the
ground. Coughlin then accuse bailiff Reyes of throwing him and bringing up personal
knowledge about Reyes, family, past, income, etc. as if he was making a statement that he
knew all of bailiff rail since information and stating it was going to be his (Mr. Coughlin's).
When he was done with him."
"Subject: RE: ATTN CJ of Department of Alternative SEntencingRE: New voicemail
from: 7753299517? From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Sent:
Sat
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12/15/12 2:37 AM To:

Brown, Celeste (cbrown@washoecounty.us) Dear Officer Brown,
...reference in this matter and the legitimacy thereof under the law. Further, you were present
when RJC Bailiff John Reyes (whom I have previously filed for a TPO against) made
menacing commentary to me, in your presence, respecting his retaliatory motives and
ill intentions directed towards sabotaging my participation in the DAS program.
Additionally, you have on repeated occasions attempted to assert some "agreement"
you allege I entered with you to have the force of law, and or become part of the Court's
Order. One, I do not believe I made any such "agreements" with you, and, two, I do not
believe they are part of the Court's Order. Sincerely,"
Additionally, Couglin overhead Bailiff Medina campaign orchestrated failed random
urine drug screen by Coughlin by way of only providing Coughlin a very limited window of
time in which he would be able to urinate where Coughlin was having trouble urinating one
day Medina Nancy the Coughlin with DAS officer Brown close in so that Coughlin would
have one hour to leave the urine test, but then Medina one of extorting exhorting. Officer
Brown told allow Coughlin the 5 min. of the into that one hour to have one chance to
urinate. On that same occasion bailiff Reyes and Medina both follow Coughlin into the
restroom to watch him perform a urine drug test, and, apparently, requiring both of them to
do so. It seems bailiff Reyes must be summoned any time Coughlin appears in the RJC and
that Reyes must follow him around from room to room fourth floor on may 23rd while seated
next to Reyes were arrest was glowering over him. Coughlin did ask Reyes if he was gonna
be following Coughlin up to the Family Court perhaps Reyes took that to be a subtle jab at
his divorce last PO application that Coughlin had already attached of the filing of May 10,
2013, though he had redacted all names therein and an attachment to this filing in CR 12
2025 wherein Reyes is obstructive harassment of Coughlin had him parking should
Coughlin's need to seek an extension of time to make filing plead not a lie for Reyes and
deputy Turner to make the allegations they make in their statements. Written statements
concerning alleges commentary or comments. Coughlin purportedly made to Reyes
respecting his marriage while seated near the caf. Those are just flat out lies and Reyes
deputy troop and deputy Turner need to be really sure that there wasn't a recording device
somewhere that they're just not aware of as you just never know when there is one and just
because someone search incident to arrest didn't turn up one doesn't mean there does not exist
indisputable proof that someone lied in a witness statement you just never know do you.
Another very troubling thing is the fact that the videos that Washoe County Dist. Atty.
Finally turned over to Coughlin despite Coughlin submitting filings seeking such
immediately after the arrest, which of course judge Clifton managed to obstruct in his
senseless interpretation to put it charitably of Coughlin's conditions whereupon he was except
cocounsel only that result another instance of judge Clifton refusing to abide by NRS 1.235.
Regardless, it is very interesting that the very Bailiff Ramsey and Bailiff Heibert so central
been present during the purported haunting of Reyes by Coughlin about his divorce while
Coughlin was seated by the Caf have failed to make any written statement whatsoever. The
porting, these spuriously fallacious lies by opportunistic Washoe County Sheriff office
deputies Stroup and Turner and Reyes own lies in that regard.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WCSO Deputy Turner's 5/23/13 Narrative indicates: "RJC Bailiffs John Reyes and
Don Ramsey met with, and remained with, Mr. Coughlin as he sat on a bench. Several
minutes later, I heard the conversation between Mr. Coughlin and RJC Bailiff Reyes escalate,
as their voices continued to get louder. Deputy Troup, who was also in the vicinity, and I
approached the scene to give a visual presence. As I approached, Mr. Coughlin was
taunting RJC Bailiff Reyes, referencing his current divorce case, repeatedly. RJC
Bailiff Reyes disengaged from the conversation and stood quietly by as Mr. Coughlin
continued the taunts. After failing to gain a rise out of Bailiff Reyes regarding his
current divorce hearing, Mr. Coughlin turned to Bailiff Ramsey and inquired about past
filings. Bailiff Ramsey indicated that he was unsure what filings Mr. Coughlin was
referencing. Mr. Coughlin then verbally attacked Bailiff Ramsey, accusing him of
deliberately losing his paperwork. Bailiff Ramsey indicated that Mr. Coughlin had left his
paperwork unattended and left the building. Mr. Coughlin then requested the status of past
filings. Bailiff Ramsey asked what filings he was referencing, and he would research it for
him. Mr. Coughlin handed Bailiff Ramsey a piece of paper indicating what filings he was
referring to, and Bailiff Ramsey began to research Coughlin's request. Once Bailiff Ramsey
left the area, Bailiff Reyes requested that Coughlin wait on the other side of the
magnetometers. Mr. Coughlin refused to wait on the other side. Bailiff Reyes told Coughlin
repeatedly that he must wait on the other side of the secured area, until his requested
information was received. Mr. Coughlin began to argue, stating that he was not going to
leave but go to the third floor family court."
Reyes' whole schpiel just doesn't add up, he writes: "Coughlin refused to provide the
request to me, then gave it to Ramsey, who went to the RJC Criminal Div. At that time,
Coughlin adressed me directly, asking several questions regarding how my family court case
was going, and then tauntingly recited information about by financial disclosure, my minor
children and some written qoutes made by my wife, in an obvious effort to let me know that
he's researched public records about my personal information."
Its weird. There must be some reason the Sheriff's Office and Bailiffs (and some
might say RJC) really needed to be the case that Coughlin was tontine Reyes about his
divorce whilst seated on the bench in front of the caf. The only problem is, that's just not
true apparently and they need this so bad that Reyes troop and Turner are willing to lie about
it it appears that Bailiff Hiebert and Bailiff Ramsey are not willing to lie about it and who
knows maybe they have their own reasons might have some the do is Ramsey realizing that
it's not appropriate to throw away. Coughlin's filings from May 22 might have something to
do with Hiebert realizing that it's not appropriate for him to be refusing to take Coughlin's
filings from May 20 or 22nd are all at different times Hiebert Nevada or it's not appropriate
for Hiebert told Coughlin he can't look at any files..then there was the thing were Hiebert
ripped up one of Coughlin's filings, or who knows maybe Hiebert and Ramsey are just tired
of Reyes barging in every situation. Trying to run point on like he did earlier in the day at
1:30 PM on May 23 when he put Coughlin on control all despite the fact that Bailiff English
was dealing with Coughlin despite the fact that Coughlin was well within his rights go to the
Family Court try to get some work done before appearing in CCP court.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The only thing Coughlin said while on the bench in front of the caf to Reyes that had
anything to do with Family Court in any sense whatsoever is the following: "Hey John, been
going to Family Court lately (the listener has to decide whether to put a period there or a
question mark) I got all the bailiffs following me up there lately even though it's not the
subject of the administrative order not an area under the RJC's exclusive control." Then,
when Reyes told Coughlin to go wait in the lobby Coughlin indicated that he already finishes
business for the RJC was not waiting for anything from anyone with the RJC and intended to
go to Family Court whereupon Reyes says to Coughlin go wait in the lobby, despite the fact
that Coughlin had nothing to wait for their upon Reyes began to put his hands on Coughlin
startling Coughlin leading to Reyes taking Coughlin's arm beginning to twist it behind
Coughlin's back in pushing Coughlin's head into the bench lightly, but still, whereupon
Coughlin went somewhat limp for second. Mostly out of being in shock that Reyes was
doing something so stupid and overbearing (which is stupid of Coughlin to ever
underestimate the extent which John Reyes can be overbearing), whereupon Coughlin did
everything he could possibly therein expressed to these power and control wheel cliches that
he was not resist saying that he didn't want to get his arms broken or arrested and that he
would be parking it were ever they drove him to. Then and originally Coughlin thought this
was something Reyes manipulated and had planned out but now, upon seeing how easily
those magnetometers fall over Coughlin's not so sure though the video does seem pretty
ridiculous for Reyes to think the thing when fall over and Coughlin couldn't hardly see where
he was even going as he was being forced into a horizontal posture to the floor by one of
Reyes is arms while the other are Reyes twisted Coughlin's arm into a very precarious
position. Anyways, the magnetometer falls over and then Reyes continues holding Coughlin's
arm also does Debbie Turner holding the other one. This is all shown in the video and they
and Reyes gives it the dramatic sit due down this bench boy "placing" of Coughlin, real sexy
manhandlin' style, very Dirty Harry...clap, clap. And Coughlin fell over the bench on the
floor startled horrified offended to say the least. Coughlin got out and gave an
extemporaneous beach on community property laws in Nevada as they relate to the nexus
between emptying bank accounts of community property unilaterally and the iniquity in
doing so particularly where wine may have three babies under ten at home with nothing to
eat..." (a review of Reyes divorce/tpo records shows he has two kids that seem to be over 10,
not "three babies under ten", so is not entirely clear why Reyes or anyone else is so sure
Coughlin was commenting about Reyes's life, though, even if he was, so what? Its quite
obviously more inappropriate for Reyes to be telling Couglhin to "go home and take your
medications" incident to one of the ten or so instances since January 2013 where Reyes has
dreamed up some rationale for refusing to do his job and process the documents Coughlin
submitted for filing. But but if Coughlin worded, not Reyes is divorce or TPO one would
expect that Coughlin might have some of the same measured analysis that got him fired from
Washoe legal services is domestic violence attorney where CAAW and Tahoe women's
services fell apparently that Coughlin was not on board enough with their agenda, but instead
chose to serve his clients, individually as they wished to be represented within the bounds of
the rules of professional conduct. One thought that has occurred to Coughlin is that if Reyes
moved out of the family home then he would necessarily need to expend money to to secure
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
alternate lodging and further, that his pension may not entirely the community property and
additionally that if his wife is not working. It may be the case that income should be imputed
to her for the purposes of any set off and further, that if his wife was not allowing him
visitation than the balance of the equities certainly, and Judge Weller would read me the riot
act for saying this, but the balance of the equities would certainly land want to feel something
along the lines of what I don't get to see my kids. Why should you get money? Apparently
that's completely outlandish to think that way but whatever... Judge Weller took me out to the
woodshed one day for even thinking of having those thoughts thought up. see 60302 60317.
Plus Reyes his wife's former attorney says she owes him 14 K and they haven't paid their
mortgage since something like 2010 and are still living in the home or she is at least what is
any of this have to do with anything. Not exactly sure. I just want my damn filings and access
to the documents I need to defend myself in this ridiculous disbarment case and neither
Reyes nor the RJC judges have been responding to my "Coach K voice", so I figured I'd try
an extraordinary writ.
The big motivation though and the looking up Reyes in all this was his unilaterally
announcing on the final day for Coughlin to file his MOtion for Arrest of Judgement or NEw
Trial (7 calendar days from rendition of 4/2/13 judgment in rcr2012-065630) or the NRS
189.010 deadline to file a NOtice of Appeal therefrom (and those DEADLIENS ARE
JURISDICITONAL, WHICH MEANS IF JOHN REYES AND OR BAILIFF MEDINA
TELL COUGHLIN HE CAN'T FILE ONE OF THOSE THINGS BECAUSE COUGHLIN
FILED SOME REQUEST FOR AUDIO THAT MORNING OR SOMETHING, OR IF THE
SHERIFF AND OLYPMIK SECURITY DETAIL PLAY GAMES WITH COUGHLIN
(ALONG WITH THE WCDA) AND COUGHLIN CNA'T GET THAT NOTICE OF
APPEAL OR WHATEVER SERVED BY THE DAY IT MUST BE SERVED, AND IF
THESE GUYS ACT SMUG, AND CONDESCENDING, FLIPPANT, AND NOT ALL
THAT CONCERNED ABOUT THE LIFELONG CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH THINGS
TO COUGHLIN, your God damn right your pensions on the table mother effer. Unless
there's some law that protects it...look at OJ.
Earlier in the day shortly after arrested. But Coughlin a control hold that 1:30 PM Coughlin
did make statements to a Sgt. Mullins who was providing Coughlin with some thoughtful
grandstanding about an inch and three quarters from Coughlin's face for an audience of about
20 law enforcement types for a period of about 5 min. and even then John Reyes was chimin'
in like he is sargent in waiting or something... And at that time Coughlin did engage in a
useful communiqu with Sgt. Mullins wherein he addressed some of his frustrations with
having his means rejected by the bailiffs Bayless like Hiebert and Reyes whom are retired
California law enforcement types who get full pensions and benefits from their retirement
and him move here to Reno and get full-time jobs as bailiffs with benefits that they could
readily lose and still be doing quite well financially and boy does it show in the extent to
which they treat orders given to them by judge is as optional suggestions that they are free to
augment or remained as they see fit .
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
What motivated Coughlin to start researching Reyes and to ultimately uncover the
domestic violence protection order application will Reyes is why filed against him
and then videos of the moments after arrest only further confirm the extent which Reyes has
completely retaliatory animus which even if all these lies about Coughlin talked about his
divorce were true doesn't justify his actions. After being thrown over a bench by Reyes and
him having Reyes go retrieve Coughlin's wallet and throw enamel Coughlin was on the
ground. Coughlin got up and did make statements of the general nature that Reyes may well
have taken to reference circumstances in his own personal life. Coughlin made statements to
the effect that "and YOU are telling ME to take MY medications (which Reyes absolutely
had done previously with invective months before coincident with another one of his
patented refusals to accept Coughlin's submissions for filing which he and deputy Medina are
particularly good at where they're fond of making a new low wrinkles that they themselves at
the administrative order. Such is the only give filed one document day blah blah blah and
recently judge Pearson has surprised the bailiffs by seeming to indicate that the quote 15 min.
a day. Coughlin was limited to it having any right to access his files for review in the filing
office was apparently woefully under what judge Pearson five should be as judge Pearson
came up with and one hour a day figure where previously judge Steve Tuttle, err wait he's not
a judge. he's a court administrator judge Sexton indicated that judge Tuttle, wait neither of
these people are judges ...Bailiff Sexton indicated he was enforcing his limiting Coughlin 15
min. per day to view files based upon an order from court administrator Tuttle (King Tut).
Oddly, all these witness statements conflict with one another in interesting ways.
Reyes statement contains none of the picture being some quotation the Coughlin the troops
does of Coughlin talking about. Well what appeasers should Reyes is "and clearly Reyes and
true revealed the extent to which they were unaware that Hebert bit Bailiff Hebert had
already returned to Coughlin in the lobby area. Those documents that Coughlin submitted for
filing and was waiting for a file stamped copy of her also unaware that Hebert had told
Coughlin at that point that he would not be allowed to view any files that day that being the
case Coughlin had no more business with the RJC, he could not reasonably be said to of been
waiting to see files when he had already been told he would not be permitted to see any filed
by Bailiff Hebert much as bailiff Ramsey had told Coughlin the same thing during his
discussion with Coughlin on the bench in front of the caf on may 23rd where Ramsey
informed Coughlin that he would not be at allowed to see any of his eviction case files
because they were quote falling Carson and they were all closed, Anyways. Plus Olympic
securities Berg oh witness statement indicates Coughlin's business with Hebert was done
which directly contradicts Reyes is statement that Coughlin had somehow failed to wait
Hebert return with something for Coughlin in the lot lobby and instead ventured to the
benches Reyes this assertion. There is entirely suspect given the fact that Reyes allowed
Coughlin sit there for several minutes apparently Reyes sought is a great opportunity thrust
his crotch at Coughlin face at close range for an extended period of time, though. So, Ray S's
statement reveals the extent to which he is alleging he issued an order which would have
been based upon his erroneous assumption that Coughlin was waiting for some materials to
be returned by bailiff Hiebert one. And, apparently Reyes is making the contention that
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
should he fail on the whole idea that Coughlin was waiting for materials to be returned by
bailiff Hiebert that Coughlin was also waiting for materials to be returned by bailiff Ramsey.
Even were that true, what business is it of Reyes is to tell Coughlin where to wait when
Ramsey is handling the matter. It's classic John Reyes stick his nose in everything attempt to
control everyone's business and bully his way around. Regardless, that's inaccurate to as
Coughlin was awaiting for papers from anyone as he was already had already been told by
both Bailiff Hebert and Ramsey that he wouldn't be provided any files to review and he
hadn't given anyone any documents for filing, so he wasn't waiting for any file stamped copy
thereof. Further, even if he was Coughlin's nine custody any free to give up on the whole
enterprise a walk up the Family Court any time he wants whether or not deputy troop thinks
he has any quote business up there, which is something she told him one day approximately 6
weeks prior when she followed him up the Family Court, much as many of the RJC bailiffs
have along with what seems like dozens of Sheriff deputies with nothing better to do,
whereupon deputy troop told Coughlin quote heating having business up in Family Court
how is deputy troop could know whether or not Coughlin wanted to say go to the car run
TPO office and file a protection order application or whether Coughlin just wanted to sit in
on some divorce trial. What ever is unclear, but what is clear is that the Washoe County
Sheriff in the Reno justice court bailiffs and you can throw in the Reno Municipal Court
marshals to have absolutely no respect for the public's right to access the course and instead
indulge every last power trip they feel like taking. There's a muscular testosterone that
permeates everything these people do that's gets to be a bit much at times.
One rather interesting thing is the fact that the RJC bailiffs are alleging that they
charge Coughlin with contempt of court. However, the booking she doesn't show that. And it
appears that perhaps that the case where the judges need to make that decision and they have
chosen not to then again chief bailiff Michael Sexton seems to believe he is a judge, as do
several of his bailiffs believe they themselves to her judges and they amend orders by real
judges like Judge Pearson Sferrazza when they see fit.
It is rather curious that all the videos propounded by the Washoe County district
attorneys office do not seem to contain any footage whatsoever of Coughlin resisting Reyes,
or any other officer physically in any manner whatsoever. There's very little footage in fact,
of the moments where radius attacks. Coughlin in fact, it seems the footages nearly
completely confined to shots of Reyes one hand on Coughlin's neck pushing Coughlin's torso
to be parallel with the ground while using a control heart hold arm lock Coughlin's arm
behind his back while deputy Turner does roughly the same thing with one of Coughlin's
arms and they kind of steer him like an airplane through the magnetometer with Reyes
holding on the clock. Coughlin so closely that, of course, the thing gets knocked over is no
indication whatsoever that Coughlin soon any resisting fact Coughlin was terrified that one or
both of his arms were gonna be broken by these idiotic overaggressive deputies with nothing
better to do than harass someone who clearly isn't violent etc., etc. Coughlin's been arrested
18 times this year or since August 11 there's not been one incident of violence as part he was
attacked by a deadly quake struck at Washoe County jail that's about it. Coughlin then
resisted anyway just Leslie made a face of Deutsche true when one extra on leave it was June
-
1
2
3
4
28 12, only afforded Coughlin one partial phone call him and insisted upon seeing Coughlin
back to his cell whereupon Deputy Hoekstra attacked and tackled Coughlin with deputy
Cheung and another deputy who hid his badge when Coughlin tried to look at it drag
Coughlin back to his cell and ripped his close law office and held him down on the floor and
left through some jail you outfit and him to wear.
WHY IS THERE 4 SECONDS OF VIDEO MISSING FROM WHAT THE WCDA

PROUNDED TO COUGLIN AS "DISCOVERY", AND WHY IS THERE NO VIDEO
FROM THE CAMERA STATIONED NEAREST TO WHERE COUGHLIN SEATED
NEXT TO THE CAFE WITH REYES GLOWERING OVER HIM, PLACIGN HIS
CROTCH IN COUGHLIN'S FACE FOR MINUTES AT AT TIME, WHEN ALL THIS
BAILIFF RAMSEY/HEIBERT ACTION WAS GOING ON?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGySulILtG8
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Deputy Troup's Narrative gets a lot wrong and contains a few bald face lines too: "mr.
coughlin came into the building and informed the court street security officers of his business
in the building, which is part of his court order. mr. coughlin was looking to complete some
filings for reno justice. an rjc bailiff responded (NOTE: apparently Deputy Troup knows not
Bailif Heibert's name), retrieved mr. coughlin's filing paperwork and took it to the filing
office. mr. coughlin waited for a few moments outside of the magnetometer, where he has
been asked to wait for return of his filings. after a few minutes, mr. coughlin entered through
the magnetometers and sat on a bench directly inside security. (NOTE: Troup seems to be
oblivious here to the fact that Bailiff Heibert returned to where Coughlin was waiting in the
RJC lobby and where Heibert handed Coughlin two "date received stamped" documents,
such is apparently what Olympik's Virgo is referring to when he indicates that Coughlin told
Heibert he had no more business to do, etc...and the video propounded clearly shows
Coughlin waiting for and Heibert coming back with the papers, and at that time Heibert also
informed Coughlin he would not be permitted to review any files that day, whether civil or
criminal, period) when the rjc bailiff returned, mr. coughlin immediately began to question
him about his paperwork. the bailiff explained that the filing clerk was working on his filing
request. mr. coughlin continued to ask multiple times about where his files were and about
the bailiff getting his files. the bailiff returned to the filing office to check on the status of the
filings. at that time, rjc bailiff reyes and ramsey came down from the second floor to relieve
the bailiffs that were down stairs with mr. coughlin, whose shifts were ending. as soon as mr.
coughlin saw bailiff reyes, he immediately became aggravated and loudly stated "oh great
it's you reyes. i don't like dealing with you." bailiff reyes stood by with mr. coughlin as
bailiff ramsey took more paperwork from mr. coughlin and went to the filing office. (NOTE:
odd, the videos propounded do no seem to show Coughlin handing Ramsey any "paperwork"
and certainly there is nothing in the discovery propounded representing any such
"paperwork" but again, two of the videos are missing the same 4 seconds, so who
knows...regardless, even if these various contradictory allegations are true (and this is so
classic John Reyes has to put his nose in absolutely every single thing that is going on, has to
control every situation, very similar themes to that laid out in his wifes TPO application, and
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to be fair to Reyes, TPO Application are notoriously one sided and often quite unfair, though
Coughlin certainly can attest to being more than annoyed by Reyes controlling, controlling,
agressive, somewhat demeaning, and hostile nature, at times....since about October 2011, he's
going through a divorce, those are never fun etc...but Reyes has made commentary to
Coughlin of an invective nature indicating that Coughlin needs to go home and take his
medications and is also made statements to Coughlin, such as, that's a pretty expensive candy
bar referencing Coughlin's current temporary suspension from the practice of law in the state
of Nevada incident to a conviction for petty larceny that Coughlin still maintain citizens
citizens as two of quote a candy bar and some cough drops at in Indian colony Walmart by
some tribal police who made an illegal arrest in violation of NRS 171.1255. And where there
is a multitude of evidence that Coughlin did not steal anything and that Walmart's Thomas
fronting now and both the Indian colony police officers Cameron Crawford and Donnie
Braun worth did a great deal of lying during the trial, which was also accompanied by a fair
amount of judicial misconduct on the part of the RMC's Kenneth Howard in his patent abuse
of the contempt power and denial of Coughlin. Sixth amendment rights. I observed mr.
coughlin and bailiff reyes exchanging words. i could tell the conversation was escalating due
to their voices becoming louder. i stepped closer to mr. coughlin and bailiff reyes as did
deputy turner. i could hear mr. coughlin taunting bailiff reyes by talking about what "a piece
of shit he is" and about bailiff reyes current divorce. supplement no 0 0 0 1 bailiff reyes told
mr. coughlin that he needed to wait on the other side of the magnetometer for his paperwork.
mr. coughlin refused to move. bailiff reyes asked him multiple times, and mr. coughlin
continued to state, "no i am not moving." bailiff reyes reached in to take control of mr.
coughlin's right arm to assist him up to move. mr. coughlin again stated, "no i am not
moving" and pulled in his arms tight to his chest to keep bailiff reyes from being able to get
control of his arm and moved his body away from bailiff reyes. i called sergeant mullen over
the radio and informed him that the rjc bailiffs were having problems with mr. coughlin,
since sergeant mullen had dealt with mr. coughlin multiple times earlier in the day. bailiff
reyes then took control of mr. coughlin's right arm and placed him in a rear wrist lock. i
believed that bailiff reyes was going to be detaining mr. coughlin at this point, so i moved
closer to assist, in case mr. coughlin resisted. deputy turner also stepped in to assist (see
deputy turner's primary report for more information). bailiff reyes then stood mr. coughlin up
and began to escort him towards the front area on the other side of the magnetometers where
he was asking him to move originally. i pulled out my x-2 taser out due to mr. coughlin's
resisting bailiff reyes in taking control of him."
Coughlin submitted for filing with the SBN (making not incriminating statements
respecting whether such was submitted in the manner for which Coughlin is currently facing
one of the more suspect, illegitimate prosecutions in recent memory, one that really should
get Dan Wong disbarred or at least suspended for several years, as clearly the buck never
stops with Mr. Wong, and he thoroughly lacks scruples. (to add to teh the filings the SBN
has failed in its duties to transmit in the ROA are Coughlin's 10/30/12 filings, his 9/9/12
filing, his 1/3/13 filing and his 1/17/13 filing, adn probably some others, and all the exhibits
attached thereto (which usually consist of discs with lots of pdfs of court
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
documents/transcripts (both written and audio) and some movies, etc, etc. (see attached).
couhglin's 1/3/13 Moiton to Alter or Amend, etc. the 12/14/12 fofcol includes: "Kings
continues on to remix the 12/14/12 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law of Chair Echeverria
(King alleged to Panel's decision was "unanimous" (there is no proof of that anywhere) in his
TPO application in the Reno Justice Court, RCP2012-000607 (the RJC failed to respond to
Coughlin's subpoena or subpoena duces tecums, mistakenly believing that it was the original
subpoena they were served by Nicholas Hassett, and therefore, they would be able to avoid a
contempt finding for failing to respond or appear under some NRCP 45 requirement to file
the original. However, the RJC, Steve Tuttle, and Karen Stancil were misinformed in that
regard, and their malfeasance augers for a mistrail or new trial to the extent a continuance
was denied by the Chair and Coughlin's defense was prejudiced by the RJC's misconduct.
Where Aaron Virgo, in his 5/23/13 Written Statement in RCR2013-072675 wrote: "Mr.
Coughlin then began to resist and tried to pull away. Bailiff Reyes told Mr. Coughlin not to
resist as they went through the screening area. Coughlin continued to try to pull away and
as going through the magnetometer someone knocked into it, resulting in it falling and
breaking..." Mr. Virgo is a cheap liar, period. Pathetic. Virgo and his coworker Matt Greene
informed Coughlin that they were instructed not to speak to Coughlin about this incident by
their superior, James Something. The thing is, Mr. Cheap Liar Virgo, is someone could go to
jail for a significant period of time, in part, based upon your cheap lies, and this shall be in
the record and follow you forever, you cheap liar, you.
Amos Patrick Perez's written statement of 5/23/13 reads: "0n 5-23-13 at
approximately 1620 Mr. Coughlin came into Mills B. Lane courthouse after being escorted
out of the courthouse by Bailiff Heibert. Coughlin said down the lottery bench and asked for
a Bailiff so CSO Virgo called to the Bailiff station and asked for Bailiff to come down to help
Coughlin Bailiff Hebert came back down and asked Coughlin how can I help you. Coughlin
then replied I need these papers filed. Heibert took the papers back to the filing office
approximately ten sec later. Coughlin told me he had to use the restroom after he cleared the
security checkpoint. He went straight to the benches. Coughlin did not go to the restroom,
then saw Bailiff Ramsey and started to yell at him, saying that Ramsey through his
paperwork away. Ramsey and Bailiff Reyes walked over to Coughlin Reyes asked Coughlin
to stop yelling. Heibert returned with Coughlin's paperwork after Coughlin had his
paperwork in his hand Reyes asked Coughlin, if he had any more business at the courthouse.
Coughlin told Reyes no. Reyes then asked Coughlin to leave. Coughlin then told Reyes I
am not leaving. Reyes told Coughlin several more times to leave in Coughlin replied no I am
not leaving Reyes gave Coughlin several more warnings Coughlin replied back with no I am
not leaving. Reyes then restrained Coughlin and started to escort him out. Halfway out
Coughlin started to fight with Reyes. At that time the magnetometer was knocked over. I
backed up out of the way and it was no longer in view of Coughlin and Reyes."
Coughlin and Reyes."
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Funny, Perez sure claims to have heard a great deal many things from his post
approximately thrity fee away from the bench Coughlin was seated at in front of the cafe...yet
Perez fails to mention that which Deputy Turner did (Deputy Turner wrote: "Mr. Coughlin
began to argue, stating that he was not going to leave but go to the third floor family court")
and also contends Bailiff Hiebert gave Coughlin his papers while Coughlin was seated at the
bench in front of the cafe, in contrast to what the video shows and the statement by Perez'
own coworker, Virgo ( then heard Bailiff Reyes tell Mr. Coughlin leave the building at
which time Mr. Coughlin refused Bailiff Reyes continued to tell Mr. Coughlin to leave with
every request refused by Mr. Coughlin. Bailiff Reyes, as well as other law enforcement
personnel then told Mr. Coughlin to stand up and then began to escort Coughlin out.)
...However, Perez's failure to notice or, at best, mention that Coughlin waited in the lobby
until Bailiff Hiebert returned with Coughlin's papers was echoed in its inaccuracy or
misleading nature by Deputy Turner's account: "At approximately 1620 hours, I was standing
at the Mills Lane Justice building entrance, next to the magnetometers. During this time, I
witnessed Mr. Coughlin enter the building and inform the Court Security Officers that he had
paperwork to be filed. An RJC bailiff met with Mr. Coughlin, prior to passing through the
magnetometers. The RJC Bailiff collected the paperwork to be filed in the RJC filling office
from Mr. Coughlin and proceeded to do that. After the bailiff left the immediate area, Mr.
Coughlin passed through the magnetometers and proceeded to sit on a bench adjacent to
stairs leading to the second floor of the building..." and that of Deputy Troup)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
If the reader was hoping that one of the witness statements propounded by the Washoe
County district attorney wouldn't be full of lies and was holding out hope that that one would
come from a most Patrick Perez they are gonna be sorely disappointed because Mr. Perez
engages in a great deal of lying himself. The problem for the stay in Mr. Reyes is that Mr.
Perez doesn't seem to be quite too sure about what to lie about or seem to have an ability to
do it very well it's not a huge lie, but it's bordering on ridiculous for Perez to indicate that
Coughlin was started to yell at Ramsey no one yelled at bailiffs in the Reno justice court. I'm
pretty sure they would be shot or something stupid would happen if they did, given how
touchy the bailiffs are and how much genuflecting the demand not all of them, but certainly
Reyes certainly Chief Bailiff Sexton is often like that Medina can be hit or miss the rest of
them are swell well enough issues with discs disappearing incident to Plamondon having
some connection but I have nothing solid putting that on him, and I wouldn't bet he was
necessarily behind it...
Further arrested and asked Coughlin a stop yelling because Coughlin wasn't yelling.
Additionally, keyword, then return with Coughlin's paperwork where Perez indicate
Coughlin was sated seated next arrest because Hebert had already return with Coughlin's
paperwork were Coughlin was seated in the lobby right in front of where Perez apparently
was. Where Perez that Reyes asked Coughlin if he had any more business and the courthouse
and Coughlin said no, that's fantastic that that's how Perez heard it it's doesn't sound like
that's how nearly any of the other witnesses heard it but a whatever. Further, where Perez
alleges Coughlin told Reyes. I am not leaving not conflicts with deputy Turner's assertion
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that Coughlin told Reyes he was going Family Court. Lastly, it is complete not alive for
Perez to indicate that Coughlin 's quote started a fight with Reyes. It is no Perez doesn't
realize there's cameras everywhere"
Perez's credibility is further undermined by the events of July 15, 2013, wherein Coughlin
appeared in RJC at seven or rather 540 not rather for 40 nope 4:54 PM presenting.the his
motions to disqualify judge Clifton in RCR 2013 072675 for filing and upon Coughlin
walking into the building. He spotted Bailiff Reyes seeming to whisper something in the
vicinity of Mr. Perez Coughlin presented to Mr. Perez. Perez indicated he wanted file
something with RJC Mr. Perez dragged his feet a bit failed to call the RJC you which may
have been understandable, given Bailiff Reyes was standing right there and then. Mr. Perez
indicated that the RJC was closed and that was after 5 PM. Coughlin then asked Mr. Perez at
that point what his watch said Mr. Perez indicated his watch said it was 4:57 PM but that his
watch was slow Reyes at that time refused to take Coughlin's filings.
The abuse of process to cover up their own fraudulent conduct by the SBN (including Bar
Counsel King and Clerk of Court/Custodian of Records Laura Peters) and the Washoe
County Public Defender's Jim Leslie, Esq. (in RCP2012-000599) leverages the RJC's own
complicity and conflicts of interests/bias (see RJC issues/irregularities attendant to a
multitude of sins, including "disappearing cd/dvd exhibits attached and submitted for filing
by Coughlin and admitted to by Chief Criminal Clerk Robbin Baker, incident to Deputy
Plamondon and Reyes misconduct and numerous courthouse sanctuary violations by WCSO/
RJC Bailiffs, and Judges Sferrazza/Clifton issues in rcr2011-063341 and rcr2012-065630,
and rev2011-0001708 (failure to file 12/26/11 Notice of Appeal of 12/20/11 Order Resolving
Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien and failure to include such in Supplemental
Proceedings filed in appellate court on 1/4/12 in CV11-03628), wrongful lockout orders by
Judge Schroeder in rev2012-000374 (fax header on order is prior to start time noticed for
hearing) and rev2012-001048 (email and calls to RJC and Chief Civil Clerk Stancil and
Sparks Justice Court and SJC fax of 6/28/12 to RJC regarding incorrect forum listed in 5 day
notice, and failure of Washoe County Sheriff to transport Coughlin from jail, incident to
arrest in rcr2012-067980 to the summary eviction set aside hearing of 7/5/12 and failure to
file Coughlin's kited Tenant's Affidavits in multiple cases connected to three Northwind's
rentals, and RJC Judge Pearson's (whom granted the TPO's against Coughlin to Leslie and
the SBN.) failure to follow Nevada law in 1048 as to NRS 40.253 requirement that 5 day
notice list forum to file Tenant's Answer, and in allowing non-attorney from Nevada Court
Services to cross the bar and make argument for "client", in addition to drafting and filing
legal pleadings that went far beyond mere "notices", but required actual legal analysis, and
failure of RJC to provide Coughlin a summary eviction hearing or hearing on illegal lockout
in numerous instances where required under the law (ie, where order was stale in rev2011001708 upon Coughlin's 11/2/11 filing of a Motion for Relief from Illegal Lockout (10/25
and 10/27/11 Orders were served outside the "within 24 hours of receipt" statutory dictate
and Orders lacked the required "within 24 hours language" regardless, and in rev2012001048, Judge Pearson's 7/31/12 Order exceeding scope of 7/24/12 Notice of Hearing and
going so far as to rule on a unit not even involved in that case, and further, upon posting of
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"Amended 5 day Unlawful Detainer Notice" by Nevada Court Services, eviction Order was
void or withdrawn, requiring new proceeding or at least a illegal lockout hearing (otherwise,
its allowing NCS to have cake and eat it too (get tenant out prior to affording actual required
5 day notice, yet able to claim did provide 5 day notice...its non-sense), failure of RJC to file
Coughlin's 3/16/12 Notice of Appeal in rev2012-000374 (and Clerk Stancil's and Jonas's
curious sudden unsworn "statements" in rev2011-001708 one month after purported attempts
to "obtain Coughlin's permission" to set 11/22/11 Hearing on Coughlin's 11/16/11 Motion to
Contest Personal Property Lien...compared to not needing Coughlin's permission to violate
courthouse sanctuary doctrine by WCSO Bailiff Plamondon on 11/3/11 to serve unsigned
"Notice" by RJC Administrator Tuttle of 11/7/11 (Monday morning) hearing...Irregularities
with Judge Sferrazza in rcr2011-063341 incident to fraudulent "authorized service by email"
assertion by Reno City Attorney Creig Skau to obtain Coughlin's attendance at otherwise
improperly/insufficiently notice 11/13/12 Hearing on Ex Parte Motion to Quash Subpoenas
(and Judge Sferrazza's renegging on 10/22/12 Order deferring requirement for Coughlin to
pay witness fees/subpoena duces tecum fees up front, claiming on 11/19/12 to have been
referring to "service fees" despite 48 minute mark of 10/22/12 Hearing in 063341 verbatim
indicating "witness fees/subpoena duces tecum fees" and the terms or notions of "service
fees" not being address at all in any manner whatsoever, along with the impermissible
11/8/12 Ex Parte Hearing (15 minutes long!) involving Judge Sferrazza, WCPD Biray Dogan
(whose certificate of service on 11/7/12 is fraudulent in that Coughlin never received any
such fax containing any such Motion to Quash by Dogan or the WCPD), DDA Young, and
Reno City Attorney Skau (not to mention Reno City Attorney Bony's letter to Judge
Sferrazza in rcr2011-063341 getting filed in rcr2012-065630 (which was "randomly
assigned" under JCRRT to Judge Lynch, although, for some reasons, former WCDA DDA
domestic violence unit Judge Clifton took ownership of that case, so much so that he violated
NRS 1.250 in refusing to respond by Affidavit to Coughlin's Application for Recusal
(incident to fraudulent circumstances wherein Coughlin was expressly informed by Clerk
Robbin Baker that Trial start time was moved to 1:30 pm on 12/11/12 in 065630, considering
Judge Clifton then failed to acknowledge Coughlin's Application for Recusal/Conflicting out
WCDA, RJC, and Judge Clifton in alleging the 9:58 am 12/11/12 filing was "after the time
set for the start of trial" and where Judge Clifton refused to accept a Declaration in lieu of
Affidavit properly following NRS 53.045 in that Application for Recusal, and similarly
failing to properly process subsequent Motion for Recusal by Coughlin during that Trial
based upon evident impartiality (something RMC Judge Gardner was guilty of on 11/30/11 in
RMC 11 CR 22176, which resulted in the conviction that the Court's 6/7/12 Order in 60838).
RJC Criminal Division Filing Officer Supervisor Cathy Wood admitted to Coughlin on
12/11/12 that Robbin Baker, curiously, did not come in to work that day, the very day that
Baker's previous assertions to Coughlin regarding the "start time of the Trial has been moved
to 1:30 pm on 12/11/12 to accommodate another Trial set for that morning instead". Further,
Judge Clifton's assertions in Court in response to Coughlin's protesting that the RJC's Baker
had notified him of the start time onf the 12/11/12 Trial in 11 CR 065630 (which is a Judge
Lynch case anyways, making all the more suspect Judge Clifton's continued domain over it,
particularly given the newly discovered irregularities attendant to District Court Judge Steven
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P. Elliot (whom suddenly decided to retire shortly after these allegation were made)
inappropriately being "randomly assigned" (in accordance with local rules of the Second
Judicial District Court) four different criminal matters wherein Coughlin is a party (three
criminal appeals, including the appeal of the conviction the subject of 60838, CR11-2064
(from RMC Judge Howard's 11/30/11 petty larceny conviction of Coughlin in RMC 11 CR
22176, where Judge Howard failed to follow the required procedure under NRS 1.250 upon
Coughlin moving for his recusal citing evident impartiality and irregularities, denial of
continuance agreed to in writing by City Attorney Pamela Roberts, Esq., denial of court
appointed counsel despite mandatory Bench Book cited authority of Aignersinger where
Judge Howard failed to specifically rule that jail time was not a possibility prior to the trial
(especially considering the 3 days incarceration and denial of any stay beginning immediately
after the rendition of a guilty verdict by Judge Howard at 8:30 pm at night, given he held his
Department's entire staff and several Marshals there overtime in his quest to avoid granting
Coughlin any sort of continuance sufficient to overcome the unlawful rent distraint applied
by Richard G. Hill, Esq. to excuplatory video, audio, and other materials belonging to
Coughlin proving Wal-Mart had previous to the 9/9/11 arrest in that petty larceny case,
expressly threatened to abuse process against Coughlin in retaliation for his complaining
about the fraudulent conduct of Wal-Mart, its employees, and managers incident to the
convenient and selective application of its stated and posted Return Policy. Further, Judge
Howard, in the last 3 minutes of the audio transcript from that 11/30/11 Trial, attempted to
mislead Coughlin regarding the appealability of the civil summary contempt, NRS 22.030,
Order issued near the start of the Trial (at which point Coughlin requested an attorney, and
where it was clear error to proceed without supplying Coughlin one). Chair Echeverria's
FOFCOL of 12/14/12 contains a clearly erroneous finding/ruling where it indicates Coughlin
was "twice convicted of criminal contempt". In reality, neither summary contempt Order was
criminal in nature (in 22176 Judge Howard cited to NRS 22.030, a civil summary contempt
statute...though his Order clearly fails to Houtson v. Eighth Judicial requirement that the
basis for the summary contempt order be specifically set forth and supported by specific
facts, where the 11/30/11 Order does little more than reprint, in a circular manner, the text of
NRS 22.030, aside from mentioning Coughlin "continued lines of inquiry after being told not
to" (which was clear error where the only continuing a line of inquiry by Coughlin was done
for a different purpose than for which such inquiry was made at the time of any of the vague
"admonishments" of Judge Howard (none of which could reasonably be said to place
Coughlin on notice as to how he might comply with such warnings, other than to simply drop
defending himself entirely). The 2/27/12 rendition of the summary contempt Order by Judge
Nash Holmes (whom incorrectly asserted that she "had him (Coughlin) served the 2/28/12
Order while he was in jail incident to the 5 day "summary contempt" incarceration in 11 TR
26800 (for which, on 2/28/12 was filed Judge Nash Holmes's Order Finding"
As demonstrated in the attachments, Panel Chair Echeverria's 11/16/12 Order attempts to
prevent Coughlin from obtaining a transcript of the 11/14/12 formal disciplinary hearing
(which Chair Echeverria refused Coughlin's request to make a recording of...and at which the
"security" mentioned in Bar Counsel King's TPO application, just happened to be Second
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Judicial District Court Judge Linda Gardner's Bailiff (see 54844, and DV08-01168, the
divorce Trial at which the same Bailiff was in attendance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=bdNGn7g1sHE )
Incidentally, the RJC did not find a conflict requiring transferring either the SBN or WCPD
Jim Leslie's TPO applications against Coughlin to the Sparks Justice Court, as the RJC did
when Coughlin filed a TPO against RJC Bailiff (and Washoe County Sheriff's Office
employee) John Reyes in 2011 (the Sparks Justice Court denied Coughlin's TPO against
Bailiff Reyes without a hearing or response from the RJC, WCDA, Bailiff Reyes, or
anyone...
Richard G. Hill, Esq. and Casey D. Baker, Esq. the attorney's whom succeeded in having
Coughlin summarily evicted from his former home law office in RJC rev2011-001708, had a
good laugh with RJC Bailiff Reyes and Chief Bailiff Michael Sexton on 12/20/11when Hill
quipped to Reyes and Sexton "I would like to shove some things up Coughlin's ass too!":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkAvvUvv7kA
The RJC finally gave Coughlin a hearing on his Motion to Contest Personal Property lien,
considering Coughlin filed, on 11/16/11 a Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien and
NRS 40.253(8) requires a hearing within 10 days (Richard G. Hill needed to go on a six week
long vacation, and may have violated Rules of Professional Conduct where he emailed
Coughlin an indication that he would be able to control the RJC sufficient to prevent
Coughlin getting a hearing until Hill came back from vacation six weeks later.
The Sparks Justice Court failed to file in Coughlin's tenant's affidavit on 6/26/12 in response
to a fraudulent Declaration of Service by Nevada Court Services Ryan Wray of 6/14/12in
RJC Rev2012-001048 (Northwinds Apartments v. Zachary Barker Coughlin) wherein Wray
attested that he "personally served" Coughlin a 5 day unlawful detainer Notice even where
Wray admits that he could not asceratin whether or not Coughlin was inside rental #29 at
1680 Sky Mountain Drive, Northwinds Apartments, when Wray and Northwind's Manage
Duane Jakob attempted to break into the rental (in much the same manner RPD Officer Alan
Weaver attempted to on approximately June 20th, 2012) on June 28th, 2012, before securing
a Lockout order from RJC Schroeder (whom, to Judge Sferrazza's apparent dismay, wrote a
letter of recommendation for Judge Linda Gardner in 2007 in her application to become a
Justice of the Peace for the RJC). Reyes and the RJC admit that Reyes told Coughlin, in the
waiting area of the RJC in October 2011 where Coughlin was sitting next to his then public
defender Joe Goodnight, where Jim Leslie, Esq. was attempting to place a gag order on
Goodnight and harass Coughlin with his malevolent style of "preserving county assets" in the
name of denying indigent criminal defendants their Sixth Amendment Rights (and, for Leslie,
this often involves sicking the RPD and RJC/WCSO Bailiffs on his, Goodnight, or DPD
Biray Dogan's clients...a leveraging that Leslie has on numerous occasions threatened
Coughlin with in violation of Nevada law (extorting clients with threats of abuse of process
or filing a false police report). Jim Leslie, Esq. did not seem to afraid, in his role as "standby" counsel of Coughlin, when at the 9:05 am mark in the following JAVS audio transcript of
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
the Trial in rcr2011-063341 before Judge Sferrazza, he attempts to aid Judge Sferrazza and
DDA Young in further coercing from Coughlin his inviolable rights as a criminal defendant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAFy9jg6VFk
Actually, Leslie scored a real hat trick as to violating his indigent criminal defendant's
inviolable rights, where he managed to not only coerce from his client, Coughlin, the
decision as to whether or not to take a plea, but also, the decision as to whether or not to
testify and waive one's Fifth Amendment rights, in addition to Leslie's refusing to subpoena
even one witness for Coughlin, much less those instances where Leslie sought to have
stricken from the record filings by Coughlin (such as the 2/15/12 and 8/29/12 filings by
Coughlin in rcr2011-063341) that Leslie had no right to even comment on (at least as to the
2/15/12 filing by Coughlin, and arguably as to the 8/29/12 filing as well):
-Leslie violating Coughlin right to make decision as to whether to accept a plea bargain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnQWmL4_chY
13
-Leslie violating criminal defendant's right to decide whether or not to waive one's Fifth
Amendment rights, in both the Suppression Hearing of 8/29/12 and Trial on 8/29/12 and
9/5/12, and the right to subpoena and call witnesses in one's defense:
14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22X6CD7otQ4
15
For more detail, please incorporate by reference all audio transcripts from Reno Justice
Court, Reno Municipal Court, and Second Judicial District Court hearings involving
Coughlin found here:
12
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
http://www.youtube.com/user/NevadaGadfly?feature=watch
Should an attorney be disbarred based upon such wildy contradictory and inconsistent
statements (many of which are unsworn hearsay) by Reno Municipal Court Judge Dorothy
Nash Holmes, where she arrested an attorney for summary contempt second after the attorney
testified that RPD Sargent John Tarter lied?:
http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_edit?ns=1&video_id=1uQQdukb3D4
27
The Washoe County District Attorney Office's DDA Zach Young has been able to obtain Ex
Parte Emergency Orders Barring Coughlin from faxing (even on as case that Judge Lynch
was assigned to, but for which, curiously, former WCDA domestic violence prosecutor (see
60302 for the multitude of conflicts) Judge David Clifton has taken possession of, rcr2012065630, even where Judge Clifton refused to respond by affidavit within 5 days to Coughlin
12/11/12 Petition or Application to Recuse or Conflict Out Judge Clifton, the WCDA, and
the RJC. Interestingly, Judge Clifton also granted Richard. G. Hill, Esq. and Casey D. Baker,
Esq. and Emergency Ex Parte Order to Inspect Coughlin's Law Office in rev2011-001708).
28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPYCmDZTSXo
23
24
25
26

-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Part One. General Principles VI. Defenses H. Other Circumstances or Actions as Defenses
430. Selective prosecution; vindictive prosecution Criminal Law k37.10, 37.15 An
indictment that results from a selective prosecution will be dismissed.[FN1] In cases in which
the defense of selective prosecution has been asserted, before a motion to dismiss may be
granted, the defendant must prove that others similarly situated have generally not been
prosecuted and that he has been singled out, and that he or she is the victim of invidious
discrimination based on impermissible considerations such as race, religion, or the exercise
of a constitutionally-protected right.[FN2] In other words, to prevail on an allegation of
selective prosecution, the defendant must prove two elements, namely, that the challenged
enforcement has both a discriminatory effect, and, that the prosecution was deliberately based
upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or some other arbitrary classification.
[FN3] To establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution, the defendant must
demonstrate that a prosecutorial policy results in a discriminatory effect, based on an
unlawful classification;[FN4] and to prove a claim of selective enforcement the defendant
must demonstrate, in part, that there is an intentional and deliberate plan on the part of state
officials to enforce the law selectively against the defendant.[FN5] Simply stated, a defendant
claiming selective prosecution must establish that other similarly situated individuals have
not been prosecuted and that the prosecution of the defendant is based upon constitutionally
impermissible considerations.[FN6] However, the conscious exercise of some selectivity in
law enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation as long as the selection is not
deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary
classification.[FN7] Also, when an act violates more than one criminal statute, the
Government may prosecute under either, as long as it does not discriminate against any class
of defendants.[FN8] To engage in a collateral inquiry respecting prosecutorial motive for
prosecution, for the purposes of asserting the defense of selective prosecution, there must be
more than mere suspicion or surmise.[FN9] Where a request for an evidentiary hearing and a
motion to dismiss on the basis of a defense of selective prosecution are rooted in mere
speculative and unduly myopic assertions, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in
denying an evidentiary hearing and a motion to dismiss.[FN10] Since the amount of evidence
needed to support a selective prosecution claim on the merits is greater than that which
justifies an evidentiary hearing, it necessarily follows that, when an evidentiary hearing is not
warranted, a defendant's merits claim must also fail.[FN11] To establish a prima facie case of
prosecutorial vindictiveness, a defendant must show either a direct evidence of actual
vindictiveness or facts that warrant an appearance of such.[FN12] In other words, a defendant
alleging prosecutorial vindictiveness must show either an actual vindictiveness or a realistic
likelihood of vindictiveness; actual vindictiveness is demonstrated by objective evidence that
a prosecutor acted in order to punish the defendant for standing on his or her legal rights, and
the realistic-likelihood-of-vindictiveness standard examines the prosecutor's stake in
deterring the exercise of a protected right and the unreasonableness of his or her actions.
[FN13] Cases: Defendant failed to show that prosecutor's alleged racial bias tainted his
capital murder prosecution, as would violate his equal protection rights; even assuming that
prosecutor made statement that evinced his racial animus, there was no showing that
similarly situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted. Cornwell v. Bradshaw,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
559 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2009). The burden of a defendant to prove selective prosecution based
on an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification is
sufficiently rigorous that its imposition does not unnecessarily intrude on the exercise of
powers constitutionally delegated to other branches of government, and once the defendant
makes this showing, the Commonwealth must rebut that inference or suffer dismissal of the
underlying complaint. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 1; M.G.L.A.
Const.Amend. Art. 106. Com. v. Washington W., 457 Mass. 140, 928 N.E.2d 908 (2010).
[FN1] U.S. v. Mayer, 503 F.3d 740 (9th Cir. 2007). [FN2] State v. Payne, 100 Conn. App. 13,
917 A.2d 43 (2007), certification denied, 282 Conn. 914, 924 A.2d 139 (2007). The
defendant charged with murder and related conspiracy failed to establish that the officer's
conducting of the traffic stop of the vehicle in which he was an occupant was motivated by
race and discriminatory intent, as required to support a selective prosecution claim, where the
officer's behavior at the scene did not show any indication of racial motivation, as the
defendant and the other occupants were not immediately ordered out of the vehicle, and the
defendant and the other occupants were not handcuffed until evidence indicating a crime was
found in the vehicle. State v. Quinlan, 921 A.2d 96 (R.I. 2007). [FN3] State v. Quinlan, 921
A.2d 96 (R.I. 2007). [FN4] Pleasant Grove City v. Orvis, 2007 UT App 74, 157 P.3d 355
(Utah Ct. App. 2007). [FN5] Pleasant Grove City v. Orvis, 2007 UT App 74, 157 P.3d 355
(Utah Ct. App. 2007). [FN6] State v. Loughead, 2007 ND 16, 726 N.W.2d 859 (N.D. 2007).
[FN7] Nunes v. Ramirez-Palmer, 485 F.3d 432 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. Denied, 128 S. Ct. 404
(U.S. 2007). [FN8] State v. Richmond, 730 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007), review
denied, (June 19, 2007). [FN9] State v. Payne, 100 Conn. App. 13, 917 A.2d 43 (2007),
certification denied, 282 Conn. 914, 924 A.2d 139 (2007). [FN10] State v. Payne, 100 Conn.
App. 13, 917 A.2d 43 (2007), certification denied, 282 Conn. 914, 924 A.2d 139 (2007).
[FN11] State v. Payne, 100 Conn. App. 13, 917 A.2d 43 (2007), certification denied, 282
Conn. 914, 924 A.2d 139 (2007). [FN12] Nunes v. Ramirez-Palmer, 485 F.3d 432 (9th Cir.
2007), cert. Denied, 128 S. Ct. 404 (U.S. 2007). [FN13] U.S. v. Roach, 502 F.3d 425 (6th Cir.
2007). AMJUR CRIMLAW 430\\
429. Prosecutorial misconduct Criminal Law 700(1) In order to prevail on a claim of
prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must show that the prosecutor's remarks and conduct
were, in fact, improper, and that such remarks or conduct prejudiced the defendant to such an
extent as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.[FN1] The prosecutorial misconduct must be
so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere at trial or so gross as
probably to prejudice the defendant in order to violate the defendant's right to a fair trial.
[FN2] Simply stated, prosecutorial misconduct is not a ground for a reversal unless the
defendant has been denied a fair trial,[FN3] or, stated otherwise, a reversal is only required
based on prosecutorial misconduct when the conduct caused substantial prejudice so that the
defendant was denied due process.[FN4] In determining prejudice from prosecutorial
misconduct, the court weighs such factors as: the severity and pervasiveness of the
misconduct; the significance of the misconduct to the central issues in the case; the strength
of the state's evidence; the use of cautionary instructions or other curative measures; and, the
extent to which the defense invited the misconduct.[FN5] In other words, in order to
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
determine whether prosecutorial impropriety was so harmful as to deprive the defendant of a

fair trial, the court applies the following factors: the extent to which the impropriety was
invited by the defense conduct or argument, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of
the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the strength
of the curative measures adopted, and the strength of the state's case.[FN6] Prosecutorial
misconduct claims are not intended to provide an avenue for the tactical sandbagging of the
trial courts, but rather, to address gross prosecutorial improprieties that have deprived a
criminal defendant of his or her right to a fair trial.[FN7] While a prosecutor may strike hard
blows, he or she is not at liberty to strike foul ones, since it is as much his or her duty to
refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use
every legitimate means to bring about a just one.[FN8] By reason of his or her office, the
prosecutor usually exercises great influence upon jurors, and the prosecutor's conduct and
language in the trial of cases in which human life or liberty is at stake should be forceful, but
fair, because the prosecutor represents the public interest, which demands no victim and asks
no conviction through the aid of passion, prejudice or resentment; if the defendant is guilty,
he or she should be convicted only after a fair trial, conducted strictly according to the sound
and well-established rules which the laws prescribe.[FN9] Where prosecutorial impropriety is
identified, the factors to consider when determining whether the entire trial was so infected
with unfairness as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial include whether: (1) the impropriety
was invited by the defense; (2) the impropriety was severe; (3) the impropriety was frequent;
(4) the impropriety was central to a critical issue in the case; (5) the impropriety was cured or
ameliorated by a specific jury charge; and (6) the state's case against the defendant was weak.
[FN10] In analyzing claims of prosecutorial misconduct, an appellate court engages in a two
step analytical process, each separate and distinct, namely, whether misconduct occurred in
the first instance, and, whether that misconduct deprived a defendant of his or her due
process right to a fair trial.[FN11] In other words, an appellate court applies a two-step
analysis to allegations of prosecutorial misconduct: first, the court decides whether the
prosecutor exceeded the boundaries of permissible conduct, and if so, it next decides whether
the conduct constituted plain error, that is, whether the conduct was so prejudicial as to deny
the defendant a fair trial.[FN12] In the second step of the two-step analysis for alleged
prosecutorial misconduct, the appellate court considers three factors to determine whether the
prosecutorial misconduct so prejudiced the jury against the defendant that a new trial should
be granted: (1) whether the misconduct is gross and flagrant; (2) whether the misconduct
shows ill will on the prosecutor's part; and (3) whether the evidence against the defendant
was direct and overwhelming.[FN13] Thus, an appellate court will reverse a conviction based
on prosecutorial misconduct where there is misconduct by the prosecutor and a reasonable
likelihood that the misconduct could have affected the jury's verdict, thereby denying the
defendant a fair trial.[FN14] On the other hand, the government's questions regarding why
the defendant's children were present at his or her trial have been deemed not so prejudicial
such that the defendant was denied a fair trial, where the weight of the evidence would have
led to the defendant's conviction regardless of the government's questions.[FN15] Cases:
Although the State is obliged to prosecute with earnestness and vigor, it is as much its duty to
refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
every legitimate means to bring about a just one. Cone v. Bell, 129 S. Ct. 1769, 173 L. Ed.
2D 701 (2009). Prosecutor's improper statements during closing arguments in penalty phase
of capital murder trial, which indicated that prosecutor was afraid of defendant and appealed
to jurors' fears that defendant would commit additional crimes if eventually released from
prison, were not flagrant and thus did not violate defendant's due process rights; remarks
were unlikely to mislead jury, since they did not mischaracterize the law or relevant
evidence, statements were isolated, prosecution produced strong aggravating evidence
against defendant at sentencing, and trial court gave numerous cautionary instructions that
arguments of counsel were not evidence. Beuke v. Houk, 537 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 2008),
petition for cert. Filed (U.S. Feb. 27, 2009). In considering a claim of prosecutorial
misconduct, Court of Appeals evaluates whether the improprieties impacted the outcome of
the trial, and will reverse only if there is a reasonable probability that, in the absence of the
improprieties, the defendant would have been acquitted. U.S. v. Smith, 674 F.3d 722 (7th Cir.
2012). Prosecutor's comments regarding life of one of defendant's customers in closing
argument did not constitute "prosecutorial misconduct," in prosecution for distribution and
conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; description of customer's drug-induced descent
was rooted in his uncontroverted testimony, and prosecutor highlighted it to illustrate the
power of methamphetamine and why charges were brought against defendant. U.S. v.
Kincannon, 567 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2009). Prosecutor's improper categorization during closing
argument of defendant's anticipated closing argument as the standard argument made by
defendants in drug conspiracy cases did not constitute reversible prosecutorial misconduct, in
prosecution for conspiracy to distribute cocaine; the prosecutor's argument otherwise
accurately reiterated the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, defendant had the
opportunity in his closing argument to rebut prosecutor's improper remarks, and the trial
court instructed the jury that the government had the burden of proof beyond a reasonable
doubt and that attorneys' arguments were not evidence. U.S. v. Clark, 535 F.3d 571 (7th Cir.
2008). Assuming that prosecutor engaged in misconduct in interrupting defense counsel's
closing argument to object to defense counsel's statement that there was "something wrong"
with government witness using notes, which jury did not get to see, to refresh witness's
memory, such misconduct did not deny defendant fair trial, and did not warrant new trial,
even though objection was largely unnecessary, where defense counsel invited the response,
and prejudice from objection was minimal. U.S. v. Willis, 523 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2008). Even
if prosecutor's statements during rebuttal closing argument regarding witnesses that did not
testify and phone conversation between defendant and his sister were improper, they did not
constitute reversible prosecutorial misconduct, in prosecution for drug and weapons-related
offenses, where trial court gave curative instructions, and defendant did not request more
explicit instructions. U.S. v. Green, 560 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. Filed, 78
U.S.L.W. 3066 (U.S. July 28, 2009). To the extent that prosecutor's remarks misstated the
facts or the law, or improperly described defendant using disparaging terms, disparaged
defense counsel, encouraged the jury to sentence defendant to death out of sympathy for the
victim and the victim's family, or argued that the jury should convict as the "great equalizer,"
any such error did not deprive defendant of a fundamentally fair trial in view of
overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt and the strength of the evidence supporting the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
aggravators, weak nature of the proffered mitigating evidence, and trial court's admonitions
to the jury. Wilson v. Sirmons, 536 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2008), reh'g en banc granted, 549
F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2008). When prosecutorial misconduct can be remedied by subsequent
instruction by trial court or mitigated by overwhelming weight of evidence, it may be
considered harmless, as long as it does not affect substantial rights of parties. U.S. v.
McGarity, 669 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2012). Opening statement at capital murder trial in which
prosecutor stated that defendant chose to steal "at gunpoint from a senior citizen in the
company of a nine-year-old child and a dog,"
that jury would be convinced that bullet that passed through surviving victim's neck "then
passed through her grandson's body and killed him," and that grandson "died looking at her,
and she had to sit there next to him in the car," was closely tied to the evidence and did not
constitute misconduct, although evidence may not have established that grandson died while
looking at his grandmother; there was evidence that could support the view that the child was
leaning toward his grandmother when he was shot, jury was instructed that the prosecutor's
opening statement did not constitute evidence, and defendant was permitted to confront all
witnesses and to challenge and rebut all evidence offered against him. People v. Dykes, 46
Cal. 4Th 731, 95 Cal. Rptr. 3D 78, 209 P.3d 1 (2009). Opening statement at capital murder
trial in which prosecutor stated that defendant's chose to steal "at gunpoint from a senior
citizen in the company of a nine-year-old child and a dog," that jury would be convinced that
bullet that passed through surviving victim's neck "then passed through her grandson's body
and killed him," and that grandson "died looking at her, and she had to sit there next to him in
the car," did not constitute misconduct as argumentative and an appeal to passion; rather, the
comments, along with the prosecutor's description of survivor's tragic experience, were based
upon evidence to be presented at the trial and were within the broad scope of permissible
argument. People v. Dykes, 46 Cal. 4Th 731, 95 Cal. Rptr. 3D 78, 209 P.3d 1 (2009).
Prosecutor's statements during closing argument of capital murder trial, that defendant came
up with a "new version" of events while on the witness stand, that he "knows the legal
niceties here, ladies and gentlemen, he's had two years to study these instructions," and that
he had two lawyers, were not an improper comment that defense counsel had participated in
fabricating a defense or a personal attack on counsel and thus were not misconduct; rather,
comment was a challenge to defendant's credibility, and prosecutor was entitled to point to
inconsistencies between defendant's testimony and his earlier statements. People v. Dykes, 46
Cal. 4Th 731, 95 Cal. Rptr. 3D 78, 209 P.3d 1 (2009), petition for cert. Filed (U.S. Nov. 9,
2009). Prosecutor's references to race during closing argument at capital murder trial
represented fair rebuttal to defense counsel's suggestion that the prosecution had attempted to
play on the all-white jury's emotions and racial prejudice and thus did not constitute
misconduct; argument did little more than urge the jury not to be influenced by defense
counsel's arguments, and to instead focus on the testimony and evidence in the case. People
v. Dykes, 46 Cal. 4Th 731, 95 Cal. Rptr. 3D 78, 209 P.3d 1 (2009), petition for cert. Filed
(U.S. Nov. 9, 2009). A prosecutor's misconduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the
federal Constitution when it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a
denial of due process; in other words, the misconduct must be of sufficient significance to
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
result in the denial of the defendant's right to a fair trial. People v. Curl, 46 Cal. 4Th 339, 93
Cal. Rptr. 3D 537, 207 P.3d 2 (2009), as modified, (July 8, 2009) and petition for cert. Filed
(U.S. Oct. 6, 2009). A prosecutor's conduct violates a defendant's constitutional rights when
the behavior comprises a pattern of conduct so egregious that it infects the trial with
unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process; the focus of the
inquiry is on the effect of the prosecutor's action on the defendant, not on the intent or bad
faith of the prosecutor. People v. Hamilton, 45 Cal. 4Th 863, 89 Cal. Rptr. 3D 286, 200 P.3d
898 (2009), cert. Denied, 130 S. Ct. 74 (2009). A prosecutor's conduct violates a defendant's
federal constitutional rights when it comprises a pattern of conduct so egregious that it infects
the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. People v.
Bennett, 45 Cal. 4Th 577, 88 Cal. Rptr. 3D 131, 199 P.3d 535 (2009), cert. Denied, 130 S. Ct.
68 (2009). A prosecutor's conduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment when it infects the
trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process. People v. Doolin,
45 Cal. 4Th 390, 87 Cal. Rptr. 3D 209, 198 P.3d 11 (2009), cert. Denied, 130 S. Ct. 168
(2009). Under the Federal Constitution, conduct by prosecutor constitutes prosecutorial
misconduct only if it so infects the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a
denial of due process. People v. Wallace, 44 Cal. 4Th 1032, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3D 651, 189 P.3d
911 (2008), as modified, (Oct. 22, 2008) and cert. Denied, 129 S. Ct. 2160, 173 L. Ed. 2D
1159 (2009). A prosecutor's conduct in eliciting or attempting to elicit inadmissible evidence,
in defiance of a court order, is prosecutorial misconduct that violates due process. People v.
Wallace, 44 Cal. 4Th 1032, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3D 651, 189 P.3d 911 (2008), as modified, (Oct. 22,
2008) and cert. Denied, 129 S. Ct. 2160, 173 L. Ed. 2D 1159 (2009). A prosecutor's knowing
use of false evidence or argument to obtain a criminal conviction or sentence deprives the
defendant of due process. People v. Wilson, 44 Cal. 4Th 758, 80 Cal. Rptr. 3D 211, 187 P.3d
1041 (2008). A prosecutor's conduct and language in the trial of cases in which human life or
liberty is at stake should be forceful, but fair, because he or she represents the public interest,
which demands no victim and asks no conviction through the aid of passion, prejudice, or
resentment. State v. Melendez, 291 Conn. 693, 970 A.2d 64 (2009). In analyzing claims of
prosecutorial impropriety, the Supreme Court engages in a analytical process involving
separate and distinct steps: (1) whether impropriety occurred in the first instance and (2)
whether the impropriety deprived a defendant of his due process right to a fair trial; in other
words, an impropriety is an impropriety, regardless of its ultimate effect on the fairness of the
trial, and whether that impropriety caused or contributed to a due process violation involves a
separate and distinct inquiry. State v. Melendez, 291 Conn. 693, 970 A.2d 64 (2009). The
first step in a harmless error analysis of a claim of prosecutorial misconduct involves a de
novo review of the record to determine whether misconduct actually occurred. Kirkley v.
State, 2012 WL 1112155 (Del. 2012). Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed
under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, and the Supreme Court will not
overturn a defendant's conviction on the basis of plainly erroneous prosecutorial misconduct
unless there is a reasonable possibility that the misconduct complained of might have
contributed to the conviction. State v. Kiese, 273 P.3d 1180 (Haw. 2012). In reviewing
allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, appellate court must consider the arguments of both
the prosecutor and the defense in their entirety and place the allegations of improper
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
comments in context. People v. Romero, 384 Ill. App. 3D 125, 323 Ill. Dec. 130, 892 N.E.2d
1122 (1st Dist. 2008), appeal denied, 229 Ill. 2D 688 (2008). A defendant is entitled to relief
on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct only if the misconduct, under all of the circumstances,
placed the defendant in a position of grave peril to which he or she would not have been
subjected; the gravity of peril is measured by the probable persuasive effect of the
misconduct on the jury's decision rather than the degree of impropriety of the conduct.
Bassett v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 2008). When reviewing claims of prosecutorial
misconduct, appellate courts must determine: (1) whether there was misconduct by the
prosecutor; and (2) whether that misconduct, under the circumstances, placed the defendant
in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected, and gravity of the
peril is measured by the probable persuasive effect of the misconduct on the jury's decision.
Adcock v. State, 933 N.E.2d 21 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). A prosecutor's ill will is usually
reflected through deliberate and repeated misconduct or indifference to a court's rulings. State
v. Inkelaar, 264 P.3d 81 (Kan. 2011). Supreme Judicial Court examines alleged prosecutorial
misconduct by first determining whether misconduct occurred and, if it did, by then viewing
the comments of the prosecutor as a whole, looking at the incidents of misconduct both in
isolation and in the aggregate; the central question is whether the prosecutor's comment is
fairly based on the facts in evidence. State v. Gould, 2012 ME 60, 43 A.3d 952 (Me. 2012).
Prosecutor's comments during opening statement did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct
that denied defendant a fair trial in prosecution for possession of cocaine. Prosecutor stated to
the jury that they were involved in a war on drugs and stated that drugs were a major social
problem. There was no objection from defendant, and in fact, defense counsel repeated the
"war on drugs" phrase in his opening. In addition, the comments were made only during the
prosecutor's opening statement, before the jury had a chance to hear the testimony and
consider the substantial evidence of defendant's guilt that was subsequently adduced. State v.
Jackson, 2009 WL 1872472 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009). A personal restraint petitioner
alleging prosecutorial misconduct must show both improper conduct and prejudicial effect. In
re Wiatt, 151 Wash. App. 22, 211 P.3d 1030 (Div. 2 2009). To establish prejudice from
prosecutorial misconduct, a personal restraint petitioner must show a substantial likelihood
that the misconduct affected the jury's verdict. In re Wiatt, 151 Wash. App. 22, 211 P.3d
1030 (Div. 2 2009). [FN1] U.S. v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 2007).
[FN2] Brown v. McKee, 231 Fed. Appx. 469 (6th Cir. 2007). [FN3] State v. Tucker, 215
Ariz. 298, 160 P.3d 177 (2007), cert. Denied, 128 S. Ct. 296 (U.S. 2007); State v. Clifton,
172 Ohio App. 3D 86, 2007-Ohio-3392, 872 N.E.2d 1310 (4th Dist. Hocking County 2007).
[FN4] People v. Weber, 40 A.D.3d 1267, 836 N.Y.S.2d 327 (3d Dep't 2007), leave to appeal
denied, 9 N.Y.3d 927, 844 N.Y.S.2d 182, 875 N.E.2d 901 (2007). [FN5] Talley v. State,
2007 WY 37, 153 P.3d 256 (Wyo. 2007). [FN6] State v. Bell, 283 Conn. 748, 931 A.2d 198
(2007). [FN7] State v. Lopez, 289 Conn. 779, 911 A.2d 1099 (2007). [FN8] State v. D'Haity,
99 Conn. App. 375, 914 A.2d 570 (2007), certification denied, 282 Conn. 912, 924 A.2d 137
(2007). [FN9] State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23, 917 A.2d 978 (2007). [FN10] State v. Gordon,
104 Conn. App. 69, 931 A.2d 939 (2007). [FN11] State v. Lopez, 289 Conn. 779, 911 A.2d
1099 (2007). [FN12] State v. Johnson, 284 Kan. 18, 159 P.3d 161 (2007), petition for cert.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Filed (U.S. Sept. 5, 2007). [FN13] State v. Johnson, 284 Kan. 18, 159 P.3d 161 (2007),
petition for cert. Filed (U.S. Sept. 5, 2007). [FN14] State v. Tucker, 215 Ariz. 298, 160 P.3d
177 (2007), cert. Denied, 128 S. Ct. 296 (U.S. 2007). [FN15] U.S. v. Vasquez, 225 Fed.
Appx. 831 (11th Cir. 2007). AMJUR CRIMLAW 429
ne. General Principles VI. Defenses F. Former Jeopardy 7. Declaration of Mistrial and
Discharge of Jury c. Defendant's Consent to Mistrial (2) Effect of Prosecutorial or Judicial
Impropriety Designed to Provoke Defendant's Motion for Mistrial 360. Prosecutorial
conduct Double Jeopardy k96, 97 Where the defendant asks for, and gets, a mistrial based on
prosecutorial misconduct, the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy bars the
retrial if the prosecutor's misconduct was calculated to goad the defendant into seeking a
mistrial.[FN1] The application of the double jeopardy bar following a mistrial based on
prosecutorial misconduct is dependent on a showing of the prosecutor's subjective intent to
cause a mistrial in order to retry the case.[FN2] In other words, only when the prosecutor's
conduct in question is intended to goad the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a
defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting
the first on his or her own motion.[FN3] Thus, absent a deliberate attempt to provoke the
defendant into moving for a mistrial, a prosecutor's conduct does not bar the defendant's
retrial where a mistrial is granted on the defendant's motion on the basis of conduct by the
prosecutor, such as, the prosecutor's discovery violations,[FN4] making improper remarks in
an opening statement,[FN5] making improper remarks while questioning a witness,[FN6]
offering inadmissible evidence,[FN7] eliciting improper remarks from a prosecution witness,
[FN8] or making improper remarks in a closing statement or during summation.[FN9] On the
other hand, the retrial of a defendant after the trial court's declaration of a mistrial based on
prosecutorial misconduct has been held to be barred where the prosecutor read to the jury
various improper and prejudicial remarks made during a grand jury proceeding, thereby
violating a pretrial ruling prohibiting the presentation of grand jury testimony,[FN10] or
deliberately elicited certain prejudicial hearsay testimony after the trial judge had ratified the
prosecutor's agreement not to do so,[FN11] or where the prosecutor made reference in his or
her opening statement to an inadmissible confession for the specific purpose of causing a
mistrial to obtain a state supreme court ruling on the correctness of the trial judge's
suppression of the confession.[FN12] Likewise, the trial court's findings that the prosecutor
had been a member of the bar for nine years and had tried numerous felony cases, that the
prosecutor gave inconsistent and unconvincing explanations as to why he asked the
defendant's expert on battered women's syndrome on cross-examination whether the
defendant had told the expert that the defendant had abused her child, that the prosecutor did
not seek curative instructions nor assert that the trial should continue, and that the prosecutor
stood to gain by aborting the trial because the expert's testimony was favorable to the
defendant, would establish that the prosecutor intended to goad the defendant into moving for
a mistrial in the prosecution for murder and other crimes, so that double jeopardy principles
will bar a retrial.[FN13] Observation: The prosecutorial misconduct exception to the general
rule that where a mistrial is declared at the defendant's request, double jeopardy does not bar
reprosecution for the same offense, does not apply to defendants who succeeded in having
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
their guilty verdicts set aside because of prosecutorial misconduct, but did not obtain a
mistrial.[FN14] The rule that only where the prosecutorial misconduct is intended to goad the
defendant into moving for a mistrial may the defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a
second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his or her own motion, applies
only to plain, unconcealed prosecutorial misconduct, since the misconduct must not be secret
if its purpose is to goad the defendant into moving for a mistrial.[FN15] A criminal
defendants' motion for a mistrial does not raise the double jeopardy bar to a retrial, where the
prosecutorial error prompting the motion was inadvertent.[FN16] A mere bad faith conduct
or harassment on the part of the prosecution that results in a mistrial is insufficient to
preclude a retrial on double jeopardy grounds; rather, the court must determine whether the
prosecutor actually intended to provoke a mistrial.[FN17] In other words, prosecutorial
conduct that might be viewed as a harassment or overreaching, even if sufficient to justify a
mistrial on the defendant's motion does not bar a retrial absent an intent on the part of the
prosecutor to subvert the protections afforded by the double jeopardy clause.[FN18] Cases:
After defendant's trial on a charge of possessing and importing cocaine with the intent to
distribute ended in a mistrial based on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
agent's testimony about an inculpatory statement by the defendant that was not part of the
discovery provided by the government prior to trial, the defendant was not entitled to
dismissal of the superseding indictment on double jeopardy grounds, since the district court
found that the prosecutor was unaware of the inculpatory statement prior to the agent's
testimony on the stand, and thus, that the prosecutor could not have intentionally elicited the
testimony for the purpose of goading the defendant into moving for a mistrial. U.S. v. AvilesSierra, 531 F.3d 123 (1st Cir. 2008). Prosecutor's comments in rebuttal closing argument that
there was no evidence that somebody else put firearms or ammunition in defendant's
bedroom did not shift burden of proof or constitute impermissible comment on defendant's
decision not to testify at trial, in prosecution for possessing firearms and ammunition as a
convicted felon and using firearm during and in relation to drug-trafficking crime; jury could
not have "naturally and necessarily" taken comments as comment on defendant's failure to
testify. U.S. v. Thompson, 560 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2009), cert. Denied, 2009 WL 2524185
(U.S. 2009). When a prosecutor goads the defense into making a motion for a mistrial in
order for the prosecution to avoid reversal of the conviction because of prosecutorial or
judicial error or to otherwise obtain a more favorable chance for a guilty verdict on retrial,
double jeopardy will stand as a bar to retrial. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. Allen v. State, 302
Ga. App. 852, 691 S.E.2d 908 (2010). Prosecutor's reading of poem describing importance of
police officers to public safety and the resulting sadness when one is murdered, during
closing argument at penalty phase of capital murder prosecution arising from death of a
sheriff's deputy, did not constitute misconduct that placed defendant in grave peril such that a
mistrial was required. Pruitt v. State, 903 N.E.2d 899 (Ind. 2009). Prosecutor's acts in
violating a pretrial order regarding admission of statements from child victim, which caused
the district court to declare a mistrial, were not sufficiently egregious so as to prohibit a
second trial on grounds of a double jeopardy violation, absent evidence that prosecutor's
conduct was deliberate, was a product of ill will, or was calculated into forcing defendant to
move for a mistrial. State v. Miller, 42 Kan. App. 2D 12, 208 P.3d 774 (2009). A hung jury is
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an example of a manifest necessity requiring a mistrial. Graves v. Com., 285 S.W.3d 734
(Ky. 2009). Defendant's right against double jeopardy did not prohibit commonwealth, after
mistrial was declared in first trial on murder and arson charges, from introducing evidence
that the defendant acted with another person to set fatal fire, even if commonwealth had not
attempted to convict defendant under a joint venture theory at first trial, since arson statute
allowed conviction if defendant personally set fire, caused it to be set, or aided and abetted,
counseled, or procured the setting of the fire. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; M.G.L.A. c. 263,
7; c. 266, 1. Choy v. Com., 456 Mass. 146, 921 N.E.2d 942 (2010). Prosecutor's manner of
reviewing testimony of witness during closing argument by stating that "I got into my car"
and drove the route taken on night of shooting and afterwards, "just like [witness] said he
did," that he jumped same fence in his suit that accomplice had jumped and cut his hand on,
in order to satisfy himself that what witness had told him was true, and on that basis decided
to seek indictment and offer witness plea deal, amounted to unsworn testimony and improper
vouching of witness, in trial for first-degree murder and armed assault with intent to murder.
Com. v. Williams, 450 Mass. 894, 882 N.E.2d 850 (2008). Double jeopardy did not bar third
trial of defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), after the court granted
defendant's motions for a mistrial in the first two trials as a result of police officer's remark in
videotape played to the jury asking defendant about a previous DUI conviction, as the remark
was only audible when played at full volume, admission of the remark at the first trial was
inadvertent, city attempted to redact the remark for second trial and the introduction of the
remark at second trial was also inadvertent, and city was not attempting to provoke a mistrial
either time. City of Billings v. Mouat, 2008 MT 66, 342 Mont. 79, 180 P.3d 1121 (2008).
Where manifest necessity exists, such as when a mistrial is declared following a hung jury
unable to reach a verdict, a trial court will lift the double jeopardy bar to a second trial;
however, where a mistrial is declared on the defendant's motion, double jeopardy will not bar
a subsequent trial unless the governmental conduct in question was intended to goad the
defendant
into moving for a mistrial. City of Billings v. Mouat, 2008 MT 66, 342 Mont. 79, 180 P.3d
1121 (2008). State constitutional double jeopardy clause bars retrial (1) when improper
official conduct is so unfairly prejudicial to the defendant that it cannot be cured by means
short of a mistrial or a motion for a new trial; (2) if the official knows that the conduct is
improper and prejudicial; and (3) if the official either intends to provoke a mistrial or acts in
willful disregard of the resulting mistrial, retrial, or reversal. State v. McClaugherty, 2008NMSC-044, 144 N.M. 483, 188 P.3d 1234 (2008). When circumstances suggest that an
action of the prosecution that resulted in a preverdict termination of a case was motivated by
a concern that it could not prove its case, retrial is impermissible under the Double Jeopardy
Clause; when there is no indication of bad faith and no likelihood of prosecutorial
manipulation, however, double-jeopardy principles are not necessarily offended. State v.
Wright, 165 Wash. 2D 783, 203 P.3d 1027 (2009). [FN1] State v. Thomas, 275 Ga. 167, 562
S.E.2d 501 (2002); State v. Keenan, 81 Ohio St. 3d 133, 1998-Ohio-459, 689 N.E.2d 929
(1998). [FN2] U.S. v. Williams, 472 F.3d 81 (3d Cir. 2007). [FN3] U.S. v. Williams, 472
F.3d 81 (3d Cir. 2007); U.S. v. Wharton, 320 F.3d 526 (5th Cir. 2003); U.S. v. Santos-Garcia,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
313 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 2002); Hawkins v. Alabama, 318 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2003). [FN4]
State v. Blenden, 748 So. 2D 77 (Miss. 1999). [FN5] Com. v. Patten, 401 Mass. 20, 513
N.E.2d 689 (1987); Schoendorf v. Mullen, 152 A.D.2d 715, 544 N.Y.S.2d 170 (2d Dep't
1989); State v. Jackson, 68 Ohio App. 2D 35, 22 Ohio Op. 3D 19, 426 N.E.2d 528 (8th Dist.
Cuyahoga County 1980); Com. v. Simms, 284 Pa. Super. 528, 426 A.2d 620 (1981);
MacKenzie v. Com., 8 Va. App. 236, 380 S.E.2d 173 (1989). Mistrial occasioned by a
coperpetrator's refusal to testify as promised in the prosecutor's opening statement did not bar
retrial under federal or state double jeopardy clauses, where even if the prosecutor lacked a
reasonable expectation that the coperpetrator would testify, he had a strong case and lacked a
motive to goad the defendant to request a mistrial. State v. Torres, 328 N.J. Super. 77, 744
A.2d 699 (App. Div. 2000). [FN6] U.S. v. Radosh, 490 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2007), petition for
cert. Filed (U.S. Nov. 8, 2007); Thomas v. Sumner, 610 F. Supp. 583 (D. Nev. 1985); Lackey
v. Little England, Inc., 461 So. 2D 281 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1985); People v. Dawson,
431 Mich. 234, 427 N.W.2d 886 (1988); State v. Brown, 768 S.W.2d 215 (Mo. Ct. App.
W.D. 1989); State v. White, 322 N.C. 506, 369 S.E.2d 813 (1988). [FN7] Gibson v. State,
475 So. 2D 1346 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1985); State v. Whitehead, 184 Ga. App. 162,
361 S.E.2d 41 (1987); Woods v. State, 484 N.E.2d 3 (Ind. 1985); State v. Rademacher, 433
N.W.2d 754 (Iowa 1988); Dishongh v. State, 703 S.W.2d 358 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist.
1986). The prosecution did not purposely elicit prejudicial hearsay evidence at the
defendant's trial for the foreign murder of a United States national to goad the defendant
into seeking a mistrial, and thus the retrial did not violate the double jeopardy clause, where
the evidence against the defendant was convincing, the defendant had moved for a mistrial
three times prior to the introduction of the hearsay evidence which led to the mistrial,
suggesting that it was the defendant, not the prosecution, that was on the ropes, the
prosecution opposed mistrial in every instance, and the prosecution did not stand to gain from
a mistrial, since the witnesses from a foreign country, who were beyond the district court's
subpoena power, had attended the trial voluntarily. U.S. v. Wharton, 320 F.3d 526 (5th Cir.
2003). [FN8] State v. Chapman, 496 A.2d 297 (Me. 1985); West v. State, 52 Md. App. 624,
451 A.2d 1228 (1982); People v. Tyson, 423 Mich. 357, 377 N.W.2d 738 (1985); State v.
Andrial, 203 N.J. Super. 1, 495 A.2d 878 (App. Div. 1985); Owen v. Harrigan, 131 A.D.2d
20, 520 N.Y.S.2d 271 (3d Dep't 1987); State v. King, 84 Or. App. 165, 733 P.2d 472 (1987).
The district court did not clearly err in determining that the government did not intentionally
precipitate a mistrial in order to gain a better opportunity to convict the defendants in a
second trial, where the district court stated for the record that it accepted the prosecutor's
representation that he was surprised by the detective's improper comments on the defendants'
postarrest silence and did not intend to cause a mistrial, the detective's testimony, after
clarification, offered no basis for concluding that the prosecutor questioned him with the
intent of provoking a mistrial, and the district court made a clear finding that the government
had not engaged in gross negligence or intentional misconduct. U.S. v. Vallejo, 297 F.3d
1154 (11th Cir. 2002). [FN9] U.S. v. Radosh, 490 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2007), petition for cert.
Filed (U.S. Nov. 8, 2007); State v. Paniccia, 5 Conn. App. 491, 500 A.2d 245 (1985); Bell v.
State, 413 So. 2D 1292 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1982); Studyvent v. State, 153 Ga. App.
161, 264 S.E.2d 695 (1980); State v. Hoke, 69 Haw. 44, 731 P.2d 1261 (1987). [FN10] U.S.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
v. Martin, 561 F.2d 135 (8th Cir. 1977). [FN11] U.S. v. Broderick, 425 F. Supp. 93 (S.D. Fla.
1977). [FN12] Com. v. Warfield, 424 Pa. 555, 227 A.2d 177 (1967). [FN13] State v.
Thomas, 275 Ga. 167, 562 S.E.2d 501 (2002). [FN14] U.S. v. McAleer, 138 F.3d 852 (10th
Cir. 1998). [FN15] Hawkins v. Alabama, 318 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2003). [FN16] U.S. v.
Gallien, 168 Fed. Appx. 12 (5th Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Gilmore, 454 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2006).
[FN17] Rogers v. Goord, 371 F. Supp. 2D 348 (W.D. N.Y. 2005). [FN18] U.S. v. Williams,
472 F.3d 81 (3d Cir. 2007). AMJUR CRIMLAW 360
One. General Principles VI. Defenses F. Former Jeopardy 7. Declaration of Mistrial and
Discharge of Jury c. Defendant's Consent to Mistrial (2) Effect of Prosecutorial or Judicial
Impropriety Designed to Provoke Defendant's Motion for Mistrial 361. Judicial conduct
Double Jeopardy k96 In the absence of an intent to provoke the defendant's motion for a
mistrial, certain conduct by a trial judge has been deemed as not amounting to judicial
overreaching barring a retrial after the declaration of a mistrial on a motion of the defendant,
such as: granting the defendant's motion for a mistrial to reconsider the court's evidentiary
rulings so as to permit the prosecution to introduce previously excluded evidence at a retrial;
[FN1] proceeding with the trial in the defendant's absence;[FN2] perpetrating a practical joke
on the defense attorney by giving the impression that the prosecution was about to call a
rebuttal witnesses who in reality did not exist;[FN3] expressing skepticism of the defendant's
case in the presence of a jury;[FN4] committing error in receiving certain evidence;[FN5] or
failing to order pretrial discovery on the court's own motion.[FN6] [FN1] U.S. v. Weaver,
565 F.2d 129, 2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 765 (8th Cir. 1977). [FN2] U.S. v. Clayborne, 584 F.2d
346 (10th Cir. 1978). [FN3] Drayton v. Hayes, 589 F.2d 117 (2d Cir. 1979). [FN4] U.S. v.
Ajimura, 446 F. Supp. 1120 (D. Haw. 1978). [FN5] State v. Pulawa, 58 Haw. 377, 569 P.2d
900 (1977). [FN6] Com. v. Bolden, 472 Pa. 602, 373 A.2d 90, 98 A.L.R.3d 958 (1977).
AMJUR CRIMLAW 361
362. Bailiff's conduct Double Jeopardy k96 Although neither involving prosecutorial nor
judicial misconduct, a bailiff's misconduct in making remarks to the jury concerning the
sentencing habits of the trial judge and a range of sentences available, constitutes misconduct
so abhorrent to the sense of justice that the defendant's trial is therefore barred in the same
manner as if a prosecutor or judge had intended to provoke a mistrial.[FN1] However, the
retrial of the defendant after a mistrial is not barred where the mistrial resulted from the
bailiff's inadvertent mistake in leaving the jury room door open with the result that the jury
observed the defendant being brought into the courtroom in handcuffs.[FN2] [FN1] State v.
Rathbun, 287 Or. 421, 600 P.2d 392 (1979). [FN2] State v. Williams, 48 Or. App. 319, 617
P.2d 629 (1980). AMJUR CRIMLAW 362
Two. Rights and Privileges of Persons Accused or Suspected of Crime XXII. Rights
Pertaining to Nature or Conduct of Trial or Other Critical Stage of Prosecution L. Access to
Information, Evidence, Services, or Witnesses 1. Access to Information or Evidence, in
General e. Access to Evidence 1182. Prosecution's duty to disclose; Brady rule Criminal
Law 700(1), 700(2), 700(6) A.L.R. Library Failure of State Prosecutor to Disclose
Exculpatory Physical Evidence as Violating Due ProcessPersonal Items Other Than
Weapons, 55 A.L.R.6th 391 Failure of State Prosecutor to Disclose Exculpatory Tape
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Recorded Evidence as Violating Due Process, 24 A.L.R.6th 1 Failure of State Prosecutor to

Disclose Exculpatory Ballistic Evidence as Violating Due Process, 95 A.L.R.5th 611 Failure
of State Prosecutor to Disclose Exculpatory Photographic Evidence as Violating Due
Process, 93 A.L.R.5th 527 Right of accused in state courts to inspection or disclosure of tape
recording of his own statements, 10 A.L.R.4th 1092 Constitutional duty of federal prosecutor
to disclose Brady evidence favorable to accused, 158 A.L.R. Fed. 401 Trial Strategy
Foundation for Audio Recordings as Evidence, 23 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 315 Foundation
for Contemporaneous Videotape Evidence, 16 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 493 Forms Am.
Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Criminal Procedure 198 to 200, 209 (Notice and motion
for discovery) Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Federal Criminal Procedure 91
(Notice to United States AttorneyRequest by defendant for discovery and inspection of all
evidence favorable to defendantBrady request) Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms,
Federal Criminal Procedure 135 Law Reviews and Other Periodicals Benza, Commentary:
Brady, Brady, Wherefore Art Thou Brady?, 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 567 (2007) Deal, Brady
Materiality Before Trial: The Scope of the Duty to Disclose and the Right to a Trial by Jury,
82 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1780 (2007) Dewar, A Fair Trial Remedy for Brady Violations, 115 Yale
L.J. 1450 (2006) Gershman, Litigating Brady v. Maryland: Games Prosecutors Play, 57 Case
W. Res. L. Rev. 531 (2007) Harris, Two Constitutional Wrongs Do Not Make a Right:
Double Jeopardy and Prosecutorial Misconduct Under the Brady Doctrine, 28 Cardozo L.
Rev. 931 (2006) Max, The Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Discovered After Trial,
94 Ill. B.J. 138 (2006) Sawyer & Athanas, Is It's in There Somewhere Enough? Defining
the Scope of the Government's Brady Obligations in High-Volume Discovery Prosecutions,
24 No. 3 White-Collar Crime Rep. 1 (2009) Smith, Brady Obligations, Criminal Sanctions,
and Solutions in a New Era of Scrutiny, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1935 (2008) The prosecution must
disclose evidence that is material to either guilt or to punishment[FN1] irrespective of the
good or bad faith of the prosecution.[FN2] The disclosure rule is applicable though the
alleged nondisclosure is negligent or passive rather than willful.[FN3] The prosecution must
disclose such evidence even when there has not been a request for the information by the
defense.[FN4] Cases: Under Brady, the State violates a defendant's right to due process if it
withholds evidence that is favorable to the defense and material to the defendant's guilt or
punishment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627 (2012). District court
did not abuse its discretion in determining that there was no Brady violation when murder
defendant received government's documents related to eyewitnesses the Friday before the
Monday on which murder trial began; exculpatory material was not buried in mass of other
materials making them difficult to find, documents were used at trial to impeach witnesses,
defendant made no efforts to contact witnesses in four days between disclosure and their
testimony, and information in documents was inconsistent with defendant's version of the
events and thus not material. U.S. v. Douglas, 525 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2008), cert. Denied, 129
S. Ct. 619 (2008). Grand jury testimony of co-conspirator and cooperator was Brady
material, in defendant's trial for conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud arising
from defendant's misrepresentation to potential investors in scheme that he was the sole
signatory for an account that was under his exclusive control; in her grand jury testimony, coconspirator testified that defendant was told that he was, in fact, a signatory on these
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
accounts, and she also testified that she believed defendant did not know his representation
that he was the "sole signatory" on a particular investor's account was false. U.S. v.
Rittweger, 524 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2008), for additional opinion, see, 274 Fed. Appx. 78 (2d
Cir. 2008), petition for cert. Filed (U.S. Jan. 21, 2009) and petition for cert. Filed (U.S. Jan.
21, 2009). Government's failure to disclose grand jury testimony of co-conspirator and
cooperator, which was consistent with defendant's defense that he was unaware of the
unlawful aims of the conspiracy with which he was charged, until the week prior to trial, and
government's failure to produce Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent's debriefing
notes of coconspirator's interviews until just prior to agent's direct testimony, did not
constitute Brady violation in trial for conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud;
district court admitted into evidence co-conspirator's grand jury testimony and agent's
debriefing notes, and similar information was elicited at trial from co-defendant. U.S. v.
21, 2009). Even assuming that Risha factors used by court to determine whether federal
prosecutor is in constructive possession, for Brady purposes, of evidence held by state agents
could be applied in international context, in evaluating claim by convicted narcotics offender
that government had violated his rights under Brady by failing to turn over any documents
filed with Colombian authorities by alleged co-conspirator who was extradited from
Colombia, and who testified as witness for government, mere fact that Colombian authorities
had cooperated with federal government, by allowing federal agents to interview this alleged
co-conspirator in Colombia prior to his extradition, and by acting on government's request to
extradite him, was insufficient to give rise to duty on part of prosecutor under Risha to
disclose documents in possession of Colombian officials, where Colombian officials were in
no sense acting on federal government's behalf or under its control, but simply cooperated as
matter of apparent comity, where there was no joint investigation between the United States
and Colombian governments, and where documents in question, while perhaps obtainable by
prosecution, were not readily accessible by it. U.S. v. Reyeros, 537 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 2008),
cert. Denied, 2009 WL 1247119 (U.S. 2009). One county prosecutor's alleged act of hiding
exculpatory blood evidence in former prisoner's armed robbery case did not prevent prisoner
from establishing 1983 claim against prosecutor's office based on failure to train in
connection with Brady violations, where the constitutional violations were not solely
attributable to the one prosecutor's alleged criminal conduct, but instead were the result of
confusion over Brady by various attorneys in the prosecutor's office. Thompson v. Connick,
553 F.3d 836 (5th Cir. 2008), reh'g en banc granted, 562 F.3d 711 (5th Cir. 2009). Refusal to
admit hearsay statement of co-defendant's attorney at co-defendant's plea hearing, to effect
that defendant was present at scene of robbery "but didn't know what was about to happen,"
did not violate defendant's right to confront witnesses in her robbery trial for driving getaway
car, given that statement had little exculpatory significance, notwithstanding its corroboration
of defendant's testimony that she did not initially know about the robbery, as she admitted
she knew of robbery when her co-defendants fled bank and participation in escape was
participation in robbery. U.S. v. Loggins, 486 F.3d 977, 73 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 550 (7th Cir.
2007), cert. Denied, 128 S. Ct. 805, 169 L. Ed. 2D 608 (U.S. 2007). Prosecutor failed in his
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
due process duty to learn the results of investigation into criminal past of government witness
in defendant's firearm possession trial, as required to establish suppression element of
defendant's Brady claim, where, after instructing detective to run a criminal history check on
witness to find information that could be used for impeachment, prosecutor stated that he
could not say for sure whether detective had done so. U.S. v. Price, 566 F.3d 900 (9th Cir.
2009). Prosecutor's failure to disclose criminal history of its star witness in defendant's
firearm possession trial, including three arrests for theft, a report of theft by deception, and
three convictions for false-tag violations, was prejudicial and in violation of due process, as
element of defendant's Brady claim; witness had testified that she saw gun recovered from
defendant in his waistband approximate 15 minutes before his arrest, and had defendant been
able to discredit the testimony, there was a reasonable probability that he could have
persuaded the jury that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the gun was his. U.S. v.
Price, 566 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009). Decision of Georgia Supreme Court finding no Brady
violation in failure of prosecution to disclose impeachment evidence was not contrary to, and
did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined
by the Supreme Court of the United
States. Mize v. Hall, 532 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2008), petition for cert. Filed (U.S. Jan. 23,
2009). The prosecution is compelled to disclose information to a criminal defendant: (1)
where there is a discovery order issued by the trial court at the time of trial, (2) where a
statute imposes a duty to provide discovery, and (3) if there is evidence that is both favorable
to the defendant and material to the issue of guilt or punishment. Baca v. Superior Court, 187
Cal. App. 4Th 1534, 114 Cal. Rptr. 3D 796 (3d Dist. 2010), review filed, (Sept. 13, 2010). The
Brady rule only applies to the discovery, after trial, of information which had been known to
the prosecution but unknown to the defense. Rhodes v. State, 986 So. 2D 501 (Fla. 2008), as
modified on denial of reh'g, (July 3, 2008). Showing that the prosecution knew of an item of
favorable evidence unknown to the defense does not amount to a Brady violation, without
more. State v. Shackelford, 247 P.3d 582 (Idaho 2010), cert. Denied, 2011 WL 767588 (U.S.
2011) and cert. Denied, 2011 WL 767655 (U.S. 2011). Trial court applied correct standard in
determining whether State's nondisclosure of evidence was deliberate as to constitute
prosecutorial misconduct and violation of Brady, in murder prosecution; since much of
prosecutor's post-trial testimony was to the effect that he had not deliberately withheld
exculpatory evidence from defendant or his attorney, logical inference drawn from trial
court's credibility determination was that court did not find any deliberate nondisclosure on
the part of the prosecution. DeCiantis v. State, 24 A.3d 557 (R.I. 2011). [FN1] Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2D 215 (1963); Jimenez v. Trominski, 91
F.3d 767 (5th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Hamilton, 107 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 1997); Curl v. Superior
Court, 140 Cal. App. 4Th 310, 44 Cal. Rptr. 3D 320 (5th Dist. 2006), review denied, (Sept. 20,
2006); State v. Jones, 308 N.J. Super. 15, 705 A.2d 373 (App. Div. 1998); State v. Chalk,
816 A.2d 413 (R.I. 2002); State v. Carlson, 363 S.C. 586, 611 S.E.2d 283 (Ct. App. 2005);
Davis v. Com., 25 Va. App. 588, 491 S.E.2d 288 (1997). [FN2] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2D 215 (1963); Rector v. Johnson, 120 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 1997);
U.S. v. Hamilton, 107 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Fernandez, 136 F.3d 1434 (11th Cir.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1998); Curl v. Superior Court, 140 Cal. App. 4Th 310, 44 Cal. Rptr. 3D 320 (5th Dist. 2006),
review denied, (Sept. 20, 2006); State v. Carlson, 363 S.C. 586, 611 S.E.2d 283 (Ct. App.
2005); Davis v. Com., 25 Va. App. 588, 491 S.E.2d 288 (1997). [FN3] Ingram v. Peyton, 367
F.2d 933 (4th Cir. 1966); Walker v. Bishop, 408 F.2d 1378 (8th Cir. 1969); Levin v.
Katzenbach, 363 F.2d 287 (D.C. Cir. 1966). [FN4] Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 119 S.
Ct. 1936, 144 L. Ed. 2D 286 (1999). AMJUR CRIMLAW 1182 END OF DOCUMENT
21A Am. Jur. 2D Criminal Law 1183 American Jurisprudence, Second Edition Database
updated August 2012 Criminal Law George Blum, J.D., Romualdo P. Eclavea, J.D., Alan J.
Jacobs, J.D., John Kimpflen, J.D., Jack K. Levin, J.D., Caralyn M. Ross J.D., Jeffrey J.
Shampo, J.D., Eric C. Surette, J.D., and Amy G. Gore, J.D., Glenda K. Harnad, J.D., John R.
Kennel, J.D., and Mary Babb Morris, J.D., of the staff of the National Legal Research Group,
Inc. Part Two. Rights and Privileges of Persons Accused or Suspected of Crime XXII. Rights
General e. Access to Evidence 1183. Scope and extent of duty to disclose Criminal Law
700(1), 700(2), 700(2.1), 700(6) The government's duty to disclose exculpatory
evidence[FN1] is ongoing[FN2] and extends to all stages of the judicial process.[FN3]
However, the government is not required to conduct an investigation for the defense.[FN4]
Also, the government is not required to divulge every scintilla of evidence that might
conceivably inure to the defendant's benefit,[FN5] or evidence that would be inadmissible at
trial.[FN6] The government cannot circumvent the Brady disclosure rule by keeping itself
ignorant of exculpatory evidence.[FN7] However, the government has no duty to produce
evidence of which it has no knowledge,[FN8] although an individual prosecutor is presumed
to have knowledge of all the information gathered in connection with his or her office's
investigation of the case.[FN9] The government satisfies its duty to disclose by revealing
exculpatory evidence in its possession to the defendant's counsel, even where defense counsel
fails to show it to the defendant.[FN10] Cases: Prosecution did not withhold exculpatory
Brady evidence in drug conspiracy prosecution by failing to disclose detective's notes
indicating that two witnesses did not mention defendant's name when discussing membership
in gang that members of conspiracy belonged to, as membership in that gang was not a
prerequisite for membership in the conspiracy. U.S. v. Thompson, 528 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.
2008), as amended, (July 1, 2008) and cert. Denied, 129 S. Ct. 218, 172 L. Ed. 2D 164
(2008) and petition for cert. Filed (U.S. Dec. 19, 2008) and petition for cert. Filed (U.S. Jan.
12, 2009). Government's failure to disclose grand jury testimony of co-conspirator and
cooperator, which was consistent with defendant's defense that he was unaware of the
unlawful aims of the conspiracy with which he was charged, until the week prior to trial, and
government's failure to produce Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent's debriefing
notes of coconspirator's interviews until just prior to agent's direct testimony, did not
constitute Brady violation in trial for conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud;
district court admitted into evidence co-conspirator's grand jury testimony and agent's
debriefing notes, and similar information was elicited at trial from co-defendant. U.S. v.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21, 2009). Prosecutor's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to criminal defendant, or

police officer's deliberate concealment of exculpatory evidence, violates defendant's right to
fair trial, and can give rise to liability under 1983. Brown v. Miller, 519 F.3d 231 (5th Cir.
2008). Government's failure to disclose evidence that would have contradicted or weakened
the testimony of prosecution's only eyewitness to murder, and evidence that demonstrated a
motive on the part of another individual, constituted a Brady violation, in defendant's trial for
murder; evidence contradicting testimony of prosecution's only eyewitness included
unrecorded conclusions of detectives who investigated the crime scene and concluded that
victim was not murdered there, a police report describing a tape in which a third party
implicated other individuals, a police report noting that victim was not wearing shoes or
undershorts when body was discovered, and a police report stating that victim was seen alive
the night after the events the prosecution claimed happened, and evidence demonstrating
motive on the part of another individual included the other individual's anonymous call to the
police revealing non-public facts about the murder, the fact that he had first led the police to
suspect defendant, and that he had requested police assistance with respect to an unrelated
driving while under the influence (DUI) prosecution. D'Ambrosio v. Bagley, 527 F.3d 489
(6th Cir. 2008). For a Brady violation, the suppression of evidence need not have been
knowing or negligent behavior on the part of the government. U.S. v. Pelisamen, 641 F.3d
399 (9th Cir. 2011). Evidence of murder victim's mother's misdemeanor welfare fraud
conviction for continuing to accept victim's welfare benefits after victim's death was not
"material" under Brady, and thus prosecution's failure to disclose the evidence until after guilt
phase of capital trial did not violate due process, even though mother testified about
defendant's growing interest in victim and his abrupt departure on the night of the crimes
after learning that victim's father had driven victim and her friend to a movie theater, where
mother's testimony was not the only evidence establishing those points, and mother was not a
primary prosecution witness. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. People v. Clark, 52 Cal. 4Th 856,
131 Cal. Rptr. 3D 225, 261 P.3d 243 (2011). [FN1] 1182. [FN2] Pennsylvania v. Ritchie,
480 U.S. 39, 107 S. Ct. 989, 94 L. Ed. 2D 40, 22 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1 (1987); Smith v.
Roberts, 115 F.3d 818 (10th Cir. 1997). [FN3] Smith v. Roberts, 115 F.3d 818 (10th Cir.
1997). [FN4] U.S. v. Senn, 129 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 1997). [FN5] Lieberman v. Washington,
128 F.3d 1085 (7th Cir. 1997). [FN6] Lagrone v. State, 942 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997). [FN7] U.S. v. Hamilton, 107 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 1997). [FN8] State v. Small, 693 So.
2D 180 (La. Ct. App. 2D Cir. 1997); Harwood v. State, 961 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. App. San
Antonio 1997). [FN9] U.S. v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998). [FN10] U.S. v. Flynn,
87 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 1996). AMJUR CRIMLAW 1183
Two. Rights and Privileges of Persons Accused or Suspected of Crime XXII. Rights
General e. Access to Evidence 1184. What constitutes material evidence that must be
disclosed Criminal Law 700(3), 700(4) Evidence is material for purposes of the rule requiring
disclosure of such evidence by the prosecution[FN1] only if there exists a reasonable
probability that the result at trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[FN2] Thus, the duty to disclose extends to evidence that is favorable to the accused,[FN3]
which includes evidence that exculpates the accused and evidence that impeaches
government witnesses.[FN4] Evidence materially affecting the credibility of a key witness is
exculpatory.[FN5] Agreements between the state and a key witness to dismiss pending
charges against the witness constitute exculpatory evidence.[FN6] However, the mere
possibility that evidence sought from an unidentified source could be used to impeach a
witness is not enough to demand disclosure of the evidence of the identity of the source.
[FN7] There is no duty to disclose inculpatory evidence,[FN8] neutral evidence,[FN9] or
cumulative evidence.[FN10] Evidence that the government failed to disclose to the defendant
is considered collectively, not item-by-item, in determining whether the materiality
requirement of Brady was violated.[FN11] Cases: Evidence is "material" within the meaning
of Brady, which requires the disclosure of material exculpatory evidence by the prosecution,
when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the
proceeding would have been different, and a "reasonable probability" does not mean that the
defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence,
only that the likelihood of a different result is great enough to undermine confidence in the
outcome of the trial. Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627 (2012). Evidence impeaching an
eyewitness may not be material for purposes of Brady, which requires the disclosure of
material exculpatory evidence by the prosecution, if the State's other evidence is strong
enough to sustain confidence in the verdict. Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627 (2012). The
materiality inquiry under Brady does not turn on which of two competing sources of bias a
court, in hindsight, determines the jury would have considered more important, but, rather,
the inquiry is whether an undisclosed source of biaseven if it is not the only source or even
the main sourcecould reasonably be taken to put the whole case in a different light. LaCaze
v. Warden Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women, 645 F.3d 728 (5th Cir. 2011), opinion
amended on denial of reh'g en banc, 2011 WL 3300677 (5th Cir. 2011). Defendant was not
entitled to in camera review of certain interview and field notes prepared by government
witnesses to determine if they were required to be disclosed under Brady , in prosecution for
aiding and abetting tax evasion, where defendant failed to present anything other than
speculation that the documents he wanted the district court to inspect contained Brady
material. U.S. v. Jewell, 614 F.3d 911 (8th Cir. 2010). District court's error in admitting
treating physician's testimony regarding victim's statement that defendant was her abuser
affected defendant's substantial rights, and therefore was not harmless in defendant's sexual
assault prosecution; physician's hearsay testimony bolstered victim's testimony and victim's
testimony was sole basis for conviction since the prosecution turned on the credibility of
victim and defendant. U.S. v. Bercier, 506 F.3d 625, 74 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1298 (8th Cir.
2007). The prosecution's obligation under Brady includes the disclosure of potential
impeachment evidence. Towery v. Schriro, 622 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2010). For the evidence to
be material under Brady, there must be a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been
disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different. U.S. v. Diaz, 679 F.3d
1183 (10th Cir. 2012). Where evidence insignificantly impacts the degree of impeachment, it
generally will not be sufficient to meet the materiality standard for Brady purposes while, in
contrast, suppressed evidence that significantly enhances the quality of the impeachment
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
evidence usually will satisfy the materiality standard. U.S. v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104 (10th
Cir. 2011). Because impeachment of the witness who held the key to the successful
prosecution of defendant was denied to the defense, state's Brady violations resulting from
nondisclosure of deal the prosecution made in exchange for witness' testimony, were
material. Douglas v. Workman, 560 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2009). Exculpatory and
impeachment evidence suppressed by prosecution was material for Brady purposes; the
suppressed evidence collectively would have entitled the jury to find that police officer's
critical testimony was presumptively unreliable and false, that if identification witness was
willing to lie about his gang status and bias, he was willing to lie about defendant's purported
involvement in a park shooting that served as retaliatory motive for charged offenses, and
that deputy's opinions, particularly regarding defendant's gang status and purported
embracement of violence, were not trustworthy. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Blumberg v.
Garcia, 687 F. Supp. 2D 1074 (C.D. Cal. 2010). When there are multiple Brady violations
alleged, a court should examine the cumulative effect of all such evidence suppressed by the
government and not make independent materiality evaluations only. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.
5. U.S. v. Wilson, 720 F. Supp. 2D 51 (D.D.C. 2010). Government's failure to disclose that
defendant's supervisor had lied in saying that he had instructed defendant not to send
replacement parts to Iranian company, and that Government had withdrawn supervisor as
witness based upon his reclassification as target of investigation, deprived defendant of fair
trial in violation of his due process rights, warranting new trial on charges of conspiracy to
commit offenses against United States and violating United States Iranian Trade Embargo,
inasmuch as defendant was denied ability to use information to support arguments at heart of
his defense. U.S. v. Quinn, 537 F. Supp. 2D 99 (D.D.C. 2008). There is no Brady violation
absent "materiality," which requires that the government's non-disclosure is so serious that
there is a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a
different verdict. U.S. v. Nevsky, 821 F. Supp. 2D 524 (N.D. N.Y. 2011). Simple fact that
evidence could be used to impeach government witness does not end materiality inquiry
under Brady; impeachment evidence, even that which tends to further undermine credibility
of key government witness whose credibility has already been shaken due to extensive crossexamination, does not create reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist where that
evidence is cumulative or collateral. U.S. v. Landron-Class, 714 F. Supp. 2D 278 (D.P.R.
2010). A reasonable probability exists that, had evidence been disclosed to the defense at
trial, the result would have been different, meaning that the evidence was "material," as
would support a due process duty for the prosecution to disclose it to the defendant, when the
undisclosed evidence reasonably could be taken to put the whole case in such a different light
as to undermine confidence in the verdict. In re Miranda, 43 Cal. 4Th 541, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3D
172, 182 P.3d 513 (2008). In making the materiality determination, for purposes of Brady
claim, courts must consider the cumulative effect of all the suppressed evidence rather than
considering each item of evidence individually. People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2D 56, 321 Ill.
Dec. 778, 890 N.E.2d 500 (2008). Court reviewing a due process Brady claim relating to
undisclosed material does not put that material to an outcome-determinative test in which it
weighs the probabilities that the defendant would have obtained an acquittal at trial or might
do so at a second trial; instead, a Brady violation occurs when the evidentiary suppression
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. State v.
Sparks, 68 So. 3D 435 (La. 2011). Brady does not require the disclosure of information that
is not exculpatory, but might merely form the groundwork for possible arguments or
defenses. Com. v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011). Impeachment evidence, as well as
exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady rule. Com. v. Dennis, 17 A.3d 297 (Pa. 2011).
Discovery order beyond Brady minimum of exculpatory and impeachment evidence imposes
on the State a continuing duty of disclosure. Hall v. State, 283 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. App. Austin
2009), petition for discretionary review refused, (Oct. 28, 2009). Evidence that could be used
effectively to impeach a prosecution witness, including prior convictions, is evidence
favorable to the defendant for Brady purposes. Hall v. State, 283 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. App.
Austin 2009), petition for discretionary review refused, (Oct. 28, 2009). The inquiry into
materiality of favorable evidence that should have been disclosed to defendant involves
balancing the strength of the favorable evidence against the evidence supporting conviction;
Court of Appeals must accordingly consider the entire body of evidence at trial and must
evaluate materiality in terms of suppressed evidence considered collectively, not item-byitem. Hall v. State, 283 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. App. Austin 2009), petition for discretionary
review
refused, (Oct. 28, 2009). Undisclosed evidence is material to guilt or punishment only if
there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the
result of the proceeding would have been different; a reasonable probability is a probability
sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Hall v. State, 283 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. App.
Austin 2009), petition for discretionary review refused, (Oct. 28, 2009). Question of
materiality, in context of a claimed Brady violation, is not whether the defendant would more
likely than not have received a different verdict with the undisclosed evidence, but whether in
its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of
confidence. In re Stenson, 2012 WL 1638035 (Wash. 2012). Reports indicating that law
enforcement officers unsuccessfully attempted to obtain identifiable fingerprints from plastic
bag containing cocaine allegedly possessed by defendant were not material to guilt or
punishment, and neither prosecution's failure timely to disclose such reports to defendant nor
its use of fingerprint evidence at trial violated defendant's constitutional right to due process.
State v. Harris, 2008 WI 15, 745 N.W.2d 397 (Wis. 2008). In judging materiality of withheld
evidence under Brady, the focus is on the cumulative effect of the withheld evidence, rather
than on the impact of each piece of evidence in isolation. Lawson v. State, 2010 WY 145,
242 P.3d 993 (Wyo. 2010). [FN1] 1182. [FN2] Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1, 116 S.
Ct. 7, 133 L. Ed. 2D 1 (1995); Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 107 S. Ct. 989, 94 L.
Ed. 2D 40, 22 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1 (1987); Schmitt v. True, 387 F. Supp. 2D 622 (E.D. Va.
2005); State v. McIntyre, 242 Conn. 318, 699 A.2d 911 (1997); Bivins v. State, 735 N.E.2d
1116 (Ind. 2000); State v. Veal, 564 N.W.2d 797 (Iowa 1997); State v. Aikins, 261 Kan. 346,
932 P.2d 408 (1997); Ware v. State, 348 Md. 19, 702 A.2d 699 (1997); People v. Fink, 456
Mich. 449, 574 N.W.2d 28 (1998); State v. Wildenberg, 573 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 1998); Van
Woudenberg v. State, 1997 OK CR 38, 942 P.2d 224 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997); Riley v.
State, 953 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. App. Austin 1997), petition for discretionary review refused,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Jan. 7, 1998). [FN3] Rector v. Johnson, 120 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 1997); State v. Pardon, 703
So. 2D 50 (La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997), writ denied, 715 So. 2D 1207 (La. 1998). [FN4] U.S.
v. Wong, 78 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Hamilton, 107 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 1997); Paradis
v. Arave, 130 F.3d 385 (9th Cir. 1997); Smith v. Roberts, 115 F.3d 818 (10th Cir. 1997); U.S.
v. Fernandez, 136 F.3d 1434 (11th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Marshall, 132 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 1998),
as amended, (Mar. 6, 1998); State v. McIntyre, 242 Conn. 318, 699 A.2d 911 (1997); Ware v.
State, 348 Md. 19, 702 A.2d 699 (1997); State v. Jones, 308 N.J. Super. 15, 705 A.2d 373
(App. Div. 1998); Dalbosco v. State, 960 S.W.2d 901 (Tex. App. Texarkana 1997). [FN5]
State v. Aikins, 261 Kan. 346, 932 P.2d 408 (1997). [FN6] Williams v. Brown, 609 F.2d 216
(5th Cir. 1980); State v. McIntyre, 242 Conn. 318, 699 A.2d 911 (1997); State v. Aikins, 261
Kan. 346, 932 P.2d 408 (1997); Ware v. State, 348 Md. 19, 702 A.2d 699 (1997). [FN7]
Brown v. State, 229 Ga. App. 87, 493 S.E.2d 230 (1997). [FN8] U.S. v. Gonzales, 90 F.3d
1363, 45 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 226 (8th Cir. 1996). [FN9] U.S. v. Flores-Mireles, 112 F.3d 337
(8th Cir. 1997); Dalbosco v. State, 960 S.W.2d 901 (Tex. App. Texarkana 1997). [FN10]
Chapman v. State of Md., 516 F.2d 1277 (4th Cir. 1975); Evans v. Janing, 489 F.2d 470 (8th
Cir. 1973). [FN11] U.S. v. Gonzales, 90 F.3d 1363, 45 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 226 (8th Cir.
1996). AMJUR CRIMLAW 1184
1192. Right to pretrial interview of witnesses Criminal Law k627.7(3), 629(1) A.L.R. Library
Accused's right to depose prospective witnesses before trial in state court, 2 A.L.R.4th 704
Interference by prosecution with defense counsel's pretrial interrogation of witnesses, 90
A.L.R.3d 1231 The defense has the right to interrogate witnesses prior to trial without
interference by the prosecution.[FN1] Thus, instructions to witnesses not to discuss the case
with anyone other than the witness's attorneys or government agents are improper, and failure
to serve a court order on witnesses stating that they could talk to defense counsel is also
improper.[FN2] Generally, a criminal defendant is entitled to have access to any prospective
witness although such a right of access may not lead to an actual interview.[FN3] Witnesses
in a criminal prosecution are not the property of the state or the defense, and both sides have
an equal right and should have an equal opportunity to interview and talk to witnesses.[FN4]
It is reversible error for the prosecution to hold a witness in custody instead of allowing him
or her to appear in court pursuant to the defendant's subpoena after that witness's
participation in the offense is shown at trial.[FN5] [FN1] Com. v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505,
209 N.E.2d 308, 14 A.L.R.3d 640 (1965); Martinez v. State, 1972 OK CR 106, 496 P.2d 416
(Okla. Crim. App. 1972). [FN2] U. S. v. Clemones, 577 F.2d 1247 (5th Cir. 1978), opinion
modified on other grounds, 582 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir. 1978). [FN3] People v. Dixon, 148 Cal.
App. 4Th 414, 56 Cal. Rptr. 3D 33 (4th Dist. 2007). [FN4] Penalver v. State, 926 So. 2D 1118
(Fla. 2006). [FN5] People v. Avery, 61 Ill. App. 3D 327, 18 Ill. Dec. 635, 377 N.E.2d 1271
(1st Dist. 1978).
1194. Identity of prosecution witnesses; production of statements of witnesses Criminal
Law k627.7(3), 629(1) In a number of jurisdictions, statutes or constitutional provisions
require that the defendant be furnished, prior to trial, with a list of the witnesses intended to
be produced against him or her.[FN1] In the absence of a provision so requiring, the state is
not bound to furnish the defendant with the names of its witnesses,[FN2] nor is the failure to
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
do so a denial of due process of law.[FN3] Observation: Any suppression by the prosecution

of statements of a particular witness contained in a synopsis prepared by the state attorney's
office in a capital murder prosecution did not prejudice the defendant and was harmless error,
where defense counsel impeached such witness with pretrial statements similar to those
allegedly suppressed and had access to a transcript of such witness' oral interview with the
police containing information almost identical to that contained in the allegedly suppressed
synopsis.[FN4] In some jurisdictions, the matter of affording compulsory witness
identification by the prosecution is committed to the discretion of the trial court.[FN5] The
admission of testimony of witnesses whose names the prosecution has unintentionally or
inadvertently failed to divulge is not grounds for reversal of a conviction in the absence of a
showing of prejudice[FN6] or bad faith.[FN7] A defendant is entitled to a report prepared by
an officer who testified as a witness for the state in a prosecution for drug offenses pursuant
to a rule requiring that defense counsel be permitted the opportunity at trial to inspect prior
statements of the state's witnesses for the purposes of cross-examination.[FN8] The
prosecutor may be required by statute to furnish the names of witnesses who are known at the
time of filing of the information.[FN9] Under such provision, the names of prospective
witnesses must be endorsed on the formal charge.[FN10] The prosecution must reveal the
contents of plea agreements with key government witnesses.[FN11] The trial court may not
require the defendant to produce summaries of his or her witnesses' testimony.[FN12] The
American Bar Association Standards for the Administration of Criminal Justice provide, with
certain exceptions, for disclosure, upon request of the defense, by the prosecuting attorney to
defense counsel the names and addresses of witnesses, together with their relevant written or
recorded statements.[FN13] [FN1] Logan v. U.S., 144 U.S. 263, 12 S. Ct. 617, 36 L. Ed. 429
(1892) (abrogated on other grounds by, Witherspoon v. State of Ill. 391 U.S. 510, 88 S. Ct.
1770, 20 L. Ed. 2D 776 (1968)); Nicholson v. State, 704 So. 2D 81 (Miss. 1997). [FN2]
McDaniel v. State, 191 Miss. 854, 4 So. 2D 355 (1941); State v. Hoffman, 281 N.C. 727, 190
S.E.2d 842 (1972). [FN3] Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 97 S. Ct. 837, 51 L. Ed. 2D
30 (1977). [FN4] Davis v. State, 928 So. 2D 1089 (Fla. 2005), cert. Dismissed, 547 U.S.
1053, 126 S. Ct. 1649, 164 L. Ed. 2D 357 (2006) and cert. Denied, 127 S. Ct. 206, 166 L. Ed.
2D 166 (U.S. 2006). [FN5] State v. Conley, 32 Ohio App. 2D 54, 61 Ohio Op. 2D 50, 288
N.E.2d 296 (3d Dist. Marion County 1971). [FN6] Frazier v. State, 336 So. 2D 435 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1976); State v. Mitchell, 47 Ohio App. 2D 61, 1 Ohio Op. 3D 181, 352
N.E.2d 636 (2d Dist. Clark County 1975). [FN7] Marx v. State, 953 S.W.2d 321 (Tex. App.
Austin 1997), petition for discretionary review granted, (Nov. 26, 1997) and judgment aff'd,
987 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). [FN8] Massey v. State, 173 Md. App. 94, 917 A.2d
1175 (2007). [FN9] State v. Williford, 64 Wash. 2D 787, 394 P.2d 371 (1964). [FN10] State
v. Davis, 199 Kan. 33, 427 P.2d 606 (1967). [FN11] California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479,
104 S. Ct. 2528, 81 L. Ed. 2D 413 (1984). [FN12] State v. Huerta, 285 Mont. 245, 947 P.2d
483 (1997). [FN13] ABA Standards For Criminal Justice, SCJ 11-2.1(a)(i). AMJUR
CRIMLAW 1194
XXII. Rights Pertaining to Nature or Conduct of Trial or Other Critical Stage of Prosecution
A. Fair Trial 1. In General 927. Constitutional requirementsCompetent and impartial
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
tribunal Criminal Law 633(1), 732 A.L.R. Library Disqualification of judge for bias
against counsel for litigant, 54 A.L.R.5th 575 Disqualification of judge, justice of the
peace, or similar judicial officer for pecuniary interest in fines, forfeitures, or fees payable
by litigants, 72 A.L.R.3d 375 Construction and Application of Sixth Amendment Right to
Trial by JurySupreme Court Cases, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 2D 213 Trial Strategy Challenges for
Cause in Jury Selection Process, 58 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 395 Jury Misconduct
Warranting New Trial, 24 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 633 Discrimination in Jury
SelectionSystematic Exclusion or Underrepresentation of Identifiable Group, 9 Am.
Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 407 Law Reviews and Other Periodicals Darmer, The Federal
Sentencing Guidelines After Blakely and Booker: The Limits of Congressional Tolerance
and a Greater Role for Juries, 56 S.C. L. Rev. 533 (2005) Gaffney, Case Note, Criminal
LawThe Sixth Amendment Clash: Judges vs. Juries. Ring v. Arizona, 122 S. Ct. 2428
(2002), 3 Wyo. L. Rev. 769 (2003) One of the basic elements of the constitutional
requirement of a fair trial is a legally competent tribunal having jurisdiction of the case.
[FN1] A criminal defendant has the right to a fair trial before a panel of impartial
jurors[FN2] and an impartial judge,[FN3] who is mentally competent to afford a hearing.
[FN4] The defendant has the right to the supervision by a fair, impartial, and competent
judge throughout the proceedings.[FN5] A defendant tried by a judge who is not impartial
is entitled to have his or her conviction set aside, no matter how strong the evidence
against him or her.[FN6] Practice Tip: The test a trial court must use in determining
whether a motion to disqualify the trial judge is legally sufficient is whether the facts
alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and
impartial trial.[FN7] The fact that a trial judge has made adverse rulings in the past
against the defendant, or that the judge has previously heard the evidence, or allegations
that the trial judge had formed a fixed opinion of the defendant's guilt, even where it is
alleged that the judge discussed his or her opinion with others, are generally considered
legally insufficient reasons to warrant the judge's disqualification.[FN8] Observation: A
trial that is not before an impartial judge and jury is fundamentally unfair, and the
harmless error analysis applies only where the trial is before an impartial judge and jury.
[FN9] The Sixth Amendment guarantees the criminal defendant a right to a fair trial by an
impartial jury,[FN10] free to the furthest extent practicable from extraneous influences
that may subvert the fact-finding process.[FN11] A fair trial occurs when the verdict is
based on the evidence and not on factors external to the proof at the trial.[FN12] A trial
judge has broad discretion over the procedural conduct of a trial.[FN13] However,
although the trial court has both the duty and the discretion to control the conduct of the
trial, the Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution clearly requires a fair trial in a
fair tribunal before a judge with no actual bias against the defendant or interest in the
outcome of his or her particular case.[FN14] Cases: Defendant's claim of error that a
juror was discharged and replaced without sufficient cause in violation of his rights to
have his trial completed by a particular tribunal, to an impartial jury, to due process, and
to a reliable capital sentencing determination, after juror allegedly failed to deliberate,
was forfeited, where defendant failed to object or move for a mistrial. U.S.C.A.
Const.Amends. 6, 8, 14; West's Ann.Cal. Const. Art. 1, 7, 15. People v. Wilson, 43
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cal. 4Th 1, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3D 620, 178 P.3d 1113 (2008). Tension between jurors favoring
guilt and those favoring acquittal is part and parcel of the internal decision-making
process of jury deliberations, and does not indicate a violation of a defendant's right to an
impartial jury trial. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 12. Com. v.
Semedo, 456 Mass. 1, 921 N.E.2d 57 (2010). [FN1] Powell v. State of Ala., 287 U.S. 45,
53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158, 84 A.L.R. 527 (1932). [FN2] Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570,
106 S. Ct. 3101, 92 L. Ed. 2D 460 (1986); Hammer v. Bowlen, 934 F. Supp. 911 (M.D.
Tenn. 1996); Arkansas Gazette Co. v. Goodwin, 304 Ark. 204, 801 S.W.2d 284 (1990);
State v. Okumura, 78 Haw. 383, 894 P.2d 80 (1995). As to the role of the jury in the
determination of punishment, generally, see 981. [FN3] Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570,
106 S. Ct. 3101, 92 L. Ed. 2D 460 (1986); People v. Cline, 60 Cal. App. 4Th 1327, 71 Cal.
Rptr. 2D 41 (4th Dist. 1998); Jefferson-El v. State, 330 Md. 99, 622 A.2d 737 (1993).
[FN4] Jordan v. Com. Of Massachusetts, 225 U.S. 167, 32 S. Ct. 651, 56 L. Ed. 1038
(1912); People v. Thompson, 222 A.D.2d 156, 645 N.Y.S.2d 884 (2d Dep't 1996), order
aff'd, 90 N.Y.2d 615, 665 N.Y.S.2d 21, 687 N.E.2d 1304 (1997). [FN5] People v.
Thompson, 222 A.D.2d 156, 645 N.Y.S.2d 884 (2d Dep't 1996), order aff'd, 90 N.Y.2d
615, 665 N.Y.S.2d 21, 687 N.E.2d 1304 (1997). As to the right to an impartial jury,
generally, see 985 to 996. [FN6] Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S. Ct. 1584,
137 L. Ed. 2D 906 (1997). [FN7] Chamberlain v. State, 881 So. 2D 1087 (Fla. 2004),
cert. Denied, 544 U.S. 930, 125 S. Ct. 1669, 161 L. Ed. 2D 495 (2005). [FN8]
Chamberlain v. State, 881 So. 2D 1087 (Fla. 2004), cert. Denied, 544 U.S. 930, 125 S. Ct.
1669, 161 L. Ed. 2D 495 (2005). [FN9] Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 106 S. Ct. 3101, 92
L. Ed. 2D 460 (1986). [FN10] Stewart v. Wolfenbarger, 468 F.3d 338, 2006 FED App.
0417P (6th Cir. 2006), as amended on denial of reh'g and reh'g en banc, (Feb. 15, 2007).
[FN11] U.S. v. DiSalvo, 34 F.3d 1204 (3d Cir. 1994); In re Willon, 47 Cal. App. 4Th
1080, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2D 245 (6th Dist. 1996); State v. McKeen, 165 Vt. 469, 685 A.2d 1090
(1996). [FN12] State v. Overkamp, 865 S.W.2d 376 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1993); Pachl v.
Zenon, 145 Or. App. 350, 929 P.2d 1088 (1996). [FN13] 928. [FN14] People v. Harris,
37 Cal. 4Th 310, 33 Cal. Rptr. 3D 509, 118 P.3d 545 (2005), cert. Denied, 547 U.S. 1065,
126 S. Ct. 1655, 164 L. Ed. 2D 411 (2006). AMJUR CRIMLAW 927
One. General Principles VIII. Venue C. Change of Venue 2. Transfer of Causes in Federal
Courts 500. From district with prejudice sufficient to prevent fair trial Criminal Law k126
A.L.R. Library Pretrial publicity in criminal case as ground for change of venue, 33 A.L.R.3d
17 Upon the defendant's motion, the court must transfer the proceeding against that defendant
to another district if the court is satisfied that so great a prejudice against the defendant exists
in the transferring district that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there.
[FN1] However, the existence of widespread or even adverse publicity is not in itself a
ground to grant a change of venue under the rule, the proper test being whether a prospective
juror can set aside personal impressions and opinions and render a verdict based on the
evidence.[FN2] To warrant a change of venue, the publicity must be recent, widespread, and
highly damaging.[FN3] A key factor in gauging the reliability of juror assurances of
impartiality, for purposes of a change of venue motion, is the percentage of veniremen who
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
will admit to disqualifying prejudice.[FN4] In considering a motion for change of venue

because of excessive publicity, the court must first address whether the publicity is so
inherently prejudicial that trial proceedings must be presumed to be tainted and, if that is not
true, conduct voir dire examination of prospective jurors to determine if actual prejudice
exists.[FN5] Prejudice against a defendant warranting a change of venue can be either
presumed or actual.[FN6] Prejudice is presumed, for example, when the record demonstrates
that the community where the trial was held was saturated with prejudicial and inflammatory
media publicity about the crime.[FN7] The defendant bears the burden of establishing that
prejudice warranting a change of venue should be presumed.[FN8] To establish actual
prejudice, a defendant must demonstrate that the jurors exhibited actual partiality or hostility,
or had formed a pretrial opinion that the defendant was guilty, and that the partiality, opinion
or hostility could not be lain aside.[FN9] Actual prejudice is demonstrated by examining the
totality of the circumstances.[FN10] When the court orders a transfer, the clerk must send to
the transferee district the file, or a certified copy, and any bail taken. The prosecution will
then continue in the transferee district.[FN11] Cases: To prove presumed prejudice so as to
warrant a change of venue, a defendant has the burden of establishing that prejudicial pretrial
publicity so saturated the community as to have a probable prejudicial impact on the
prospective jurors there, thus rendering the trial setting inherently suspect, and, thus, requires
a showing that a feeling of deep and bitter prejudice exists in the community as a result of the
publicity. Sale v. State, 8 So. 3D 330 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008), cert. Denied, 8 So. 3D 352
(Ala. 2008) and cert. Denied, 129 S. Ct. 2062, 173 L. Ed. 2D 1141 (2009). A showing of
reasonable probability of prejudice supporting change of venue can be made when the
defendant presents evidence of highly inflammatory or sensationalized pre-trial publicity
sufficient for the court to presume prejudice if it finds the publicity to be inherently
prejudicial; short of such a showing, the defendant must demonstrate actual prejudice through
voir dire. Sykes v. State, 953 A.2d 261 (Del. 2008), cert. Denied, 129 S. Ct. 452 (2008).
Defendant was not entitled to change of venue in capital murder prosecution based on pretrial
publicity; media coverage was informational and insufficient to support presumption of
prejudice, and defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice through voir dire. Sykes v.
State, 953 A.2d 261 (Del. 2008), cert. Denied, 129 S. Ct. 452 (2008). [FN1] Fed. R. Crim. P.
21(a). For a discussion of prejudice necessitating a change of venue in state courts, see 484.
[FN2] U.S. v. Stevens, 83 F.3d 60, 44 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 481 (2d Cir. 1996); U.S. v. SmithBowman, 76 F.3d 634, 43 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1120 (5th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. McNally, 485
F.2d 398 (8th Cir. 1973); Ainsworth v. Calderon, 138 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 1998), opinion
amended on other grounds on denial of reh'g, 152 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1998). [FN3] Flamer v.
State of Del., 68 F.3d 736 (3d Cir. 1995); Wansley v. Slayton, 487 F.2d 90 (4th Cir. 1973);
U.S. v. Croft, 124 F.3d 1109, 47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1048 (9th Cir. 1997) (10-year old news
stories not sufficient). [FN4] U.S. v. Collins, 109 F.3d 1413 (9th Cir. 1997); Brecheen v.
Reynolds, 41 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 1994) (one-quarter of venire excluded; not sufficient).
[FN5] U.S. v. Bailey, 112 F.3d 758 (4th Cir. 1997); Kelly v. Withrow, 25 F.3d 363, 1994 FED
App. 0186P (6th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Childress, 58 F.3d 693 (D.C. Cir. 1995). [FN6] U.S. v.
Collins, 109 F.3d 1413 (9th Cir. 1997); Meeks v. Moore, 216 F.3d 951 (11th Cir. 2000). [FN7]
Flamer v. State of Del., 68 F.3d 736 (3d Cir. 1995); Snell v. Lockhart, 14 F.3d 1289 (8th Cir.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1994); U.S. v. Collins, 109 F.3d 1413 (9th Cir. 1997); Thompson v. Borg, 74 F.3d 1571 (9th
Cir. 1996); Mills v. Singletary, 63 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 1995). [FN8] Stafford v. Saffle, 34 F.3d
1557 (10th Cir. 1994). [FN9] U.S. v. Higgs, 353 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2003); Randolph v. People
of the State of Cal., 380 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2004). [FN10] Stafford v. Saffle, 34 F.3d 1557
(10th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Lehder-Rivas, 955 F.2d 1510, 35 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1168 (11th Cir.
1992). [FN11] Fed. R. Crim. P. 21(c). AMJUR CRIMLAW 500
W.D.Tenn. 1993. To establish vindictive prosecution, defendant is not required to show
that prosecution was actually vindictive, but, rather, realistic likelihood of vindictiveness.
Standard of realistic likelihood of vindictiveness with respect to claim of vindictive
prosecution is objective standard. U.S. v. Adams, 832 F.Supp. 1138, affirmed 38 F.3d 1217.
2 D.D.C. 1990. A bad faith prosecution is generally defined as having been brought without a
reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction; however, bad faith and harassing
prosecutions also encompass those prosecutions that are intended to retaliate for or
discourage the exercise of constitutional rights. PHE, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 743
F.Supp. 15. 3 C.A.9 (Cal.) 1997. Vindictive prosecution occurs when government
penalizes a person merely because he has exercised a protected statutory or constitutional
right. U.S. v. Paguio, 114 F.3d 928, appeal after remand 168 F.3d 503. 4 C.A.8 (Ark.) 1994.
Prosecutors discretion to charge is very broad but cannot be based upon vindictiveness or
exercised in retaliation for defendants exercise of legal right. Defendant may demonstrate
prosecutorial vindictiveness by proving through objective evidence that prosecutors
decision was intended to punish defendant for exercise of legal right. U.S. v. Rodgers, 18
F.3d 1425. 5 N.E.Ill. 1995. Prosecutor may not punish defendant for exercising statutory or
constitutional right. U.S. v. Cunningham, 902 F.Supp. 166. S.D.N.Y. 1996. Prosecution is
vindictive if it is undertaken in retaliation for exercise of statutory or constitutional right.
U.S. v. Aviv, 923 F.Supp. 35. 6 C.A.3 (N.J.) 1992. In determining whether an indictment
posed a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness, the question was whether the situation
presented a reasonable likelihood of danger that the state might be retaliating against the
accused for lawfully exercising a right, not whether there was a possibility that the defendant
might be deterred from exercising a legal right. U.S. v. Esposito, 968 F.2d 300. 7 C.A.6 (Ky.)
2000. To establish vindictive prosecution, defendant must show that prosecutor has some
persona stake in deterring defendant exercise of his constitutional rights, and that
prosecutors conduct was unreasonable. U.S. v. Wells, 211 F.3d 988, 2000 Fed.App. 161P. 8
C.A.11 (Ga.) 1985. Prosecutors charging decision does not impose improper penalty on
defendant unless it results from defendants exercise of protected legal right, as opposed to
prosecutors normal assessment of social interests to be vindicated by prosecution. U.S. v.
Taylor, 749 F.2d 1511. 9 C.A.6 (Ky.) 2000. To establish vindictive prosecution, defendant
must show that prosecutor has some personal stake in deterring defendants exercise of his
constitutional rights, and that prosecutors conduct was unreasonable U.S. v. Wells, 211 F.3d
988, 2000 Fed.App. 161P. 10 W.D.Tenn. 1993. To establish vindictive prosecution,
defendant is not required to show that prosecution was actually vindictive, but, rather,
realistic likelihood of vindictiveness. Standard of realistic likelihood of vindictiveness with
respect to claim of vindictive prosecution is objective standard. U.S. v. Adams, 832 F.Supp.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1138, affirmed 38 F.3d 1217. 11 C.A.9 (Cal.) 1997. Vindictive prosecution occurs when
government penalizes a person merely because he has exercised a protected statutory or
constitutional right. U.S. v. Paguio, 114 F.3d 928, appeal after remand 168 F.3d 503. 12
C.A.7 (Ill.) 1991. Fifth Amendment prohibits Government from prosecuting defendant
because of some specific animus or ill will on prosecutors part or to punish defendant for
exercising legally protected statutory or constitutional right. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. U.S.
v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598, rehearing denied, mandate recalled and corrected 957 F.2d 301,
appeal after remand 67 F.3d 641, opinion modified on denial of rehearing 74 F.3d. 152. 13
D.Conn. 2000. To establish actual vindictive motive to prosecute, defendant must show the
(1) the prosecutor harbored genuine animus toward the defendant, or was prevailed upon to
bring the charges by another with animus such that the prosecutor could be considered a
stalking horse, and (2) defendant would not have been prosecuted but for the animus.
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. U.S. v. Dean, 119 F.Supp.2d 81. 14 C.A.7 (Ill.) 1991. Fifth
Amendment prohibits Government from prosecuting defendant because of some specific
animus or ill will on prosecutors part or to punish defendant for exercising legally protected
statutory or constitutional right. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. U.S. v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598. 15
C.A.7 (Wis.) 1996. Claim of vindictive or selective prosecution requires showing that
defendant (1) was singled out for prosecution while other violators similarly situated were
not prosecuted; and (2) decision to prosecute was based on arbitrary classification such as
race, religion, or exercise of protected rights. U.S. v. Monsoor, 77 F.3d 1031. 16 E.D.N.Y.
1988. Doctrine of prosecutorial vindictiveness does not apply to prosecutions brought by
different sovereigns, absent showing that state prosecution was a stalking horse for a
subsequent federal investigation. U.S. v. McGriff, 678 F.Supp 1010. 17 N.D.N.Y. 1997. In
some circumstances, a presumption of unconstitutional prosecutorial vindictiveness arises
when prosecutors employ practices that pose a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness. U.S. v.
Cady, 955 F.Supp. 164. C.A.9 (Cal. 1995. To establish prima facie case of prosecutorial
vindictiveness, defendant must show either direct evidence of actual vindictiveness or fact
that warrant appearance of such. Evidence indicating realistic or reasonable likelihood of
vindictiveness may give rise to presumption of vindictiveness on governments part. For
purposes of claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness, once presumption of vindictiveness has
arisen, burden shifts to prosecution to show that independent reasons or intervening
circumstances dispel appearance of vindictiveness and justify its decisions. U.S. v. Montoya,
45 F.3d 1286, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 67, 516 U.S. 814, 133 L.Ed.2d 29. The standard of
review in a vindictive prosecution case is unsettled in this circuit. United States v. Kinsey,
994 F.2d 699, 701, n.5 (9th Cir. 1993); Guam v. Fergurgur, 800 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir.),
cert. Denied, 480 U.S. 932 (1987). The court has variously applied abuse of discretion and
clearly erroneous standards. See United States v. Gann, 732 F.2d 714, 724 (9th Cir.), cert.
Denied, 469 U.S. 1034 (1984). A de novo standard was adopted in United States v. Martinez,
785 F.2d 663, 666 (9th Cir. 1988). Subsequent cases appear to have considered the evidence
de novo without stating what standard was being used. See, e.g., Kolek v. Engen, 869 F.2d
1281, 1287-88 (9th Cir. 1989); Adamson v. Ricketts, 865 F.2d 1011, 1017-1020 (9th Cir.
1988), cert. Denied, 497 U.S. 1031 (1990); United States v. DeTar, 832 F.2d 1110, 1112 (9 th
Cir. 1987). The cases can be reconciled by reference to standards established by United
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
States v. McConney, 728 F.2d. 1195 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984):
Findings of historical facts and the actual motive for prosecuting are reviewed under the
clearly erroneous standard. Once the motive is ascertained, the determination of whether it
constitutes a basis for vindictive prosecution is reviewed de novo. [B] The Supreme Court
has defined mixed questions as those in which the historical facts are admitted or
established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the
[relevant] statutory [or constitutional] standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule of
law is applied to the established facts is or is not violated. Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456
U.S. 273, 289 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1790 n. 19, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982). Thus, there are three
distinct steps in deciding a mixed fact-law question. 18 C.A.9 (Cal.) 1999. Vindictive
prosecution occurs when a prosecutor brings additional charges solely to punish the
defendant for exercising a constitutional or statutory right, such as a defendants right to a
jury trial. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6 U.S. v. VanDoren, 182 F.3d 1077. 19 C.A.7 (Ill.) 1994.
Prosecution is vindictive and violates due process if it is undertaken to punish defendant
because he has done something the law plainly allows him to do; thus, showing of actual
vindictiveness require objective evidence of some kind of genuine prosecutorial malice.
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. U.S. v. Porter, 23 F.3d 1274 The first step is the establishment of
the basic, primary, or historical facts: facts in the sense of a recital of external events and
the credibility of their narrators. . . Townsend v. Sain 372 U.S. 293, 309 n. 6, 83 S.Ct.745,
755 n.6, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963) (quoting Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 506, 73 S.Ct. 397,
446, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.)). The second step is the selection of the
applicable rule of law. The third step and the most troublesome for standard of review
purposes is the application of the law to fact or, in other words, the determination whether
the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated. Pullman-Standard v.
Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 289 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1790 n. 19, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982). [2] The
district courts resolution of each of these inquires is, of course, subject to appellate review.
The appropriate standard of review for the first two of the district courts determinations its
establishment of historical facts and its selection of the relevant legal principle has long
been settled. Questions of fact are reviewed under the deferential, clearly erroneous standard.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Questions of law are reviewed under the nondeferential, de novo
standard.
See, e.g., U.S. v. One Twin Engine Been Airplane, 533 F.2d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir.1976);
Lundgren v. Freeman, 307 F2d 104, 115 (9th Cir.1962). These established rules reflect the
policy concerns that properly underlie standard of review jurisprudence generally. Thus,
because the application of law to fact will generally require the consideration of legal
principles, the concerns of judicial administration will usually favor the appellate court, and
most mixed questions will be reviewed independently. This is particularly true when the
mixed question involves constitutional rights. Accordingly, I would be content to rest the
debate that has for so long engaged this court upon a statement made by the Supreme Court,
to which we look for leadership in such matters: While this Court does not sit as in nisi prius
to appraise contradictory factual questions, it will, where necessary to the determination of
constitutional rights, make an independent examination of the facts, the findings, and the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
record so that it can determine for itself whether in the decision as to reasonableness the
fundamental i.e., constitutional criteria established by this Court have been respected. . .
Ker v. California, 374 U.S. at 34, 83 S.Ct. at 1630. [United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d.
1195 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).] A defendant alleging vindictive
prosecution has the burden of showing an appearance of vindictiveness. The appearance20
gives rise to a presumption of vindictiveness. Whether there is an appearance of
vindictiveness is a question of fact reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Clay, 925
F.2d 299, 302 (9th Cir. 1991). Once that fact is established, whether the presumption arises is
a question of law reviewed de novo 0 N.D. Ill. 1998. In order to show vindictive prosecution,
defendant must show that he was prosecuted to punish him for exercising legally protected
statutory or constitutional right. Gil v. U.S., 4 F.Supp.2d 760. 21 C.A.7 (Ind.) 1998. For a
defendant to prove prosecutorial vindictiveness on the part of the government for its decision
to seek an indictment, he must present objective evidence showing genuine prosecutorial
vindictiveness. Defendant asserting claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness based on
governments decision to seek indictment can show requisite genuine prosecutorial
vindictiveness by showing that the decision to prosecute was not based on the usual
determinative factors. U.S. v. Spears, 159 F.3d 1081. 24 C.A.1 (R.I.) 1998. Successful
assertions of vindictive prosecution are most common where defendant advances some
procedural or constitutional right and is then punished for doing so. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.
5 U.s. v. Lanoue, 137 F3d 656. 25 C.A.7 (Ill.) 1994. Prosecution is vindictive and violates
due process if it is undertaken to punish defendant because he has done something the law
plainly allows him to do; thus, showing of actual vindictiveness requires objective evidence
of some kind of genuine prosecutorial malice. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend 5 U.S. v. Porter, 23
F.3d 1274. 26 C.A.7 (Wis.) 1993. Prosecution is vindictive and violation of due process if
undertaken to punish person because he has done what law plainly allows him to do; filing of
indictment may in some instances be basis for such a claim. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. U.S.
v. Polland, 994 F.2d 1262. S.D.N.Y. 1996. Prosecution is vindictive if it is undertaken in
retaliation for exercise of statutory or constitutional right. Defendant claiming vindictive
prosecution must show that (1) prosecutor harbored genuine animus27 toward defendant, or
was prevailed upon to bring charges by another with animus such that prosecutor could be
considered a stalking horse, and (2) he would not have been prosecuted except for animus.
To obtain discovery or hearing on claim that prosecution is vindictive, defendant must offer
some evidence supporting both elements of vindictiveness claim. U.S. v. Aviv, 923 F.Supp.
35. C.A.6 (Mich.) 1999. To establish claim of vindictive prosecution, plaintiff must show: (1)
exercise of a protected right; (2) prosecutors stake in the exercise of that right; (3)
unreasonableness of prosecutors conduct; and, presumably, (4) that prosecution was initiated
with intent to punish plaintiff for exercise of the protected right. Person claiming to be
vindictively prosecuted must show that prosecutor had some stake in deterring petitioners
exercise of his rights, and that prosecutors conduct was somehow unreasonable. National
Engineering & Contracting Co. v. Herman, 181 F.3d 715, certiorari denied, 120 S.Ct. 578,
528 U.S. 1045, 145 L.Ed.2d 481. 28 N.D.Ala. 1995. Although prosecutors discretion as to
whom to charge is particularly ill-suited to judicial review, discretion is not unfettered and
decision to prosecute may not be deliberately based upon unjustifiable standards such as race,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
religion, or other arbitrary classification, including the exercise of protected statutory and
constitutional rights, and prosecutor may not select individual for prosecution solely because
of exercise of rights under the First Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. Hunt v. Tucker,
875 F.Supp. 1487, affirmed 93 F.3d 735. 29 D.PuertoRico 1994. Vindictive prosecution
may be established by producing evidence of actual vindictiveness sufficient to establish due
process violation or by alleging circumstances which establish sufficient likelihood of
vindictiveness to warrant presumption that such desire swayed actions of prosecutor.
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5, 14. U.s. v. Lopez, 854, F.Supp.41, affirmed 71 F.3d 954. 30
C.A.2. (N.Y.) 1994. Prosecutor abuses his charging discretion if his decision to charge
springs solely from defendants exercise of protected legal right, rather than from
prosecutors normal assessment of societal interest in prosecutions. U.S. v. LaPorta, 46 F.3d
152. A claim of vindictive prosecution is not subject to interlocutory appeal because the
defendant may raise the claim on appeal from a final judgment. United States v. MorenoGreen, 881 F.2d 680, 681 (9th Cir. 1989). 31 C.A. 11 (Ga.) 1985. Prosecutors charging
decision does not impose improper penalty on defendant unless it results from defendants
exercise of protected legal right, as opposed to prosecutors normal assessment of social
interests to be vindicated by prosecution. U.S. v. Taylor, 749 F.2d 1511. 32 C.A.6 (Tenn.)
1989. Prosecution which would not have been initiated but for governmental vindictiveness,
based on actual retaliatory motivation, in constitutionally impermissible. U.S. v. Adams, 870
F.2d 1140. 33 C.A.10(N.M.) 1997. While it is perfectly acceptable for prosecutor to penalize
defendant for violating the law, prosecutor may not punish defendant for exercising protected
statutory or constitutional right. In analyzing claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness, court
must focus on whether, as a practical matter, there is realistic or reasonable likelihood of
prosecutorial conduct that would not have occurred but for hostility or punitive animus
toward defendant because he exercised his specific legal right. To establish claim of
prosecutorial vindictiveness, defendant must prove either (1) actual vindictiveness, or (2)
reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness which then raises presumption of vindictiveness; if
defendant can meet this burden, prosecution must justify its decision with legitimate,
articulable, objective reasons. U.S. v. Carter, 130 F.3d 1423 34 C.A.8. (Mo.1993): Prosecutor
may not make decision to prosecute based on race, religion, or other arbitrary and
unjustifiable classifications, nor may prosecutor file charges out of vindictiveness or in
retaliation for defendants exercise of legal rights. U.S. v. Jacobs, 4 F.3d 603. 35 C.A.9
(Idaho) 1991. Defendant alleging vindictive prosecution has initial burden of showing
appearance of vindictiveness; there is appearance of vindictiveness when there is reasonable
likelihood that prosecutor would not have filed charges but for hostility toward defendant
because defendant exercised his or her legal rights. U.S. v. Clay, 925 F.2d 299. 36 N.D.N.Y.
1997. In some circumstances, a presumption of unconstitutional prosecutorial vindictiveness
arises when prosecutors employ practices that pose a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness.
U.S. v. Cady, 955 F.Supp. 164. 37 D.D.C. 1990. A bad faith prosecution is generally defined
as having been brought without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction;
however, bad faith and harassing prosecutions also encompass those prosecutions that are
intended to retaliate for or discourage the exercise of constitutional rights. PHE, Inc. v. U.S
Dept. of Justice, 743 F.Supp 15. 38 D.N.J 1992. Presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
arises where totality of circumstance surrounding prosecutorial decision at issue suggests

appearance of vindictiveness; once presumption is created, court must determine whether
prosecutorial decision was justified by other independent reasons or intervening
circumstances sufficient to dispel appearance of vindictiveness. U.S. v. Cannistraro, 800
F.Supp. 30. 39 C.A.6 (Ky.) 1996. Prosecutor vindictively prosecutes when prosecutor acts to
deter person prosecuted from exercising protected right; to prove vindictive prosecution,
defendant must demonstrate that prosecutor has some stake in deterring defendants
exercise of constitutional rights, and that prosecutors conduct was somehow unreasonable.
U.S. v. Branham 97 F.3d 835, 1996 Fed.Ap. 324P. 40 C.A.3. (N.J.) 1992. In determining
whether an indictment posed a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness, the question was
whether the situation presented a reasonable likelihood of danger that the state might be
retaliating against the accused for lawfully exercising a right, not whether there was a
possibility that the defendant might be deterred
from exercising a legal right. U.S. v. Esposito, 968 F.2d 300. 41 C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1999. Actual
vindictiveness must play no part in a prosecutorial or sentencing decision and, since the fear
of such vindictiveness may unconstitutionally deter a defendants exercise of his right, the
appearance of vindictiveness must also be avoided. U.S. v. Johnson, 171 F.3d 139. 42 C.A.9
(Idaho) 1991. Defendant alleging vindictive prosecution has initial burden of showing
appearance of vindictiveness; there is appearance of vindictiveness when there is reasonable
likelihood that prosecutor would not have filed charges but for hostility toward defendant
because defendant exercised his or her legal rights. U.S. v. Clay, 925 F.2d 299. 43 C.A.8
(Ark.) 1994. Prosecutors discretion to charge is very broad but cannot be based upon
vindictiveness or exercised in retaliation for defendants exercise of legal right. Defendant
may demonstrate prosecutorial vindictiveness by proving through objective evidence that
prosecutors decision was intended to punish defendant for exercise of legal right. U.S. v.
Rodgers, 18 F.3d 1425 C.A. 9 (Cal.) 1995. To establish prima facie case of prosecutorial
vindictiveness, defendant must show either direct evidence of actual vindictiveness or facts
that warrant appearance of such. Evidence indicating realistic or reasonable likelihood of
vindictiveness may give rise to presumption of vindictiveness on governments part. For
purposes of claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness, once presumption of vindictiveness has
arisen, burden shifts to prosecution to show that independent reasons or intervening
circumstances dispel appearance of vindictiveness and justify its decisions. Mere filing of
indictment can support charge of vindictive prosecution, although there must be proof of
improper prosecutorial motive through objective evidence before presumption of
vindictiveness attaches. U.S. v. Montoya, 45 F.3d 1286, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 67, 516
U.S. 814, 133 L.Ed.2d 29. C.A.7 (Ind.) 1996. To be successful on claim of prosecutorial
vindictiveness, defendant must affirmatively show through objective evidence that
prosecutorial conduct at issue was motivated by some form of prosecutorial animus, such as a
personal stake in outcome of case or attempt to seek self-vindication. In certain, limited
circumstances, defendant is entitled to presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness.
Defendant claiming prosecutorial vindictiveness must come forward with evidence of
prosecutorial animus, not mild inconvenience. U.S. v. Bullis, 77 F.3d 1553 C.A. 7 (Ind.)
1994 Prosecution is vindictive, in violation of Fifth Amendment due process clause, if it is
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
undertaken in retaliation for exercise of legally protected statutory or constitutional right.

U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. Evidentiary hearing is not required on claim of vindictive
prosecution unless defendant establishes that: (1) prosecutor harbored genuine animus, and
(2) absent such motive, defendant would not have been prosecuted; there must be sufficient
evidence produced to raise reasonable doubt that government acted properly in seeking
indictment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5 U.S. v. Cyprian, 23 F.3d 1189 C.A.10 (N.M.) 1997. In
analyzing claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness, court must focus on whether, as a practical
matter, there is realistic or reasonable likelihood of prosecutorial conduct that would not have
occurred but for hostility or punitive animus toward defendant because he exercised his
specific legal right. To establish claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness, defendant must prove
either (1) actual vindictiveness, or (2) reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness which then
raises presumption of vindictiveness; if defendant can meet this burden, prosecution must
justify its decision with legitimate, articulable, objective reasons. U.S. v. Carter, 130 F.3d
1432. Dismissal C.A. 2 (N.Y.) 2000. A prosecution brought with vindictive motive,
penalizing those who choose to exercise constitutional rights, would be patently
unconstitutional. An indictment will be dismissed if there is a finding of actual
vindictiveness, or if there is a presumption of vindictiveness that has not been rebutted by
objective evidence justifying the prosecutors action. To establish a prosecution brought with
vindictive motive, the defendant must prove objectively that the prosecutors charging
decision was a direct and unjustifiable penalty that resulted solely from the defendants
exercise of a protected legal right; put another way, the defendant must show that (1) the
prosecutor harbored genuine animus toward the defendant, or was prevailed upon to bring the
charges by another with animus such that the prosecutor could be considered a stalking
horse, and (2) the defendant would not have been prosecuted except for the animus. U.S. v.
Sanders, 211 F.3d 711. C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1999. Actual vindictiveness must play no part in a
prosecutorial or sentencing decision and, since the fear of such vindictiveness may
unconstitutionally deter a defendants exercise of his rights, the appearance of vindictiveness
must also be avoided. An indictment will be dismissed if there is a finding of actual
vindictiveness, or if there is a presumption of vindictiveness that has not been rebutted by
objective evidence justifying the prosecutors action. U.S. v. Johnson, 171 F.3d 139.
S.D.N.Y. 1988. Where bringing of indictment is motivated solely by prosecutors
vindictiveness, it is subject to dismissal. U.S. v. Torres, 683 F.Supp. 56.
1. I had a telephone, fax, and email communciations with Diana Sims and Bruce Lindsay,
Esq. Of the Law Office of Bruce Lindsay, Esq., wherein I was told the following:
Ms. Sims indicated to me on 3/5/13 that she had spoken with the RJC on 3/4/13 to
confirm the time of the Show Cause Hearing involving Zach Coughlin on 3/5/13 and the case
number of the same and that such was still on calendar. Ms. Sims indicated to me that she
was told the Show Cause Hearing was still on calendar, to be held before Judge Clifton, in
case number RCR2012-067980, the case wherein Bruce Lindsay, Esq., suddenly appeared
the morning of the 1/7/13 hearing in RCR2012-067980 following WCPD Jim Leslie, Esq's
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
questionable withdrawal and failure to oppose or even address (by Leslie or DDA Young),
Coughlin's 12/3/12 Motion therein (see attached).
I was taken in to custody on 2/12/12 RCR2012-065630 upon appearing late to court
by one hour. I appeared and conducted a cross-examination of ECOMM's Carthen, then was
remanded into custody, despite being out on an OR release and not having ever failed to
appear previously. I did not fail to appear on 12/11/12 in 065630 at 8:30 am, but rather, was
set to appear at the 1:00 pm start time as had been changed as communicated to me expressly
by RJC Criminal Division Clerk Robbin Baker the week before. Judge Clifton dismissed my
assertion that Clerk Baker had communicated the start time had been pushed back, then
refused to indicate how he could be sure she did not so communicat such to me. As such, my
position is that any such warning issued in regard to my allegedly being late to court on
12/11/13. My position is that I have never been late nor failed to appeared to any hearing or
trial date in 12-065630. I was taking off my medication against my will by the Washoe
County Jail staff upon being taken into custody at noon on 12/11/13, then brought to a 9:00
am Contempt or Show Cause hearing the next morning, whereupon I was brought into
custody, in jail reds.
Coughlin has learned that Mr. Lindsay's Office has yet to file one Notice of
Appearance in any of the various matters to which the RJC Bailiffs and Filing Office have
been purporting Mr. Lindsay to be Coughlin's Attorney of Record (see WDCR Rule 3)
(whether it be in RCR2011-063341, RCR2012-065630, RCR2012-067980, the new
RCR2013-071439 (which is now, curiously featuring a new, altered version of the original
12/20/12 Administrative Order 2012-01 baring a caption of only In the Administrative
Matter of Zachary Coughlin and no case number of opposing party (there is no corollary to
SCR 99 for the Justice Court and the inherent authority or power of such does not extend to
usurping the executive branch's function in sua sponte entering Orders such as that of
12/20/12, and 2/25/13 in AO2012-01 In the Administrative Matter of Zachary Coughlin,
please incorporate by reference all of the arguments in Coughlin's 2/28/13 and 3/1/13 filings
in AO12-01 and RCR11-063341) was faxed to Linday's Office on 2/28/13 at which point
Lindsay was in no way Coughlin's attorney or record in AO12-01 or RCR2011-063341,
though some fallout may be gleaned from the failure of the 2/25/13 combination hearing in
RCR2012-067980 and RCR2011-063341 (presumably a Gagnon I style hearing as Coughlin
has yet to be provided any written notice of the allegations and facts in support of the
summary arrest for an alleged DAS probation violation made by Officer Ramos on 2/1/13 in
RCR11-063341, and such is a due process requirement prior to any such Show Cause hearing
or Probation Revocation Hearing being held. Coughlin paid the $500 cash bond on that
arrest.
. Further, While the RJC Filing Office has been indicating to Mr. Lindsay's Office's Sims
that the 3/5/12 Show Cause hearing was in RCR2012-067980, upon Coughlin arriving at that
hearing, and making clear that he was not giving up in any way his self-representing status
(ie, no sole attorney of record designation for Lindsay allowing the recent deprivation of
Coughlin's right to file documents in these various matters), Judge Pearson indicated on the
record that the RJC then sought to orally amend the 2/25/13 Order to Show Cause (which,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
again, lacks any case number, and has a caption with only the In the Administrative Matter
of Zach Coughlin an referecing the 12/20/12 Administrative Order 2012-01 by then Chief
Judge Sferrazza) in some manner to thereby accord it an actual case number from one of
Coughlin's then existing criminal prosecutions. Such is not permissible and Coughlin
preserved his objections thereto at both the 3/5/13 Show Cause Hearing and any continuance
connected thereto to be gleaned from the record and any notice thereof with respect to the
3/11/13 Hearing at which Coughlin appeared on his own behalf, and wherein Coughlin in no
way gave up his designation as his own attorney or record in any matter wherein Coughlin is
being prosecuted or subject to an Administrative Order. Further, the RJC's practice
throughout this year of failing to recognize then licensed attorney Coughlin's Notices of
Appearance, Substitution of Counsel, and Authorizations to Represent on file in these various
matters appears to be impermissible. Coughlin has been denied standby counsel in
RCR2012-065630, though such may be required under the law, and Coughlin hereby
requests a stipend of some sort to offset that, and to seek his own private, and self chosen
stanby counsel and or co-counsel.
At the 3/5/13 Show Cause Hearing for the Administrative Order 2012-01 stemming
from an impermissibly short notice period where the 2/25/13 Order to Show Cause was
insufficiently served by RJC Bailiff Ramsey, in the courthouse, while Coughlin was
heading to a DAS check in and perhaps to file documents or conduct other business related to
his various cases, Judge Pearson mentioned, on the record, some alleged failure of Coughlin
to have a mental health evaluation done in connection with RCR2011-063341. The 3/5/13
Show Cause Hearing in no way related to that matter, and may not now be shoehorned into it
retroactively, nor may the 12/20/12 Administrative Order 2012-01 be affixed, retroactively,
with some RCR2013-071437 case number, and no new file stamp, nor may the subject matter
set out in the 2/25/13 Order to Show Cause in AO12-01 be reference as a justification for any
reinstatement to CCP now being shoehorned into RCR2011-063341, where Mr. Lindsay
was not Coughlin's attorney of record, and where, it has been learned, Mr. Lindsay had yet to
even be provided the file, much less the Complaint in that matter, much less any written
notice of the alleged probation violations, prior to arriving to court on 3/11/13, twenty
minutes late, being informed by his client (who had been crying due to a delay in getting his
medication from NNAHMS that resulted in his not having his medication for 2 days leading
up to that hearing, which Coughlin pointed out on the record (that and Lindsay's fax of 3/5/13
to Judge Clifton arguably required an Order for Competency Evaluation or staying
proceedings, not jamming through 3 years of probation where only 2 years is permissible, on
a set of facts not in any ways connected to the case number 11-063341, that such
reinstatement into DAS and CCP was later apparently rendered or entered into (Coughlin
has yet to be provided any Judgment or Order in any matter of case stemming from that
3/11/13 hearing, and Lindsay informed Coughlin that nothing would and nothing was ruled
on or entered beyond a two week continuance of all matters allowing for more pursuit of
global resolution with the WCDA's Office, which has gone against Judge Clifton's Order of
11/27/12 in RCR2012-065630 in failing to take calls from Coughlin, or allow voice mails,
and, in fact, threatening Coughlin with prosecutions and protection orders where Coughlin is
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
simply seeking a stipulation to a continuance from opposing counsel prior to filign such a
motion and conducting other regular business in connection with the defense of a
prosecution.
What has become apparent, given the multitude of stipulations to continuances that
Mr. Lindsay has granted the WCDA's DDA Young in RCR2012-067980, and the dismissal
of that charge in the plea bargain Coughlin agreed to voluntarily, on the record on 8/27/12 in
a combination hearing that sought to dispose of all three then pending criminal prosecutions
(and no Order or minutes reveals any justifiable basis for depriving Coughlin of his
inviolable right to decide whether or not to take such a plea bargain or go to Trial and
Coughlin hereby seeks to have that deal enforced as to all three such cases)) is that the
WCDA's Office recongizes how very flawed the arrest of 6/28/12 in 12-067980 was,
especially in connection with the suspect summary eviction in RJC Rev2012-001708, the
fraudulent 6/14/12 Declaration of Service of the 5 day UD Notice therein, the unauthorized
practice of law by Nevada Court Services therein, especially at the 7/31/12 Hearing, the
extent to which the Order following such Hearing exceeded the bounds of the Notice of Such
Hearing, the sua sponte questioning by the Court therein respecting whether Coughlin
prepared food or other similar questioning...The 6/26/12 written communication by
Coughlin to the RJC and the Sparks Justice Court, Coughlin's submitting for filing his
Tenant's Answer to the forum listed for doing so on the deficient 5 day notice by NCS, which
listed, incorrectly, Sparks Justice Court as the court in which Coughlin must file a Tenant's
Answer (Coughlin should not be made to pay, both civilly and criminally, the price for
Northwind's Apartments failing to hire an actual attorney...and further, the RPD trumped up a
disturbing the peace charge and custodial arrest against Coughlin on 7/3/12 in RMC 12 CR
12420 that resulted in Coughlin spending 18 days in jail, during which time his ability to file
a NRCP 59 or 52 to challenge the $42K atty fee awarded to Hill in the appeal of RJC
Rev2011-001708 was compromised (and the opposition to such 4/19/12 impermissible postjudgment sanctions motions (especially where no 21 day safe harbor procedural requisite
under NRCP 11 was served on Coughlin) was compromised by both WCPD Goodnight and
WCDA DDA Young breaking NRS 178.405's mandatory stay where jurisdiction was not
returned to the RJC from CR12-0376, as to any department, until 5/19/12, by Order of D10's
Judge Elliott. The Opposition was due the day Young and Goodnight tried to hold a Trial in
RCR11-063341.
Further, while Judge Pearson indicated at the 2/2/13 hearing in rcr11-063341 (which
was incorrectly noticed on Coughlin's jail release paperwork at to occur on 2/5/13...which is
one of the dates listed as involving an impermissible contact with RJC staff by
The 2/25/13 Order to Show Cause lists an alleged contact (though no Affidavit or
name of accuser as required for such conduct outside the court's presence, under NRS
22.030, or NRS 22.010, or even NRS 22.100, and if its criminal contempt a la NRS 199.340,
there are much stricter procedural due process requisites to be met that have not herein) with
the RJC on 1/7/13, a day where, as far as Coughlin knew, the pre-trial hearing in rcr12067980 was still on calendar despite WCPD Leslie's dubious exit on 12/18/12...and while the
Case Summary in 12-067980 indicates that Lindsay was appointed on 12/20/12, though
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
neither he nor his office made any attempt to communicate with Coughlin as required by
RPC 1.4 until just prior to the start time of the 1/7/13 hearing. Regardless, the 2/25/13 OSC
itself appears to recognize some statement by an RJC Bailiff that day as amounting to a
clarification of the 12/20/12 AO12-01, and, as such, not a basis for an alleged violation of
such. The text of the 12/20/12 Ao12-01 would not seem to even allow calling the Bailiff
station on the phone, so, arguably such Order was not clear or has been interpreted to allow
reasonable modification or de minimis violations thereof where circumstances and the
efficient adminstration of justice (which includes Coughlin's participation therein) so
requires.
The 2/25/12 OSC goes on to reference some alleged contact on 1/23/13, though
absolutely no specifics are provided. Where such contact involves any form of contact with a
DAS officer, whether by phone, fax, or email, such an allegation is not supportable to the
extent it purpots to represent a violation of the AO12-01. Judge Pearson, at the 2/1/13
hearing in 11-063341 verbally, not in writing, on the record, indicated that DAS was under
the umbrella of the RJC, which may have apparently been some attempt to bring the DAS
Office (not an area under the exclusive control of the RJC, some might say) within the
purview of the 12/20/12 AO12-01). Subsequently, and only after some alleged Consent
Order was purportedly agreed to by Lindsay and or Coughlin resulting in Coughlin being
place, for 36 months, or reinstated in to DAS and the CCP program (where no DAS
violations or allegations where mentioned at all at such 3/11/13 hearing, no DAS witnesses
present, DDA Young barely made it to the hearing, and he was late as well...) did Judge
Pearson indicate, on the record, that DAS is, in fact, separate from the RJC, and, apparently,
not within the purview of the 12/20/12 AO12-01, and without more, the allegation in the
2/25/13 OSC as they relate to 1/23/13 would seem to be retracted. Any allegation of talkign
to a Family Court Judges Deputy would similarly be outside the purview of AO12-01.
Coughlin has learned that there are apparently other instances where Coughlin is
alleged to have contacted other RJC employees whom are not Bailiff's, yet such were not
included in the 2/25/13 OSC, apparently, given the de minimis or good faith nature of such
contacts, and arguably, and of those such alleged contacts left in the 2/25/13 OSC are of a
similar nature (if the RJC had intended for the 2/5/13 hearing reference in Coughlin's jail
release papers to be a Gagnon II style hearing, such was not indicated at the 2/2/13 Hearing,
as Coughlin was instructed on the record, and perhaps via a paper slip, that such matter was
continued until 2/25/13...Nonetheless, Coughlin means no disrepect to anyone and resolves to
redouble his efforts to stricly comply with such AO12-01 or the various iterations thereof
(and different case numbers accorded thereto) without waiving any objections he has as to the
voideness of illegitimacy of such Order, simply out of respect for the RJC and its Judges and
personnel and in an effort to resolve matters.
Ms. Sims went on to indicate, and indicated she was sending a fax to Judge Clifton at
775-325-6591, 3 pages in length including the fax cover page, Subject: Zachary Barker
Coughlin, and copying DDA Young via fax thereon at 775-325-6703 that day containing
consisting of the following text:
-
Dear Judge Clifton,
This letter is in regards to the above referenced Defendant and the

three oustanding criminal matters before this Court. My offfice has spoken
with Bob Bell's office with regards to app on these cases and it was
suggested by him that you appt me to these cases and that I will then bill
Bob Bell with the conflicts attorneys group. I just had that discussion with
him this morning. My office has also spoken with bob bell with regards to
the mental health assistance that is also available through the state on his
behalf. I am aware that Mr. Coughlin had an Order To Show Cause
Hearing in RCR2012-067980 in your Department 5 before Your Honor this
afternoon at 2:00 pm. Unfortunately, I am in Trial before Judge
Steinheimer on March 4th through March 6th 2013, as such I am unable to
make it to that hearing.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Your Honor, Mr. Coughlin has been working diligently with our
office to try and resolve his legal issues as well as his mental issues. He has
been to several appointments at NNAHMS and has been taking his
medication, but at their request, more appointments and counseling are
scheduled and needed before he will be stable with his medication and his
counseling.
Simply put, we plead with you to not arrest Mr. Coughlin, which will
only hinder the progress that has been made to date. Instead, we would
request that the Order to Show Cause be reschedule to another date. This
would also allow Mr. Coughlin to continue without the interuption of an
arrest, which would reverse his progress with his medication, NNAHMS
counseling, and appointments, all of which he desperately needs. It would
also allow Mr. Young and I to get together and discuss these matters and
with any luck come up with a global resolution that will put an end to these
matters.
Sincerely, Bruce Lindsay, Esq.
Lindsay's and his Office continually have implored Coughlin to simply trust them,
and not ask questions, and not overthink things, but rather blindly follow their
instructions, insisting this is not about the money to them, then alternately indicating that
Lindsay showed upon at the 2/13/13 Contempt Hearing (Coughlin has been denied the Case
Summary and Minutes therefrom and has never received anything in writing indicating
whether any judgment or ruling rendered therein was a misdemeanor, criminal or civil in
nature.
Lindsay and his office continually stressed the desire to keep Coughlin out of jail, with
absolutely no analysis as to the legitimacy of the underlying charges or the reasonableness of
sentencing Coughlin to any jail time, either with respect to the vague accusations made
within the 2/25/13 Order To Show Cause personally handed to Coughlin by a party opponent,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RJC Bailiff Ramsey, in violation of the courthouse sanctuary rule and the immunity from
service of process as to litigants and attorneys (Coughlin is an attorney, the SBN continues to
refer to him as such in writing, including in the 11/14/12 Transcript of the formal disciplinary
hearing and the 8/23/12 Complaint in NG12-0204, NG12-0434, NG12-0435, and in the
NNDB's 12/14/12 FOFCOL, which recommends to permanently disbar Coughlin in Nevada
from the practice of law, something the SBN's King, in filing a TPO application wherein he
now must withdraw as bar counsel of record in the appeal and underlying disciplinary matter
in 62337, by his filing for a TPO, which was subsequently granted on 12/20/12 and extended
to a EPO in RJC RCP2012-000607, which resulted in Coughlin having a loaded gun pointed
at his head from four feet away by RPD Officer Waddle upon the RPD, just days after
Coughlin sent an email to the WCDA's Office detailing various issue, arriving at Coughlin's
residence, going through a closed side gate into the backyard, failing to announce their
presence in any way prior to drawing their weapons, and coming upon Coughlin in the back
yard, pointing their loaded firearms at his head at close range and placing him under arrest
incident to an allegation of violating the TPO and subsequent EPO, with Coughlin booked on
a gross misdemeanor TPO violation on 2/8/13 incident to an allegation that Coughlin had a
courier deliver his Motion for New Trial, and to Alter or Amend Any Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, or Recommendations in the NNDB's 12/14/12 FOFCOL on the last day
or next to last (depending on whether a federal holiday such as Christmas Day or New Years
is included in the 3 days for mailing under NRCP 6(e) and DeBoer) to so file such an exigent
Motion made under and extremely circumscribed time frame with two intervening major
holidays in between (Christmas and New Years Day).
Further, Coughlin was also booked on 2/8/13 on a felony EPO violation charge
(another $2,500 in bail, making it $750 cash that was required to bail Coughlin out at 2:00
am on 2/9/13, and therefore making it another two days that Coughlin was forced to abruptly
go off his pyschoactive, pyschotropic medication by the jail staff in one instance, and in
another, the jail continued to insist Coughlin take a medication known for causing
sleeplessness at approximately 10:00 pm, making it inordinately difficult to get to sleep, and
throwing off Coughlin's circadian rhythmns even further than the 2/1/13 arrest on 11-063341
(incident to an extremely specious allegation of there existing sufficient probable cause for
DAS Officer Ramos to make a summary arrest of Coughlin for an alleged parole violation
consisting of Coughlin's alleged failure to check in with DAS on 1/2/3 and 1/23/13, in the
DAS cubicle where the RJC Bailiff's and RMC Marshal's have undertaken to affecdt personal
service on Coughlin of the following: 1/16/13 Administrative Order 2013-01 by RMC
Administrative Judge W. Garnder in In the Administrative Matter of Zachary Coughlin,
which lacks a case number or opposing party in addition to failing to provide any notice or
opportunity to be heard to Coughlin prior to purporting to deprive him off his constitutionally
protected right of access to the court's particularly in prosecutions of Coughlin the in the
RMC where Coughlin's liberty interest is at issued (including possible incarceration) but also
where such implicates Coughlin's protected Fourteenth Amendment Property Right, in his
license to practice law, which has now been suspended over nine months incident to the
temporary suspension in 60838 stemming from Bar Counsel King's SCR 111(6) serious
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
offense Petition following from RMC Judge Kenneth Gardner's convicting Coughlin of
petty larceny on 11/30/11 in RMC 11 CR 22176, following Judge Gardner's refusal to follow
the Sixth Amendment in denying Coughlin his right to counsel (especially where the
possibility of jail time existed and where Judge Gardner in no manner excluded the
possibility thereof prior to rendering his 11/30/11 Judgment of Conviction and Court Order at
8:30 pm, upon his keeping upwards of six RMC employees working late, on overtime wages,
in an apparent desire to avoid affording Coughlin any opportunity to access the exculpatory
materials that the opposing counsel in the wrongful eviction from Coughlin's former home
law office, Richard G. Hill, Esq., was applying an unlawful rent distraint to in violation of
NRS 118A.520
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
At the outset, please allow Couglin herein to state his profound regret for how matters
have gone since his intial 8/20/11 arrest in 11-063341 and the summary eviction notice
served on 8/22/11 in RJC Rev2011-00-1708. (please see Coughlin's 5/21/12 email to the
SBN including proof of his prescription history and the fact that Coughlin went off two
pyschoactive, psychotropic medications in the first week of August 2011, pretty much
overnight with no titration, that would seem to establish a per se basis for finding a causal
connection between such and the ensuing events. Coughlin had attempted to mitigate such
occurence prior thereto by reaching out for help paying for his medications to his family and
NNAHMS, but NNAHMS refused to pay for Adderall (Couglhin called inquiring
confidentially on several occassions prior thereto) and refused to pay for Wellbutrin if
Coughlin continued taking Adderall. From then on out it was just trying to stay afloat for
Couglin, and that include the denial of his Sixth Amendment rights incident to a 9/9/11 arrest
for petty larceny of a candy bar and some cough melts (with an allegation that Coughlin
consumed while shopping for and paying for some $83.82 in other grocers, a dosage of
Duract Cough Melts (which contain a powerful dissaociative, Dextromethorphan, (DXM) to
incapacitate or even result in death by overdoes). See 60838. Couglin was denied counsel
and any continuance in the trial of that wal-mart arrest on 11/30/11, and sentenced to 3 days
in jail incident to a summary contempt ruling that the RMC Judge made 10 minutes into the
Trial. The arriagment in that case, on 10/11/11, occurred during the pendency of the 9/8/11
Order for Competency Evaluation in 11-063341, arguably violative of NRS 178.405's stay
under NRS 5.073. There have been a great deal of stay violations incident to questions
involving Coughlin's competency, some that would seemingly play a large role in Coughlin
currently facing disbarment, including the holding of a trial in 11-063341 on 5/7/11, the day
Coughlin's opposition was due to an impermissible post judgment motion for atty fee
sanctions on 4/19/12 (the day coughlin was incarcerated in cR12-0376 incident to an
inaccurate 4/17/12 letter by Lake's Crossing) by the opposing counsel in the evictio in 11001708. However, Judge Flanagan's 8/28/12 order in 06328 will, hopefully, make clear that
his 6/25/12 award of $42K in attorney's fees was in light of an alleged failure by Coughlin to
file any opposition to the 4/19/12 Motion for Fees, under DCR 13(3), rather than any finding
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
that such fees were awarded as a sanction pursuant to NRS 7.085 (and, like the sanction that
resulte in Coughlin's firing from WLS in 2009, also a basis for Coughlin currently facing
disbarment, neither opposing counsel ever served a filign ready sanctions motion as required
by the incorporation of NRCP 11 within NRS 7.085, thereby committing there own RPC 3.1
violations...). Additionally, the attach Venetian v. Two Roads transcripts provides support to
rebut any contention of vexatiousness by Coughlin incident ot his various motions for stay
and depositing of supersedeas bond (or the RJC retaining ten times that amount incident to a
rent escrow deposit Order that was violative of Nevada law in that the RJC's JCRRT do not
apply to landlord tenant matters (and therefore JudgeSferrazza's assertion that only one
motion to set aside or stay could be filed motions one made may not properly be made
again and that JCRRT allowed for escrow deposits is misplaced given the statutory
restrictions an inapplicability of JCRRT (that is why JCRLV 44 and a rule allowing only one
motion to stay or set aside eviciton orders was promulgated and approved by the N. S. Ct,
incidnet to JCRCP 83 for the Justice Court of Las Vegas Township)...Judge Clifton's
10/17/11 Order denying Coughlin's Motion for stay in 11-001708 is arguably violative of a
mandatory stay upon the despoting of $250 under NRS 40.385 (see Two Roads transcript and
fact that Coughlin had deposited ten times that amount that morning, as Judge Clifton's Order
notes). Further, the RJC was arguably divested of jurisdiction to even hold the 10/25/11
Trial/continuation of a summary eviction proceeding incident to Coughlin filing a Notice
of Appeal on 10/18/11. Another basis for Coughlin facing disbarment is NVB Judge
Beesley's testimony as to Coughlin's appearance in his court on 3/15/12 just minutes after
being evicted earlier that day in cident to a lockout Order in 12-375 by Judge Schroeder,
where Gayle Kern, Esq., arguably violated RPC 3.5A in taking a default where Coughlin
filed a Pre-Hearing brief on 3/8/12, and where Kern had failed to file a Landlord's Affidavit
prior to that hearing, a jurisdictional bar to holdign the hearing under NRS 40.253(6).
Regardless, Coughlin just wants to move on, offers sincere apologies for everything,
and ask for some help in getting there and saving his law license. Recently, due to a 2/8/13
arrest alleging felony and gross violations of the SBN EPO and TPO, coughlin has been
forced to pay $800 in bail, further makign difficult his saving his law license.
20
21
22
plea deal that I voluntarily accepted on 8/27/12 put back on the record and accepted by the
RJC, even disposing of the appeal of the convictions in 11-063341 (now on appeal in CR122025):
23
24
25
26
27
28
From: Leslie, Jim

Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 11:17 AM
To: 'Zach Coughlin'
Subject: Coughlin: Settlement of RCR11-063341, RCR12-065630 and RCR12067980
Mr. Coughlin:
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
As I had noted earlier, I had relayed the offer you had sent for a settlement.
You had sent it to Zach Young directly, as well as me and other recipients. I
then forwarded your email offer to Mr. Young and asked him to reply.
Mr. Young took the position that any prior State offers had been rejected by
you or had expired by their terms or by virtue of lapse of reasonable time.
Nevertheless, he has replied indicating willingness to settle as follows:
The entry of plea pursuant to this settlement must occur in Reno Justice Court
no later than Monday August 27, 2012.
The plea would be to two misdemeanor disturbing the peace charges, one such
charge in RCR11-063341 (the iPhone case) and once such charge in RCR12065630 (the 911 case);
Sentence would be 90 days jail on each charge, suspended and concurrent to
each other, with the following conditions: (1) obey all laws (except that the
parties agree that traffic violations do not constitute violation of this condition),
(2) mental health counseling as recommended by your psychiatrist or mental
health treatment provider, with regular reports every 60 days for a period of
one year, (3) take medications and engage in counseling as recommended by
said psychiatrist or mental health treatment provider.
In exchange for this plea settlement, the State will dismiss RCR12-067980
(resisting case).
Please note that Mr. Young was emphatic that this plea settlement must be
entered by the August 27, 2012, expiration date or it is rescinded. The August
29 trial in RCR11-063341 will not be vacated until the settlement plea is
entered on monday.
Time is of the essense, since any settlement must be entered at RJC by
monday, so please reply via email with your acceptance and I will set up a
hearing for monday.
Thank you,
Washoe County Public Defender's Office
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I would absolutely voluntarily agree to that plea deal right now, especially if it
could dispose of the appearl in CR12-2025 in a manner that would allow for a
SCR 111(10) application like that in the setting aside of the conviction of
former Pahrump DA Beckett in In Re Beckett.
Right to Counsel
here is no absolute due process right to counsel in probation revocation proceedings.
(Gagnon, supra, 411 U.S. at 790.) On the other hand, there are "cases in which
fundamental fairness - the touchstone of due process - will require that the State
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
provide at its expense counsel for indigent probationers or parolees." (Ibid.) Although
there are no rigid guidelines, the United States Supreme Court has suggested that counsel
should be provided anytime the defendant makes a timely and colorable claim (i) that he has
not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he is at liberty; or (ii) that,
even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial
reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that
the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present.(Ibid.) In California,
however, the Supreme Court has proclaimed a right to counsel in probation revocation
proceedings as a judicially declared rule of procedure. (Vickers, supra, 8 Cal.3d at 461-462.)
The totality of the circumstances, including the DAS materials Coughlin was
provided, extreme health problems (including a reaction preventing Couglin from appearing
at a 1/3/13 EPO hearing in 12-599 and 12-607, even to contest service, process, or
juridiction, includign to assert an attorney's (even a suspended attorney appearing pro se)
immunity from service of process at the courthouse, (RJC Bailiff's apparently attempte to
serve Coughlin 607 and 599 while in the RJC filign office/DAS Office...As to an attorney's
exemption from service of process, see Am. Jur. 2d, Process 35.
[FN2] Kelly v. Clark, 192 Wis. 2d 633, 531 N.W.2d 455 (Ct. App. 1995).
2012 ).including under courthouse sanctuary doctrine, situational stress incident to
Coughlin's formal disciplinary hearing regarding the irrevocable revocation of his law
license, misleading sworn statements by both SBN Bar Counsel Pat King and WCPD Jim
Leslie, and verbal statements and writings to Coughlin by DAS staff, including Officer
Celeste Brown, support this colorable claim by Coughlin that he has not violated the terms of
his probation , much less in a manner sufficient to support a summary arrest. Coughlin has
received indications from DAS staff including Officer Brown that, in exigent circumstances
calling or writing, especially ahead of time, may provide a basis for not finding a probation
violatin, and Coughlin submits that both alleged probation violation (incident to DAS Officer
Ramos's PC sheet of 2/1/13, which indicate such violation occured on 1/3/13 and
1/24/13...which just happend to be days where Coughlin had deadlines in 62337 and where
Couglin now faces felony and gross charges upon allegations of TPO and EPO violations
occuring on those dates) auguers towards either dismissing the charge of an alleged probation
violation or affording Coughlin representation at publice expense, especially where,
apparently B. Lindsay, Esq. Showed up to the 12-067980 contempt hearing on 2/13/13 as a
freebie, upbenownst to Coughlin and counter to at least the implicit representation made to
him by the Court and Lindsay upon being led into court in restraints that morning, absent any
consultations with Lindsay beforehand whatsoever..
Such a basis to preclude a probable cause finding includes:
RE: Update Brown, Celeste (CBrown@washoecounty.us)Add to
contacts 1/24/13 To: 'Zach Coughlin' From:
Brown,
Celeste
(CBrown@washoecounty.us) This sender is in your safe list. Sent:
Thu 1/24/13 3:10 PM To: 'Zach
Coughlin'
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Per the video, you showed up at 2:56 p.m
From here on out Zach, you need to check in between 9:45 and 2:00
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
p.m. Lets see if we can fix the problem ok? Sgt. CJ Brown WC Dept.
Of Alternative Sentencing 1 South Sierra St. Reno, Nv 89501 desk
775)327-8384
fax 775)327-8383 From: Zach Coughlin
[mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013
2:42 PM To: Brown, Celeste Subject: Update Dear Officer Brown, I
appreciate your recent note. Thank you. It meant a lot. I came in
yesterday well more than 5 minutes prior to 3 pm, but was detained too
long at the security station for Bailiff Medina to escort me to the DAS
Office (then Chief Judge Sferrazza's Administrative Order 12-01 of
December 20th, 2012 requires as much). I saw Judge Linda Gardner's
bailiff, Deputy Kirkham milling about with four or five other deputies
near the courthouse exit performing a pbc test on a man, and requested
permission to wait my turn and take one as well. I memorialized this in
a note that I gave to Bailiff Medina for which he agreed to provide to
DAS. Deputy Kirkham made some sneering commentary about
alcoholism and dependency issues in general (I cannot recall
specifically whether or not she then "high-fived" one of her fellow
deputies) as they relate to me, and perhaps the Irish race and my
ancestry in general, then refused to allow me to take a pbc test and
document it on the note I left with Bailiff Medina for DAS. Deputy
Kirkham decided against assisting in a pbc test. Deputy Kirkham, the
SBN arranged, was present for my 11/14/12 formal disciplinary hearing
at the State Bar of Nevada, despite the involvement of 2JDC Family
Court Judge Linda Gardner (the SBN has been purposefully vague and
obstructionist as to whether ng12-0435 is a grievance with a grievant of
Linda Gardner given some of the ethical problems associated with
Judges writing letters whether of recommendation or condemnation (or
Orders After Trial) and submitting them voluntarily (or having their
brother RMC Judge William Gardner do so by way of taking the
4/13/09 Order After Trial by his sister and passing it to RMC Judge
Nash Holmes, then having her include that in the 3/14/09 grievance she
herself filed on behalf of RMC Judge William Gardner and all other
RMC Judges....especially where RMC Judge W. Gardner refused to
recuse himself from the criminal trespass prosecution of Coughlin from
his former home law office incident to the summary eviction from it
presided over by RJC Judge Sferrazza (where a $2,275 rent escrow
deposit was ordered by the RJC in violation of Nevada law and still not
returned to Coughlin by the time of the trespassing arrest or during any
period in which Coughlin was expected to hire movers and rent a uhaul
and arrange for an alternate location to place such personalty). Further
RMC Judge Garder failed to disclose that his sister is 2JDC Family
Court Judge Linda Gardner during the audio record of the 2/2/12
hearing in 11 CR 26405 wherein Coughlin prompted Judge Gardner to
-
1
2
3
disclose any such matters that would tend to create an appearance of

impropriety or a basis for a conflict or bias, whether or not such did, in
fact exist, and whether the judge himself thought such did in fact
exist.... (NOTE: Coughlin email goes on and on and is truncated here).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Further, the proximity of Coughlin's arrest on 2/1/13 after 7 pm considering Coughlin

email to WCDA Criminal Division early morning 2/1/13 is troubling. Additionally, WCDA
DDA Watts-Vial's refusal to respond to Coughlin's properly issued subpoenas in his formal
disciplinary hearing (see Watts last minute 11/13/12 fax to Coughlin refusing to have 2JDC
Judges and Administrators appear or to produced materials requred by Coughlin's subpoena
duces tecum, all properly issued under SCR 110, and where no fees were required give SCR
105(4) and SCR 119(3), and where the Panel Chair's 11/7/12 Order Quashing subpoenas on
RMC Judges is void anyways given jurisdiction to so rule, under SCR 111(4) resides with
NNDB Board Chair Susich, not Panel Chair Echeverria, and where such does not apply to
supboenas issued to 2JDC Judges and personnel. Coughlin sought to have 2JDC and or
Watts-Vial compelled to so produced such at the peril of contempt at the 11/14/12 formal
hearing. Further, even if NRCP 45 was applicable, as DDA Watts-Vial's 11/13/12 fax
indicates, Coughlin has been characterized as an attorney and Coughlin was authorized to
practice and appear pro se in that matter in State Bar Court of the SBN, including by express
assertion made to Couglin on 10/15/12 by Asst. Bar Counsel King, relaying Chief Bar
Counsel's David Clark's decision vis a vis Coughlin's right to issue his own subpoenas
(versus goign to the SBN and have Clerk Peters do so), and further in consideration of the
7/27/12 writing to Coughlin by NNDB Chair Susich directing Coughlin to confer with and
obtain any such indications from Bar Counsel, versus the NNDB.
(a) This Courts precedents provide no definitive answer to the question whether
counsel must be provided. The Sixth Amendment grants an indigent criminal defendant the
right to counsel, see, e.g., United States v. Dixon, 509 U. S. 688, 696, but does not govern
civil cases. Civil and criminal contempt differ. A court may not impose punishment in a
civil contempt proceeding when it is clearly established that the alleged contemnor is unable
to comply with the terms of the order. Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U. S. 624, 638, n. 9. And once a
civil contemnor complies with the underlying order, he is purged of the contempt and is free.
Id., at 633. The Due Process Clause allows a State to provide fewer procedural protections in
civil contempt proceedings than in a criminal case. Id., at 637641. Cases directly concerning
a right to counsel in civil cases have found a presumption of such a right only in cases
involving incarceration, but have not held that a right to counsel exists in all such cases. See
In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1; Vitek v. Jones, 445 U. S. 480; and Lassiter v. Department of Social
Servs. of Durham Cty., 452 U. S. 18. Pp. 710 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973);
Impact of the Gagnon decision All probationers in the United States who incur a violation or
multiple violations are guaranteed certain hearings before any permanent, punitive action is
taken. A Gagnon I hearing occurs when a probationer is taken into custody for an alleged
violation hearing; this first hearing determines if the probation should remain in custody or be
released back into the community. A Gagnon II hearing is the final revocation procedure. A
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
determination on the status of the probation is made, and if the probationer is found in
violation, a sentence for the violation is handed down by the Judge. Even if Couglhin may
not have a right to representation paid by the state at either the 2/13/13 Contempt Hearing in
12-065630 (that's not clear) or in the upcoming 3/11/13 Probation Violation Hearing (though,
arguably, a Gagnon I hearing is still required to determine if the $500 cash bail is still
properly held by the Court in 11-063341), Coughlin hereby requests this Court take judicial
notice of D10 Judge Elliot's 1/9/13 Order granting Coughlin in forma pauperis status, in
addition to Judge Clifton granting Coughlin such status as well in 12-065630 on 11/27/12.
Further, Coughlin's suspended sentence in 11-063341 was unconsitutional in that
Coughlin actually was deprived of his right to counsel (including to be his own counsel
where Coughlin filed a Notice of Appearance and Authorization to Represent on 2/15/12 in
11-063341, while he was still a licensed attorney no less, but was still refused to right to
proceed as his own counsel until finally, on 10/22/12, upon Jim Leslie purposefully
sabotaging Coughlin's case as much as he possibly could, Judge Sferrazza finally recognized
Coughlin's argument that he was being forced to proceed without any assistance from the
State incident to the Sixth Amendment (Coughlin was continuously faced with a double edge
sword...be his own counsel (except for the fact that Judge Sferrazza ruled Coughlin not
competent to be his own counsel on 8/29/12, though competent to stand trial, curiously, also
curiosu is how Coughlin could be convicted in 11-063341 and then order to get a mental
health evaluation....):
B. Misdemeanors Sentence of Actual or Suspended Imprisonment. An
indigent person has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel in all misdemeanor
cases in which actual imprisonment or a suspended sentence of imprisonment
is imposed. See Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972); Scott v. Illinois,
440 U.S. 367, 37374 (1979) (in misdemeanor cases, the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution require only that no
indigent criminal defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment unless the
state has afforded him the right to the assistance of appointed counsel);
Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002) (indigent defendant has right to
appointed counsel in misdemeanor case if court imposes suspended sentence
of imprisonment); see also North v. Russell, 427 U.S. 328 (1975)
(recognizing that in two-tiered court system, such as North Carolinas district
and superior court system, judge at each level must inform indigent defendant
of right to counsel if sentence of confinement is to be imposed). This rule has
three effects. First, if the court has not appointed counsel for an indigent
defendant and the indigent defendant has not waived counsel, the court is
prohibited from imposing an active or suspended sentence of imprisonment.
For example, suppose a district court judge refuses to appoint counsel in a
misdemeanor case and continues the case to another date, when it will be
heard by a second district court judge. If the second judge does not revisit the
earlier refusal to appoint counsel and the defendant does not waive counsel,
the second judge may not sentence the defendant to an active or suspended
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
term of imprisonment regardless of the evidence presented at trial or

sentencing. Second, if the court imposes a suspended sentence of
imprisonment in violation of the defendants right to counsel, the court in a
later proceeding may not revoke the defendants probation and activate the
sentence. This prohibition applies even if the defendant is represented by
counsel at the probation revocation hearing. See Shelton, supra; State v.
Neeley, 307 N.C. 247, 297 S.E.2d 389 (1982) (trial judge may not activate
suspended sentence if, in original proceeding in which suspended sentence
was imposed, defendant did not have counsel and had not waived counsel);
accord State v. Barnes, 65 N.C. App. 426, 310 S.E.2d 30 (1983) (applying
Neeley to district court case); State v. Black, 51 N.C. App. 687, 277 S.E.2d
584 (1981) (to same effect as Neeley). Third, if the court imposed an active or
suspended term of imprisonment for a misdemeanor despite the failure to
appoint counsel, the conviction should not be available in a subsequent
proceeding to impeach, enhance a sentence, or increase the level of an
offense. The reason is that when a sentence of imprisonmentactual or
suspendedis imposed for a misdemeanor, the case is considered serious
enough to require the protection of counsel. As in a felony case, if a
conviction is obtained without counsel having been afforded to the defendant,
the conviction should be subject to suppression. In this respect, the U.S.
Supreme Courts decision in Shelton, supra, which held that an indigent
defendant has a right to counsel if a suspended sentence of imprisonment is
imposed, appears to modify or at least clarify Nichols v. United States, 511
U.S. 738 (1994). Nichols held that a prior uncounseled conviction could be
used to enhance a defendants sentence in a subsequent proceeding if the
defendant did not have a right to counsel at the prior proceeding. After
Shelton, a prior conviction should not be useable in a subsequent proceeding
if the prior conviction resulted in an active or suspended sentence of
imprisonment
Please find in Exhibit 1 various relevant materials showing good cause why judicial
economy woudl be best served to continue the 3/11/13 Show Cause Hearing. Coughlin has
recently completed an intake with NNAHMS and did in fact appear for a DAS check on the
date he is alleged to have failed to do so, 1/23/13, at approximately 2:54 pm, though in
complying with the 12/5/12 Administrative Order 12-01 of Judge Sferrazza requiring
Coughlin check in and wait for an RJC Bailiff to escort him (even to DAS, as Coughlin reads
it) Coughlin was, unfortunately, unable to make it to the DAS window to complete a PBC
test by 3:00 pm. Coughlin attempted to take a PBC with a WCSO Deputy Kirkam in a good
faith effort to demonstrate compliance with the sobriety requirement, but was unable to have
such a test administered. Coughlin timely checked in with DAS yesterday and is taking
active steps to participate in a meaningful and successful probation experience, though
complications related to going to jail, being forced of one medication, forced to take the other
(Wellbutrin) at bedtime in jail, despite it being known to cause sleeplessness, then a 5 day
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
contempt incarceration beginning on 2/12/13 incidnet to Coughlin's sleeping through two

alarm clocks and being late to court (though not given any opportunity at Contempt hearing
the next day to question RJC's Robbin Baker as to whether Coughlin's alleged reason for
previously being late to a hearing in that matter negated any finding or import of Coughlin's
being warned against being late again. Again implies the the warning relates to a previous
occurrence. Coughlin was told by Baker that the 12/11/12 Trial date start time had been
moved to 1:30 pm. Apparently, only the witness subpoenas were intended to be moved.
Coughlin swears it was his understanding the trial time had been moved and maintains that
he should not be held to a warning and the consquences of violating such given those
circumstances. Further basis for continuance related to the primacy to Coughlin's life and
career of completing the Appellant's Brief in 62337 challenging Recommendation to disbar
him. Scattershot SBN Complaint alleging 12 different RPC's violated and SCR 105(2)(c)
rampant violations makes Brief's Preparation inordinately difficult, on top of three arrests
between 2/2/13 and 2/13/13. Also, WCPD Dogan failed to appear at Couglin's arraignment
on the gross misdemeanor charge on 2/14/12 in 12-065630, and Coughlin had a right to
counsel at all stages for such a gross misdemeanor charge, instead, the RJC's Judicial
Secretary Townsend send Coughlin's 2/21/12 filing in that case to the SBN as evidence of
Coughlin's lack of competency, in addition to voluntarily offering to send Coughlin's 2/15/12
Pre-Trial Motion in 11-063341 to the SBN as well.
Stages of Criminal Case in which Right to Counsel Applies The right to
counsel in a criminal case encompasses various proceedings. The Sixth
Amendment right to counsel attaches once adversarial judicial proceedings
have commenced and applies to any critical stage thereafter. Other
constitutional provisions and state statutes afford the defendant the right to
counsel at additional proceedings, both before and after the initiation of
judicial proceedings. A. When Right to Counsel Attaches Sixth Amendment
Right to Counsel after Commencement of Judicial Proceedings. The Sixth
Amendment right to counsel attaches upon commencement of adversarial
judicial proceedings against the defendant, whether by way of formal charge,
preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. Kirby v.
Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 (1972); accord State v. Tucker, 331 N.C. 12, 33,
414 S.E.2d 548, 560 (1992). The question of when judicial proceedings
commence is generally a matter of concern in assessing the lawfulness of
police proceduresfor example, whether the defendant had a Sixth
Amendment right to counsel during interrogation or at a lineup. Generally,
when a defendant is arrested for a felony (with or without a warrant) before
being indicted, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at first
appearance. See State v. Tucker, supra (taking of statement by police after first
appearance violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel; statement suppressed);
State v. Franklin, 308 N.C. 682, 304 S.E.2d 579 (1983) (taking of statement
after arrest and before first appearance did not violate Sixth Amendment);
State v. Detter, 298 N.C. 604, 260 S.E.2d 567 (1979) (first appearance itself
-
1
2
3
4
not critical stage). If the defendant is indicted before being arrested, the Sixth
Amendment right to counsel attaches on return of the indictment. See Kirby,
supra. In misdemeanor cases, judicial proceedings probably commence upon
the defendants first appearance in district court. See 3 LAFAVE 11.2(b), at
498; ROBERT L.FARB, ARREST,SEARCH &INVESTIGATION 207
(Institute of Government, 3d ed. 2003).
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
A defendant has a right to counsel in misdemeanor prosecutions if the court

imposes an active or suspended sentence of imprisonment. See Alabama v.
Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002). Accordingly, if the defendant is improperly
denied counsel, the court is precluded from imposing either an active or
suspended sentence of imprisonment. Further, if the court imposes a
suspended sentence of imprisonment in violation of the defendants right to
counsel, the court may not activate the defendants sentence at a probation
revocation proceeding regardless of whether the defendant is represented at the
revocation proceeding. See infra 12.3B. Civil Contempt. In McBride v.
McBride, 334 N.C. 124, 431 S.E.2d 14 (1993), the state supreme court held
that an indigent defendant charged with civil contempt for failing to pay child
support may not be incarcerated unless he or she has been appointed counsel
or has waived counsel. The court rejected the argument that the right to
counsel depends on whether the case is considered civil or criminal, stating
that jail is just as bleak no matter which label is used. 334 N.C. at 130, 431
S.E.2d at 19. Although McBride concerned a child support contempt case, its
reasoning applies equally to any contempt proceeding in which the defendant
is incarcerated. See John L. Saxon, McBride v. McBride: Implementing the
Supreme Courts Decision Requiring Appointment of Counsel in Civil
Contempt
Proceedings,
ADMINISTRATION
OF
JUSTICE
MEMORANDUM No. 94/05 at 1 n.3 (Institute of Government, May 1994)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

High
Jim:
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Thanks, please do. He came to our office after my email to you and
caused a disturbance. We called the police, but he fled before they
arrived. jim
-----Original Message----From: Kandaras, Mary Sent: Wednesday,
December 12, 2012 3:17 PM To: Leslie, Jim Subject: RE: The
Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd discovery
of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012-065630
12
13
Mary Kandaras Deputy District Attorney Civil Division Washoe

County
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Coughlin.
in rcr2012-065630
Mary:
perspective.
Thanks,

-

December 12, 2012 2:49 PM To: 'patrickk@nvbar.org' Subject:
FW: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. King:
Thank you,
James B. Leslie, Esq. Chief Deputy Public Defender Washoe
County Public Defender's Office
RJC Judges on 2/13/13 in (an Order for Competency Evaluation signed and entered by
Judge Pearson at an 8:30 am hearing in 11-063341 was provided, in writing, to Judge Clifton
in 12-065630, with shall language, and DDA Young's willingness to go along with Judge
Clifton in refusing to follow NRS 178.405's mandatory stay is arguably impermissible. To
have RJC Bailliff's then Order Coughlin to remain at the RJC, then go into a hearing brought
on an Emergency Basis upon DDA Young making an Ex Parte Request for Judge Clifton to
resconsider his Order for Competency Evaluation is, perhaps, subject to arguments of a
deprivation of due process or failure to apply procedural rules to the State with the same
rigid, overly forumulaic approach in which they have been applied to pro se Coughlin (except
when NRS 178.405 requires a stay, then such has been relaxed considerably, to Coughlin's
detriment).
As specifically mentioned by Judge Pearson at a 2/2/13 Show Cause hearing on the
morning of 2/2/13 (I was bailed out at 1:45 am (after the last bus had left 911 Parr Blvd,
requiring I walk 3.5 miles to my 1471 E. 9th St. location, at which I rent a fifth wheel trailer
for $75 a month, a rent I can barely make each month) and Coughlin was only around to
attend that 11-063341 unnoticed (or improperly noticed Gagnon 1 hearing considering his
WC Inmate Release information indicated such hearing would be on 2/5/13, and now
Coughlin apparently is facing a Show Cause Hearing on 3/5/13 over some allegation that
Coughlin called the RJC, allegedly in violation of Judge Sferrazza's 12/20/12 Administrative
Order 12-01 (no case number indicated in the caption thereinm and arguably, the service of
process of that Administrative Order was insufficient, and such Order extinguished upon the
calendaring year changing to 2013, and the seating of a new Chief Judge to replace then
Chief Judge Sferrazza), to see if that Hearing in 11-063341 indicated as set for 2/5/13 was, in
fact, still on calendar, or whether the Hearing held at 8:30 am on 2/2/13 replaced such
Hearing) 12-065630...that DAS hearing in 063341 was incorrectly noticed on my Jail Release
papers for 2/5/13 or something...At that 2/3/13 Hearing I got an Order for Competency
Evaluation from Pearson, then went and provided that to Judge Clifton at the resumption of
the 065630 trial immediately thereafter, which, under NRS 178.405, required Clifton to
suspend the trial in 11-065630. Of course, he did not. He has demonstrated a willingness to
fail to apply the law as written in certain instances, invariably to the benefit of the State, often
with the encouragement of DDA Young (though, to be fair, at the 2/13/13 Trial, DDA Young
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
did point out to Judge Clifton the shall language in NRS 178.405, to which Judge Clifton
made, admittedly, an inventive, argument that some failure to make specific findings of fact
or something along those lines in Judge Pearsons just minted Order For Competency
Evaluation in 11-063341 of 2/13/13 made inapplicable the mandatory stay under NRS
178.405. Even if one were to overlook in possible impropriety of Judge Clifton suspending
that Trial, starting at 9 am in 12-065630 long enough for DDA Young to go to the RJC
counter and make and ex parte request for an emergency reconsideration hearing before
Judge Pearson, including the evident partiality revelaed by failing to apply procedural rules to
the State in the same rigid and overly formulaic manner to which the RJC has applied them to
Coughlin (including the 10 days Coughlin should have to respond to such a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order for Competency Evaluation of 2/13/13 in 11-063341), there still
exists the fact that Judge Clifton failed to follow NRS 178.405 and immediately Stay all
proceedings in all departments, but rather, allowed DDA Young a recess to go and make his
ex parte communications to the RJC Bailiff counter seeking an Emergency Hearing before
Judge Pearson to reconsider his 2/13/13 Order for Competency Evaluation. DDA Young's
making such Motion violated the mandatory automatic stay required by NRS 178.405 leaving
the RJC to rely upon some dubious assertion that Jduge Pearson just happened to continue
mulling his decision to enter the Order For Competency Evaluation he entered in 11-063441
at approximately 8:45 am, sua sponte, without any prompting or extra judicial
communications with Judge Clifton, DDA Young, or anyone else...something Judge Pearson
refused to refute the allegation of upon Coughlin putting it before him during the brief
Emergency Reconsideration Hearing Judge Clifton left the bench long enough in 12-065630
on 2/13/13 to allow Judge Pearson to take it an vacate or otherwise amend his Order for
Competency Evaluation, at which point Judge Pearson did render a rulign that he would enter
an Order having the State pay for a mental health evaluation for the indigent Coughlin,
that, to this date, still has not been entered and Coughlin has been unable to have such done
due to the failure to issue a check to him made out to his pyschiatrist, Dr. Suat Yasar, MD
(the State, DDA Young, and Richard G. Hill, Esq., have all been able to get Emergency Ex
Parte Motions granted against Coughlin, whereas, DDA Young's failure to oppose Coughlin's
2/21/12 Motion to Dismiss in 12-065630 (which, arguably under Polk v. State and DCR
13(3) may required such Motion to Dismiss be granted) resulted in Judge Clifton, almost
reflexively by instinct, sua sponte, making an argument on the State's behalf that DDA
Young had implicilty opposed such Motion to Dismiss, thereby revealing further the evident
partiality against Coughlin by the RJC judiciary pervading all of the various prosecutions and
evictions/landlord tenant matters therein).
Further, upon Judge Clifton having Coughlin taken into custody on 2/13/13 in 12065630, Chief Bailiff Sexton reminded Coughlin that he still have hanging over your head
five different extremely de minimis alleged violations of Judge Sferrazza's 12/20/12
Administrative Order 12-01, which threat apparently was put into play by the 2/25/13 Order
To Show Cause AO 12-01, file stamped 3:45pm, upon Coughlin filing a Notice of Appeal to
the 2/13/13 Order by Judge Clifton in 12-065630 sentencing Coughlin, summarily, and
denying any stay thereto despite good cause show, especially relating to 62337 and the jail
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
depriving Coughlin of his medications during two of the three questionable incarcerations the
RJC had subjected Coughlin to between 2/1/13 and 2/12/13, and Coughlin's established
suffering from clinical Major Depressive Disorder , Treatment Resistant Depression, and
ADD/ADHD. The causal connection between Coughlin's early mornign email of 2/1/13 to
WCDA Inspector Covington (the only person ADA Helzer is allowing Coughlin to
communicate with in reference to CR12-2025 and RJC 11-0633341) and the NRS 171.136
violating summary arrest for an alleged probation violation disproven by DAS Officer
Ramos' own Coworker, DAS Officer Brown's 1/24/13 email to Coughlin, where such arrest
is notated at occurring AFTER 7 pm (7:02 pm) on the PC Sheet and Inmate Booking papers
from 2/1/13, is obvious, and troubling. A similar casual connection seems apparent between
a 2/6/13 email to WCDA DDA-Civil Division Watts-Vial objecting to his 11/13/12 faxed
objections ot Coughlin's SCR 110 subpoenas on Washoe County and 2JDC personnel and the
2/8/13 point a gun at Coughlin's head from five feet away for no good reason by RPD
Waddle arrest and charge of a gross misdemeanor violation of the SBN TPO over some
alleged violation on 1/3/13 and a felony charge for some alleged violation of the SBN EPO in
12-607 over some alleged conduct on 1/23/13 or thereabouts (the purported service of the
TPO in 12-599 by Bailiff Reyes on 12/19/12 involved Reyes following Coughlin into the tiny
DAS check in closet and shoving his forearm into Coughlin's midsection in insisting
Coughlin was being detained sufficiently long enough to serve Coughlin the TPO Order in
12-599...similarly shoving of a forearm into Coughlin's midsection occurred during an
attempted service of an EPO in either both 12-599 and 12-6087 by WCSO Deputy
Courteney, on 1/4/13. Such apparent misconduct further vitiates the viability of such
attempts at service, especially where Deputy Courteney utilized force in attempting to
prevent Coughlin from walking on his drive way towards his fifth wheel. Next in the
apparent retaliatory causal connection parade is Coughlin's inquiring with WCDA DDA
Watts-Vial on 2/25/13 about those SCR 110 Supboenas again, at approximately 2pm, just
before former WCDA Office-Criminal Division prosecutor turne RJC Judge Pearson entered
his 2/25/13 Show Cause Order setting for hearing such matter on 3/5/13, based upon some
unsworn, unattributed, allegations that Coughlin had made various contacts with non-RJC
Bailiff personnel, though the complete lack of specificity, the violation of the requirement for
such out of the presence of the court alleged conduct constituting contempt under NRS
22.030(3), and the general lack of notice as to the charges against him (what did such
contacts entail? Who exactly would the witnesses of such contacts be? How can Coughlin
subpoena them without sufficiently detailed notice thereof? Why is Couglhin not afforded at
least the 10 judicial days seemingly required to prepare for any such Show Cause Hearing. Is
not the purported service of such Show Cause Order incident to Coughlin checkign in with
DAS insufficient service of process for the same reasons other such service attempts in 12607, 12-599, RJC AO 12-01, etc., should fail? Do not the TPO's and EPO's in 12-607 and
12-599 exceed the jurisdiction to make such orders where they impinge upon Coughlin's first
Amendment Rights and rights as a litigatin in his formal disciplinary hearing and the appeal
thereof, and where such orders are in now way reasonably or narrowly tailore to achieve the
purported safety goals to which they address?
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
It has also become even further apparent that the RJC Bailiff are or may be engaging
in a coordinated effort (further suggested by the apparent dictate in Judge Sferrazza's
Administrative Order 12-01 that Coughlin : insert language where on 2/21/13 Couglin
appeared at the RJC to take the PBC test and check in with DAS as required by his probation
in 11-063341 (in part based upon a conviction for possessing or receiving stolen property
that is clearly violative of Nevada law:
((A) Count 3 charged Shepp with having received property stolen by him
during the commission of the burglary charged in Count 2. Since a thief
cannot receive from himself the fruits of his larceny, the jury must be
instructed that it could convict of either burglary or receiving, [ 484
P.2d 565 ] but not of both. People v. Taylor, 4 Cal.App.2d 214, 40 P.2d
870 (Cal. 1935); People v. Morales, 263 Cal.App.2d 211, 69 Cal.Rptr. 553
(1968); Milanovich v. United States, 365 U.S. 551, 81 S.Ct. 728, 5 L.Ed.2d
773 (1961); Thomas v. United States, 418 F.2d 567 (5 Cir.1969); Baker v.
United States, 357 F.2d 11 (5 Cir.1966). Such an instruction was requested
but the court declined to give it. This was error, and later acknowledged by
the court to be such when it set aside the receiving conviction and ordered a
new trial on that charge. The appellate issue is whether that manner of
handling the error effectively cured it. The error was not cured by the
setting aside of the receiving conviction since there is no way of knowing
whether a properly instructed jury would have found the defendant guilty of
burglary, Count 2, or receiving, Count 3. Milanovich v. United States,
supra. Both convictions should have been set aside and a new trial
ordered. SHEPP v. STATE 484 P.2d 563 (1971))
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin overhead RJC Bailiff Medina (whom was the same Bailiff who did not
appear soon enough to escort Coughlin to the DAS office on 1/23/13 prior to it closing at 3
pm, despite Coughlin presenting to the security check in no later than 2:54 pm, and Couglin
arguably not even required to do so under AO12-01 (Coughlin got arrested and is out $500
for at least the time being upon the 2/1/13 summary arrest by DAS Officer Ramos). At a
subsequent check in Officer Ramos attempted to glean some violation where Couglhin
allegedly appeared for a check in after 2 pm, despite DAS closing at 3pm. To apply a
narrower window of time to one with MDD and ADHD/ADD is extremely suspect.
Additionally, the same RJC Bailiff Medina was overhead at a subsequent check in, proposing
a plan to only afford Couglin a similarly extremely narrow time frame within with to urinate
(lets wait until 5 minutes before close to let him try to pee again, then if he can't do it, its
back to jail for Coughlin! Bailiff Medina was overhead saying, approximately, to DAS
Officer Brown on approximately 2/20/13.
Coughlin disputes the legitimacy of whether Bruce Lindsay, Esq. was appointed as
counsel of record in 2012-065630 for the 2/13/13 Contempt Hearing, at which I received 5
days in jail for being late, wherein Judge Clifton alleged I had already had the benefit of a
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
warning, yet I maintain that Robbin Baker told me the start time of the trial in that matter on
12/11/11 had been moved from 9 am to 1:30 pm. Judge Clifton maintained that he did not
change the start time, then insisted Robbin Baker did not tell me that, then refused to indicate
just how he could possibly know what Robbin Baker had told me. Subsequently it was
learned that Robbin Baker was not even at work that day, and that no one had called her that
day to inquire as to whether I was correct in my assertion as to her having communicated the
start time of the trial as having changed. I believe it is situations like that that resulted in the
current Administrative Order 12-01 (which may not even still be binding considering it was
from 2012 and by former Chief Judge Sferrazza) wherein I seemingly am prevented from
communicating with any court personnel besides the Bailiff's, based upon some unnoticed
finding that I had caused distruptions in the filing office, an accusation to which I was never
provided an opportunity to be heard on.
Previously, Judge Sferrazza refused to allow me to appear on my own behalf, despite my
having been a licensed attorney in Nevada at the time in 11-063341, and despite my having
filed a Notice of Appearance therein, and an Authorization to represent. Then Judge
Sferrazza, at trial on 8/27/12 and 8/29/12 refused to allow me to self represent still. Then he
refused to accept the plea agreement that would have disposed of all three matters to which I
am a defendant in the RJC (11-063341, which is now on appeal in CR12-2025, with the
Appeal Brief, per the attached Briefing Schedule, on March 9th, 2013, and where Judge
Elliott entered an Order granting my IFP on 1/9/13 providing for the preparation of the
transcript at public expense; 11-065630, which stemmed form a 1/14/12 "misuse of
emergency communications" gross misdemeanor arrest, that had the trial start on 12/11/12,
where the WCPD was releived on 11/27/12 (the day pre-trial motions were due, I maintain I
was forced to proceed pro se due to Biray Dogan's complete lack of representation, including
failing to appear where required at the 2/14/12 arraignment on a gross misdemeanor (indigent
defendnans entitled to representation on gross misdo and felonies "at all stages"...); and the
matter wherein Bruce is counsel of record, 12-067980, where Bruce has stipulated to several
continuances...and now today apparently DDA Young tried to pull something where he failed
to stip to the continuance in 11-063341, refuses to take my calls or respond to any written
communications. Further WCDA Legal Assistant Tina Galli informed me today that I am
not to call their office on 11-063341 and that "Diana from Bruce Lindsay's Office is handling
it". That is not true. I am self representing in 11-063341 at this point.
Further, I never expressly consented to Lindsay appearing in 11-065630 at the
2/13/13 Contempt Hearing, wherein I was brought in upon being summarily taken into
custody the day before, and without consulting with Lindsay at all or ever consenting to his
appearing on my behalf, Lindsay was seated at the defendants desk.
Lindsay then proceeded to disparage my ability to represent clients currently on the record,
stating "Your Honor, can you imagine him trying to represent clients in his current state?" as
though I was so incompetent that doing so would surely produce poor results. Judge Clifton
quickly pointed out my competency to be an attorney was not the relevant inquiry. Lindsay
refused to seek to examined Robbin Baker or call her as a witness in line with my argument
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
that I had not actually ever been given a "warning" against my being late to court "happening
again" (as Judge Clifton indicated I had). Further, Lindsay ask me, in open court, in front of
Judge Clifton, "so what happened, why were you late". duty of confidentiality.
A member of Washoe County law enforcement stated to me at some point while in
custody on 2/12/13 that he expected I would be released the following day with credit for
time served. Instead, I received 5 days incarceration. Another member of washoe county
law enforcement subsequently expressed to me that he was surprised by such an long
sentence.
I have been told that Lindsay's appeared on 2/13/13 in 12-065630 "free of charge"
despite my indigent status and the fact that the State is required to provide me an attorney at
any hearing, even a civil contempt hearing, wherein there is even a possibility of any jail
time, much less 5 days of jail time...Lindsay still has not filed an SB89 form or Proposed
Order (though he seemed to orally make such motion on 2/13/13) requiring that I be
evaluated for competency or fitness to stand trial, despite his repeatedly indicating he
believes my competency is seriously in question. I believe he is obligated to file such a
Propose Order and or Motion for an Order for Competency Evaluation Immediately, pursuant
to NRS 178.405. Further, even at the Contempt Hearing on 2/13/13, in 12-067980, the State
was required to provide me counsel, and given the conflict present with the WCPD and APD,
private counsel was required. Additionally, I believe it is extremely bad faith for the State
and RJC to refused to provide me private counsel for the 12/11/12 Trial in 12-065630 (and,
depending upon whom one talks to, also at the continuation thereof on 3/19/13 in RCR12065630, though RJC Bailiff's have refused filings Coughlin has submitted therein and access
to materials in such file (including requests for audio of the 2/2/13, and 2/12/13 Hearings in
that case and the 12/18/12 hearing in rcr12-067980), only to then allow WCPD Leslie to
abuse process with his 12/18/12 TPO Application, therein bringing about the current
arrangement with court appointed private counsel. Please indicate in writing whether
Lindsay was paid to appear on my behalf on 2/13/13 in 12-065630 at the Contempt Hearing.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The DAS arrest on 2/2/13 was after 7pm in violation of NRS 171.136. Further, the attached
emails below support a finding that there did not exist probable cause to make such an arrest.
Additionally, please find below the Plea Deal that I voluntarily accepted, on the record in 11063341, 12-065630, and 12-067980 that should dispose of all three of these matters.
Further, please indicate in writing whether Mr. Lindsay has been assigned to represent me in
the matter stemming from the 2/8/13 arrest for a gross misdemeanor TPO violation alleged to
have occurred on 1/3/13, and a felony EPO violation alleged to have occurred on or about
1/23/13. Please provide any documentation your office has received with respect to that case
and an written indication of whether your office will be appearing at the arraignment on
3/6/13.
27
28
-
1
2
3
I would prefer that all three matters be resolved (and hopefully the appeal of 11-063341 in
CR12-2025 before Judge Elliott can be included in such a global resolution) in accordance
with the terms I agreed to on the record on 8/27/13 in 11-063341 (a hearing which arguably
was combined with the other two matters).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Matters? From:
Dogan, Biray (BDogan@washoecounty.us) This sender is in your safe
list. Sent:
Wed 6/27/12 9:04 AM To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com Cc: Goodnight,
Joseph W (JGoodnight@washoecounty.us) Zach, On June 13th, I sent to you via email (see
below) an offer negotiated w/ the State. I have not heard back from you regarding the offer.
The DA is requesting an answer to whether you are going to accept / reject the resolution by
July 10. You are currently scheduled for trial in Joe Goodnight's case on July 16, and an
MSC on the same day for my case. Please let us know before July 10 whether you want to go
forward with trial or otherwise. In the case you have w/ me. Plead Guilty to an amended
count of Disturbing the Peace. Serve 90 days jail (concurrent to the case you have w/
Goodnight) "suspended," on condition you continue to see your psychologist or psychiatrist,
provide monthly reports of this to the Justice Court, maintain any Rx regimen prescribed by
your doctor, and obey all laws. In the case you have Joe Goodnight. Plead Guilty to an
amended count of Disturbing the Peace. Serve 90 days jail (concurrent to the case you have
w/ me) "suspended," on the same conditions stated above.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
There terms of my probation under RCR2011-063341 require me to check in with

"DAS"...The security personnel whom I checked in with (Judge Sferrazza entered and
Administrative Order requiring me to be escorted by a RJC Bailiff anytime I go to areas
under the control of the RJC, due to, basically, from what I understanding, past
"disruptions"...so I check in with the front door security staff whenever I go to 1 S. Sierra St
for anything related to DAS (Department of Alternative Sentencing) or the RJC, and then
wait for an RJC Bailiff to appear to escort me to, say, the DAS check in area in the RJC filing
office.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The day of one of the allege EPO violation 1/23/13 was also the day my Appellant's
Brief was due in the N. S. Ct. case involving the State Bar of Nevada's attempt to have me
disbarred irrevocably. I was able to obtain a telephonic 5 day extension, ultimately, making
my brief due on 1/30/13 (ultimately the Record on Appeal in that matter was struck from the
record due to some things like the State Bar putting more than 250 pages per bound volume,
printing on both sides of the paper, failing to bates stamp certain things, etc., so my Brief is
now due further out, but at the time, I did not know whether or not the Court would grant my
Motion to Extend the Deadline to file my Brief, etc...so, basically, is was a stressful
situation..
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Also, the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board issues its Findings on 12/14/12
recommending to the Court that I be forever disbarred. I attempted to file a post-Findings
Motion for New Trial or to Alter or Amend the Findings...under NRCP 52 and or 59, and
maybe DCR13(7), that was due 10 judicial days from that 12/14/12 mailing of the
Findings...which would have been 1/3/13...I don't wish to violate the EPO or file a Brief that
disparages anyone. Rather, I hope to be able to pull together the enormous amount of
material involved in defending against the SBN's Complaint, which alleged I violated some
12 Rules of Professional Conduct and untold number of times, in a professional and fair
manner, with a focus on mitigating factors involved in what has occurred in my life since
August 2011, should an outright agreement related to some SCR 117 Disability arrangement
not be available with the SBN.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I have recently complete an intake with Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services and
start counseling and hopefully that will result in an arrangement where, even if I cannot
afford them myself, I will be able to get my Wellbutrin antidepressant and avoid some of the
things that may, in part happen when I run out of it and can't afford a refill. I have sent the
WCDA's Office some ill advised emails and or writings in the last month or so (and probably
beyond that), and believe that was at least in part a result of not being able to afford my
medication.
However, the TPO/EPOs may be void given the purported service of the TPO and
Notice of the EPO Hearing appears to violate Courthouse sanctuary doctrine, on top of the
dictate against serving attorney's process while they access the courts.
Additionally, neither WC nor SBN put up the bond statutorily required for a
workplace TPO, and exhibits on their face demonstrate that the link in the email
Coughlin alleged to have sent on or about 12/12/12 was to a hark.com audio clip only not
a movie. NRCP 56(g), bad faith affidavits, untenable, particulary where WCPD Jim
Leslies admits to failing to provide coughlin 911 audio files on two dics propounded by the
WCDA on 8/13 and 8/17/12. Further, audio clip speaks to learning, reading, and philosophy,
which would not seem to support a finding of the sort of conduct required to support such an
Order. Additionally, free speach and access to SBN filing office procedures, including those
under SCR 105(4), including those expressed by the SBN and its Clerk of Court and fax
filing (some authority equates email with fax as well) may present claim of right defense to
any alleged EPO violation.
As Such, the difficulties associated with being arrested on 2/8/13 and charged with a felony
and gross misdemeanor incident to alleged EPO and TPO violations occuring on day of
deadlines to file NRCP 52 and or 59 motions as to 12/14/12 NNDB Panel Findings and
Motion for Extension fo Time for Appeal Brief in 62337, have made it inordinately difficult
to prepare for 2/25/13 Show Cause Hearing. Additionally, it may have been improper to
apply rigid and formulaic In Re Erickson application of procedural rules to pro se defendant
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in various RJC matters, where DDA Young has obtained several Emergency Ex Parte Orders
and or Motions Settings (11/27/12 no faxing in 065630...the approach to the Order For
Competency Evaluation in 063341 as it relates to the Stay required on 2/12/13 in 065630
(shall...NRS 178.405). May be impermissible for RJC Bailiffs and or Judge Clifton to
required Coughlin, essentially to waive any notice or service requirement for improptu
reconsideration Hearing presided over by Chief Judge Pearson setting aside the Order For
Competency Eval made just an hour previous, and such may have been the result of
extrajudicial communications which may not be a permissible basis for such action
(adjudicatory boundaries limited to what parties appropriately put forth to the Court...Ex
parte communications by DDA Young at RJC Counter and or anythign communicated to
Judge Pearson on 2/12/13 may not be appropriate basis for setting aside Order for
Competency Evaluation). Lastly, DAS Officer Celeste Brown email to Coughlin of 1/24/13
indicates the video showed Coughlin presented to the security Check in arguably a timely
manner on 1/23/13 sufficient to rebut a finding of a violation, or at least demonstrate a good
faith attempt to comply. Further, arrest report/booking sheet for 2/2/13 arrest by DAS
indicates time of arrest 7:02 pm, which may violate NRS 171.136 dicate against
misdemeanor arrest between 7pm and 7am without a warrant. Coughlin ordered to exit his
residence after 7pm by DAS Officer.
Further, as to WCPD Jim Leslies's TPO application it is telling he mistates the
12/12/12 email as continaing a link to a violent video clip when in fact the link is to nothing
more than an audio clip that relates to learning, reading, and philosophy (the verbatim
transcript of the entirety of the audio only clip linked to in the 12/12/12 email is as follows:
I ain't no white trash piece of shit. I'm better than you all. I can out learn you. I
can out read you. I can outthink you, and I can out philosophize you. And I'm
going to outlast you. You think a couple of whacks to my good old boy gut's
gonna get me down? It's going to take a hell of a lot more than that, Counselor,
to prove you're better than me! (Max looks around in an attempt to find where
Sam is hiding)
The link to this in the 12/12/12 email does not contain a single violent statement or
image. If the link had been to a clip of Max Cady's Your going to learn about loss...
speach, fine, that may amount to an implied threat. But it wasn't. It was to a short audio clip
of Cady making the above statement. Leslie is adding his own remembrances of Cape Fear
where he alleges that such quotations occurs after Cady has beaten two men. Actually, if one
went and view that whole scene from the movie, it shows Cady being attacked by about six
men that his public defender, played by Nick Nolte, had hired to go and attack and beat Cady
with baseball bats and bicycle chains. Cady fought them off, then delivered a speach to a
trash dumpster that he figured his former counselor Nolte was hiding behind when he heard
a rustling emanate from behind it following his successfully warding off the attack by the six
hired thugs. Leslie demonstrates a complete lack of candor to the tribunal in his application
(as does WCDA DDA Watts-Vial, whose 11/13/12 last minuted faxed objections to
Coughlin's SCR 110 Subpoenas upon 2JDC Judges Flanagan and Elliot, Clerk of Court
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Hastings and the 2JDC Custodian of Records, where Watts-Vial admits to extended
discussions with the very Bar Counsel whom confirmed to Coughlin that he, as a respondent
suspended attorney appearing pro se in his formal disciplinary matter, may, in fact, issue his
own subpoenas (and, given NNDB Susich's 7/27/12 email to Coughlin, Coughlin was entitled
to rely upon such express indications by Bar Counsel King, provided as a message
confirming such King was relaying to Coughlin upon confirming such with his supervisor,
Chief Bar Counsel David Clark. nstead, leslie chooses to focus on a tertiary aspect of some
description of the film incident to a link to buy the film where he writes (NOTE: ONE
RATHER IMPORTANT THING LESLIE GETS WRONG IS THE DATE SENT FOR THE
EMAIL LESLIE ALLEGES COUGHLIN SENT HIM WITH A LINK TO THE AUDIO
ONLY CLIP OF A SPEECH FROM THE MOVIE CAPE FEAR THE DATING ON
THAT EMAIL, AS EVINCED BY THE ATTACHMENT'S TO DDA WATTS-VIAL AND
LESLIE TPO APPLICATION, INDICATES THAT EMAIL WAS SENT ON 12/13/12,
RATHER THAN, AS LESLIE INDICATES BELOW, ON 12/12/12) Also, a lot of Leslie's
allegation (most of them are actually inaccurate anyways, but..) need to be taken in the
context or with the knowledge that Coughlin grew up in Reno, attending Swope and Reno
High with both of his WCPD on these cases (Joe Goodnight in 11-063341 was a classmate
for 6 years and part of similar circles of friends as Coughlin throughout those years) and
Biray Dogan in 12-065630 (Dogan and Coughlin went through school together from 7th
through 12th grade, both graduating with the Reno High School class of 1995) and Coughlin
and those two have much more of an easy ready faimilarity with each other and their
respectivie senses of humor. Then, all the sudden, Jim Leslie, Esq., who moved to Washoe
County in the early nineties from Missouri, barges in and takes over all the cases in a
belligerent arrogant manner, and ultimately winds up getting a TPO against Coughlin and
encourageing the SBN to do so as well, which now has Coughlin facing felony charges,
disbarment, etc., etc.. Further Coughlin coached Judge Hascheff's son in Basketball when he
was a 9th grader at Reno HS in 2008, went to school sandwiched between the graduating class
containing both of WLS's Paul Elcano's sons (PM in 1994 and John in 1996) and Judge
Albright's children (Erin in '94 and Ross in '96). The point being that Couglin has lived in
this commuity for a long time and has an established track record of being non-violent (as is
often the case with individuals of Coughlin's size (6 foot 4, 250 pounds) Coughlin has been
socialized to be docile and gentile to whatever extent he was not already. Leslie and the SBN
(again, via Pat King, someone whom did not grow up here, has little history her, moved here
from San Diego in the mid 90's) would have the RJC view Coughlin as some unknown
violent drifter type not to be trusted, but rather feared, with little to no track record of
civilized behavior, which is hardly the case. Coughlin was twice a team captain for the Reno
High School basektball team in the mid 1990's, a National Merit Finalist in 1995, has
volunteered for local non-profits like Very Special Arts Nevada, and has been a participating
member of the SBN's Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers since 2003, and formerly worked for
legal aid provider Washoe Legal Services as a domestic violence attorney, and before that
local law firm Hale Lane. He went to Swope, Reno High, then UNR, then UNLV's Boyd
School of Law with WCDA DDA Chris Hicks and Jen Christie, and worked at Hale Lane
with DDA Patricia Halstead.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Any alleged linking to a short audio clip from a mainstream movie like Cape Fear,
especially where the clip speaks only to learning, and does not contain any of the violent
imagery or other contextual references that Leslie cites to (Leslie's TPO application
Statement in Exhibit assumes a great deal of information and context about the audio clip in
question that one would only be aware of from watching the entire move, and in no way
would be aware of from simply listening to a paragraph worht of an audio clip such as that
allegedly linked to, found at a mainstream website like www.Hark.com...and Leslie fails to
actually get into what the audio clip actually says, rather, he focuses on matters in no way
depicted in the audio clip (allegations that the former client just beat several men, that he
utilized a weapon or blunt instrument to do so, that he had theirs and his blood on his (therre
is a still image depicted in the clip, but Coughlin has an add-on in his browser that blocks
such image, so even if it is proven that Couglin sent such an email, he would not have been
aware of the still image depicted upon clickin on such link, and regardless, that image is of a
mainstream actor, Robert Deniro, and it is not clear what he is holding or what he has been
doing or why, or whether or not it is in fact blood on his shirt...further in that still image,
Deniro has his hand in a placid, resting position as though balancing his weight on a golf
putter or something, hardly a menacing stance. The audio clip is 28 seconds long.
Regardless, to whatever exten Leslie, the WCPD, King or the SBN felt threatened or actually
fearful (which is highly unlikely given all their associated bluster and purposeful aggravation
and taunting of Coughlin for a sustained period of time and groupthink, belligerent, packlike, institutionalized bullying behavior in some, but not all, instances (David Clark
menacingly commented to Coughlin about being sad that he didn't get a chance to
prosecute that one attorney before the schmuck committed suicied...Pat King faux expressing
sadness in an ultra condescending tone when mentioning the high likelihood of Coughlin
being disbarred, Jim Leslie's histrionics and Scrappy-Do-like behavior (Scrappy-Do (Jim
Leslie is a Scrappy Dude reference sounds like something a taller person might make up on
the spot in an attempt to obfuscate a reference that might come across as hurtful to a shorter
person whom had finally aggravated the taller person enough to make an arguably hurtful
comment based upon one's short statute. Couglin has been tall most all of his life. Its not all
its cracked up to be...however, Coughlin has felt empathy towards shorter men, has always
attempted to and managed to make personal invective based upon other's physical
appearances, etc., and if Coughlin did make a reference to Jim Leslie being like the character
Scrappy-Do from the children's cartoon series Scooby-Do it was only after being
aggravated endlessly by a mean spirited, at times, but not always, Jim Leslie, whom is likely
stressed out at times from handling a large case-load, and having people's freedom in his
hands day after day (somethign for which Coughlin had a great deal of respect for the fact
that such is the case incident to Leslie's job and position...For background, the cartoon
character Scrappy-Do is a diminutive canine friend of Scooby-Do whom oftens picks fights
with much large opponents, only to then have his large friends, like Shaggy and Scooby
come in and either do the fighting for him, or, more typically, dispell the situation created by
Scrappy-Do's antagonizing bluster...fairly similar to what occurred on October 9th, 2011 when
RJC Bailiff Reyes was called in (as Leslie has done with RJC Bailiff's time and again) to
crack down on or intimidate Coughlin or other Leslie client's whom have finally started to
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
broach at Leslie's treatement of them and refusal to advocate on their behalf. And while
Leslie alleges Coughlin to have seemingly mostly complaints against other attorney's in our
office, by far, Coughlin's frustration has related to Leslie the overwhelming majority of the
time, though at times Coughlin and Leslie have had a rapport and Coughlin wishes Leslie no
ill will, hopes to look back at all this as friends someday, etc..)..:
Exhibit 1 to Application for Temporary Order for Protection

Against Harassment in the Workplace
Zachary Coughlin is a client of the Washoe County Public Defender,
and I have been assigned to one or more of his criminal cases, It is
anticipated that by Tuesday, December 18, 2012, our office will be
relieved as counsel on Mr, Coughlin's single remaining case with this
office. Mr. Coughlin is an attorney on suspended status with the Nevada
State Bar arising from a conviction for misdemeanor shoplifting which
has been publicized in the press. Mr. Coughlin represented himself in
that criminal proceeding.
On December 12, 2012, I received an email from Zachary Coughlin, a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit" IA" . The email pertains to a
misdemeanor petit larceny case of Mr. Coughlin's involving theft or
unlawful retention of an iPhone, on which I and other attorneys in our
office previously represented him, During the course of the bench trial,
our office was relieved as counsel upon Mr. Coughlin's request to
represent himself. Throughout the email. Mr. Coughlin makes various
derogatory complaints about and references to me and other attorneys in
our office.
At the end of the first paragraph of the email. Mr. Coughlin complains
that his various attorneys and others in the local criminal justice system
have ruined his life and he writes I remember when my life featured
happy moments like the birth of twins . , . but that was before your
leviathan legal system wrecked shop on my existence. What, sir, shall be
my compensation ?" The email then references the website
http://tinyurl.com/bgmlfdr When that address is cut and pasted into a web
browser, it directs the reader to a website containing a video segment
from the movie "Cape Fear", which the website summarizes as a film
that "tells the story of a convicted rapist who seeks vengeance against
a former public defender whom he blames for his 14-year
imprisonment .... " In the movie, the client, played by Robert Di Nero,
carries out that vengeance by stalking and trying to kill his former
public defender, played by Nick Nolte. A copy of the print out of the
website is attached hereto as Exhibit IB", The video segment on the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
website is a scene in the movie where the client of the public defender
has just beaten two men. The client is wearing a shirt bloodied with
his blood and the blood of the men he just beat, and he is holding a
bluntinstrumcnt weapon or a chain in his hand. He vows to continue
his harassment of his former public defender, who is hiding nearby
behind a garbage dumpster.
The email from Mr. Coughlin is addressed to several attorneys in the
office of the Washoe County Public Defender, including attorneys Jim
Leslie, Jeremy Bosler, Biray Dogan, Joseph Goodnight, and Chris Fortier.
Mr, Coughlin has previously and repeatedly expressed significant
dissatisfaction with his various attorneys in our office and has almost
continuosly, as he does throughout the email attachted hereto, blamed
them for his current legal problems, his recent criminal convictions, and
his suspension from active attorney licensure with the Nevada State Bar.
The email is also addressed to several other persons outside our office,
including but not limited to Steve Tuttle of the Reno Justice Court, John
Kadlic, and Daniel Wong of the Reno City Attorney's Office, Mary
Kandaras of the Washoe County District Attorney's Office-Divil Division,
and David Clark and Patrick King of the Office of Bar Counsel of the
Nevada State Bar.
Based on Mr. Coughlin having included the various recipients to the
email who are not his attomeys, Mr. Coughlin has waived attomey-c1ient
confidentiality. Additionally, based upon the nature of the references
made in the first paragraph of the email to Mr. Coughlin's legal problems
and reference to the "Cape Fear" regarding violence and harassment
against former puhlic defender, Mr, Coughlin has waived attorneyclient confidentiality as per Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(c).
Later the same day as the email of December 12, 2012. Mr.
Coughlin showed up at the offices of the Washoe County Public Defender
without an appointment, I and an investigator went to the lobby to see
him, since we had decided based on previous encounters with Mr.
Coughlin that it is best not to meet with him alone, With the investigator
present in the lobby, I asked Mr. Coughlin what he needed. He said he
wanted his discovery documents. Since we have had prior incidents
where Mr. Coughlin received documents from us and later claimed
we did not provide them, I asked him to email me with his request and
that I would respond to the email. During our discussion I informed him
that I would be asking that our oflicc be relieved from his pending
misdemeanor Obstructing and Resisting criminal case. He became agitated
and upset and I asked him to leave and to schedule an appointment if
he thought he needed one and to send me his email request. He refused
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to leave, stating he was writing a note. I asked what the note was and he
became loud and verbally aggressive and said "None of your goddamncd
business..." His demeanor was visibly belligerent I asked him again
several times to leave and he rose to his feet (he is approximately 6'3" and
I am 5'4") and went on a verbal rant against me. I continued to tell him to
leave while I turned to the front desk staff and asked them to call the
police, He tried handing me the note, and in response I held out my
hand to receive it from him, but then he pulled the note back from me
several times in a taunting manner while smiling. As we waited for the
elevator, he kept saying he was "chipping" at me. As he left in the
elevator, he kept saying "chip, chip, chip .... , in a taunting manner.
Leslie's accounts (and Leslie contradicts himself and reveals his own professional
misconduct upon a review of the emails between Coughlin's then WCPD Leslie and
WCDA DDA Kandaras of 12/12/12 and 12/13/12...and upon a thorough review of those
emails and Coughlin's sent messages folder it is revealed that Couglin did not send
Leslie any email on 12/12/12 (which makes it apparent that the 12/12/12 email Coughlin
sent to the SBN and others was forwarded to Leslie by one of it's recipients, at which
point Leslie forwarded the same to WCDA DDA Kandaras, makingly particularly suspect
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the dubious mistatements of the dates involved in Leslie's Ex.1 statement attached to the
Workplace Harrassment TPO filed on Leslie's behalf by DDA Watts-Vial (he of the
dubious 11/13/12 faxed objections to Coughlin's SCR 110 subpoenas in this matter) and
reveals the extent to which Leslie engages in violations of RPC 3.1, 3.3, 1.6, and,
possibly, 3.4, NRS 178.405, and RPC 1.14. Novak wrote:
Leslie, Jim From: Sent: To: Subject: Novak, Eva Wednesday,
December 12, 2012 4:51 PM leslie, Jim Coughlin office visit 121212
11:58:11 am, 12-21-2012 23/32 Knowing Mr Coughlin's volatile past
behavior I was asked to accompany Jim leslie to the lobby to assist
Coughlin, He was seated in a chair writing a note, Jim leslie asked
Coughlin what he needed, Coughlin mentioned he needed some
discovery from a case . Jim Leslie advised him make any
communications by way of email, he would handle that way, Coughlin
asked if I was present as witness, Jim Leslie confirmed that, Jim
stated that he was going to ask to be relieved from the current Coughlin
case, Coughlin's demeanor became belligerent. Jim Leslie asked
Coughlin to leave the office, Coughlin refused claiming he was
writing a note, Jim Leslie asked what the note was. Coughlin said "
it's none of your goddamn business and walked past Jim and left the
note at the reception desk, Coughlin was advised several times by
Jim Leslie to leave the office. Jim Leslie advised him that the police
were going to be called. At that point the elevator arrived, Prior to
the elevator door closing he continued his rant toward Jim Leslie until
the door closed, Evo Novak
Additionally, WCPD and WCDA DDA-Civil Division DDA Mary
Kandaras may have violated NRS 178.405, Coughlin's rights incident to
Leslie's representation in RJC RCR2012-067980, and 11-063341, 12065630 in light of RPC 1.16(c) in, but not limited to, the following (an
in consideration of WCDA DDA Watts-Vial's and Leslie's subsequent
TPO Application in RJC RCP2012-000699, both appear to have violated
RPC 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2, 3.4, 3.4, 3.5A, 3.7, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 8.1,
8.3, and 8.4 (especially considering Leslie's continuing to maintain that
he knows that his office sent Coughlin written notice of the 8/6/12
combination hearing in 12-067980 and 12-065630 when his legal
assistant, Linda Gray, admitted to Coughlin on 8/8/12 that she failed to
mail out the written notice to Coughlin in light of her belief that
Coughlin's then PO Box 3961, Reno, NV 89505 mailing address was
no longer good (where Gray was presumably unaware that Coughlin
bailed out of jail on 7/21/12, upon the ridiculous Order following the
unnoticed 7/5/12 bail increase hearing incident to the fraudulent
testimony by RPD Officers Weaver and or Dye, and the advocacy by
RMC court appointed counsel Keith Loomis (which was anything but)
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
resulting in RMC Judge W. Gardner raising Coughlin's then bondable

$1,415 bail to a cash only $3,000 (based upon three charges that were
completely phoney, drummed up, and spurious to begin with.
TITLE 14PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL
CASES; Chapter 178 General Provisions:
INQUIRY INTO COMPETENCE OF
DEFENDANT AND PROCEDURE
FOLLOWING FINDING OF
INCOMPETENCE...
NRS178.405Suspension of trial or
pronouncement of judgment when doubt
arises as to competence of defendant; notice of
suspension to be provided to other
departments.
1.Any time after the arrest of a defendant,
including, without limitation, proceedings
before trial, during trial, when upon conviction
the defendant is brought up for judgment or when
a defendant who has been placed on probation
or whose sentence has been suspended is
brought before the court, if doubt arises as to
the competence of the defendant, the court
shall suspend the proceedings, the trial or the
pronouncing of the judgment, as the case may
be, until the question of competence is
determined.
2.If the proceedings, the trial or the
pronouncing of the judgment are suspended, the
court must notify any other departments of the
court of the suspension in writing. Upon
receiving such notice, the other departments of
the court shall suspend any other proceedings
relating to the defendant until the defendant is
determined to be competent.
Further, the OBC's King backing out on his express agreement to provide
Coughlin the names of the attorney's on the Screening Panel assigned to each of the
grievances resulting in the formal disciplinary hearing held on 11/14/12 is telling, as is
the includion of WCDA DDA Bruce C. Hahn, Esq. and DDA Mary Kandaras in the
OBC's 8/23/12 First Designation of Hearing Panel Members and Mr. Hahn's inclusion
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
amongst the Washoe Legal Services Board of Directors at the time in March 2009
when Coughlin quickly returned to Elcano an emergency assignment due, two days
before the start of the Joshi Trial in DV08-01168 (from which the 4/13/09 Order After
Trial by 2JDC Judge L. Gardner became NG12-0435, the third grievance in listed in
the caption of the OBC's 8/23/12 Complaint, which Judge Nash Holmes admits
(contrary to the misleading, evasive, and arguably duplicitous statements in that regard
by the OBC's King as to the actual genesis of that greivance and the identify of the
greivant (relevant to any RPC 4.2 compliance required of Coughlin). Couglin
performed ghostwriting for Elcano in preparing the exact, verbatim version of the
Taxpayer Petition for Appeal from the Decision of the County Board of Equalization
that Coughlin had filed for Washoe Legal Services (the cover form therein contains
Coughlin's handwriting, with a markedly different handwriting for Elcano's signature,
as Elcano changed not a single character in the four page Petition Coughlin finished in
time to timely submit for filing on the statutory deadline to do so on 3/10/09.
Coughlin was assigned that project by Elcano less than 5 calendar days before the
deadline was to run, with the Joshi Trial in DV08-01168 set for 3/12/09. The project
involved an attempt by WLS to get out of being stuck with the property taxes for the
real estate upon which it operates and leases from a private, for profit landlord.
Coughlin returned an excellent Petition to Elcano in an exceedingly short time frame.
For Elcano to then appear at Coughlin's 11/14/12 formal hearing and question
Coughlin's competency is ridiculous and pathetic, especially considering the
inordinate effort Elcano expends in trying to pass himself off as some Atticus Finch
type. In March 2009 Coughlin actually met with Elcano and a WLS Board Member
that may have been Hahn (its not clear, and WLS and then it's counsel has refused to
identify those who were board members at the time of Coughlin's summary suspension
and subsequent firing) (now a member of the SBN's Board of Govenors, and WLS's
then Board President, Kathleen Breckenridge, Esq., is also amongst those identified in
the OBC's 8/23 Initial Designation, and the RJC's newest Justice of the Peace, Hon.
Pierre Hascheff was also on WLS's Board at the time of Coughlin's summary
suspension on 4/20/09 and subsequent firing during the time period to file a Motion for
Reconsideration or otherwise challenge the 4/13/09 OAT (FHE 3); and Elliott Sattler,
Esq., Washoe County District Attorney's Office Deputy District Attorney, Criminal
Division Term began: November 2009, expires: November 2013 is listed as a WLS
Board Member during the period of the wrongful termination litigation involving
Coughlin and WLS, as is Suzanne Ramos, Reno City Attorney's Office Tern began:
February 2013, Expires, February 2015, as is grievant 2JDC Judge Linda Gardner's
fellow 2JDC Judge, Hon. Bridget Robb Peck, Second Judicial District Court Judicial
Board Position Term Began: December 2008, expires: December 2013, and NNDB
Member Kathleen T. Breckenridge, Esq., Kathleen T. Breckenridge, Ltd. Board Term
Began: September 2007, expires September 2013, here: http://washoelegalservices.org/
index.php/board-members ) to review that Petition Coughlin prepared for WLS by the
3/10/09 deadline. That Coughlin prepared Petition includes the following analysis
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(somehow, the ability to find a needle in a haystack of legal authority in a very scant
amount of time had not translated to an ability to make much of a living in Washoe
County, where, it seems, some other qualifications are rather necessary):
...This Appeal is meant to demonstrate that
a leasehold with an option to buy for the building
and land at issue in this Appeal (and for which the
lease involved specifies that WLS shall be
responsible for the taxes associated with), should
be included in the property to which the language
of NRS 361.140(2) applies. The building and land
at issue in this Appeal should thus receive an
exemption from taxation. There exists a wealth of
support for the contention that the language in
NRS 361.140(2) allows an exemption to WLS
where it holds a leasehold with an option to buy
in the property at issue. Cases interpreting
statutory sections with language very similar to,
or in some cases, nearly verbatim to NRS
361.140(2) have held that "belonging to" does, in
fact, include situations where a party has a
leasehold in the building and land at issue.
One case is particularly instructive. "The
Board concedes that the property is actually and
exclusively occupied and used by the Hospital
Corporation for a hospital conducted not for
profit, but exclusively as a charity, but it contends
that since the property is owned by the
Foundation it is not real estate "belonging to" a
hospital and is not exempt from taxation. Thus we
must first decide whether the hospital property
belongs to the Hospital Corporation within the
meaning of 183( e) of the Constitution and its
legislative construction, Code 58-12(5), so as to
exempt it from taxation, even though the bare
legal title is in the Foundation. Board of
Supervisors v. Medical Group Foundation, Inc.,
134 S.E.2d 258,261 (Va. 1964). It is instructive to
note that ""belonging to" may mean less than an
absolute and unqualified title, such as the absolute
right of use. Sisters of Charity v. City of Detroit,
9 Mich. 94,98; City of Jackson v. Preston, 93
Miss. 366,47 So. 547, 549, 21 L.R.A. N.S. 164;
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Shewell v. Board of Ed. of Goshen Union Local

School Dist. 88 Ohio App. 1,96 N.E.2d 323, 324;
Black's Law Dictionary, 3d ed., Belong, p. 205."
Id.
"From the context of 183( e) and its
statutory interpretation, when construed in the
light of other subsections and the policy of the
State as to exempted property, we hold that
"belonging to" includes, but is not limited to, an
absolute and unqualified title. Cf. Annotation,
157 A.L.R. 860, 862, 863." Id. "In (e), the
property is exempt if it is "real estate belonging
to, actually and exclusively occupied and used
by" a hospital "conducted not for profit, but
exclusively as" a charity ... we must conclude
from this that they intended that the words
"belonging to" require only that the hospital have
some interest or estate in the land it occupies and
uses, not necessarily absolute ownership, as the
words "owned by" would import. In this sense the
real estate here in question "belongs to" the
Hospital Corporation, so long as it has the
exclusive right to its possession under the lease."
Board of v. Medical Inc., 134 S.E.2d 258, 262
(Va. 1964).
Several other cases argue for a similar
interpretation. "Under Art XIII 1, property
rented or leased to a school district and used by
the district exclusively for public school purposes
is exempt from taxation, notwithstanding the fact
that such property is owned by a private
individual and not by the district." Ross v. 24 Cal
2d 258, 148 P2d 649 (1944).
"To hold, however, with the appellant and
follow the authorities cited by it and amici curiae,
it would be necessary for us to construe the
constitutional section of our state as requiring
property used by a school district for public
school purposes not only to be solely used by the
district but also to be owned by the district before
it would be exempt from taxation. As previously
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
stated in this opinion, we are not able to so

construe the applicable section of our
Constitution. On the other hand, we are in accord
with the decisions of those courts in other
jurisdictions, as well as in our own, which hold
that it is the use and not the ownership of the
property in the possession of a school district and
used by it for public school purposes that
determines its status as property exempt from
taxation." 24 Cal. 2d 258, 265 (Cal. 1944).
"In Ross the property leased to a school
district by a private owner was used exclusively
for public school purposes and was held tax
exempt on that ground. In explaining why a sheer
usage of property without a concomittant
ownership should entitle the school district to a
tax exemption, the Supreme Court pointed out
that the exemption of property used for public
school purposes is not for the benefit of the
private owner who may rent them his property for
said purpose, but for the advantage of the school
district which may be compelled to rent property
rather than to buy land and erect buildings
thereon to be used for the maintenance of its
school. With this advantage the school district is
able to rent property for a lower rental than the
owner of the same property wouid be willing to
accept from a private individual, for the reason
that if rented to a school district the owner is
relieved from the payment of taxes thereon."
Honeywell Information Inc. v. County of
Sonoma, 44 Cal. App. 3d 23,30 (Cal. App. 1st
Dist. 1974). See also, Regents of University of
California v. State Bd. of Equalization, 73
Cal.App.3d 660, 666, 140 Cal.Rptr. 857 (1977)
["The purpose of the exemption here is to obtain
lower rentals for the educational institutions."].
One California case is instructive in
considering the curious paucity of appearances of
the phrase "belonging to" in NRS 361 when
compared to the many instances of the use of the
word "owner", or some derivation thereof.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
""Since other governmentally owned property

was also exempt, the inclusion in the 1879
Constitution of an express exemption of "property
used exclusively for public schools" necessarily
had another purpose. That purpose was to create a
new exemption, one for property "used for," but
not "owned by" a public school." v. of 824 P.2d
663, 675 (Cal. 1992).
NRS 361 is similar to the portion of the
California Constitution at issue in in that the
phrase "belonging to" only makes one appearance
in the entirety of NRS 361 for exemption
purposes at NRS 361.140(2) (the "belonging to"
language also occurs at NRS 361.075(2) and NRS
361.745(2), though both other instances do not
seem to be relevant to the way the phrase is used
in NRS 361.140(2)). In contrast, many, many
times in the text of NRS 361 does the word
"owned" or some derivation thereof appear,
strongly suggesting that ownership in a fee simple
or title sense was not meant to be a requirement to
be read into NRS 361.140(2).
It is solely the use of the property which
determines whether the property is exempt or
not." Washburn v. Comm'rs of Shawnee Co., 8
Kan. 344 (Kan. 1871). "It makes no difference
who owns the property, nor who uses it. Property
used exclusively for educational purposes is
exempt, whoever may own it, or whoever may
use it." Anniston Land Co. v. 160 Ala. 253, 260
(Ala. 1909). The "court, in both, brought
pointedly into view the principle that "exclusive
use," irrespective of ownership, was the test of the
right of exemption. We do not stand alone in this
construction of these decisions." Id.
Similarly, "under the act "all buildings
belonging to institutions of purely public charity,
and all buildings belonging to public hospitals,
shall be exempt." ... Under this construction no
regard need be had to the manner in which the
28
-
title is held. v. Grand Forks 10 N.D. 54 (N.D.

1900).
1
2
For the reasons set forth above we

respectfully request that the State Board of
Equalization grant a property tax exemption to
the building and land that currently houses WLS's
efforts to bring legal services to needy and
deserving individuals.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13

14
High
15
Jim:
16
12
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Thanks, please do. He came to our office after my email to you and
caused a disturbance. We called the police, but he fled before
they arrived. jim
-----Original Message----From: Kandaras, Mary Sent: Wednesday,
December 12, 2012 3:17 PM To: Leslie, Jim Subject: RE: The
Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd discovery
of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012-065630
-
Mary Kandaras Deputy District Attorney Civil Division Washoe

County
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Coughlin.
in rcr2012-065630
12
Mary:
13

perspective.
14
15
Thanks,
16
17
18
-----Original Message----
19
21
From: Leslie, Jim Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:49 PM

To: 'patrickk@nvbar.org' Subject: FW: The Three E's; wcpd failure
to provide essential 911 call cd discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to
Coughlin in rcr2012 -065630
22
Mr. King:
20
23
Thank you,
24
James B. Leslie, Esq. Chief Deputy Public Defender Washoe

County Public Defender's Office
25
-----Original Message----
26
From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com] Sent:

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:35 PM To: Leslie, Jim; Bosler,
Jeremy; Dogan, Biray; Goodnight, Joseph W; Fortier, Chris;
Tuttle, Steve; Kandaras, Mary; Young, Zach; skauc@reno.gov;
27
28

-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
wongd@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; complaints@nvbar.org;

cvellis@bhfs.com;
je@eloreno.com;
patrickk@nvbar.org;
davidc@nvbar.org;
rosec@nvbar.org;
laurap@nvbar.org;
nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net;
fflaherty@dlpfd.com;
fflaherty@dyerlawrence.com
Subject: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call
cd discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in
rcr2012 -065630
volumes, etc., etc.). Apparently, I am here to subsidize Young's
baby making, just like I was with Ms. Gorman, as a continuance of
prejudicial length of afforded to the State where none was
forthcoming to Coughlin, despite Leslie and Dogan's obstructionist
tantrums, ones of a quality that would. I remember when my life
featured happy moments like the birth of twins ... but that was
before your leviathan legal system wrecked shop on my existence.
What, sir, shall be my compensation? Do you mind if I put my arm
around .... http://tinyurl.com/bgmlfdr
This is a formal grievance against Dogan, Leslie, Bosler, Young ...
etc....
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The link that Leslie refers to as containing a video clip from the
movie Cape Fear actually contains only an audio clip of a short quote
from Cape Fear (the 1991 Scorsese version).
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF MATERIAL INCONSISTIENCIES AND
CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE EVEN JUST LESLIE AND EVO NOVAK'S
ACCOUNTS, MUST LESS LESLIES MISTATING THE DATE OF THE THREE E'S
EMAIL TO ADD EFFECT, INCLUDING LESLIE MISLEADING STATEMENTS
(SHOWN BY THE LACK THEREOF IN NOVAK'S ACCOUNTS) OF WHETHER
COUGHLIN ATTEMPTED TO HAND LESLIE THE NOTE (COUGHLIN DID, THEN
LESLIE PUT HIS HAND FAR OUT TO EACH SIDE AS IF TO SAY HE WOULDN'T
TAKE IT, AT WHICH POINT COUGHLIN, DISTRUSTING LESLIE TO TAKE THE
NOTE ANYWAYS, PLACED IT AT THE RECEPTIONISTS TABLE IN FRONT OF HER
WINDOW...NOVAKS FAILURE TO COORBORATE LESLIE'S ALLEGATION THAT
HE BEGAN THREATENING TO CALL THE POLICE RIGHT AWAY, THE INABILITY
OF COUGHLIN TO LEAVE UNTIL THE ELEVATOR ARRIVED REGARDLESS, AND
THE FACT THAT COUGHLIN WAS SAYING SCRAP, SCRAP, SCRAP, NOT CHIP,
CHIP, CHIP LIKELY IN AN ATTEMPT TO DISGUISE ANY ILL-ADVISED
STATEMENT'S REFERENCING SCRAPPY-DO, WHERE COUGHLIN ALSO SAID AT
THAT TIME JIM, YOU ARE A SCRAPPY DUDE.
Exhibit 1 to Application for Temporary Order for Protection
Against Harassment in the Workplace
...
On December 12, 2012, I received an email from Zachary Coughlin, a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit" IA" . The email pertains to a
misdemeanor petit larceny case of Mr. Coughlin's involving theft or
unlawful retention of an iPhone, on which I and other attorneys in our
office previously represented him, During the course of the bench trial,
our office was relieved as counsel upon Mr. Coughlin's request to
represent himself. Throughout the email. Mr. Coughlin makes various
derogatory complaints about and references to me and other attorneys in
our office.
At the end of the first paragraph of the email. Mr. Coughlin complains
that his various attorneys and others in the local criminal justice system
have ruined his life and he writes I remember when my life featured
happy moments like the birth of twins . , . but that was before your
leviathan legal system wrecked shop on my existence. What, sir, shall be
my compensation ?" The email then references the website
http://tinyurl.com/bgmlfdr When that address is cut and pasted into a web
browser, it directs the reader to a website containing a video segment
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
from the movie "Cape Fear", which the website summarizes as a film
that "tells the story of a convicted rapist who seeks vengeance against
a former public defender whom he blames for his 14-year
imprisonment .... " In the movie, the client, played by Robert Di Nero,
carries out that vengeance by stalking and trying to kill his former
public defender, played by Nick Nolte. A copy of the print out of the
website is attached hereto as Exhibit IB", The video segment on the
website is a scene in the movie where the client of the public defender
has just beaten two men. The client is wearing a shirt bloodied with
his blood and the blood of the men he just beat, and he is holding a
bluntinstrumcnt weapon or a chain in his hand. He vows to continue
his harassment of his former public defender, who is hiding nearby
behind a garbage dumpster.
The email from Mr. Coughlin is addressed to several attorneys in the
office of the Washoe County Public Defender, including attorneys Jim
Leslie, Jeremy Bosler, Biray Dogan, Joseph Goodnight, and Chris Fortier.
Mr, Coughlin has previously and repeatedly expressed significant
dissatisfaction with his various attorneys in our office and has almost
continuosly, as he does throughout the email attachted hereto, blamed
them for his current legal problems, his recent criminal convictions, and
his suspension from active attorney licensure with the Nevada State Bar.
The email is also addressed to several other persons outside our office,
including but not limited to Steve Tuttle of the Reno Justice Court, John
Kadlic, and Daniel Wong of the Reno City Attorney's Office, Mary
Kandaras of the Washoe County District Attorney's Office-Divil Division,
and David Clark and Patrick King of the Office of Bar Counsel of the
Nevada State Bar.
Based on Mr. Coughlin having included the various recipients to the
email who are not his attomeys, Mr. Coughlin has waived attomey-c1ient
confidentiality. Additionally, based upon the nature of the references
made in the first paragraph of the email to Mr. Coughlin's legal problems
and reference to the "Cape Fear" regarding violence and harassment
against former puhlic defender, Mr, Coughlin has waived attorneyclient confidentiality as per Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(c).
Later the same day as the emailn December 12, 2012. Mr.
Coughlin showed up at the offices of the Washoe County Public Defender
without an appointment, I and an investigator went to the lobby to see
him, since we had decided based on previous encounters with Mr.
Coughlin that it is best not to meet with him alone, With the investigator
present in the lobby, I asked Mr. Coughlin what he needed. He said he
wanted his discovery documents. Since we have had prior incidents
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
where Mr. Coughlin received documents from us and later claimed

we did not provide them, I asked him to email me with his request and
that I would respond to the email. During our discussion I informed him
that I would be asking that our oflicc be relieved from his pending
misdemeanor Obstructing and Resisting criminal case. He became agitated
and upset and I asked him to leave and to schedule an appointment if
he thought he needed one and to send me his email request. He refused
to leave, stating he was writing a note. I asked what the note was and he
became loud and verbally aggressive and said "None of your goddamncd
business..." His demeanor was visibly belligerent I asked him again
several times to leave and he rose to his feet (he is approximately 6'3" and
I am 5'4") and went on a verbal rant against me. I continued to tell him to
leave while I turned to the front desk staff and asked them to call the
police, He tried handing me the note, and in response I held out my
hand to receive it from him, but then he pulled the note back from me
several times in a taunting manner while smiling. As we waited for the
elevator, he kept saying he was "chipping" at me. As he left in the
elevator, he kept saying "chip, chip, chip .... , in a taunting manner.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Leslie's accounts and reveals the extent to which Leslie engages in violations of RPC 3.1,
3.3, 1.6, and, possibly, 3.4, NRS 178.405, and RPC 1.14. Novak wrote:
Leslie, Jim From: Sent: To: Subject: Novak, Eva Wednesday,
December 12, 2012 4:51 PM leslie, Jim Coughlin office visit 121212
11:58:11 am, 12-21-2012 23/32 Knowing Mr Coughlin's volatile past
behavior I was asked to accompany Jim leslie to the lobby to assist
Coughlin, He was seated in a chair writing a note, Jim leslie asked
Coughlin what he needed, Coughlin mentioned he needed some
discovery from a case . Jim Leslie advised him make any
communications by way of email, he would handle that way, Coughlin
asked if I was present as witness, Jim Leslie confirmed that, Jim
stated that he was going to ask to be relieved from the current Coughlin
case, Coughlin's demeanor became belligerent. Jim Leslie asked
Coughlin to leave the office, Coughlin refused claiming he was
writing a note, Jim Leslie asked what the note was. Coughlin said "
it's none of your goddamn business and walked past Jim and left the
note at the reception desk, Coughlin was advised several times by
Jim Leslie to leave the office. Jim Leslie advised him that the police
were going to be called. At that point the elevator arrived, Prior to
the elevator door closing he continued his rant toward Jim Leslie until
the door closed, Evo Novak
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Leslie's TPO Application in 12-599 seems to clearly be in retaliation for

Coughlin filing a grievance (SEE RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ., 1/14/12
GRIEVANCE TO THE SBN AGAINST COUGHLIN AND RMC
JUDGE NASH HOLMES 3/14/12 GRIEVANCE TO THE SBN
AGAINST COUGHLIN, WHICH ATTACHED A 3 YEAR OLD
SANCTION ORDER THAT BECAME A GRIEVANCE BY HOLME'S
FELLOW RMC JUDGE W. GARDNER THAT HE RECIEVED FROM
HIS SISTER, 2JDC FAMILY COURT JUDGE L. GARDNER
WHEREIN SHE SANCTIONED COUGHLIN RESULTING IN HIS
FIRING FROM WLS IN 2009, AND 53833 AND 54844 AND 60303
AND 60317...) against Leslie with the SBN, including the following:
26
27
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
formal written grievance against Skau, Young, Leslie, Dogan, etc. FW:
911 calls missing from what was produced by City Attorney Skau?
12/04/12
To: ... zyoung@da.washoecounty.us, complaints@nvbar.org,
patrickk@nvbar.org, davidc@nvbar.org, ...bdogan@washoecounty.us,
jleslie@washoecounty.us
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 12/04/12 2:07 PM
Outlook Active View 12 attachments (total 16.1 MB) CR11-20642676094 (Opposition to Motion to Dismiss CR11-20642676094.pdf).pdfDownload 11 7 12 subpoenas 063341 gricela alvarez
and hassett proof of service or waivers.pdfDownload CR11-2064
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Mtn for Extension of
Time).pdfDownload CR11-2064-2655401 (Mtn to
Dismiss ...).pdfDownload CR11-2064-2676094 (Exhibit
2).pdfDownload Download all as zip
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dear Office of Bar Counsel, This is a formal grievance against City

Attorney Skau, Public Defender Jim Leslie and Biray Dogan, and DDA
Zach Young.
A portion of a recent email from City Attorney Skau reads: "Fwd:
FW: Case No. RCR2011-063341? From:Creighton C. Skau
(skauc@reno.gov) Sent: Fri 11/09/12 11:45 AM To:
zachcoughlin@hotmail.com Cc: Jeannie Homer
(HomerJ@reno.gov) 1 attachment photo[1].JPG (181.2 KB) Dear Mr.
Coughlin, Please be advised that Judge Sferaza authorized service
upon you by email in an Order. Accordingly, authorized service has
already been effected... Set forth below is the language of Judge
Sferaza's Order and the language of the City's Motion. ...
But, a listen to around the 9:25 am mark on the audio transcript form the
RJC Javs recording of the 11/8/12 hearing in rcr2011-063341 reveals
Mr. Skau fraudulently procurred Couglin's attendance at the 11/13/12
Hearing (and considering 11/12/12 was a holiday, Skau would have been
prevented from effecting contstructive service prior to the 11/13/12
hearing date set...This prejudiced not only Coughlin's formal disciplinary
hearing but also the petty larceny trial of 11/19 and 11/20 and is a
straight scum bag move by Creig Skau. Judge Sferrazza granted
Coughlin a waiver of witness fees for subpoenas and subpoena duces
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
tecums at the 48 minute mark of the second wmv file from the JAVS
audio transwcript of the 10/22/12 Hearing in RCR2012-063341.
Regardless, City Attorney Skau not only doesn't know who Jeremy
Bosler, Esq. is, but he cites to a JCRCP 45 to challenge a subpoena in a
criminal misdemeanor case and he fails to inform the court of the waiver
of service signed by an individual who indicated she had authority to do
so, Gricela Alvarez (whom, somehow, Judge Sferrazza was apparently
aware of and had opinions on....curiously). Speaking of scum bag
moves, there's is Jim Leslie jumping in at the 9:06 am mark on the
11/20/12 javs recording 112012coughlin1 for rcr2011-063341 (really,
everything Jim Leslie did in this case or any other in "representing"
Coughlin is hall of fame sleazy) "I can jump in as stand by counsel
if you feels he is dragging his feet, your honor...He's wasting county
assets."...Really, Jim, this is a grievance against you for seeking to
coerce a waiver of Coughlin's fifth amendment rights incident to
your refusal to utilize any of the exculpatory media Coughlin
provided you at either the Supression Hearing or the Trial..and a
greivance against DDA Young for similarly coercing a waiver of
Coughlin's Fifth Amendment rights (you really need to listent to the last
file for 11/19 and the first for 11/20 to get an idea of the hysterics DDA
Young engages in, getting Coughlin taken into custody, wherein the RJC
Bailiffs asked if they could keep Coughlin's laptops over night...but there
is some really bad audio on there ... DDA Young getting completely
coercive with respect to a waiver of Coughlin's Fifth Amendment
rights and "you can't put on anything else or any evidence, YOU
NEED TO TESTIFY!" and Young "you Honor, it was my
understanding that you let mr. Coughlin out of custody on the
condition that he testify! If he won't do it TAKE HIM BACK INTO
CUSTODY!" add to the grievance against young the fraudulent
testimony and argument he put on where he knows or should have
know that the rpd duralde did not receive any reports from dispatch
of "a possible fight" where Duralde had left his vehicle and the text
screen therein prior to the 11:27:11 pm text from dispatch, and therefore,
such allegations of a report from dispatch of "a possible fight" did not
bare on Duralde's probable cause/reasonable suspicion analysis. further
young put on perured testimony by Zarate about how Zarate "personally
eye witnessed Coughlin receiving the phone" when Young was provide a
video wherein Zarate admits he only inferred that. Oh, and Coughlin
hereby swears he never received any such 11/7/12 motion, faxed or
otherwise from Dogan or his assitant Tibbals or anyone with the WCPD.
And then there is Jim Leslie failing to make a hearsay objection when
DDA Young asks Officer Duralde what some unnamed bystanders told
him upon arriving...yet, every bit of video evidence and or testimony that
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin sought to have Leslie introduce regarding Nicole Watson

admitting to hearing "the man with the six pack" threaten to throw the
iPhone "in the river if someone doesn't claim it right now" was
continually excluded as "hearsay"...Between the following two
timestamped recordings finally provided by City Attorney Skau (WCPD
Jim Leslie is too busy whistling during trail at Coughlin's pointing out
how he cautioned the youths prior to the arrival of the peace to stay
peaceful in Coughlin's references the then recent murder of Stephen Gale
just blocks away approximately two months prior to the 8/20/11
arrest, incident to the theft of a purse, and Lelise prefers to spend
his time chiming in, unprompted, on the regard, arrogantly enough,
that he can assist the court if it feels Coughlin is "draggin' his feet"
incident to the inappropriat placement by Judge Sferrazza of Leslie as
"stanby counsel" which really amounted to no more than yet another
coercive practice...In RCR2011-063341, Coughlin's then WCPD Joe
Goodnight, Esq (who was removed from representing Coughlin by Jim
Leslie and Jeremy Bosler the Washoe County public defender
applying good nicely peers deciding that the night was doing too
much to assist Coughlin in defending himself and or otherwise
zealously advocating on call Pat good night in Coughlin had a trial
prep strategy session while Coughlin was in custody on July Friday,
July 13 at approximately 430 man and you good night reiterating the
extent to which he would be appearing on Coughlin's to have to try the
case at trial on July 16, 2012 Monday morning at 9 AM and it was only
upon Coughlin arriving and being brought to the court in custody seeded
Jeremy Bosler was suddenly filling in for Goodnight with and indication
Goodnight's December 19, 2011 file stamp discovery requests served
upon the stay and district attorney Zach young reads at page 1
therein: "REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY COMES NOW, the
Defendant, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, by and through his
attorney of record, Joseph W. Goodnight, Deputy Public Defender,
and hereby requests the following discovery pursuant to NRS
174.235 to NRS 174.295, inclusive. 1. Inspect and receive copies or
photograph any written or recorded statements or confessions made by
the Defendant or any witness, or copies thereof, within the possession,
custody or control of the State, the existence of which is known or by the
exercise of due diligence may become known to the prosecutor. NRS
174.235(1)(a). This request includes any video and audio recordings,
including those preserved on pocket recording devices, 9-1-1 emergency
calls, and any dispatch logs, written or recorded, generated in connection
with this case." It is telling the extent to which on the record at that July
16 trial date Washoe County public defender Jeremy Bosler indicated
that Jim Leslie would immediately be rounding you a replacement role
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pretty suddenly disappearing Goodnight. And that Leslie would be

prepared to try the case by Friday and that the court could step matter for
trial on Friday it is witness. Perhaps what Mr. Bosler meant was that Jim
Leslie would, by that Friday, have completed all the trial prep Jim Leslie
would be doing on this case by Friday, and that that would be the case
whether or not that evinced any sort of concern for his client, ability to
zealously advocate on his client behalf or willingness to do so, or
indication that Jim Leslie felt that the judges of the Reno Justice Court
would hold him to a standard of care at all tending to indicate that Mr.
Leslie has any skin in this game whatsoever. Clearly there is a bases for
mistrial here were Jim Leslie's entire contribution to the representation
of Mr. Coughlin is dripping in every way with misconduct and
malpractice and apparently willing disregard for the rules of professional
conduct an intentional manifestation of Leslie's desire to secure a
conviction the Washoe County District Attorney's Office and therein
secure added boys from local law enforcement District Attorney's Office
and perhaps the Reno justice court itself. Further Reno Municipal Court
judge Nash Holmes's admonition as to communications with the Washoe
County public defenders office in connection with February 27, 2012
clandestine status conference between Biray Dogan and Zach Young
which neither Dogan nor Young has ever refuted whether they they have
been sworn prior thereto or not an especially where Dogan's coworker
down the hall civil division deputy Dist. Atty. Mary has been involved
throughout the confiscation without a search warrant or court order of
any kind (or at least one ever served on Coughlin in any manner) of
Coughlin smart phone and micro SD card incident Judy impermissible
summary contempt finding by judge Nash Holmes just two hours after
the clandestine status conference between Dogan young on February 27,
2012 in RMC case 11 TR 26800 for which Dogan and Young stipulated
to a continu...n compliance with Judge Sferrazza Order of 9/5/12 FW:
Zach Coughlin has shared a folder with you? From: Zach Coughlin
Tue 11/27/12 8:26 AM To:
psferrazza@washoecounty.us (psferrazza@washoecounty.us);
zyoung@da.washoecounty.us (zyoung@da.washoecounty.us)
re:rcr2011-063341 Dear Judge Sferrazza and DDA Young, I am sending
this in compliance with Judge Sferrazza's indication that I should send
him materials after the trial the bare on the ineffective assistance of
counsel claim and or the coerced waiver of my Fifth Amendment rights,
especially incident to the representation by WCPD Jim Leslie. Please
note the email of 11/5/2012 from Court Administrator Mr. Tuttle and the
inadvertent faxing of numerous filings to the wrong fax number by
myself. https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=43084638F32F5F28!
5141&authkey=!APibWiVXTMSWkw0 .(NOTE, THAT EMAILED
-
1
2
GRIEVANCE TO THE SBN CONTINUES ON FOR QUITE SOME

TIME, AND THIS IS A TRUNCATED, EXCERPTED VERSION
HERE...).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
911 Case? Leslie, Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us)Add to

contacts12/07/12 To: 'zachcoughlin@hotmail.com' Cc: Dogan, Biray
Outlook Active View 1 attachment (2.2 MB) Coughlin Discovery 911
Case.pdfDownload Download as zip Mr. Coughlin: Attached are the
discovery materials in the above-referenced case that you had requested
and we had made an additional copy of for you in response to your
request. Please note that the July 27, 2012, cover letter was for your pick
up and you never picked it up. Note also that the July 27, 2012, packet
encloses a copy of the April 17, 2012, hand delivery transmittal of the
very same documents which you received. Since we have been removed
from the 911 case, we are closing our file. The attached materials were
sitting at our front desk. Since you failed to retrieve them, we provide
the attached courtesy copy before final closure of our file. No response
to this transmittal is required from you. James B. Leslie, Esq.
From: Jleslie@washoecounty.us To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: Coughlin Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:22:01 +0000 Mr.
Coughlin: Based on your behavior at our offices on several past
occasions, including today where we had to call the police due to you
engaging in behavior constituting disturbing the peace, you are hereby
directed NOT to come to our offices without first having confirmed in
writing an appointment with your assigned attorney. If you violate this
email notification, we will contact law enforcement.
James B. Leslie, Esq. Chief Deputy Public Defender
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd discovery
of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012-065630?
Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)12/13/12 To:
jleslie@washoecounty.us...28 attachments (total 20.0 MB) Download
all as zip THIS REPRESENTS A VERY TRUNCATED VERSION
OF THE 12/13/12 EMAIL LESLIE ATTACHED TO HIS TPO
APPLICATION, WHICH LESLIE MISLEADINGLY AND
INCORRECTLY INDICATES WAS SENT AND RECEIVED ON
12/12/12, INSTEAD OF 12/13/12.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Coughlin? Leslie, Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us)Add to contacts

12/12/12 To: 'zachcoughlin@hotmail.com' From:
Leslie, Jim
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Mr. Coughlin: Based on your behavior at
our offices on several past occasions, including today where we had to
call the police due to you engaging in behavior constituting disturbing
the peace, you are hereby directed NOT to come to our offices without
first having confirmed in writing an appointment with your assigned
attorney. If you violate this email notification, we will contact law
enforcement. James B. Leslie, Esq. Chief Deputy Public Defender
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jim Leslie is a scrappy dude RE: Coughlin? From:

Zach Coughlin
Fri 12/14/12 1:24 AM To:
(jbosler@washoecounty.us); fflaherty@dlpfd.com
(fflaherty@dlpfd.com); fflaherty@dyerlawrence.com
(fflaherty@dyerlawrence.com); davidc@nvbar.org (davidc@nvbar.org);
mpickesq@msn.com (mpickesq@msn.com) Dear Jim Leslie, Esq., Jim,
I need to get my discovery for the resumption of the trial in rjc rcr2012065630...Despite your cries of "wasting county assets" at 9:05am on
11/20/12 when, in your standby counsel role, you attempted to assist
DDA Young and Judge Sferrazza in further coercing from me my Fifth
Amendment rights...you seem intent on wasting county assets, as your
failure to turn over the discovery (the cd recordings of 911 calls DDA
Young alleges he produced to my WCPD on 8/13/12 and 8/17/12 has not
materially prejudiced my defense in rcr2012-065630, in much the same
way your failure to timely transmit my file in rcr2011-063341 did,
including your failure to produce the results and response and production
in connection with the subpoena of 10/3/12, and given you were note
removed as counsel of record until at the earliest 10/22/12...Kelley
Dodma, ECOMM, and you have some 'splainin' to do. Now you allege
that you filed a false police report. Jim, please keep a copy of any
communications you have made to the RPD, and of course the call you
reference will be subpoenaed, and if there exists any recordings
(video/audio, whatever) of the "incidents" you describe (not sure
dropping of a written request for one's file/discovery to your receptionist
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
given the fact that time is of the essence here is "distrubing the peace",
but, to each his one, I guess...however, its curious you never seem to
place any restrictions on your continuing to cash your sweet paychecks
week after week, Jim...now you seem to be seeking some sort of
protection against being served written notices or having them delivered,
or making my ability to do some contingent upon your scheduling a
meeting (any such meeting would likely terminate after five minutes, as
they have in the past, with you pulling your Diana Ross-diva act....DDA
Young got a good knowing laugh out of that one on 12/11/12.....). Jim,
please do me a favor and reply to this email, copying the SBN and
President of the State Bar and describe just exactly what occurred during
these recent "past several occasions"...and put it in an affidavit...also,
will you finally put in an affidavit your contentions that you "know"
your office sent me notice in writing of the 8/6/12 combo-hearing date in
065630 and 067980 (please also put in writing your refusal to send out
subpoenas (easy under nrs 174.345) to ECOMM for any calls to 911 or
dispatch related to me in any way since 8/20/12) and any dispatch to law
enforcements recordings, and recordings made by law enforcement or
submitted to law enforcement by private parties, since that date as well.
Please further indicate in writing why you are refusing to send the
WCSO a subpoena duces tecum for any materials related to me in any
way from their civil division (that served process of the items detailed in
the variosu affidavits of services by Machen et al that have become of
issue in 11 tr 26800, 067980, etc., etc., subpoena Northwinds Lou Cadia
and Duane Jakob...)....See, Jim, you are still getting paid, you need to do
some work here, guy... So cute how Biray Dogan, in the 8/21/12 Hearing
in 065630 mentioned how he "left a voice mail" for Linda Gray, but just
couldn't, gosh darn it, get an answer from her about whether she did send
out written notice of the 8/6/12 combo hearing...(you know, the one you
testified about during our closed Mardsen-lite conflict hearing in
063341...where you alleged you "knew" for sure that notice was sent, but
then refused to provide any specifics as to how you 'knew" or what you
did to make sure of that..." Gray admitted to Coughlin on the phone that
she did not mail out any written notice of the 8/6/12 hearing to Coughlin
because your office had marked his "PO BOX 3961" address as "no
longer good" at that time (and the audio of the 7/16/12 aborted Trial date
clearlye establishes Coughlin was not provided the 8/6/12 date at that
time, because the temporary replacement for the suddenly disappeared
WCPD Goodnight, and DDA Young were directed to meet in the
hall/counter after the conclusion of the proceeding on 7/16/12 and pick a
date and time, by which time Coughlin was taken back into custody
(where he was serving 18 days in jail due to the fraudulent bail increase
in rmc 12 cr1240 (another bogus "disturbing the peace charge" by the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
RPD...that even the City of Reno prosecutors had to drop (and we all
know how adverse they are to dropping any charges, ever). Jim, why
don't you just go wash the RPD's cars or something if you want to suck
up to them so bad? Please then explain to those listed above why your
cross examination of Cory Goble on 8/29/12 in 063341 seemed to
consist solely of an attempt on your part to defeat the NRS 171.136
problem the State faced, including the exclusionary rule application,
where the testimony as to the value of the phone by the "victim" Goble
was "about $80" valuation...well under the $250 needed at the time to
support a "oooh, thats a felony" grand larceny charge (to quote Officer
Duralde), and therein vitiate the legitimacy of any such arrest or search
incident thereto (unless a citizen's arrest could be established....which is
what you spent your entire cross of Goble trying to establish, for the
State's benefit...because you are a sleazy, spiteful, lazy, mean spirited,
petty, hateful individual whom the DA wants on the case anytime it
really, really needs a win. Just because you have ascended to Chief
Deputy status doesn't mean you are any good at what you do, Jim, nor
does it, in my opinion, provide some sheen of integrity to your act). NRS
171.136 When arrest may be made. 1. If the offense charged is a felony
or gross misdemeanor, the arrest may be made on any day, and at any
time of day or night. 2. If it is a misdemeanor, the arrest cannot be made
between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., except: (a) Upon the direction of
a magistrate, endorsed upon the warrant; (b) When the offense is
committed in the presence of the arresting officer; (c) When the person
is found and the arrest is made in a public place or a place that is open to
the public and: (1) There is a warrant of arrest against the person; and (2)
The misdemeanor is discovered because there was probable cause for the
arresting officer to stop, detain or arrest the person for another alleged
violation or offense; (d) When the offense is committed in the presence
of a private person and the person makes an arrest immediately after the
offense is committed; (e) When the offense charged is battery that
constitutes domestic violence pursuant to NRS 33.018 and the arrest is
made in the manner provided in NRS 171.137; (f) When the offense
charged is a violation of a temporary or extended order for protection
against domestic violence issued pursuant to NRS 33.017 to 33.100,
inclusive; (g) When the person is already in custody as a result of
another lawful arrest; or (h) When the person voluntarily surrenders
himself or herself in response to an outstanding warrant of arrest.
Sincerely, Zach Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and Fax:
949 667 7402 ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
RE: Jim Leslie is a scrappy dude RE: Coughlin? Leslie, Jim

(Jleslie@washoecounty.us)Add to contacts 12/14/12 To: Zach Coughlin
From: Leslie, Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us) This sender is in your safe
list. Sent:
Fri 12/14/12 9:45 AM To: Zach Coughlin
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Mr. Coughlin: A hearing has been set for
Tuesday December 18, 2013, at 8:30 am in Reno Justice Court, at which
we will ask to be relieved as counsel in the remaining case you have
with this office, RCR12-067980, based on, among other things, (1) your
prior expressed desire to represent yourself and (2) your email to myself
and several other recipients, including state bar attorneys, which contains
an express or implied threat of violence. If you fail to appear at the
hearing, the relief will be requested in your absence upon the grounds
stated above. If you choose to agree to self-representation without
argument, the second above-noted reason may or may not rise to the
point of discussion, although I would note that the email you sent with
the express or implied threat was disseminated by you to several
recipients including representatives of the Nevada State Bar, thereby
breaching confidentiality by your own action. Pending the hearing, there
is no reason for us to meet in person or communicate by any means. Any
communications from you pending the hearing will be deemed to be
made in waiver of attorney-client privilege and are subject to forwarding
to the Nevada State Bar and/or law enforcement as appropriate pursuant
to Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(c). James B. Leslie, Esq.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Leslie's RPC vioaltions extend to continuing to maintain the

WCPD sent Coughlin written notice of the 8/6/12 combination hearing
in the RJC in 12-067980 and 12-065630 when his legal assistant, Linda
Gray, admitted to Coughlin on 8/8/12 that she failed to mail out the
written notice to Coughlin in light of her belief that Coughlin's then PO
Box 3961, Reno, NV 89505 mailing address was no longer good
(where Gray was presumably unaware that Coughlin bailed out of jail on
7/21/12, upon the ridiculous Order following the unnoticed 7/5/12 bail
increase hearing incident to the fraudulent testimony by RPD Officers
Weaver and or Dye, and the advocacy by RMC court appointed
counsel Keith Loomis (which was anything but) resulting in RMC Judge
W. Gardner raising Coughlin's then bondable $1,415 bail to a cash only
$3,000 (based upon three charges that were completely phoney,
drummed up, and spurious to begin with, so much so that the RCA
dropped the charge underlying the custodial arrest (disturbing the peace),
dismissed the failure to provide proof of insurance charge (Coughlin
provided such on the scene just prior to arrest, but the fraud of Officer
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Weaver ignored that), leaving only a failure to secure a load on one's

truck charge, the Amended Complaint of 10/11/12 Coughlin did not
receive, but for which he subsequently learned contained in incorrect
case number therein. Further, RCA Sooudi actually went against the
RPD's own decision making in, on 8/16/12, filing an Amended
Complaint charging Coughlin with trespassing (which was, of course,
subsequently dropped in light of the fact that, one, Coughlin did not
cave to Sooudi's attempt to gain leverage by impermissibly
overcharging, and two, the fact that Coughlin, at the time of arrest, still
had at least one, if not three, valid leases at the address to which such
trespassing charge was directed, providing a claim of right defense to
any criminal trespass charge, especially where no protection order was in
effect at such time Instead, the RCA and RPD conspired with Bellevue,
Washington's Northwinds Apartments Associates, LLC to violat Soldal
v. Cook Co, and deprive Coughlin of his 42 USC Sec. 1983 rights and
his rights under the three different lease agreements he had with
Northwinds (to which the RJC subsquently, sua sponte, essentially filed
and granted Motions to Consolidate such three (or more) different case
on behalf of the unauthorized practitioner of law (Nevada Court Services
CEO, Jeff Chandler) representing Northwinds in RJC Rev2012-001048
(which resulted in Coughlin's custodial arrest on 6/8/12 in RCR2012067980, and being charged with a SCR 111(6) serious crime under
NRS 199.280 where DDA Young continues to violate RPC 3.8 in
maintaining such charge where he has been provided proof that the
WCSO's Deputies there refused to identify themselves prior to
Northwind's Apartments maintenance man Milan Krebs (whom was
apparently so afraid of Coughlin that he filed a TPO on 7/5/12 (whether
he received a raise for doing so has yet to be determined) in RJC
RCP2012-000287), yet not so afraid as the fail to present to the WCSO
Deputies on 6/28/12 offering to utilize a Saw-z-All to cut open the metal
overhead door to Coughlin's Unit 29 at 1680 Sky Mountain Dr.,
Northwind's Apartments (later that day, following the arrest, Nevada
Court Services' Jeff Chandler posted on that Unit 29 an Amended 5
Day Notice of Unlawful Detainer correcting the jurisdictional bar error
Coughlin pointed out under NRS 40.253(6) where the initial 5 day
Unlawful Detainer Notice listed the wrong court to file a Tenant's
Answer in (it listed Sparks Justice Court, where Coughlin did timely
submit for filing such a Tenant's Answer) where the 6/14/12 Declaration
of Personal Service by NCS's Ryan Wray (one cannot personally served
a closed, locked door where entreaties made by a process service are not
met with so much as a single human voice responding...(see NRCP 4,
applicable via NRS 40.400) :
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Additionaly basis for Disqualification based upon the mere APPEARANCE OF

IMPROPERITY OR BIAS OR POSSIBILITIY THEREOF (THAT IS TO SAY,
COUGHLIN IS NOT NECESSARILY ACCUSING ANY OF THE FINE JUDGES OF
THE RJC OF DOING ANYTHING WRONG, AND IN FACT, COUGHLIN IS FOND
OF AND HAS GREAT RESPECT FOR EACH OF THOSE JUDGES, AND WISHES
HE COULD HAVE HAD MORE INTERACTION WITH JUDGE SCHROEDER AND
JUDGE LYNCH. FULL DISCLOSURE, COUGHLIN WAS A 9TH GRADE
BASKETBALL COACH FOR RENO HIGH SCHOOL IN 2007-08, COACHING
NOW RJC JUSTIC OF THE PEACE HASCHEFF'S VERY TALENTED AND
ENGAGING SON ANTHONY HASCHEFF. ADDITIONALLY COUGHLIN HAS
SUED HIS FORMER EMPLOYER, WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES IN CV1101955, AND CV11-01896, AND ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WHICH AT THEY
TIME APPARENTLY INCLUDED NOW RJC JUDGE HASCHEFF, AND
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES IS NOW PARTNERED WITH THE WCDA'S
OFFICE AND CO-DEFENDANTS IN A CASE INVOLVING THE
PARTNERSHIP IN THE ECR PROGRAM, WHEREIN WLS APPARENTLY
EMPLOYEES RMC DEFENDER LEW TAITEL, WHOM WAS BRIEFLY
COUGHLIN'S ATTORNEY IN THE CRIMINAL TRESPASS CASES
STEMMING FROM COUGHLIN'S ARREST AT HIS FORMER HOMW LAW
OFFICE IN RJC 11-1708 EVICTION MATTER.).
TERMINOLOGY
Appropriate authority means the authority having responsibility for initiation of
disciplinary process in connection with the violation to be reported. See Rules 2.14 and 2.15.
I am not longer and efiler, but was between 1/4/12 until deactivation in mid November of
2012. All during that time the only pdf available for the 1/4/12 Supplemental in CV1103628 was the attached 3 page version, which fails to include the actual documents or filings
listed in the "Appeal Receipt". Such a failure to include those filed, especially one that is
characterized as "Emergency Letter to Court from Zach Coughlin, Esq" (which is not a
"letter" but rather my submission for filing of a "Notice of Appeal" of the 12/21/11 Order
Resolving Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien by RJC Judge Sferrazza. The failure to
include such items in what was provided to Judge Flanagan for review in the ROA became
very deleterious to my case in a number of ways, including as mentioned in Judge Flanagan's
3/30/12 Order denying my appeal, and now, arguably in the 12/14/12 Findings and
Conclusions and Recommendation to disbar me permanently from the practice of law in
Nevada incident to opposing counsel Hill's allegation that my pursuing a stay, on or around
December 22nd 2011, under NRS 40.385 was vexatious or otherwise violative of RPC 3.1
(Meritorious Claims and Contentions) (which I believe the attached transcript from Venetian
v. Two Roads disproves).
27
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
I am writing to request the 2JDC email me or provide an electronic copy (or, a hard copy) of
the entirety of what it received, at any point, from the RJC in connection with the 1/4/12
Supplemental filing in CV11-03628.
I believe it would appropriate not to charge me for this given anything beyond the intial 3
page version of that 1/4/12 filing was never available during an 11 month period wherein I
did have an eFlex subscription.
A footnote on page 5 of Judge Flanagan's 3/30/12 Order in CV11-03628 indicates: "... In
addition, because Coughlin failed to timely file his notice of appeal regarding the
personal property lien, see NRS 40.253(8), and because Coughlin's notice of appeal fails
to identify an error regarding the court's procedure in setting a hearing on this issue,
this Court will no consider this issue."
The testimony at Coughlin's formal disciplinary hearing on 11/14/12 included the following:
"FORMAL HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 51:10 to 54:17)
51
...
12
Was Mr. Coughlin, in his dealings with you as
13 an attorney, was he truthful or did he show candor in his
14 dealings with you as a lawyer?
15
MR. COUGHLIN: I'm sorry, your Honor. If I
16 can interject. It's been well over 15 minutes.
17
MR. ECHEVERRIA: That's true. Do you want to
18 wrap it up, Mr. King?
19
MR. KING: Yes.
20 BY MR. KING:
21
Q With that said, did he show candor to you?
22
A In our dealings with Mr. Coughlin, you could
23 not trust him at all. No agreement ever made with
24 Mr. Coughlin was honored by him.
25
For example, when Judge Sferrazza ordered that
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
52
Mr. Coughlin could have two days -- he was originally
given a week to move his stuff out before the eviction
order was served. Thereafter there was a hearing. The
judge gave Mr. Coughlin two days to go in and remove his
possessions.
Mr. Coughlin -- we went over there, opened the
doors about 8:00 o'clock. He wasn't there. About 11:00
o'clock we get an e-mail from Mr. Coughlin saying I have
appealed Judge Sferrazza's ruling. That means his ruling

-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
is stayed. That means I can go back into the house. I'm

staying in the house, and there's nothing you can do about
it.
MR. COUGHLIN: Objection, hearsay.
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Sometime later that day we got
an order from Judge Sferrazza saying that the request for
a stay had been denied. Mr. Coughlin had burned basically
a whole day doing nothing trying to get his stuff out.
That was typical....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
top of what was going on.
Finally, when we got in the district court, we
were able to use the e-flex system, and we were able to
keep track of what was going on.
BY MR. KING:
Q Let me restate the question. The question is:
As an attorney, having a responsibility to be truthful and
to have candor with opposing counsel, was Mr. Coughlin
truthful, and did he use candor with you?
A No.
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. King, wrap it up, please.
You're limited to 15 minutes.
BY MR. KING:
Q Specifically relating to Mr. Coughlin's candor
to the court, did he show candor to the courts?
A No.
Q In his demeanor -MR. COUGHLIN: Objection. Lack of foundation.
MR. KING: My last question.
MR. COUGHLIN: Pretty damming statement to
have no foundation.
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Please don't interrupt. We
haven't heard the question yet to which you've objected.
MR. COUGHLIN: The last one, whether I showed
candor to the court, and he said no.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
54
1
MR. ECHEVERRIA: You object to that one? It's
2 overruled. Go ahead.
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
With respect to the NRS 40.385 Motion for Stay issues, I believe it may also be relevant the
extent to which my attempted filings were refused by the 2JDC from that time, especially
given NRAP 8. Please see attached emails and CV11-03051.
Also, I am requesting an electronic copy of the entire file in DV08-01168 given I believe I
was wrongfully withheld access thereto during times of exigent circumstances in 2009
(please see attached emails and note the 5/20/09 filing by myself could not have been
consider in Judge Gardner's 5/21/09 Order given such 5/20/09 filing was not entered until at
least 5/24/09, despite what the file stamping thereon may indicated.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Please note WLS then Board President Breckenridge requesting and picking up the audio cd
of the Uribe TPO hearing from 3/12/09 at which the 2JDC CAAW run TPO Office
Advocate, Roxanne express aghast horror at Coughlin's representation of a male domestic
violence victim in FV09-00886. Further Elcano's representations vis a vis Coughlin's
competency are not exactly bourne out by Coughlin's filing in the Davenport TPO and
divorce case upon his taking over for then WLS Board President Breckenridge, whom missed
the I-864 Affidavit of Support issue. Note, Coughlin, Judge Flanagan, and WCDA DDA
Halstead all worked together at Hale Lane.
Lastly, please consider that, as currently carried out by the WCSO Civil Division, Washoe
County takes the absolutely most brutal approach to conducting eviction lock-outs,
essentially reading NRS 40.253 to allow the WCSO Civil Division race over to a tenant's
rental minutes after the summary eviction proceeding, and gain access with the help of a
locksmith, and immediately begin going through such a tenant's personalty, then locking
them out (even without their medications or eyeglasses or state issued identifcation)
whereupon the tenant is then subjected to the fraudulent approach taken by some attorney's,
such as Richard G. Hill, Esq. (see his 12/2/11 coercive letter to Coughlin) in applying NRS
118A.460 in the most specious manner imaginable.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
There is a great deal of confusion as to the law in Nevada vis a vis 24 hour lock-out notices
and how soon after posting one the constable or Sheriff may effectuate the lock-out:
http://www.lpsnv.com/EvictionFAQ.pdf: "7. DOES MY TENANT HAVE RIGHTS? Yes
they do. When the notice is served, your tenants rights state that they can contest the notice
with the justice court from the moment that they receive the notice. Their reasons can vary,
but they must get their Tenants Response filed with the court of jurisdiction. It will then be
approved or denied by the judge. If it is approved, then a hearing will be scheduled. Your
tenant can also contest the 24 Hour Lock-out Notice, which is posted by the Constable. This
notice is posted 24 hours before the Constable returns to the property to do the lock change."
27
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Gayle Kern, Esq., ought to have been made to follow RPC 3.5A, but regardless, she should
not have been granted any Writ of Restitution or Lockout Order on 3/15/12 merely upon a
default basis Coughlin filed a detailed Tenant's Affidavit that could speak for him at the
hearing, and the initial burden is on the landlord (ie, the party moving for summary judgment
under Anvui), and Kern failed to even file a Landlord's Affidavit. Kern obtained a default
summary eviction against Coughlin on 3/15/12 (despite Coughlin's detailed 3/8/12 filing of a
Tenant's Answer and Pre-Hearing Brief), resulting in Couglhin being summarily evicted at
gunpoint hours later (despite Kern having failed to first file a Landlord's Affidavit as required
by NRS 40.253(6) (so if Coughlin was two minutes late to that 3/15/12 hearing, why no
overly rigid and formulaic application of procedural rules against Kern?). Consequently, at
Coughlin's 11/14/12 formal disciplinary hearing, NVB Judge Beesley testified as to
Coughlin's appearance before him minutes after being evicted at gunpoint by the WCSO
(whom were violating NRS 40.253(6) in failing to post a lockout order, then wait 24 hours
before barging in with guns drawn). Somehow, Judge Beesley never considered that Sheriff
misconduct might have an effect on Coughlin's law practice, nor, curiously, did Judge
Beesley manage to mention that Coughlin's 3/30/12 filing before him in NVB 10-05104
Cadle Co. v. Keller detailed Judge Beesley's 1977 McGeorge School of Law classmate now
RMC Judge Nash Holmes confiscating Coughlin's smartphone and micro sd card after
summarily incarcerating him for 5 days on 2/27/12, though such confiscation occurred after
Coughlin's personatly had been book in at the Washoe County Jail, and therefore was not
done incident to a search incident to arrest, and therefore required a warrant or Order to so
take out of where it was booked into Coughlin's personal property at the jail and release to
the City of Reno Marshals a day later, as WCSO Deputy Hodge admitted to Coughlin, with
local attorney Pam Willmore standing by, on March 19th, 2012. Following the 3/30/12 filing
by Coughlin detailing this before Judge Beesley, Judge Nash Holmes entered an Order
releasing Coughlin's property entered 3/30/12. WCDA DDA Kandaras finally signed off on
that Order and Coughlin's was only then permitted to retrieve his property on 4/7/12, though
all the data thereon was wiped prior to it being returned to Coughlin. Coughlin did not lie to
Judge Nash Holmes in court on 2/27/12 in 11 TR 26800, and Judge Nash Holmes has offered
nothing in the way of factual support for her initial contention that Coughlin had lied to her
that day, which, during Coughlin's cross examination of her at his formal disciplinary hearing
on 11/14/12, resulted in the basis proffered by Judge Nash Holmes for her suspicion that
Coughlin had lied to her being thoroughly and easily disproven given the patent inaccuracies
inherent to Judge Nash Holmes contention that she had interrogated Coughlin about
recording and recording devices prior to his requesting to be permitted to use the restroom,
when, in fact, such interrogation only occurred after the one and only restroom break in that
"simple traffic citation".
25
26
27
Further, Judge Nash Holmes consistently alternates between finding something occurred by
"clear and convincing evidence" only to alternately characterize her findings as indicated
such was "probable" or that she believes something "probably occurred":
28
-
HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 139:11 to 157:2)

139
2
3
4
5
6
7
11 ut a bathroom break?
12
A I'm sorry. What marshals when?
13
Q Well, the ones you reference on the audio from
14 the March 12th hearing?

15
A Well, again, which -- my marshals. Could you
16 be more specific, please, in your question?
17
18 hearing --
Q How much have they told you about the
10
19
11
20 the judge. She asked you a question. Do you want to be
12
21 specific as to a particular conversation?
13
22 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
14
15
23
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, you interrupted
Q Yeah. There was one bathroom break in the
24 hearing. What were you told during the bathroom break by

25 either a marshal or the city attorney?
16
17
140
18
19
2 particular issue, Mr. Coughlin?
20
3 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
21
Q No. Just anything. Anything connected to me?
22
MR. ECHEVERRIA: That's what I'm asking. Is
23
24
25
26
MR. ECHEVERRIA: With respect to any
6 it involving you, sir?

7
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
MR. ECHEVERRIA: All right.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Coughlin asked for a
10 bathroom break. I originally said I would not give the
27
11 break. And then I said that I would, but he had to leave
28
12 all his materials in the courtroom. And I said that

-
13 because I suspected that he was tape-recording the court
14 proceedings without my permission, and without asking
15 permission first. Because he's apparently been known to
4
5
6
7
16 do that.
17
MR. COUGHLIN: Objection, hearsay. Lack of
18 foundation.
19
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Overruled.
20
THE WITNESS: So I required one of my marshals
21 to accompany him to the restroom.
22
MR. COUGHLIN: She just gets to say a bunch of
10
23 hearsay?
11
24
12
25 responding to your question.
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, she is
13
14
15
16
141
1
Go ahead, Judge.
THE WITNESS: When the marshals came back from
3 the restroom, they told me that Mr. Coughlin had, in fact,
17
4 been recording the proceedings because he had disassembled
18
5 a device and left parts of it in the bathroom. Or left --
19
6 disassembled parts of it, and then they discovered parts
20
7 of it.
21
22
9 and held in contempt of court at the jail, he had
23
24
25
26
In any case, when he was taken into custody
10 physically two recording devices on him, a cell phone -11 either two cell phones or a cell phone and some other
12 recording device. I assumed that was pieces of which he
13 was messing with in the bathroom.
14 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
27
15
Q Which marshal told you that?
28
16
A I'm sorry? I can't hear that.

-
17
18
19 to yell.
4
5
6
7
8
Q Which marshal -MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, you don't need
20
THE WITNESS: It was Marshal Harley that told
21 me that, Joel Harley, H-a-r-l-e-y. He said when they went

22 in and checked the bathroom after Mr. Coughlin left, and
23 he had found evidence that he had disassembled some object
24 or something in there.
25 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
142
10
11
Q What evidence, and what object?
12
A I just described it as some sort of a
13
3 recording device. Whether it was a cell phone and he took
14
15
16
4 the SIM card out or whatever it was, I wasn't sure. But I

5 had asked you, Mr. Coughlin, point blank in court if you
6 were recording, and you told me no. And then you asked
7 immediately to go to the bathroom, and I said no. And
17
8 then you begged and squirmed and said you had to relieve
18
9 yourself, and I had to let you go to the bathroom. And
19
10 then when you did that, you went into the bathroom --
20
11 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
21
12
Q Really?
22
13
A Took apart and disassembled a recording
23
24
25
26
14 device.
15
16
Q Really? Would audio show that, Judge?

MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin. I've asked you
17 repeatedly to please not interrupt people.

18
MR. COUGHLIN: I thought she was done.
27
19
MR. ECHEVERRIA: It was clear she wasn't when
28
20 you were interrupting her.

-
21
MR. COUGHLIN: All right.
22
MR. ECHEVERRIA: You will cease that conduct.
23
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.
24
MR. ECHEVERRIA: You've asked a question of
4
5
25 the judge. She answered it. Do you have a question?
6
7
143
1 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
3 trial?
Q Judge, was there one bathroom break during the
10
11
5 let me move across the hallway, because I can't hear
12
6 anything right now, there's a big crowd.
13
14
15
16
A I'm sorry. The crowd has recessed here, and
Q Don't worry. Just my law license, Judge. No
8 biggie.
9
Was there one bathroom break?
10
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, I for one do
11 not appreciate your side comments. I think you should
17
12 focus seriously on the issues to be addressed here. The
18
13 judge simply asked for accommodation so she could hear.
19
14
20
15 Honor.
21
16
22
17 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
23
24
25
26
MR. COUGHLIN: I only have so much time, your

MR. ECHEVERRIA: I know. Quit wasting it.
18
Q Was there one bathroom break during the trial?
19
A There was one bathroom break.
20
Q Have you reviewed the audio of that trial?
21
A I'm sorry, I can't hear you again. Say it
22 again.
27
23
28
24 the trial?
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Did you review the audio of

-
25
THE WITNESS: I have not reviewed them
144
3
4
5
6
7
1 recently, no. I did at the time. I did when I entered my

2 contempt order and sent my package to the discipline
3 board.
4 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
5
Q Why does the audio of the trial indicate that
6 you did not ask any questions about recording until after
7 the one bathroom break?
10
A I'm not sure that's the case. I don't know.
11
Q That is the case.
12
10
13
11 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
14
15
16
12
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin -Q Yet you testified today that Mr. Coughlin
13 asked to use the bathroom right after I asked him about

14 recording. How do you explain that?
15
A I don't know the sequence of events. I don't
17
16 recall --
18
17
Q You just said you --
19
18
A I listened to the audio at the time when
20
19 things happened. And when you came back from the
21
20 bathroom, either way I determined from -- I concluded that
22
21 you were most likely recording without my permission.
23
24
25
22
Q Earlier your testimony was that you asked
23 Mr. Coughlin if he was recording, and he got real squirmy

24 and asked to use the bathroom. Is that correct?
25
A Yes.
26
27
28
145
1
Q Now are you remixing that testimony?

-
A No.
Q You just said, I don't know the sequence of
4 events.
4
5
6
7
A Well, I don't recall the sequence of events.
6 I know that I asked you if you were recording. You denied

7 you were. I asked you a couple times if you were
8 recording, if you had gotten permission to record, what
9 you were doing. And at some point it was determined that
10 you most likely were.
11
Q You know there is an audio of these things
10
12 you're testifying to, right, that we can like compare to
11
13 what you're saying; right, Judge?
12
14
13
15 a civilized tone.
14
15
16
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, please exhibit
16 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
17
Q You're aware there's an audio?
18
A Yes, there's an audio. I have not --
19
Q That we can compare --
17
20
A -- I'm giving you my best recollection at this
18
21 time.
19
22
20
23 my patience with your continuing interruptions. That's
21
24 not evincing the conduct of a competent lawyer. You
22
25 should wait until the witness finishes before interrupting
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, you're trying
23
24
25
26
146
1 her.
2
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir.
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Go ahead. Ask your next
27
4 question.
28
5 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
-
7 disassembled part of a recording device in the bathroom,
8 and they retrieved it from there; is that correct?
4
5
6
7
Q So the marshals said Mr. Coughlin left some
A I don't recall the exact words. The
10 impression I got from what the marshal said is that you

11 had gone into the bathroom, disassembled some sort of
12 recording device, and they went in the bathroom after you
13 and checked that and determined that. That's my
14 recollection of the events.
15
Q Is that murky recollection of yours maybe the
10
16 reason why the law requires, in a contempt not occurring
11
17 in the immediate presence of a judge, that somebody
12
18 actually put their name on an affidavit and sign it?
13
19
14
15
16
MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, as Bar counsel, a
20 member for Bar Counsel office, I find -21
THE WITNESS: Mr. Coughlin, you were not found
22 in contempt on that reason alone. You were found in

23 contempt for engaging in behavior of the same kind it
17
24 appears that you're doing now, and much more than that.
18
25 And you were found in contempt for your entire conduct
19
147
20
21
1 throughout the course of the proceedings, including
22
2 repeatedly asking questions I ordered you not to ask,
23
24
25
26
3 delving into areas I had ruled were inadmissible, being

4 disrespectful, making faces, pretending like you were a
5 mime, sitting down, slumping down, standing up, walking
6 around, and doing a number of other things that were
7 completely improper in the manner of conducting a trial.
27
8 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
28
Q Is it proper procedure for you to --

-
10
11 you in contempt of court, sir.
12
4
5
6
7
A -- among one of the many reason why I found

Q Is it proper for you to call something summary
13 criminal contempt when you cite to a civil contempt

14 statute?
15
A I don't know what is proper in your book,
16 Mr. Coughlin. I know that the behavior that I saw, I know

17 that I held you in contempt, I held a precise -- you
18 committed direct contempt in front of me in my court --
19
Q Criminal contempt or civil contempt?
10
20
A -- I held you in contempt on the spot, and
11
21 then I went and wrote the order.
12
22
13
23 interrupt. I'm getting very tired of it. That's improper
14
15
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, you continue to
24 behavior. As you said, your law license is at stake here.

25 You should exhibit behavior that would justify you keeping
16
148
17
1 it. Have I made myself clear?
18
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
19
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Thank you.
20
Go ahead, Judge. Had you finished?
21
THE WITNESS: I finished with that answer,
22
6 yes.
23
24
25
26
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Go ahead, Mr. Coughlin.
8 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
9
Q Judge, did your order characterize it as
10 misdemeanor criminal contempt?

11
A I do not have my order in front of me, so you
27
12 can consult my order. I believe it was misdemeanor
28
13 contempt. I believe it was criminal, direct criminal

-
14 contempt.
15
16 it says, Misdemeanor of criminal contempt, a violation of
4
5
6
7
MR. COUGHLIN: I'll note on Page 3 at line 14
17 NRS 22.010.
18
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Which order are you referring
19 to, Mr. Coughlin?

20
MR. COUGHLIN: February 28th order. Page 3,
21 line 14.
22
MR. KING: I think it's Exhibit No. 4.
23
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Okay.
10
24 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
11
25
Q Judge, is NRS 22.010 a civil contempt statute?
12
149
13
14
15
16
MR. KING: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Coughlin, you can consult
3 the statutes. I don't have my books right in front of me.

4 NRS identifies in Chapter 22 contempt. And the Reno
17
5 Municipal Code has sections relating that or incorporating
18
6 those sections into the Reno Municipal Code.
19
20
8 direct contempt, and I held you in direct contempt, and
21
9 you went to jail for five days because of it.
22
23
24
25
26
Either way, what you did in front of me was
10 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
11
Q Is it permissible for a judge to call a civil
12 contempt statute a criminal contempt statute, vis-a-vis -13 this is 22.010, a civil contempt statute. And the law in
14 Nevada does have NRS 199 -- I believe it's 240 -- which is
15 the criminal contempt statute. Is it permissible for you
27
16 to cite to a -- easier to meet civil contempt statute, and
28
17 then recharacterize it as criminal contempt?

-
18
MR. KING: Objection.
19
THE WITNESS: Mr. Coughlin, I'm not going to
20 argue the law with you. You have the statutes there. You
4
5
6
7
21 can consult them yourself.

22 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
23
Q On Page 3 at line 4, sub .9 --
24
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Which exhibit, sir?
25
MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 4, your Honor.
8
9
150
10
1 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
11
12
3 response to direct questions posed by the court.
13
14
15
16
17
Q You wrote, defendant lying to the court in

What were the lies in your vague order that
5 lacks any specificity to support a summary contempt

6 finding, what were those lies that you failed to elucidate
7 in your order?
8
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, that question
9 is argumentative. Do you want to rephrase it?
18
10
19
11 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
20
12
21
13 "Defendant lying to the court in response to direct
22
14 questions"?
23
24
25
26
15
MR. COUGHLIN: Sure.

Q What were you referring to when you wrote,
A Well, it would be explained in the order
16 there. I don't remember everything at this time because I

17 don't have it in front of me. But I do believe that you
18 lied about or misrepresented that you were not recording,
19 because I believe you probably were. I don't know. I
27
20 believe you probably were.
28
21
At the same time there were things that you

-
22 and the prosecutor were arguing about with regard to
23 discovery. And she disagreed with you and said you were
24 lying to her about that. And there were other items that
25 you went back and forth about that appeared to me that you
5
6
7
151
1 were not totally honest about.
2
Q So when --
4 the record reflect that it's 12:18. I'll afford you two
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Excuse me. Mr. Coughlin, let
10
5 more minutes.
11
12
7 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
13
14
15
16
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, sir.

Q When you say, alternately you were probably
9 lying. And then you put in your order, "I find by clear
10 and convincing evidence that he lied," is that ambiguous
11 there? How do you reconcile that?
12
A How do I reconcile what?
17
13
Q The fact that your order says you find by
18
14 clear and convincing evidence?
19
15
20
16 clear and convincing evidence. I found by absolutely
21
17 convincing evidence that you were behaving improperly in
22
18 court, as you are now, apparently.
23
24
25
26
19
A Because that's what I wrote. I did find by
Q You're saying you found by clear and
20 convincing evidence that a licensed attorney lied to the

21 court. And then you characterize that as probably, well,
22 I kind of think he was. I think he was, because I know
23 some unattributed hearsay that I'm going to base it on.
27
24 I'm going to get the order I think is wrong about the
28
25 bathroom break. I'm not going to have a marshal sign an

-
152
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 affidavit. Then I'm going to remix a criminal contempt

2 statute with a summary contempt statute and pick and
3 choose and make it as retaliatory as I possibly can.
4 Isn't that a fair characterization of your approach as a
5 judge?
6
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Judge, you don't need to
7 answer that question. That was way out of line, and
8 extremely argumentative.
10
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
11
10
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Do you want to ask a
12
11 legitimate question, Mr. Coughlin?
13
12 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
14
15
16
13
Q What basis do you have to assert in your order
14 that defendant lying to the court in response to direct

15 questions posed by the court with regard to his recording
16 the proceedings?
17
17
18
18 have it in front of me, Mr. Coughlin. You have access to
19
19 the tapes and the opinion. And I stand by what I wrote,
20
20 and I stand by the proceedings that day.
21
21
22
22 in your testimony today and those materials when you
23
24
25
A The opinion is self-explanatory. I do not
Q But it's kind of hard to pick inconsistencies
23 refuse to testify now, isn't it?

24
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Argumentative, Mr. Coughlin.
25 You are not assisting yourself here.
26
153
27
28
2 question.
MR. COUGHLIN: I'm asking her. It's a

-
MR. ECHEVERRIA: No.
MR. COUGHLIN: Is that not true that she is
5 subverting the legal process by refusing to testify
4
5
6
7
6 instead of saying, well, read the order and read -- listen

7 to the recording, and therefore she is not subjecting
8 herself to putting forth any further inconsistencies.
9
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, the time for
10 argument is later, not now.
11
12 nonresponsive.
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. So I'm objecting. It's
10
13 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
11
14
12
15
13
16 Now it's 12:20. If you have anything further of
14
15
16
Q What was your basis -MR. ECHEVERRIA: That objection is overruled.
17 significance that's relevant to the issues in this case,

18 please ask that question, I'll allow you one more.
19 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
20
Q What was communicated to you during the
17
21 bathroom break, and by whom?
18
22
MR. KING: Asked and answered.
19
23
MR. ECHEVERRIA: I think you've asked that.
20
24
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't think she answered it.
21
25
MR. ECHEVERRIA: She did. Do you have another
22
154
23
24
25
26
1 question, Mr. Coughlin?

2
MR. COUGHLIN: Sure.
3 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
4
Q Did you or anyone with the Reno Municipal
27
5 Court transmit or otherwise deliver Judge Linda Gardner's
28
6 order for sanctions to the State Bar of Nevada?

-
8 what? You'll have to repeat the question.
4
5
6
7
A I'm sorry. I didn't hear all that. Did I

Q Did you or anybody with your court, the Reno
10 Municipal Court, transmit or otherwise deliver Judge Linda

11 Gardner's April 2009 order sanctioning me to the State Bar
12 of Nevada?
13
A I'm sorry. Deliver to whom?
14
MR. ECHEVERRIA: The State Bar, Judge.
15
THE WITNESS: Oh. After -- let me explain
16 quickly. My trial was my first experience in exposure to
10
17 Mr. Coughlin. After everything happened, and I held him
11
18 in contempt, then Judge Gardner told me that his sister,
12
19 Judge Gardner, has a life experience with Mr. Coughlin,
13
20 and he provided me a copy of her opinion from a couple
14
15
16
17
21 years earlier. And that may have been in the package I

22 forwarded to the court. I forwarded everything I could
23 possibly include that would show Mr. Coughlin's ability to
24 practice law. Including Mr. Coughlin's 200-page motion
25 that he faxed to the court.
18
155
19
20
21
2 12:22, and we'll excuse you. And we appreciate you taking
22
3 the time --
23
24
25
26
27
28
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Thank you, Judge. It's now
MR. COUGHLIN: Can I ask one more question
5 about the pending -6
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin --
MR. COUGHLIN: -- competency evaluation or --
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin.
MR. COUGHLIN: -- with the trial? It's a good
10 question.
-
11
12 question, and it's improper conduct.
13
4
5
6
7
MR. ECHEVERRIA: It's an interruptive

MR. COUGHLIN: You're not going to let her
14 answer that, huh? You are not going to make her answer
15 that?
16
MR. ECHEVERRIA: I'm sorry. I continue to
17 talk while you're trying to interrupt.

18
Judge, thank you for your testimony.
19
MR. COUGHLIN: She held a trial with a pending
20 competency evaluation in violation of law.
10
21
11
22 Mr. Coughlin.
12
23
MR. COUGHLIN: I just got it on the record.
13
24
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Thank you, Judge. We
14
MR. ECHEVERRIA: Quit interrupting,
25 appreciate you taking your time into the lunch hour.
15
16
156
1
THE WITNESS: Thank you. I'll hang up now.
17
MR. KING: Thank you, Judge.
18
MR. ECHEVERRIA: It's now 12:23. Mr. King, do
19
4 you have additional witnesses?
20
21
6 have two additional witnesses. I'm not certain that I
22
7 will be able to reach them, but Judge Howard and Judge
23
24
25
26
MR. KING: I have -- my understanding is I'll
8 Elliott.
9
MR. COUGHLIN: I'd like to call Judge Nash
10 Holmes in my case in chief and ask her why she persists in

11 holding trial if she was aware of a pending competency
12 order.
27
13
28
14 ask her those questions.
MR. ECHEVERRIA: You had the opportunity to

-
15
16 it to me.
17
MR. ECHEVERRIA: No, I gave you --
18
MR. COUGHLIN: You did another basis for an
4
5
6
7
MR. COUGHLIN: No, I didn't. You just refused
19 impartiality finding.
20
MR. ECHEVERRIA: I'm sorry. I have this
21 terrible habit of continually talking while you're trying

22 to --
23
24 question that would tend to implicate impropriety on the
10
MR. COUGHLIN: You're not letting me ask any
25 part of a judge.
11
157
12
13
14
MR. ECHEVERRIA: You can characterize the
2 rulings as you wish. I have made the rulings."
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Regardless, in both 1708 and 374, NRS 40.253 does not allow for the Washoe County Sheriff
to conduct evictions in the manner in which is currently does. Hill's filings claim that the
WCSO's procedures, by being the usual and customary practices of the WCSO, somehow
become black letter law in Nevada, even where a statutory remedy is in place, one that the
legislature worked hard on (despite RJC Judge Pearson, in 1048, ignoring AB226's minor
tenant's rights victory where it required the landlord to, under NRS 40.253(3)(a) identify the
court that has jurisdiction over the matter... and 3(b)(1)'s dctate that such notice advise the
tenant: (1)Of the tenants right to contest the matter by filing,... an affidavit with the
court that has jurisdiction over the matter..., in the face of the unauthorized practice of
law on behalf of out of state corporation no less, Northwinds Apartments Assoc., LLC of
Washington state.
NRS 40.253(6) provides...6.Upon the filing by the tenant of the affidavit permitted in
subsection 3, regardless of the information contained in the affidavit, and the filing by the
landlord of the affidavit permitted by subsection 5 (note, both in 1708 and 374, neither
landlord filed such a Landlord's Affidavit in a timely manner, and Merliss in 1708 never filed
one at all. If Baker and Hill want big boy attorney's fees, they should be required to get those
sorts of things right to justify such exorbinant fees, or even begin to), the justice court or the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
district court shall hold a hearing, after service of notice of the hearing upon the parties,
todetermine the truthfulness and sufficiency of any affidavit or notice (Baker continually
maintained that it was only Coughlin's Affidavit which was up for inspection, in violation of
RPC 3.1) provided for in this section. If the court determines that there is no legal defense
as to the alleged unlawful detainer and the tenant is guilty of an unlawful detainer, the
court may issue a summary order for removal of the tenant or an order providing for
the nonadmittance of the tenant.
So, really, especially in 1708, all the debate about the import and application of the
within 24 hours language is inapplicable anyways, as that phrase is only applicable to
a situation where the tenant does not file a Tenant's Answer in respose to a 5 day UD
Notice being posted.
NRS 40.253(5):.Upon noncompliance with the notice:
(a)The landlord or the landlords agent may apply by affidavit of complaint (note, there is
nothing in Ch. 40 that allows for a landlord's agent to draft pleadings or appear on
behalf of an out of state corporation, cross the bar, and practice law on its behalf, as
WNM's Sue Kign did in 074408 and 374, and as NCS's Jeff Chandler did in 1048) for
eviction to the justice court of the township in which the dwelling, apartment, mobile
home or commercial premises are located or to the district court of the county in which
the dwelling, apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located, whichever
has jurisdiction over the matter (in 374, RJC Judge Schroeder issued such an Order
prior to Kern even filing a Landlord's Answer). The court may thereupon issue an
order directing the sheriff or constable of the county to remove the tenant within 24
hours after receipt of the order.
But, again, where Coughlin did comply with the 5 day notice, in both 1048, 374, and 1708,
NRS 40.253(5) language is inapplicable (The court may thereupon issue an order
directing the sheriff or constable of the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours
after receipt of the order.) Rather, it is NRS 40.253(6)'s language that controls: If the
court determines that there is no legal defense as to the alleged unlawful detainer and
the tenant is guilty of an unlawful detainer, the court may issue a summary order for
removal of the tenant or an order providing for the nonadmittance of the tenant.
There being nothing thereing speaking to some within 24 hours dicate, the default
application in civil law requires that such an an Order be served under NRCP 6(e)
where personal service is not accorded, thus requiring 3 days for mailing. Further,
NRAP 8 and some 5 day stay suggested in Anvui, is arguably applicable. There is little
indication in Ch. 40 or elsehwhere to provide some explanation of just how and in what
manner such a summary order would be carried out and whether it would allow for
the approach taken by the WCSO in such situations. While NRS 40.253(3)(b)(2) does
contain the term summary order, the appearance therein of the within 24 hours
language, combined with the non-appearance of such within 24 hours language in
NRS 40.253(6), under traditional principles of statutory construction, actually augers
for an interpretation of subsection 6 that would require more time for a tenant than is
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
provided for under NRS 40.253(3)(b)(2):That if the court determines that the tenant
is guilty of an unlawful detainer, the court may issue a summary order for removal of
the tenant or an order providing for the nonadmittance of the tenant, directing the
sheriff or constable of the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the
order...
It seems rather implausible to suggest that the within 24 hours language is some
dictate to the Sheriff or constable requiring such lockouts be effectuated in some
narrow window of time. Rather, particularly given the primacy to individual's and
businesses inherent to their uses as residences of places of business (or, in 1708, as both)
it would seem entirely more likely, and reasonable, to conclude that the legislature
intended for the within 24 hours language to afford tenant's at least 24 hours from
the posting (if not the constructive receipt in the mail under NRCP 6(e) if no personal
service was to be had) of such a lock-out Order to remove those items they find
absolutely essential (see Coughlin's difficulties in 1048 where deprived of his
medications, eyeglasses, contacts, some important legal files, etc, not to mention the
RPC 3.5A violation attendant to the default on 7/5/12, especially where the RJC and
NCS's Chandler knew Coughlin was in jail incident to a 7/3/12 arrest stemming from
Northwind's handyman Kreb's falacious accusation of Coughlin disturbing the peace.
the court may issue a summary order for removal of the tenant
14
15
16
Also, the RJC may need to explain why it failed to file in fax filings by Coughlin where
it either did file in some by Hill and Baker in 1708 (or consider any failure to file any
10/13/11 Affidavit of Unlawful Detainer by landlord Merliss).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The SBN is likely resting upon some theory that the TPO and EPO granted it by RJC Judge
Pearson, which indicates that Coughlin may . First, the 1/4/13 EPO granted the SBN
indicates that Patrick Owen King, Esq., appeared at the Extension Hearing to represent the
SBN. As such, King, knowing he was extremely likely to be a witness in such an action, had
a duty to withdraw from representation, and therefore himself violated a RPC 1.16 requir he
so withdraw where his being a witness was a virtual certainty. Further, King's TPO
application rests almost entirely on unsworn hearsay, for which King makes no indication
with regard to from whom or how he became aware of such hearsay detailing such purported
facts. For instance, the magic of hearsay may allow a comment like its not fair that Bar
Counsel King gets all this ex parte face time with Panel Chair Echeverria that may have
been said to Dena Echeverria on the telephone to become, according to King, a statement by
Coughlin to Echeverria's staff that he was coming down to the Panel Chair's Office,
threatening to get some face time. Coughlin's 1996 Honda Accord's electrical problems (an
electrical short caused problems with Coughlin's headlights requiring a primitive workaround
requiring Coughlin to braids five elecrical wires together to turn his vehicle's headlights
on...something King alleges, through unattributed hearsay, was a case of Coughlin
malingering around the SBN's Northern Office after 5 pm flashing his headlights at the one
or two women whom were working late (because, one can be absolutely sure, Asst. Bar
Counsel King has never worked late a day in his life, and certainly not while employed by the
SBN, thanks to SCR 106, natch), in an attempt to frighten and harass them. Then there is the
curiosu allegation by King in his TPO application that Coughlin called the SBN ahead to
announce he would be there in fifteen minutes to file something. King somehow alleges that
is threatening behavior even where he subsequently indicates that he had sent Coughlin a
letter demanding that Coughlin do just that prior to appearing at the SBN for any reason,
including to file documents.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VIOLATIONS OF NRS 178.405 AND NRS 5.010 BY RENO CITY ATTORNEY AND
WASHOE COUNTY PROSECUTORS AND RMC AND WCPD COURT APPOINTED
DEFENDERS
September 8th, 2011 Order for Competency Evaluation by Judge Schroeder in RCR2011063341
September 9th, 2011: Coughlin arrested at Wal-Mart in RMC 11 CR 22176 for petty larceny
October 10th, 2011: Coughlin arraigned in RMC 11 CR 22176 for petty larceny charge
October 26th, 2011 (or a short time after depending upon entry of order) Judge Sferrazza
declares Coughlin competent in RCR2011-063341
February 27th, 2012: file stamped at 1:31pm in RCR2012-065630 Judge Clifton signs an
Order for Competency evaluation of Coughlin
-February 27th, 2012: despite being present at the "clandestine status conference" (Dogan's
client Coughlin was noticed, in writing, that it had been reset to March 29th, 2012) DDA
Young filed an Opposition to Motion to Continue Trial Date and Motion to Appoint CoCounsel on 2/27/12 at 2:55 pm in a companion case that he was also prosecuting, RCR2011DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT 375/394
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
063341 in violation of NRS 178.405. In her March 13th, 2012 grievance against Coughlin,
Judge Nash Holmes admits to communications in this regard between her and the Washoe
County Public Defender's Office. -February 27th, 2012: At 3:00 pm, despite the
communications she admits to with the WCPD, Judge Nash Holmes holds a trial where
Coughlin is forced to appear as an indigent criminal defendant proceeding with self
representation in 11 TR 26800, which is suspened upon Judge Nash Holmes finding
Coughlin in "summary criminal contempt" seconds after he testifies that RPD Sargetn Tarter
lied in connection with a retaliatory traffic citations incident to Tarter telling Coughlin to
leave the law office of Richard G. Hill, Esq. on November 15th, 2012 after Coughlin was
released from 3 days in jail incident to a criminal trespass custodial arrest upon Hill lying to
officers and signing a criminal complaint in 11 CR 26405 for criminal trespass on November
13th, 2012. Tarter ordered Coughlin to leave after Hill refused to give Coughlin his state
issued drivers license or identification, his hard drives/client's files, his keys, or his wallet.
-Judge Nash Holmes proceeds to file numerous Orders -March 5th, 2012: in RMC 11 CR
26405, the criminal trespass case from Coughlin's former home law office the Certified Copy
of Docket done by the Judicial Assistant, D2's Lisa Wagner, who couldn't quite seem to find
or remember the fact that Coughlin faxed in a Notice of Appeal on June 28th, 2012, and her
failure to docket that led to the dismissal of Coughlin's appeal in CR12-1262, despite
Coughlin having electronic confirmation of receipt of that fax delivering his Notice of
Appeal to the RMC and to City Attorney Hazlett-Stevens (whom coyly tries to assert he
didn't get it or the paper copy Coughlin personally delivered to the offices of the City
Attorney within the 10 days set forth in NRS 189.010) Trial date set for April 10, 2012 by
Court. -05 March 2012: Notice Of Appearace As Co-Counsel And Motion To Dismiss filed
defendant. 20 March 2012: Order #1 denying defendant's motion filed 13,February 2012
signed Judge William Gardner. RMC 11 CR 26405 -21 March 2012: Order #2 denying
defendant's motion filed 5, March 2012 signed by Judge William Gardner. RMC 11 CR
26405 -21 March 2012: Motion To Strike Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Complaint filed by
Deputy City Attorney Christopher Hazlett-Stevens. RMC 11 CR 26405 -10 April 2012:
Defendant appeared for trial with counsel Keith Loomis, Judge William Gardner
1/5
motions were heard. An Order Suspending Proceedings was signed. All proceedings
suspended until the question of competence is determined. Case Status Hearing scheduled for
8, May 2012. RMC 11 CR 26405. See attached emails demonstrating the knowledge of and
complicity between the Washoe County Public Defenders, the court appointed Reno
Municipal Court defenders, the City of Reno Prosecutors, Washoe County District Attorney's
Office, RMC, RJC, and both court's filing office's staff and administrators respecting the
existence of these Orders for Competency Evaluation and the brazen violation of NRS
178.405 and NRs 5.010 by these individuals. Further, on
-April 19th, 2012, DDA Young again violated NRS 178.405 where he moved to have
Coughlin remanded to custody (whereupon Coughlin could again have his medication
suddenly withheld from him, all while RMC Judge Nash Holmes seeks to leverage jail staff
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to get Coughlin to sign some waiver of his medical records privacy rights and where WCPD
Biray Dogan announces confidential HIPAA protected medical information relating to his
client Coughlin into the public record, in front of 40 members of the public gathered in D10,
a transgression which WCPD Jeremy Bosler later refused to seek to ameliorate or strike from
the record in any manner whatsoever).
-May 7th, 2012 (the day Coughlin's Opposition to Hill and Baker's 4/19/12
impermissible Post-Judgment Attorney Fee Sanctions Motion in CV11-03628 (no 21
day filing ready safe harbor motion served either, much like the approach by
Springgate approved of by Judge L. Gardner incident to here 4/13/09 Order After Trial
in DV08-01168, which became the third grievance against Coughlin underpinning the
appeal in 62337 of the Recommendation to permanently disbar him...so, just who is it
who is asserting non-meritorious contentions?). Further, Judge Flanagan's 8/28/12
Order in CV11-03628 makes clear that his 6/25/12 Order awarding landlord Merliss
(incident to Hill and Baker's attorney fee sanction motion) was only entered in view of
Judge Flanagan's opinion that Coughlin failed to oppose their 4/19/12 Motion for
Attorney Fee's Sanctions in light of DCR 13(3). Apparently the Washoe County jail
ripping Coughlin of psychotropic medications and refusing him any ability to file court
documents, paper, envelopes, or even make phone calls did not provide "good cause"
for reconsidering that monumental fee award. Coughlin, or those attorney's seeking
sanctions under NRS 7.085 without complying with the dictates of NRCP 11? in RCR2011063341 WCPD Goodnight and DDA Young violate NRS 178.405 by attempting TO HOLD
A TRIAL in that matter during the pendency of an Order for Competency directored towards
Goodnight's client, Coughlin. Goodnight manages to jam Coughlin into an ill-advised Mental
Health Court sign-up in MH12-0032, which ends badly when the MHC's Reno Biondo
commits fraud in asserting that Coughlin was removed from the MHC for "failing to
following MHC policies" similar to the arguments put forth by Sharon Dollarhide, despite the
MHC, and perhaps Goodnight too, having given Coughlin a list of medications it prohibits,
and a contract for entry into the MCH, after having informed Coughlin he was accepted into
the MCH upon entering the contract. The MCH subsequently threatened Coughlin with
incarceration for taking a medication is only after the fact objected to, then, upon having the
bargained for consieration, offer and acceptance pointed out to it, the MCH lied and
disparaged Coughlin to the RJC and others, causing Coughlin reputational damage, and
Coughlin's case was remanded to the RJC at a later date. During this period of time, D10
Judge Elliot forced Coughlin back into custody at the WCDC, where Coughlin has been
denied his medication every single one of his 10 trips to jail this year, with no titration down
of dosing whatsoever, even where Coughlin was willing and able to arrange for delivery of
the medication at his own expense, etc.
-08 May 2012: Case Status hearing held before Judge William Gardner. Present on behalf of
the City was Deputy City Attorney Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, for the defense Keith
Loomis and defendant Zachary Coughlin. Defendant was found to be competent. Defendant's
motion to remove Keith Loomis as counsel granted. Trial date set by the court for June
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18,2012. RMC 11 CR 26405. Strangely, despite Coughlin still being subject to an as yet to be
ruled upon Order For Competency evaluation and despite Coughlin having just the previous
day been accepted into Mental Health Court and the RJC case RCR2011-063341 transferred
there, RMC Judge William Gardner jammed Coughlin both into proceeding without the Sixth
Amendment Right To Counsel and into some trial setting, even though NRS 178.405 and
NRS 5.010 forbids it, and even though Judge Gardner admitted to being aware of Judge Nash
Holmes, his fellow RMC Judge, seeking to have Coughlin's law license taken away based
upon a SCR 117 Disability Petition (Judge Nash Holmes, in her March 14th, 2012
letter/grievance to the State Bar of Nevada, wherein she purports to speak for Judge William
Gardner and managed to pass on to the SBN the April 2009 Order For Sanctions by Judge
William Gardner's sister Family Court Judge Linda Gardner, that Judge William Gardner
passed to Judge Nash Holmes after receiving from his sister sometime in
2/5
the first quarter of 2012). Incidentally, Coughlin was previously a domestic violence attorney
at Washoe Legal Services until Family Court Judge Linda Gardner's April 2009 Order
sanctioning Coughlin $1,000 personally for the arguments he made in representing a
domestic violence victim in a divorce trial were cited by WLS Executive Director Paul
Elcano as the "sole reason" for Coughlin being fired. Coughlin filed a Petition for Writ of
Mandamus in respone to that Order with the Nevada Supreme Court in 54844. Coughlin filed
a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal for insufficient service of process of his wrongful
termination case against Washoe Legal Services on February 27th, 2012, and that matter is
currently on appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court in 60302. Oh, and Reno City Attorney
John Kadlic is a patient of Zach Coughlin's father, Dr. Timothy Coughlin, and the City of
Reno and or the RPD have sought to pressure Coughlin's parents into having him
"committed", despite the fact that the numerous (about 8-10 ish) wrongful arrests Coughlin
has been subjected to this year (most of which violate Soldal v. Cook County and have been
captured on video tape, amazingly) all kind of give Mr. Kadlic a bit motivation to quiet and
or discredit Coughlin (and and arrest on June 28th, 2012 by the WCSO and various instances
this year where fraudulent Affidavits of Service by the WCSO have been involved in arrests
of Coughlin give the WCDA Office its own motivations).
Given that this trial setting and denial of Coughlin's Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
occurred during the pendency of an Order for Competency Evaluation of Coughlin that the
RMC, Judge William Gardner, court appointed defender Keith Loomis, Esq. and City
Attorney's Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, Esq. were well aware of, the following are void: O5
June 2012: Notice Of Appearance As Counsel ; Motion To Dismiss; Motion To Suppress;
Motion For A Continuance Of Trial And Transfer To Mental Health Court filed by
defendant. 18 June 2012: Defendant appeared for trial pro-per, Judge William Gardner
motions were heard. Motion to Continue filed by defendant denied. Motion to Dismiss filed
by defendant denied. Motion to Suppress denied. Motion to Recuse denied. Motion to
Transfer to Mental Health Court denied. Case tried on its merits and the Defendant was found
guilty of the charge of Trespass, a violation of R.M.C 08.10.010. .."'Y25'2012 The Defendant
was sentenced as follows: Trespass, a violation of R.M.C 08.10.0 10. : Time Served (3 days
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
at usual $100 a day, and a $310.00 fine for a total of $610 raked in by the RMC on a first
offense trespass charge where typically the fine is $305. Also, Richard G. Hill, Esq. lied
under oath at that June 18th, 2012 criminal trespass Trial where he testified that the RPD
identified themselves as law enforcement and issued a lawful order or warning for Coughlin
to leave the premises prior to the landlord kicking down a door to a quasi "basement" under
the former law office. The videos of the arrest filmed by Hill demonstrate that Coughlin was
never given an opportunity to heed any warning to leave given that day prior to a custodial
arrest being effectuated, contrary to the Supplemental Declaration by RPD Officer Chris
Carter, Jr. RPD Sargent Marcia Lopez subsequently admitted that the RPD neither identified
themselves as law enforcement nor issued a lawful order to emerge from the basement prior
to landlord Merliss kicking down the basement door on November 13th, 2012. WCSO Civil
Supervisor Liz Stuchell has admitted in an email to Coughlin that Deputy Machen's
November 7th, 2011 Affidavit of Service swearing to have "personally served" the RJC
REV2011-001708 Summary Eviction Order on November 1st, 2011 was "incorrect" in that
to Machen "personally served" means "posting it to the door when no one is home. However,
given NRS 40.400 makes applicable NRCP 5(b)(2) and 6(e) to summary evictions (even
those that are noticed by the RJC, in writing, as a "Trial" and even where, at the October
13th, 2011 "summary eviction proceeding" the RJC ruled that Coughlin "had met his burden
of establishing there is a genuine issue of material fact concerning his retaliatory eviction
defense" and the matter was then "set for trial on October 25th, 2011 provided Coughlin
deposits $2,275 into the court's rent escrow account", all of which violates JCRCP Rule 109
and NRS
3/5
40.253(6)) the lockout Deputy Machen oversaw on November 1st, 2011 was based upon a
void Eviction Order and Decision of October 25th, 2011 and an October 27th, 2011 Findings
of Fact...that Hill's associate Baker testified as to having apparently provided receipt thereof
to the WCSO on October 28th, 2011, and which RJC Chief Civil Clerk Karen Stancil
indicates were transmitted to the WCSO via fax according to the usual custom and practice of
the RJC...meaning, the WCSO failed to effectuate a lockout "within 24 hours" of "receipt" of
either of those Orders...meaning Hill and Merliss were trespassing on November 13th, 2011,
not Coughlin, and they brought the RPD along for the ride, whereupon the RPD effected a
wrongful arrest (based upon lies by neurologist Merliss and his attorney Hill to the effect that
they warned Coughlin to leave that day prior to the RPD showing up, which is clearly show
to be false by the videos filmed by Hill and Merliss themselves and Hill's subsequent
testimony at the June 18th, 2012 criminal trespass trial in 11 CR 26405).
May 9th, 2012: Order finding Coughlin competent in CR12-0376, by Judge Elliot of
Department 10 resolving the February 27th, 2012 Order for Competency Evaluation signed
by RJC Judge Clifton and file stamped at 1:31 pm on that date.
September 5th, 2012: Order for Competency Evaluation of Coughlin by Judge Sferrazza in
RCR2011-063341
October 2, 2012: WCPD Leslie and Dogan and DDA Young violate NRS 178.405 by
swapping the October 15th, 2012 Trial continuation/Competency Hearing Date in RCR2011063341 with RCR2012065630, and setting/stipulating to a new hearing on October 22nd,
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2012, and resetting the Trial date to November 19th, 2012, but not before attempting to cram
RCR2012-067980 onto the calendar with RCR2012-063341 for October 22nd, 2012 (and
Leslie and Dogan lied to Coughlin about whether "mandatory status conference" was held on
August 6th, 2012 in RCR2012-065630, and RCR2012067980, the latter at which Leslie set a
Trial date of September 18th, 2012 despite his legal assistant Linda Gray admitting to
Coughlin that Coughlin was provided no notice whatsoever of the August 6th, 2012 hearing
date in those cases. Also, Dogan and Leslie again violated NRS 178.405 on October 2nd,
2012 where tehy reset for October 30th, 2012 a Motion Hearing on DDA Young's
impermissible Motion to Amend the Complaint in RCR2012-065630 (six months after the
arrest, no specific facts pled in either to support either charge, really). Further, Dogan failed
to alert Coughlin in any way to the fact that, in his July 31st, 2012 Motion to Amend
Criminal Complaint, DDA Young attempted to, in violation of RPC 3.8, amend the "misue of
emergency services" charge (where Coughlin is accused of using 911 to report police
misconduct) to a charge that would provide the District Attorney more leverage against
Coughlin, a retaliatory prosecution, for a crime that would damage Coughlin's law license
given the import of SCR 111(6), despite DDA Young lacking probable cause to so amend his
charge. Dogan and Young previously conspired to retaliate against Coughlin incident to their
"clandestine status conference" of February 27th, 2012, which just so happened to be the date
that Coughlin filed a Notice of Appeal in his case against Washoe Legal Services 60302 and
the date that Judge William Gardner transferred jurisdiction from RMC D1 Judge Dilworth to
RMC D3 Judge Nash Holmes in 12 CR 000696, a case where Coughlin was subject to a
custodial arrest for jaywalkign on January 12th, 2012 incident to Coughli's peacefully filming
Richard G. Hill, Esq.'s contractor's crew from a public sidewalk, disposing of property left at
Coughlin's former home law office due to Hill locking a gate thereto during the time
Coughlin was afforded to remove such property and where Hill had boarded up on of the
entrances to the property as well, in addition to remove the only ladder to the
4/5
upstairs attic/storage space at the property. On February 27th, 2012 in 11 TR 26800 Judge
Nash Holmes told Coughlin she would have him thrown in jail if he mentioned Richard G.
Hill's name one more time. On January 31st, 2012, at an extension hearing on the TPO
Richard Hill received against Coughlinf or Coughlin's alleged jaywalking on January 12th,
2012, RJC Judge Schroeder roared at Coughlin "do you want to go to jail!" when Coughlin
broached the subject of Hill's abuse of process. Judge Schroeder is listed in the RJC docket as
presiding over the February 27th, 2012 "clandestine status conference" that ultimately
resulted in Judge Clifton signing the Order for Competency Evaluation. It is unclear if any
actual hearing before a judge even took place that day, however.
5/5
Local judges seem to dutifully report some far flung applications alleged violations of SCR's
related to the media and reporters vis a vis hunches they have about whether an attorney is
recording the proceeding (which is in the public record) or has "recording devices" in his
pocket, yet violations of NRS 178.405 seem to receive scant application of Canon 2.15.
Zach has 76 files to share with you on SkyDrive. To view them, click the links below.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 4 12 0204 1708 03628 Appeal Receipt tiff and Supplemental Justice Court
Proceedings.pdf
12 21 11 1708 03628 Order Resolving Contest Property Lien NO
NUMBERS.pdf
3 30 12 0204 03628 Order Denying Coughlin's Appeal of Summary Eviction
Order.pdf
10 13 10 transcript of Motion to Stay execution of summary eviction order
Venetian v Two Roads compare to 60331 0204.pdf
8 23 12 0204 Complaint SBN v Coughlin stamped bf.pdf
11 14 12 0204 Transcript of Hearing with Index 170008ch-Full.pdf
12 14 12 stamped 0204 Order by Chair Echeverria Findings of Fact Conclusion
of Law seeking to disbar Coughlin bz no line numbers.pdf
10 17 11 emergency motion to stay summary eviction 1708 etc. 60331 AND
61383 COUGHLIN V MERLISS 26406 1708 26800 0204.pdf
10 17 12 Coughlin's Emergenc Motion commercial tenant no cause forbidden
0204 1708 60331 61383 0204-3.pdf
10 18 11 0204 1708 marked received by RJC Dreme Smith Coughlin's NOtice of
Appeal of 10 13 11 Sferrazza Order after summary eviction hearing 03628
divests RJC jurisdiction.pdf
10 18 11 Notice of Appeal divesting RJC of jurisdiction CV11-03628 ENTIRE
EFLEX COMBINED FOR APPENDIX IN 60331 AND 61383 COUGHLIN V
MERLISS 26406 1708 26800 NG12-0204 BF.pdf
10 19 11 baker letter to clifton emergency inspection with 10 20 11 sferrazza
note order have p draft order will isgn it 1708 0204.pdf
10 19 11 Justice Court Civil Appeal cv11-03051 couglhin v merliss 1708 0204
.pdf
10 26 11 0204 03051 1708 03528 Purdy marked as received by M. Purdy Mtn
and Affid proceed on appeal IFP Merliss v Coughlin eviction.pdf
10 27 11 to 11 2 11 Motion to Stay CV11-03051 03126 1708 emails to eflex
purdee 26405 60331 purdee.pdf
10 27 12 emails on 03051 emergency appeal maybe a motion for stay 1708
26405 03126 conyers orduna wdc 0204 purdy.pdf
10 27 12 emails on 03051 emergency appeal maybe a motion for stay 1708
26405.pdf
10 28 11 1048 am email to Purdy mpurdy@washoecourts.us 03051 appeal
motion for stay compare 03126 0204 60331 61383.pdf
10 28 11 1054pm email to eflex and courtadmin@washoecourts.us 03051 03126
0204 10 PAGES.pdf
10 28 11 03126 motion and affidavit for ifp attached to from 10 26 11 civil suit
merliss marked as received by M. Purdy Mtn and Affid proceed on appeal IFP
Merliss v Coughlin eviction.pdf
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Download
all
Also, as to the summarily denied applciations for TPO's by Coughlin (one on 2/10/12
or thereabouts against RJC Bailiff Reyes, transferred to Sparks Justice Court (which begs the
question why 12-599 Washoe County v Coughlin was not transferred to SJC, or to a Court
outside Washoe County) and the two different TPO's Coughlin requested against Leslie (in,
in Court on 8/29/12 in 11-063341 to which Judge Sferrazza angrily rebuked Coughlin) and
another, filed stamped 12/18/12 an hour before the TPO Application for Leslie by DDA
Watts of 12/18/12, in 12-598, which Judge Schroeder summarily denied (odd that Judge
Pearson rules on 12-599, while Judge Schroeder rules on 12-598, where such applications
where filed within an hour of each other).
Leslie has often threatened Coughlin with abuse of process, in violation of his duty to
his then client Coughlin, sometimes in an attempt to dissuade Coughlin from seeking to
introduced exculpatory video evidence in 11-063341 (often in conjunction with Leslie
attempting to deprive Coughlin of his involable Fifth Amendment Right to decide whether or
not to testify, take a plea, subpoena witnesses, etc.). This questionable practice by Leslie also
included Leslie telling Coughlin Judge Sferrazza would punish Couglhin for pointing out
apparent RPD misconduct in 11-063341 on 8/29/12 during the Supression Motion Hearing,
and in the following emails:
RE: Jim Leslie is a scrappy dude RE: Coughlin
From:Leslie, Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us) This sender is in your safe
list.
Sent: Fri 12/14/12 9:45 AM
To: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Mr. Coughlin:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
A hearing has been set for Tuesday December 18, 2013, at 8:30 am in
Reno Justice Court, at which we will ask to be relieved as counsel in the
remaining case you have with this office, RCR12-067980, based on,
among other things, (1) your prior expressed desire to represent yourself
and (2) your email to myself and several other recipients, including state
bar attorneys, which contains an express or implied threat of violence.
If you fail to appear at the hearing, the relief will be requested in your
absence upon the grounds stated above. If you choose to agree to selfrepresentation without argument, the second above-noted reason may
or may not rise to the point of discussion, although I would note that
the email you sent with the express or implied threat was disseminated
by you to several recipients including representatives of the Nevada
State Bar, thereby breaching confidentiality by your own action.
28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pending the hearing, there is no reason for us to meet in person or

communicate by any means. Any communications from you pending
the hearing will be deemed to be made in waiver of attorney-client
privilege and are subject to forwarding to the Nevada State Bar and/or
law enforcement as appropriate pursuant to Nevada Rule of
Professional Conduct 1.6(c).
James B. Leslie, Esq., Chief Deputy Public Defender
Consider also, as attached in Ex 1 to the TPO application of 12/18/12 in
12-599:
From:
Leslie, Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us) This sender is in
your safe list. Sent:
Wed 12/12/12 4:22 PM To:
'zachcoughlin@hotmail.com' (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Mr.
Coughlin: Based on your behavior at our offices on several past
occasions, including today where we had to call the police due to
you engaging in behavior constituting disturbing the peace, you
are hereby directed NOT to come to our offices without first having
confirmed in writing an appointment with your assigned attorney. If
you violate this email notification, we will contact law enforcement.
James B. Leslie, Esq. Chief Deputy Public Defender
Download as zip
911 Case Leslie, Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us)12/07/12 To:
'zachcoughlin@hotmail.com' Cc: Dogan, Biray From:
Leslie,
Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us) This sender is in your safe list. Sent:
Fri 12/07/12 9:18 AM To: 'zachcoughlin@hotmail.com'
(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) Cc:Dogan, Biray
(BDogan@washoecounty.us) Outlook Active View 1 attachment (2.2
MB) Coughlin Discovery 911 Case.pdfDownload Download as zip
Mr. Coughlin: Attached are the discovery materials in the abovereferenced case that you had requested and we had made an
additional copy of for you in response to your request. Please note
that the July 27, 2012, cover letter was for your pick up and you
never picked it up. Note also that the July 27, 2012, packet encloses a
copy of the April 17, 2012, hand delivery transmittal of the very
same documents which you received. Since we have been removed
from the 911 case, we are closing our file. The attached materials
were sitting at our front desk. Since you failed to retrieve them, we
provide the attached courtesy copy before final closure of our file. No
response to this transmittal is required from you. James B. Leslie,
Esq. Chief Deputy Public Defender
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
It is quite obvious that Washoe County put a Chief Deputy Public Defender on three
of Coughlin's misdemeanor case to limit potential County liability rather than actually
defend Coughlin. Coughlin has never been provide a reason for Goodnight being
suddenly taken off his case minutes before the 7/16/12 trial in 11-063341. Further, the
hearing in 12-067980 was not properly noticed, Coughlin's showing up to it fails to excuse
that fact, Coughlin did not waive his rights as to those insufficiencies, but rather asserted
them, and therefore Leslie should not have been granted an Order allowign his Withdrawal
(which he attempted to coerce a consent to from Coughlin, and all of this is rather supsect
considering the timing....the County gets to force Coughlin to self represent after the
WCPD sabotaged his case in 11-063341 and 12-065630 just as much as it possibly could,
and only then, on 12/18/12 in an unnoticed (no 10 days to responde for Coughlin, and
WCDA DDA Young wasn't even there) hearing before, again, Judge Clifton, Leslie is
permitted to withdraw...very similar to Clifton, on 11/20/12, just before a short hearing in
12-065630, while Coughlin was viewing Leslie testify in some ineffective assistance of
counsel dmage to former client's immigration status hearing also before Judge
clifton...Judge Clifton actually said that he found Leslie's initial lack of certainty during his
initial testimony as to whether he informed his client of the sentencing enhancement
consequences of her charge prior to her entering a plea agreement stemming from United
States v. Lopez-Pastrana, 244 F.3d 1025, 1027 (9th Cir.2001), combined with Leslie's
suddenly becoming more certain that he did, in fact so warn his former client thereof upon
it becoming more obvious the malpractice possibilities attendant to his failing to do so, as
a basis for finding Leslie's testimony to be more credible than his former client's, rather
than providing an inference that Leslie's sudden remebering that he so warned his client of
the immigration consequences to be rather suspect given the obvious self protection utliity
inherent to his doing so.
In fact, upon being removed as counsel in 11-063341, Leslie apparently attempted to
hide from Coughlin the fact that the ECOMM recordings between the RPD and ECOMM
dispatch actually revealed a failure to propound Brady material and failure to appropriately
responde to Goodngiths 12/19/11 discovery requests for such records (RPD Harriet
Truman's written response failed to address ECOMM recordings of what dispatch told the
RPD, which becamse of salient relevant in 11-063341, and ultimately showed that RPD
Duralde's and DDA Young argument and testimony as to the reports from dispatch of a
possible fight allegedly received by Duralde and his two fellow officers that night (such
reports were not received by the RPD as the officer were out of their vehicels and on
scened at the time the one text Ecomm log was sent to their in car screens only) were not
known to Duralde et al, and therefore, a fraudulent assertions of knowledge thereof was
made to buttress the reasonable suspicion and probable cause analysis integral to the
State's prosecution therein. Leslie subpoened ECOMM's Kelley Wood on 10/3/12 for
such recordings, and more than the 15 days by which she was required to respond passed
before Leslie was granted his withdrawal on 10/22/12, however, Leslie persisted, as
evinced in the email below, in refusing to turn over the ECOMM dispatch to and from
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
RPD recordings required to be produced by such subpoena. Leslie continuously revealed

a vindictive, self interested streak a mile long in his dealings with Coughlin.
RE: Kelly Odom/ECOMM subpoena duces tecum, please email materials produced and
other materials? Leslie, Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us) 11/01/12 To: Zach Coughlin
From:
Leslie, Jim (Jleslie@washoecounty.us)
Sent: Thu 11/01/12 12:00 PM To:
Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Mr. Coughlin: As indicated in the transmittal I sent with the PDF attachments, I attached
the written documentation in PDF format. Thats your digital transmittal. The other
materials are disks and color photographs in tangible form. James B. Leslie, Esq.
None of the discs Leslie ultimately turned over contained any ECOMM recordings
beyond the 911 calls (ie, none of the recordings between the RPD and dispatch/ECOMM
that would reveal one way or another when and what the RPD was informed of in
responding to the scene on 8/20/11 incident to Coughlin's defense in 11-063341). It was
only upon the State turning over such recordings (way too late in the game to avoid
prejudicing Coughlin's defense, where such was turned over by the WCDA's Office on
11/5/12 (RCA Skau turned over some recording that contained material ommission on
11/13/12...and see the impermissible, insufficieny notices, perhaps fraudulent assert of
Skau's incident to the 11/8/12 ex part hearin in 11-063341 and Judge Sferrazza'a 11/8/12
TRO (to be fair to Skau, Judge Sferrazza's 11/8/12 Order does seem to allow for service on
Coughlin by email of a motion to contest to sufficiency of Coughlin's own service of
subpoenas....though Judge Sferrazza, on 11/19/12 rejected any assertion that he had made
such an order allowing emailed service upon Couglin...but pointed out that it was a good
thing Coughlin had shown up anyways to the 11/13/12 hearing, as Judge Sferrazza would
have ruled against Coughlin without Coughlin's having had an opportunity to be heard had
he not shown up, in an echo to Judge Clifton's but your're here! argument upon Coughlin
pointing out the insufficiency of notice as to Leslie's Emergency Motion to Withdrawal as
counsel on 12/18/12 in 12-065630 (which, by the way failed to addres the Motion
Coughlin filed therein, unopposed by either Leslie or DDA Young, on 12/3/12, which
should under DCR 13(3) and or Polk v. State result in a dismissal of 12-067980 as well.
Leslie's coercive threats of abuse of process to Coughlin is further
evinced in the following, which provides support for Coughlin's own
application for a TPO against Leslie:
24
25
26
27
28
From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 3:14 AM
To: Leslie,
Jim; davidc@nvbar.org; patrickk@nvbar.org; fflaherty@dlpfd.com; c
omplaints@nvbar.org
Subject: RE: Coughlin: Petit Larceny case -- Hand-Off Transmittal
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jim, I will give you an opportunity to retract or fully explain your

statement in your last correspondence to me, wherein you wrote:
"Given your past statements to me, I believe I should also warn you
of the possibility of applicability of Nevada Rule of Professional
Conduct 3.3. In that regard, please recall that during a meeting
between you and I in one of the interview rooms at Reno Justice
Court during trial on 9/5/12, you suggested to me that I alter the
video recording of your interaction with the police officers in the
petit larceny case. I told you I cannot do that. You became irate and
argumentative and asked why I could not do it, and I told you it
would be unethical. I raise this issue in this email transmittal to
reiterate what I have had to tell you more than once in this case, that
is, I cannot and will not assist you in alteration of evidence or other
commission or attempted commission of fraud upon the court.
Should I observe you attempting to do so during the resumed trial,
currently set for November 19, 2012, as noted above, I believe I
would be required under Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 to
advise the Court." I don't know what is funnier, Jim, the accusation
that I would somehow view you as tech savvy enough to whip up
some video editing on the spot with "the county laptop" which "takes
a little while to boot up", or the suggestion that I would be stupid and
reckless enough to attempt to encourage you to commit some vague
misconduct, you whom I cannot stand and whom clearly wants
nothing but the worst for me. Sure, Jim, sure. I get it Jim, you have
had a chance to read the Memorandum I submitted, which
painstakingly dissects your misconduct, and you are panicking, doing
damage control, reverting to your tried and true threatening of your
indigent criminal client's routine....next, you will attempt to have a
bailiff lean on your client with some intimidation tactics, probably
have him threaten to "put my foot up your ass" as you did with Bailiff
Reyes on October 8th, 2011 at the RJC. I consider your above
writing to be an inappropriate threat, and beyond inaccurate. Jim, if
there was a transcript of these conversations you refer to, and one
compared them to your above statements, would your conduct be
ethical or even legal? By "alter", what exactly do you mean, Jim?
Are you referring to the "10 minute break" where you need to "boot
up the county laptop" 10 minutes before lunch, which Judge
Sferrazza granted you so you could "do some trial prep" (mid-way
through the trial, whereupon you were going to view, for the first
time, apparently, the video of the arrest, especially given your early
foul ups on the record wherein you failed to recognize the difference
between the extortionate threats made by Officer Rosa from those
made by Officer Duralde...then, during that "10 minute break" you
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
proceed to do something other than what you told Judge Sferrazza the
break was for...instead of reviewing the exculpatory video, you talked
to the State Bar of Nevada on the phone and received confidential
information related to Keith Loomis's representation or lack thereof
of myself...I asked you whether you had any authority for your
position that the videos of the arrest, and other investigatory videos I
capture had to be submitted or presented to the court in their entirety
(some of the videos are quite long...you wouldn't know Jim, because
you have not viewed them....). You, of course, because you never
have any citation for anything, instead proceeded to attempt to make
some lame threat accusing me of some gibberish, in that classic Jim
Leslie, CYA, faux sincere, hyperpretentious delivery of yours that is
so very grating.... Don't have time to go into all the
misrepresentations you make in your email below. Jim, why don't
you just email me the dispatch tapes, you know, as that is a very
material issue in this matter. This is especially true where the RPD
and DDA Young have seemingly come up with this "dispatch
reported to the officers a possible fight" despite the fact that the
dispatch logs mention only a "disturbance" at first, then Further,
Duralde's Supplemental Declaration (the one he filed the day after the
arrest, not the Narrative he filed 3 months later when the RPD found
out the arrest had been captured on tape by Coughlin...its a great
video, Jim, you should watch it sometime....): "report of a larceny of
a cell phone at that location. Dispatch relayed information that the
victim had set his phone down and that he was now calling the phone
and It was lighting up In the suspecfs pocket. The suspect was
described as a white male adult, 35 years of age, 6'02",210 Iba,
wearing a red Chicago hat and a white or yellow shirt and plaid
shorts. Dispatch also relayed that the suspect was still on scene."
Then, on page two of DDA Young Opposition to the Motion to
Suppress (the one where you guys failed to preserve arguments
related to the impermissiblity of a search incident to arrest based
upon what remained of the facts should your suppression motion be
granted as it related to the pat-down alone), DDA Young seems to
come out of nowhere with this "report of a possible fight" stuff,
which, conveniently, really helps in the whole "need for articulable
facts supporting a reasonable suspicion/pat down or probable
cause/search incident to arrest analysis...On page 5 of his Opposition,
DDA Young drives the point home: "In the instant case, the pat-down
search of the Defendant was proper under the totality of the
circumstances. 3 Prior to arriving, Officer Duralde learned that the
scene involved a loud disturbance with possible fight, thereby
immediately raising the concern of weapons and the safety of all
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
those present . This is just one factor for this Court to consider. Upon
contacting the Defendant, he became uncooperative and challenged
Officer Duralde that there was not enough information for a
detention. This is just one factor for this Court to consider. Upon
contacting the Defendant, he became uncooperative and challenged
Officer Duralde that there was not enough information for a detention
. Thereafter , in response to Officer Duralde's inquiry whether the
Defendant had Mr. Goble's phone, the Defendant asked if he had the
right not to answer the question. While the Defendant arguably can
choose not to answer such a question, this response, along with his
general attitude, demeanor, and reaction, certainly can be considered
by this Court when addressing the reasonableness of Officer Duralde
1s concern for his and others l safety . It is important to note that
there were multiple people on 2 scene, any of which could be
subjected to injury or death if the 3 Defendant had a weapon . Upon
arrival , the Defendant and a group of 4 people (including Mr. Goble)
were on scene, and with the allegation that the Defendant had stolen a
phone belonging to a person of said 6 group, emotions were high and
a physical fight could have erupted. Again, such factors should be
considered by this Court when 8 determining the reasonableness of
the pat-down search." But where is the support for this "a possible
fight" suggestion? Its not in the discovery produced to me. So, how
about those dispatch tapes, huh, Jim. Kelly Odom? Please email
them to me, I don't want you trying to jam me up so close to trial with
some non-sense about how some blank or scratched cd you gave me
was the "only copy" your office had. I know you well, Jim. So,
seeing as how you finally served a subpoena duces tecum on Kelly
Odom/Ecomm/ 911 dispatchers, so we can finally hear the dispatch
tapes, and see if any "possible fight" was mentioned, why don't you
go ahead and email me those audio files (and audio files are
mercifully small compared to video files, Jim, yet I have managed to
send you reams of video files via email...). Also, I need the audio of
the aborted Trial in this matter that was held on May 7th, 2012
(despite the fact that Judge Elliot did not sign the Order finding
Coughlin Competent, and therefore ending the period in which "all
proceedings must be stayed" required by NRS 178.405, until two
days later, on May 9th, 2012. So you guys were going to jam me into
a Trial while there was a pending Order for Competency Evaluation,
just days after my getting out of jail, where my medication was
wrongfully withheld from me (and some medications should not be
ceased or started to abruptly), where I spent 8 days due to the lies of
the Lakes Crossing evaluators and the misconduct and malpratice of
your protege, Biray Dogan, whom proceeded to read my confidential
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
medical information into the open, public record, in front of 40 or so

members of the public....a transgression which Mr. Bosler saw no
need to attempt to have stricken or corrected. BUT TO ME
CLEAR, JIM...I know Goodnight orderd a copy of the May 7th, 2012
aborted Trial, that occurred during the pendency of an Order for
Competency Evaluation. I do not have a copy of that JAVS audio,
nor do I have a copy of my arraignment in rcr2011-063341. You
guys don't even get billed for these and yet you have denied them to
me, until you got wind of the fact that I went and got my own, then
you come up with you faux offers to provide me copies....Very
clever. Jim, the RJC severely limits my access to the files, so you are
not entitled to make any assumptions that alleviate your duty to
provide me copies of filings, access to my file, etc. Further, I see that
Linda Gray filed a request for the audio of the October 22nd, 2012
Hearing, and I want a copy of it, so please email it to me, and
also provide a hard copy. Its not rocket science copying a CD, Jim,
and it doesn't take ages, either. You remember the October 22nd,
2012 Hearing, right, Jim...the one where you can be heard on the
record telling me "you are going to fail" and "your're disintegrating"
and making more of your threats about how I attempt to advocate on
my own behalf the Judge will put me in jail, etc.,etc.? Yeah, I need a
copy of the copy your office got of that hearing. With the bits where
you tell the Judge "he (Coughlin) doesn't get to dip into our money,
no one cent" in your explaining your refusal to subpoena material
witnesses or send out subpoena duces tecums (odd, because the RPD
doesn't seem to charge you guys for those....yet you never sent one to
ECOMM until well over midway through the trial, why is that, Jim?).
See, Jim, it was professional misconduct for you to spend your entire
cross-examination of Cory Goble trying to establish a citizen's arrest
was effectuated, and therefore help the police and the State overcome
the fact that Officer Duralde cleary overcharged the crime as a felony
in an attempt to game the system and get around the whole statutory
dictate against officer's making custodial arrest (and therefore being
permitted to conduct searches incident thereto) for misdemeanors,
allegedly committed after 7 pm and outside the officer's presence
(unless a citizen's arrest is immediately effected). Your cross was
pretty good work for a prosecutor, but you get paid to fulfill the Sixth
Amendment Jim, not throw retaliatory tizzy fits. Your failure to in
any way utilize the 911 call tapes and videos Coughlin took of the
moments prior to arrest (where the youths admit they are trying to
steal Coughlin's bike and his dog, to teach him a lesson...not to
"detain" him or effect a "citizens arrest" (it almost seemed like DDA
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Young had you make the arguments he wanted to make, but knew
would be unethical for him to make, or would expose other glaring
weaknesses in his case, and in that way, you two really make
beautiful music together, Jim). Then there is the fact that Coughlin
himself called 911, and that Coughlin is heard on the video's prior to
the police arriving encouraging the hostile gang of late teens, early
twenties skateboarders to remain peaceful, and wait for the police to
arrive, so the matter could be handled civily (and not lead to anyone
dying, as Coughlin referenced the tragic death of a 25 year old man
intervening in a purse snatching of that was in the news just months
prior to the August 20th, 2011 arrest in this matter RCR2011063341...really, Jim, you should join us at the November 14th,2 011
bar hearing in NG12-0204, as the SCR 105 Complaint saw fit to
make this pending criminal charge a basis for a professional
misconduct hearing. In the meantime, why don't you send me the
digital transmissions that Judge Sferrazza ordered, and not hide
behind some "there's not enough time to make copies" non-sense.
Right, Jim, you are really going to give me your only copies of
things. Uh-huh. You? Jim, you? Jim, you spend all day covering
your ass, so please. Besides, the Judge did not rule that I have to
pick up some box of stuff, and sign some document while being
harassed by you, attesting to the contents of long pieces of digital
media (which I am sure you will object to me watching right there in
your office). That is the beauty of the digital transmission, Jim.
Maybe the WCPD will need to get itself a Skydrive, they are free,
who knows? All I know is I have made far less money than you this
year Jim, and done the lion's share of work on this case (with lots of
extra work added by your misconduct), and I have found your work
on this matter to be amongst the most distasteful I have ever seen by
an attorney. So, now that I know that your office did subpoena
Kelly Odom (she showed up to Trial, yet you kept that secret from
me, in addition to the subpoena duces tecum you sent her, really late
in the game, on October 3, 2012. Also, you do realize that RPD
Officer Duralde's wife was on duty that night working as a dispatcher
for ECOMM, right? Jessica Duralde, and what dispatch told the RPD
that night has become a material issue in this case. Yet, the WCPD
was satisfied with was the RPD gave them and didn't send a
subpoena duces tecume out to ECOMM until after the Trial would
have been over already, had it not been for how tenacious that
Coughlin is.
Finally, Jim, you might want to reconsider your
analysis respecting your purported failure to subpoena witnesses after
reviewing the attached, as you wrote: "I have not subpoenaed
witnesses to the November 19, 2012, resumption of trial because (1)
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
contrary to your assertions, no witnesses appear to have credible and

persuasive prospective testimony to help your case, in fact most of
the witnesses you have insisted on calling at trial appear to have
prospective testimony harmful, not helpful, to your defense, (2) the
witnesses you have demanded we subpoena and have testify appear
to actually have prospective testimony contra to a finding of notguilty, and (3) I already obtained several points through cross
examination of Zurate, Duralde, and Goble that you requested and
that are credible and potentially persuasive points in favor of your
defense (please recall your comments to me during the first day of
trial, I like where you are going with this . . . . )."
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
That coercive threat by Leslie to alleged to the SBN some phoney accusation against
Coughlin suggesting Coughlin told Leslie to alter video evidence (Leslie indicated any
such thing was evidence of Coughlin's lack of fitness to practice law in an apparent
misunderstanding of the import of the decision in Sierra Glass (Conduct of counsel in
omitting portion of deposition when deposition is read into record, and
giving impression that entire document is being proffered, resulting in buttressing of his
party's position is fraud on the court warranting the imposition of sanctions. Sup.Ct.Rules,
Rules 172, 172, subd. 1(a, d). Sierra Glass & Mirror v. Viking Industries, Inc., 1991, 808
P.2d
512, 107 Nev. 119, rehearing denied)) Leslie misstament and confusion of the interaction
between the excuplatory video evidence Coughlin wish to have Leslie introduce or utlize in
some way (including to impeach all of the State's witnesses in 11-063341) prior to being
forced to make his decision whether to invoke his Fifth Amendment Rights or Not (and
really, also incident to the decision of whether to accept the plea or go to trial) is contained
in the following email from Leslie to Coughlin (to be clear, a criminal defendant has not
duty to offer any incriminating evidence, and regardless, Coughlin ultimately sought to
introduce the entirely of all videos, without any editing, but Judge Sferrazza largely refused
to so admit such materials based on either relevancy or hearsay grounds, but the Sierra
Glass case should have indicated to Leslie that a criminal defendant attorney does not have
some obligation to play the entire video, under RPC 3.3, if he feels some portions of it are
not useful, or even if they would be prejudicial or incriminating, where such criminal
defendant attorney (or his counsel, as they case was there) did not give the impression that
the entire document is being proferred):
24
25
26
27
28
From: Leslie, Jim Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 2:17 PM To:
zachcoughlin@hotmail.com Subject: Coughlin: Petit Larceny case -Hand-Off Transmittal Importance: High Mr. Coughlin: This transmittal is
protected by Attorney-Client Confidentiality. However, dissemination of
any kind of the contents hereof or of any of the attachments hereto may
effect a waiver of such Confidentiality, as you have been previously
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
advised in prior emails and as you know from your legal training.
Transmitted herewith as attachments are file materials which are
transmitted as courtesy hand-off transmittal from us as assigned counsel
of record to you as court-permitted self-representing defendant, for
purpose of assisting you in your preparation for resumption of trial in the
Petit Larceny case currently scheduled for November 19, 2012, at 8:30
a.m., and as to which date you have been previously advised via US Mail,
email notice, verbal notice, and as you have previously acknowledged
being advised of in prior proceedings in open Court. The attachments
themselves shall serve as inventory of the materials transmitted herewith.
Additionally, as courtesy and as memorialization of various issues, please
note the following: Please note that there are also several computer
discs/DVDs containing video and/or audio on them, as well as a set of
color-printed photographs which we had prepared in response to your
September 20, 2012, email to us, that we will produce in tangible form
separate and apart and in addition to this email transmittal. You will need
to pick those items up from our office and sign a receipt. A copy of that
receipt is attached hereto as a PDF attachment, titled Receipt of
Documents. Please email me whether you are available 10/29/12 or
10/30/12 for pick-up of the additional documents and I will arrange to be
present with an executable receipt for your signature. Said receipt is
necessary in part because the materials listed in the Receipt of Documents
cannot be reproduced on short notice, in an effort to ensure you receive
them well before the resumption of trial, and to avoid dispute as to what
materials were handed over to you. I note that you and the Court
confirmed at the last hearing that you have already directly received copies
of the JAVS audio recordings of proceedings from the Court, so we are not
producing those in duplicate. Included in the attached PDF transmittals are
copies of clean, unredacted discovery materials from the State, copies of
those materials with redactions, and our transmittal letter to you including
redacted copies of the discovery materials dated December 1, 2011. We
have also provided you via email other copies of those same discovery
materials on prior occasions. Additionally, I recall personally trying to
provide you additional courtesy copy of those materials on at least one
occasion when you came to the office without an appointment and made
loud verbal demands for another copy of your discovery because you had
lost your previously provided copies, however, you then left the office
when we tried to provide you that additional copy. Although we are hereby
producing various pleadings as PDF attachments to this email, as listed
herein, my understanding from you is that you already have copies of all
filed pleadings, orders, etc., from your direct contacts with the Reno
Justice Court. Nevertheless, the pleadings listed herein are produced as
PDF attachments as a courtesy. We are not producing you copies of the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
voluminous emails and email attachments you have previously sent us,
since by being the transmitting party of those emails and attachments you
obviously have them yourself. Please also note that you are now operating
as your own self-representing counsel, by way of the self-representation
granted you by the Court on 10/22/12, in the petit larceny case. If you
represent to anyone that you are operating in that case in conjunction with
or as co-counsel with our office or any attorney therein, other than in our
capacity as Stand-By Counsel, we will have to consider reporting you to
the State Bar for fraudulent misrepresentation. Additionally, as you were
warned by the Court on 10/22/12, you cannot use any of the materials we
are transmitting or the information contained in those materials to harass
any person or otherwise put the materials or information therein to any
other improper use. These cautionary notes include but are not limited to
information contained in the cell phone records of Mr. Goble and the
addresses, phone numbers, and other contact information of any persons
identified in the transmitted materials, including those attached to this
email transmittal and those contained in the Receipt of Documents. Given
your past statements to me, I believe I should also warn you of the
possibility of applicability of Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3.
In that regard, please recall that during a meeting between you and I
in one of the interview rooms at Reno Justice Court during trial on
9/5/12, you suggested to me that I alter the video recording of your
interaction with the police officers in the petit larceny case. I told you I
cannot do that. You became irate and argumentative and asked why I
could not do it, and I told you it would be unethical. I raise this issue in
this email transmittal to reiterate what I have had to tell you more than
once in this case, that is, I cannot and will not assist you in alteration of
evidence or other commission or attempted commission of fraud upon the
court. Should I observe you attempting to do so during the resumed trial,
currently set for November 19, 2012, as noted above, I believe I would be
required under Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 to advise the
Court. I have not subpoenaed witnesses to the November 19, 2012,
resumption of trial because (1) contrary to your assertions, no witnesses
appear to have credible and persuasive prospective testimony to help your
case, in fact most of the witnesses you have insisted on calling at trial
appear to have prospective testimony harmful, not helpful, to your defense,
(2) the witnesses you have demanded we subpoena and have testify appear
to actually have prospective testimony contra to a finding of not-guilty,
and (3) I already obtained several points through cross examination of
Zurate, Duralde, and Goble that you requested and that are credible and
potentially persuasive points in favor of your defense (please recall your
comments to me during the first day of trial, I like where you are going
with this . . . . ). Additionally, the Court advised you on 10/22/12 that if
-
you believe you require subpoenas, you may contact the Court directly and
obtain subpoenas with waiver of fees. As directly by the Court on
10/22/12, I will be present at the trial on November 19, 2012, at 8:30 a.m.
as Stand-By Counsel. If during the resumed trial you believe you are
unable, after all, to adequately handle the trial proceedings yourself, I will
be available to take over representation, at which point I would do my best
to correct any errors or tactical mistakes you might have committed as well
as otherwise try to win the case for you. Thank you, James B. Leslie, Esq.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
8
9
10
11
Dated this 7/23/13

/s/ zach coughlin
Zach Coughlin
petitioner.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-

7 25 13 0204 62337 Notice of Irregularities 397 Pages Stamped 13-21913

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

7 25 13 0204 62337 Notice of Irregularities 397 Pages Stamped 13-21913

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Jul 25 2013 07:36 a.m.

/s/ Zach Coughlin, signed

Zach Coughlin, Esq.

DATED THIS: Dated thi 7 17 13

/s/ Zach Coughlin

1. Exhibit 1: various relevant materials.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. )

Defendant. RJC RCR2011063341

RMC 11 CR 26405, 11 tr 26800, 12 cr

-----------jeff nichols Rev2012-075658

Watts: Kate what was the date of that e-mail.

Leslie: December 7, 2012 as I recall.

Watts was absent.

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT 3/394 -

Watts for what purpose.

Vial sought to characterize the 12 1812 application as having been Leslie's

The Watts-Vial/WCDA Jim Leslie/WCPD hot potato whose Workplace

"Watts why are you not his attorney now

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT 5/394 -

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT 6/394 -

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT 7/394 -

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT 8/394 -

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT 9/394 -

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. NRS 33.300(2).

NRS 33.250(2). THE COURT MAY ISSUE A TEMPORARY

essential 911 call cd discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in

Mary Kandaras Deputy District Attorney Civil Division Washoe County

775 -337 -5723 direct phone

I will have to review this tomorrow and get back to you.

Mary Kandaras Deputy District Attorney Civil Division Washoe County

775 -337 -5723 direct phone

-----Original Message----From: Leslie, Jim

Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:59 PM To: Kandaras,

Please review my transmittal to Patrick King at the bar, below,

James B. Leslie, Esq.

Chief Deputy Public Defender

Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Exhibit 1D consists of a printout of a webpage at www.hark.com (ie, not even the

Leslie: yes. Later that day he came to the office.

Watts: for what purpose?

Watts: and did you do that?

Watts: how come?

Watts: did Mr. Coughlin never hand you the note.

Watts: and then did he leave at that point.

Leslie I said what do you need.

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT 30/394

Leslie send me an e-mail.

Coughlin (to Inspector Novak): are you just here to be a witness?

Novak: I just came out here to say hi

Coughlin Oh, hey, how are you doing?

Leslie: Anything else? (1:17 mark)

Coghlan: from what?

Leslie, go ahead and leave.

Coghlan: well, I am just finishing up my note here.

Leslie: what are you writing?

Coughlin: None of your god damn business, Jim.

Leslie: Alright, Beverly, call the police.

Leslie: put it on the counter and get out.

Leslie You are going to jail, you're going to jail.

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT 34/394

DECLARATION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN: