3 19 12 0204 374 Email To Nvbar Bar Grievance Reporting About Kern and WNM

bar grievance reporting unauthorized practice of law
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)

Sent: Mon 3/19/12 1:07 PM
To: glennm@nvbar.org
4 attachments
THE 2 11 12 email to WCSO RPD Reno City Attorney Hill NPUC Hill et al b.pdf (137.8 KB) , from nv supreme court
website on eviction stay packet instructions.pdf (28.0 KB) , Eviction Procedure - Washoe County Sheriff's Office - 911
Parr Blvd, Reno, Nevada.pdf (80.9 KB) , stay eviction 31 thru 36 zc park terrace HOA package fill out reprinted.pdf (78.3
KB)

Dear Assistant Bar Counsel Machado,

Hello, and I hope you are well. I am writing to file a grievance against Galye A. Kern, Esq. and Sue King, property manager and owner of Western Nevada Management
related to the unauthorized practice of law and unlawful interference with my attorney-client relationships and violation of privacy rights and client confidientiality. Ms.
Kern simply does not appear or do any legal work in either the unlawful interruption of essential services case in the RJC, nor in the subsequent summary eviction
proceeding in RJC 2012-000374. Rather, Sue King is litigating without a law license.

And Gayle A. Kern, Esq. is aware of, and, I believe, ratifying it, at the very least. Additionaly, upon information and belief, one or both of these individuals have attempted
to prevent me from having access to my mail and or electricity by communicating with NV Energy and the USPS, despite the fact that King has made the admissions detailed
in the "other thoughts" section below. What seems very instructive to me is that no less an attorney than Richard Hill lacks anythign to cite to to provide legal support for
the manner of service of Orders for Summary Eviction other than to say they are served or performed "in the usual and customary manner of the Washoe County Sheriff's
Office", however, I could find nothing indicating such a thing to be tantamount to black letter law. It is the usual and customary practice of the WCSO to threaten, or to
follow through on a threat to arrest anyone who challenges them or who asserts their constitutional rights and charge them with Obstruction or Justice...or "rubstruction" as
Deputy Cannizzaro calls it.

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq., 1422 E. 9th St. #2, RENO, NV 89512, tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949 667 7402; ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com Nevada Bar No: 9473

From:Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sat 3/17/12 12:21 PM
To: gaylekern@kernltd.com; karenayarbe@kernltd.com; kaitlynmiller@kernltd.com
Hotmail Active View
1 attachment (803.2 KB)
MERS Mort...pdf
Download(803.2 KB)
Download as zip
Hi Gayle,
I would appreciate some sort of assurances on your part that my personal property and my client's files will be accored privacy, not copied, not accessed or duplicated, etc. I
want to retrieve my personal property immediately, please contact me in writing and let me know when I can do so. Any damage done to my property in the course of any
"moving" of it by you, your agents, or anyone connected with Western Nevada Management will result in my seeking redress on my own behalf and on behalf of my clients.
Already your negligence in this regard has resulted in damage to my client's interests and will likely result in several lawsuits.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-
ab&q=%22gayle+kern%22+babelation&oq=%22gayle+kern%22+babelation&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=2760l6766l0l6928l23l21l0l0l0l0l710l3505l0.14.2.0.1.0.1l18l0&gs_l=hp.3...2760l6766l0l6928l23l21l0l0l0l0l710l3505l0j14j2j0j1j0j1l18l0.efis.1.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ce115d05ebe7b36c&biw=1270&bih=533

http://www.babelation.com/content/lipstick-pig-reno-nevada-lawyer-warmster-gayle-kern
http://www.babelation.com/content/want-your-reno-hoa-be-screwed
http://www.babelation.com/content/who-ever-heard-reno-divorce-being-dismissed?page=2
http://www.babelation.com/content/so-what-if-renos-lawyer-gayle-kern-hanging-out-banging-reno

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:d2jvarOAo2wJ:www.ripoffreport.com/home-owner-associations/gayle-a-kern-esq/gayle-a-kern-esq-gayle-ker-
f6735.htm+gayle+a+kern&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.scribd.com/SherylMoulton/d/60896742-MOULTON-v-GAYLE-A-KERN-Perjury-False-Statements-in-Federal-Court-2-11-11-First-
Amended-Complaint
Karen M. Ayarbe
Company: Gayle A. Kern, Ltd.
Address: 5421 Kietzke Lane
Search Here
Suite 200
Reno
, NV
89511
Phone Number: 775-324-5930
Fax number: 775-324-6173
Email: karenayarbe@kernltd.com
Website: No information provided
Admit Date: 09/29/88
Law School: U. Of Colorado
Specialization: None
Professional Liability Insurance: Yes

Gayle Agnes Kern
Company: Gayle A. Kern. Ltd.
Suite 200
Reno
, NV
89511
Fax number: 775-324-6173
Email: gaylekern@kernltd.com
Website: No information provided
Law School: U. of Oregon

Kaitlyn A. Miller
Company: Gayle A. Kern, Ltd.
Suite 200
Reno
, NV
89511
Fax number: ---
Email: kaitlynmiller@kernltd.com
Website:
No information provided
Law School: Golden Gate University

Sincerely,

Other thoughts:

Well, Sue, since you and Jared Scalise were there video taping the whole thing, all of us should not need to
rely on your word, now should we? Produce the video tape, Sue. Shouldn't be too hard if it was so clear they
announced they were law enforcement prior to unzipping the locks and drawing their guns and entering my
location, then pointing them at me and my dog. Just produce the video, Sue. Did their happen to be any
disinterested witnesses, Sue? You know, like people not on the Sheriff's payroll and people not employed by
you or Gayle A. Kern, Esq., LTD, Western Nevada Management or the Park Terrace HOA? And what ever
did happen to that Manager of yours that was fired or quit or something like that right about the time you
decided to serve the eviction notice, Robyn Badolato? Didn't you say she approved the agreement for
carpentry services and the occupation of the unit, etc. etc.? But then you said your business knew nothing
about it, right? And what was that about respondeat superior?

You know what would be really funny? What if someone had a video that proved that they didn't announce
they were police prior to entering? Wouldn't that be a hoot, Sue? But would that person just come right out
and show it, or would they let Sue, Jared, the locksmith and Deputy Durbin and Deputy Cannizzarro put
something on the record that could later be used to impeach them first? We'll see....Also, wouldn't it be a hoot
if the training practices and policies of the WCSO actually instructs Deputies not to announce that they are
law enforcement prior to entering? Kind of like how there are penalties for not getting the eviction and
lockout done in time (ie, somebody's interpretation of NRS 40.253 views it as within "24 hours of" the Sheriff's
"receipt" of the Order, rather than the tenant's "receipt". Regardless, Deputy Machem still seems to think
"personally served" means lots of things other than what the law has traditionally viewed as "personally
served". Why indicate he "personally served" the Order in his Affidavit of 11/7/11 when he merely, allegedly,
according to Liz Stuchell, posted it on the door at 121 River Rock when nobody was home? Why not just say
that in the affidavit, rather than leveraging the import of the phrase "personally served" to connote some sort
of fidelity to traditional notions of due process and fair play when, clearly, the WCSO, or at least some
individuals therein, could care less about such. Kind of like all that Robo-signing going on in the foreclosure
defense world. RPD Sargent Sifre doesn't mind taking advantage of all those civil law arguments in his
defense in that context though. But, he sure doesn't mind subjecting me to a custodial arrest for jaywalking,
which just happens to benefit Richard G. Hill, Esq. in that it prevents me from collecting evidence and
discovery incident to the wrongful eviction lawsuit he is facing:

Basically, Richard G. Hill, Esq. and Casey Baker, Esq. constantly seeks to leverage courts, police, the Washoe
County Sheriff's Office and others to further his nefarious approach to litigation, rather than roll up his sleeves
and find some law in favor of his positions and apply actual facts to them, rather than make up things or quote
to third parties and other hearsay (I never made contact with or touched Mr. Hill, I never climbed on anyone's
truck, Mr. Hill is not a licensed mental health professional, yet he sounds like a walking DSM-IV when he
writes of me, as does arm-chair psychologist cum property manager Sue King. Funny how all these diagnosis
are of a bent that would just so happen to also be in line with the views these parties would need endorsed to
help them continue making money). Minutes before my hearing in Judge Beesley's Bankrupcty courtroom at
2:30 pm on March 15th, 2012 (which involved the dischargeability of a $1.6 million debt The Cadle Company
(of Jan Schlictmann, "A Civil Action" movie/book fame) seeks to enforce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Schlichtmann ), Washoe County Sheriff's Deputies Durbin and
Cannizzaro unlawfully stormed into my location at 1422 E. 9th St, #2, with guns drawn and pointed at me,
without previously identifying themselves as law enforcement in any way, and demanding I grab a few things
in a couple minutes and leave.

Then, they also threatened to have me arrested for "obstructing justice" if I recorded any of their activities or
threats, numerous times telling me they were going to arrest me. Additionally, when my property was outside
the location at 1422 E. 9th St. #2, these Deputies threatened to convert it back to the landlord by dragging it
back inside the structure and locking the door, in retaliation for my pointing out the abuse of power they were
engaging in under color of law vis a vis 42 USC Sec 1983 and other laws. The recent arrest of local athlete
Courtney Gardner for "obstructing justice" is all the more dubious in light of these Deputies behavior and
statements, especially considering how Gardner is quoted as saying just about exactly what you would imagine
law enforcement wish he would say for a juicy quote to feed the sports section to make their arrest seem all
the more palatable. This is standard practice in my experience with local law enforcement, in many instances,
not all, but many. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20163343/arrest-ex-reno-prep-football-
star-signed-at

This unlawful eviction was pursuant to an eviction hearing held that morning by Reno Justice Court Judge Jack
Shroeder, the same Judge who screamed at me "do you want to go to jail!" when I attempted to address in any
way whatsoever Richard Hill's abuse of process in getting a Order of Protection from Judge Schroeder in a
scant 40 minutes, and having me arrested on 1/12/12 (two days before Hill's grievance was sent to you), at the
extension hearing on January 31, 2012, where Hill admitted he didn't have a good reason for seeking an
extension and withdrew his application. I wanted to address Hill's abuse of process for the record, Judge
Schroeder decided to scream at me instead. It was reminscent of Judge Nash Holmes telling me, on the record,
in Reno Municipal Court case 11 TR 26800 that she would have me arrested and placed in jail if I said Richard
G. Hill's name one more time. I cross examined RPD Sargent Tarter about whether he had a retaliatory motive
in ticketing me outside Hill's office on 11/15/11 after Hill refused to give me my driver's license, and I reported
to Sargent Tarter that RPD Officer Chris Carter had admitted to taking bribes from Richard G. Hill, Esq.

Actually, there is some footage of the "terror" Richard G. Hill was exposed to that necessitated him seeking a
Protection Order (the "RPD made him" do it, honest): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBu9zflGALE

I don't know why Sargent Sifre (whom makes more money than a District Court Judge) should be so upset with
lawyers like me, who work in the foresclosure defense field. After all, Sargent Sifre has benefitted from
foresclosure defense work: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/01/29/nevada-dist-court-quiet-title-viable-
sifre-v-wells-fargo-bank/

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
From:Sue King (sue@westernnv.com)
Sent: Fri 3/16/12 2:56 PM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
There were three witnesses that heard them say POLICE before they went in to the properly. (Me, Jared and the Locksmith)
What a loon.

Sue King
President/Broker/Supervising CM
Western Nevada Management, Inc
804 Mill Street, Reno, NV 89502
Ph: 775-284-4434
Fax: 775-284-4465
sue@westernnv.com
www.westernnv.com
From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:26 PM
To: sheriffweb@washoecounty.us; Sue King; gaylekern@kernltd.com; lstuchell@washoecounty.us; mhaley@washoecounty.us; tvinger@washoecounty.us; rsilva@washoecounty.us;
kstancil@washoecounty.us; jboles@callatg.com; jmd@randazza.com; geofgiles@hotmail.com; stermitz@sbcglobal.net; tjhlaw@eschelon.com; mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us;
rjcweb@washoecourts.us
Subject: illegal eviction procedures by WCSO retaliation etc

Dear Sheriff Haley, Reno Justice Court, et al,

Please find attached my emergency motion for stay of the eviction, which WCSO Deputies Canazaro and Durbin performed yesterday at gunpoint after breaking into my location prior to
announcing who they were or identifying themselves as law enforcement.

Sincerely,

Eviction Procedure - Washoe County Sheriff's Office - 911 Parr Blvd, Ren... http://www.washoesheriff.com/eviction-process.htm
Eviction Procedure
Liz Stuchell, I.A. Supervisor
Main Phone: (775) 328-3310
EVICTION PROCEDURE
The Sheriff's Office will endeavor to complete an eviction as soon as possible. In order to perform
this service in a timely manner as required by the court, the Sheriff's Office and the landlord must
work together closely. The landlord or their representative must be available to speak with the
deputy who is scheduling the eviction and must provide a telephone number where they can be
reached between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. - no voice mail or answering machine. The landlord or
their representative must be able to performthe eviction within 30 minutes of being contacted by
the deputy.
At the time set for the eviction, two deputies will meet the landlord or a designated representative
at the address of the eviction. The deputies drive unmarked cars but are in uniform.
It is important that the landlord, or the designated representative of the landlord, and the
locksmith (if needed) be on time. If for some reason one or all of the above are not at the address
on time, the eviction will be cancelled. The entire procedure will have to be repeated, and another
service fee will be charged.
Be prepared to wait up to 30 minutes. The deputies are sometimes delayed by additional law
enforcement duties. The deputies will remove each and every person on the premises. Any
personal property in the dwelling will have to be removed by the tenant at a time that has been
arranged with the landlord. If there are any animals left on the property, it is the landlord's
responsibility to care for the animals.
If the evicted tenant breaks into the dwelling after the eviction, the landlord is to call the law
enforcement agency that has jurisdiction for the area.
If the landlord wants to cancel the eviction or has any questions, call the Civil Section at
328-3310.
There is no refund of service fees for a cancelled eviction.
SECTIONAL LINKS
Civil Fee Schedule
Eviction Procedure
Home
Administrative Services
Division
Front Desk
Records Section
3/16/2012 12:57 PM
Home Page | Executive Staff | Administration | Detention | Operations | Forensic Science
Patrol | Detectives | Records | Employment | Contact | Site Index | Front Page
1 of 2

Eviction Procedure - Washoe County Sheriff's Office - 911 Parr Blvd, Ren... http://www.washoesheriff.com/eviction-process.htm
3/16/2012 12:57 PM
Copyright 2009 Washoe County Sheriff's Office - All Rights Reserved.
Location: 911 Parr Blvd., Reno, NV 89512 - Main Phone: 775-328-3001 - Email: sheriffweb@washoecounty.us
2 of 2

HOW TO APPEAL A SUMMARY EVICTION FROM
JUSTICE COURT TO DISTRICT COURT
LANDLORD OR TENANT INSTRUCTIONS
(Forms # 31 through #36)
INTRODUCTION
In Nevada, either party can appeal a summary eviction order. The following
information explains how to appeal a summary eviction from J ustice Court to the District
Court.
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THIS PACKET?
Included in this group of forms is the following:
Form #31 Notice of Appeal
Form #32 Motion to Set Bond and to Stay Eviction Pending Appeal
Form #33 Notice of Posting and Acceptance of Supersedeas/Cost Bond on
Appeal
Form #34 Designation of Record and Statement of Points on Appeal and
Notice of Intent to File Brief
Form #35 Certificate of No Transcript
Form #36 Statement of Proceedings
Note: If you use any of these forms, you must follow the same heading, party
information, and Case No./Dept. No. as follows:
Heading
Fill in the name of the township and county of the J ustice Court where the rental
unit is located.
Parties
You must fill in the names, addresses and phone numbers of the
Landlord/Plaintiff and Tenant/Defendant.
Case No. and Dept. No.
Use the identical Case Number and Department Number as was assigned by the
court on the landlords Order for Summary Eviction, Form #10.
Apartment 1 of 6
Landlord or Tenant Instructions
How to Appeal a Summary Eviction from
J ustice Court to District Court
Refers to Forms #31 through #36 2006 Nevada Supreme Court
Revised: April 14, 2006

Remember: Failure to file an appeal within 10 judicial days
1
of your
eviction order may result in the dismissal of your appeal. Missing other
deadlines may also result in the dismissal of your appeal. If you have questions,
contact an attorney.
Fili ng an appeal i s not simple or free of risks.
1. The court costs are substantial filing fee, bond and record can
cost several hundred dollars;
2. The court may impose money penalties against anyone who files
an appeal without legal merit just disagreeing with the judge
in Justice Court is not enough; and
3. You have to take several complicated steps to pursue your
appeal.
There are three parts to the pleadings:
1. Pleadings to start the appeal and (for the tenant) stop the eviction
order;
2. Record from the trial; and
3. Appellate brief explaining the issues.
The information and forms provided here will take you through the first two
phases. However, as the appellate brief requires the most work, we provide only
general information and no form. If you read through this information and think
preparing an appellate brief will be too difficult, consult with an attorney.
STEP ONE: STARTING THE APPEAL
File the Civil Cover Sheet, which will be provided you by the court, and Notice of
Appeal, Form #31, within 10 judicial days of entry of the eviction order.
Nevada law requires you to file your appeal within 10 judicial days of entry of the
eviction order. You should file your appeal within 10 judicial days of the summary
eviction hearing date (when the judge ordered your eviction in court) or within 10 judicial
days of the date on the eviction order whichever is earlier.
1
J udicial Days do not include date of service, weekends or legal holidays.
Apartment 2 of 6

While the law may al low you 10 judici al days to file your appeal, if you have
been ordered to vacate the rental unit, you must take extra steps before the end
of the 24-hour eviction notice the constable/sheriff will give you in order to stay
or stop the eviction.
To Stop the Eviction (Tenant), you must:
1. File the Civil Cover Sheet and Notice of the Appeal, Form #31;
2. Pay the filing fee or have the Order Regarding Waiver of Fees and
Costs, Form #39,
2
from the J ustice Court;
3. File a Motion to Set Bond and to Stay Eviction Pending Appeal,
Form #32, if the judge has not already set the amount;
4. Pay for the bond and file a Notice of Posting and Acceptance of
Supersedeas/Cost Bond on Appeal, Form #33. The cost is set by
the court at $250 or more;
5. Deli ver a copy of the Supersedeas Bond and the Notice of
Appeal to the constable/sheriff to stop the eviction. If you do
not do this, you will be evicted; and
6. Give or mail copies of the Supersedeas Bond and Notice of Appeal
to your landlord.
STEP TWO: THE RECORD FROM THE TRIAL
The first pleading, which must be filed in all appeals, is the Designation of Record
and Statement of Points on Appeal and Notice of Intent to File Brief, Form #34. The
portion designating the record simply sweeps all documents from the J ustice Court
proceedings into the appeal. The second section, stating points on appeal, requires you
to list the reasons for the appeal. The third part notifies the court of your intention to file
an appellate brief.
You must get a copy of the trial record and file it with the J ustice Court within 10
days of the date you file the Notice of Appeal.
2
See the instructions for Forms #37, #38 and #39 -- regarding the procedure to waive
fees and costs.
Apartment 3 of 6

There are two ways to do this:
1. If there was a court reporter recording your trial in J ustice Court,
order a copy of the transcript (there may be a cost to getting it) and
file it with the J ustice Court;
2. If there was no court reporter at your trial, file the Certificate of No
Transcript, Form #35; and a Statement of Proceedings, Form #36,
with the J ustice Court. Note that you must serve your version to
the Landlord for his/her objections, and then you must submit both
to the J ustice Court. See J CRCP 74.
STEP THREE: FILING THE APPELLATE BRIEF
The J ustice Court Clerk should notify all parties when the record has been
transmitted to the District Court.
3
Call the court clerk periodically to see if your case has
been given to the District Court. When the case has been given to the District Court,
contact the clerk of the District Court that has your case and ask when your appellate
brief must be filed with the District Court. If you are unable for any reason to find out a
specific date to file your appellate brief, you must file it in the District Court within 30
days after your case has been given to the District Court. Check your local rules for
your District Court regarding limitations on the length of your brief.
Note: The District Court can refuse to accept briefs and simply decide your appeal on
the record submitted.
In writing your appellate brief:
1. Do not argue disputed facts; and
2. Argue only mistakes of law that make a difference.
The judge in your summary eviction hearing has the authority to decide factual
issues. To argue any factual issue, the judges decision must be arbitrary and
capricious or without any support. This standard is very difficult to meet, and the
District Court judge gives great weight to the factual decisions of the J ustice Court
judge.
3
J CRCP Rule 74B(b).
Apartment 4 of 6

Mistakes of law that make a difference means that a judge violated a law (or
court decision or rule) that changed the outcome of your hearing. As previously stated,
NRS 40.253 requires a judge to dismiss a summary eviction if the tenant raises a legal
defense. The basic mistake of summary eviction hearings occurs when the judge fails
to recognize that the tenant has raised a legal defense.
For example, if the eviction is based upon Form #7, Five-Day Notice of
Unlawful Detainer for Non-Payment of Rent, and the tenant claimed
payment of rent as a defense, NRS 40.253 expressly recognizes this as a
legal defense. If the judge declined to find it as a valid defense, the judge
may have made a mistake of law. This mistake of law would have made a
difference in the outcome of the case because if the judge had recognized
the tenants legal defense, the tenant would not have been evicted. On
appeal, the tenant can argue that the judge made a mistake violating NRS
40.253, and that the eviction order should be reversed.
Finally, the other party has a right to file a reply brief. You can also file your own
responsive brief but only to deal with new points raised in the other partys reply brief.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The appellate brief requires a Certificate of Service. The purpose is to prove
you notified the other party that you have filed or intend to file the document. The
service of this document on the other party may occur before or after actual filing with
the court. It is best to serve and file on the same day.
Note: As this form can be used by either the tenant or the landlord, be sure that
you provide the correct landlord or tenant information on this document.
Provide the date and name of the document you delivered to the landlord (or
tenant) or the landlords (or tenants) attorney.
Fill in the address of the landlord (or tenant) or landlords (or tenants) attorney. If
the landlord (or tenant) is represented by an attorney, the Certificate of Service must
Apartment 5 of 6

indicate that the document is being sent to the attorney and indicate the attorneys
address. If the landlord (or tenant) is represented by an attorney, you should not send a
copy to the landlord (or tenant).
Check the method by which the document was delivered.
The signature and printed name of the server are required.
Apartment 6 of 6

5
10
15
20
25
______________________
______________________
______________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
reno
INTHEJUSTICECOURTOF__________________________TOWNSHIP
INANDFORTHECOUNTYOF_________________,STATEOFNEVADA
washoe
Name:
Address:
Phone:
vs.
Name:
Address:
Park Terrace HOA; Western Nevada Management sue king gayle
kern See Tenant's Affidavit
______________________
Landlord/Plaintiff
zach coughlin
1422 e. 9th St. #2
reno nv 89512
rev 2012-000374
CASENO:________________
3
DEPT.NO:________________
7753388118 949 667 7402
Phone: _____________________
Tenant/Defendant
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Zach Coughlin
The Appellant, ________________________________, in the above-
washoe
entitledmatter,appealstotheDistrictCourt,________________________County,
15
Nevada, from the judgment entered on the _____ day of
12
_________________________________,20____,intheabove-namedCourt.
march
Submittedby,
march 2012 ________________________ 15, _________________________
Date SignatureofParty
zach coughlin
_________________________
PrintNameofParty
Apartment 1of2
LandlordorTenant
NoticeofAppeal
Form#31 2006NevadaSupremeCourt
Revised: April14,2006
/s/ zach coughlin

5
10
15
20
25

_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b) and JCRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am a
3 15
12
non-partyovertheageof18years,andthaton_____________________,20____,
I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
notice of appeal
__________________________________________________________________,
(Nameofdocumentthatwasserved)
addressedto:
Park Terrace HOA
sue king gayle kern western nevad ama
[ ] BYU.S.MAIL: IdepositedformailingintheUnitedStatesmail,withpostage
fully prepaid, an envelope containing the above-identified document at
reno
_______________________________ (City and State), in the ordinary
courseofbusiness.
[ ] BYFACSIMILETO: _______________________________(FAXnumber).
[ ] BYPERSONALSERVICE: Ipersonallyhanddeliveredtheabove-identified
documenttotheaddress/officesofthepersonnamedabove.
SignatureofServer
zach coughlin
_______________________________
PrintNameofServer
Apartment 2of2
LandlordorTenant
NoticeofAppeal
see tenants affidavit for address for defendants used
for mailing, fax and/or personal dropbox service
/s/ zach coughlin
x
x
x
see tenants aff

5
10
15
20
25
______________________
_____________________

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
reno INTHEJUSTICECOURTOF__________________________TOWNSHIP
washoe
park terrace hOA Western Nevada Management
Name: ______________________
Address: ______________________
Phone: ______________________
Landlord/Plaintiff
vs. CASENO:________________
Name: zach _____________________ coughlin DEPT.NO:________________
1422 E.9th St#2
Address: _____________________
775 338 8118 949 667 7402
Phone: _____________________
i do not consent
Tenant/Defendant
to service by fax from anyone
MOTION TO SET BOND AND TO STAY EVICTION PENDING APPEAL
zach coughlin
COMES NOW, ___________________________________ (Name), and
respectfullyrequeststhattheCourtsettheCostandSupersedeasBondsandstay
15
execution of the order of eviction entered on the _______ day of
march
12 __________________, 20____, in the above-entitled Court pending the appeal of
thismatter.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
NRS40.380providesthat:
Either party may, within 10 (judicial) days, appeal from the
judgment rendered. But an appeal by the defendant shall not
xxxxxxcomercial
Apartment 1of4
LandlordorTenant
MotiontoSetBondandtoStayEviction
PendingAppeal

5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
stay the execution of the judgment, unless, within the 10
(judicial)days,heshallexecuteandfilewiththecourtorjustice
his undertaking to the plaintiff, with two or more sureties, in an
amounttobefixedbythecourtorjustice,butwhichshallnotbe
less than twice the amount of the judgment and costs, to the
effect that, if the judgment appealed from be affirmed or the
appeal be dismissed, the appellant will pay the judgment and
the cost of appeal, the value of the use and occupation of the
property,anddamagesjustlyaccruingtotheplaintiffduringthe
pendency of the appeal. Upon taking the appeal and filing the
undertaking,allfurtherproceedingsinthecaseshallbestayed.
FACTS AND ARGUMENT
12
march
15
Onthe_________dayof___________________,20____,ajudgmentwas
entered against Appellant which requires Appellant to pay Respondent
0
$__________ and which evicts Appellant from the mobile home space Appellant
1422 E. 9th St. reno nv 89512
occupies at ________________________________________________________.
march
12
15 Onthe___________dayof________________,20____,AppellantfileditsNotice
ofAppeal.
WHEREFORE, Appellant requests that the Court set the Cost and
Supersedeas Bonds and stay execution of the order of eviction entered on the
_______ day of _______________, 20____, in the above-entitled court upon
postingofsaidBondspendingtheappealofthismatter.
Submittedby,
________________________
Date
3 15 12
_________________________
SignatureofParty
_________________________
PrintNameofParty
zach coughlin
Apartment
LandlordorTenant
PendingAppeal
Form#32
2of4
2006NevadaSupremeCourt

5
10
15
20
25

______________________________
______________________________
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Isweartheaboveistrue. Signature:__________________________________
15
march SUBSCRIBEDANDSWORNtobeforemethis____dayof_________________,
12
20____.
NOTARYPUBLIC
OR
DEPUTYCLERK_____________________________
OR
THE FOLLOWING:
PursuanttoNRS53.045:
"IdeclareunderpenaltyofperjuryunderthelawoftheStateofNevadathatthe
foregoingistrueandcorrect."
Executedon_____________,20____
Signature
PrintName
Apartment
LandlordorTenant
PendingAppeal
Form#32
3of4
2006NevadaSupremeCourt

5
10
15
20
25

_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
__________________________________________________________________,
addressedto:
park terrace hoa; western nevada managmeent
gayle kern sue king
mill st
courseofbusiness.
[ ] x BYFACSIMILETO: _______________________________(FAXnumber).
those numbers listed on tenants affidavit
[ ] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally hand delivered the above-identified
SignatureofServer
zach coughlin
_______________________________
Print Name of Server
Apartment 4of4
LandlordorTenant
PendingAppeal

5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
reno
nevada
Name:
park terrace hoa; western nv managment
______________________
Address: ______________________
as listed on tenants affidavit
______________________
Phone: ______________________
Landlord/Plaintiff
vs. CASENO:________________
Name: _____________________
zach coughlin
DEPT.NO:________________
Address: _____________________
see tenants affidavt
_____________________
Phone: _____________________
Tenant/Defendant
NOTICE OF POSTING AND ACCEPTANCE OF
SUPERSEDEAS/COST BOND ON APPEAL
WHEREAS, the above-entitled Court issued a Judgment dated
3 15
12
________________________, 20____ ordering the eviction of Tenant from a non-
commercial premises with rent less than $1,000.00, an appeal was filed on
3 15
12
_______________________________,20____withappropriatefeesorwaivers,
zach coughlin NOW THEREFORE, Appellant ______________________________
250
postshisSupersedeas/CostBondintheamountof$______________,pursuantto
NRS40.385(1).
Apartment 1of3
LandlordorTenant
NoticeofPostingandAcceptanceof
Supersedeas/CostBondonAppeal

5
10
15
20
25

______________________ _________________________
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
GREETINGSTOSHERIFF/CONSTABLE:
Pursuant to NRS 40.385(1), JCRCP 73A(a) referencing JCRCP 73,
Appellant may proceed and this Supersedeas/Cost Bond stays execution of the
appealedorderofevictionunlessotherwiseorderedbytheCourt.
3 15 12
DATED JUSTICEOFTHEPEACE
Apartment 2of3
LandlordorTenant

5
10
15
20
25

_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
3 15
12
notice of posting supersedeas cost bond on appeal
__________________________________________________________________,
addressedto:
_______________________________________ terrace western nevada managemt park hoa;
gayle kern sue king as on tennants fafdivt
[
x
] BYU.S.MAIL: IdepositedformailingintheUnitedStatesmail,withpostage
as on tenants affidavit
courseofbusiness.
[ ] BYFACSIMILETO:
as on tenants affidavit
_______________________________(FAXnumber).
SignatureofServer
zach coguhlin
_______________________________
PrintNameofServer
Apartment 3of3
LandlordorTenant

5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
reno
INANDFORTHECOUNTYOF_________________,STATEOFNEVADA washoe
Name: ______________________ park terrace hoa
Address: ______________________
western nv management
Phone:
______________________
______________________
see tenants affidavit
Landlord/Plaintiff
vs. CASENO:________________
Name: _____________________
zach coughlin
DEPT.NO:________________
Address: _____________________ AS ON TENANTSaffdiavt
_____________________
Phone: _____________________
Tenant/Defendant
DESIGNATION OF RECORD AND STATEMENT OF POINTS ON APPEAL
AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE BRIEF
DESIGNATION OF RECORD
zach coughlin
Appellant ____________________________________, pursuant to
JCRCP 74, designates as the record on appeal all documents provided for in
JCRDP74(f)andalldocumentsotherwisecontainedintheJusticeCourtfile.
Apartment 1of4
LandlordorTenant
DesignationofRecordandStatementofPointson
AppealandNoticeofIntenttoFileBrief

5
10
15
20
25
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
STATEMENT OF POINTS
Appellant provides the following Statement of Points, pursuant to
JCRCP 74(d). (Provide a brief statement of facts and legal argument on why you
shouldnothavebeenevicted,referringtostatutesandcaselawwhereverpossible.
Alsoincludewhathappenedatyourevictionhearing.)
Judge screamed me court you to Jail!"
when I began to point out how Richard Hill, Esq. was abusing process
by using the temproary protection order to prevent my lawful
colelcdtion fo discovery and evidecence incident to the wrongful
eviction that stems from RJC rev2011-001809
__________________________________________________________________
Schroeder at in "Do want go to
further, the 30 day notice was made out to John Doe, and Aitken
requires strict adhereance to notice/service issues where
King and etal failed to cure this "john doe" deficients even wewll
after they were made aware of my name
see my tenants affiedavit for other arguments and incorporate
them here by refereance
Lipps and Glazer forbid summary eviction where landlord isn't
claiming ren tis even piad (as they did, res judicate in the
interrpution fo essential services case last week.
__________________________________________________________________.
Apartment 2of4
LandlordorTenant

5
10
15
20
25
________________________ _________________________
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE BRIEF
Appellantintendstofileanopeningbriefpursuanttotherequirements
andtimeframescontainedinJCRCP75.
Submittedby,
3 15 12
zach coughlin
_________________________
PrintNameofParty
Apartment 3of4
LandlordorTenant

5
10
15
20
25

_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
3 15
12
NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE BRIEF
__________________________________________________________________,
addressedto:
gayle kern sue king
X
TO PARK TERRANCE AND Wnm ADDRESS
AS fdoudn on vanity fair or state bar website
courseofbusiness.
[ ] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally hand delivered the above-identified
_______________________________
SignatureofServer
n
zach coughli
_______________________________
Print Name of Server
Apartment 4of4
LandlordorTenant

5
10
15
20
25
_____________________

________________________ _________________________
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
reno
washoe
Name: ______________________
park terrace hoa
Address: ______________________
______________________
Phone: ______________________
Landlord/Plaintiff
vs. CASENO:________________
Name: _____________________ DEPT.NO:________________
zach coughlin
Address: _____________________
Phone: _____________________
Tenant/Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF NO TRANSCRIPT
zach coughlin
Appellant______________________________________,pursuantto
JCRCP 74(b), hereby certifies that no transcript exists in the above-referenced
matter. Appellant has prepared a Statement of Proceedings, pursuant to JCRCP
74(c).
Submittedby,
3 15 12
_________________________ zach coughlin
PrintnameofParty
Apartment 1of2
LandlordorTenant
CertificateofNoTranscript

5
10
15
20
25

_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
3 15
12
__________________________________________________________________,
addressedto:
park terrace Hoa, western nv management
as liste on tenants' prvidavt
courseofbusiness.
SignatureofServer
zach coughlinh
_______________________________
PrintNameofServer
Apartment 2of2
LandlordorTenant
CertificateofNoTranscript

5
10
15
20
25
______________________
_____________________

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
reno
washoe
park hoa; Name: ______________________ terrace WNM
Address: ______________________
Phone: ______________________
Landlord/Plaintiff
vs. CASENO:________________
zach coughlin Name: _____________________ DEPT.NO:________________
Address: _____________________
Phone: _____________________
Tenant/Defendant
STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS
zach coughlin
Pursuant to JCRCP 74(c), Appellant _________________________
herebysubmitsastatementoftheevidenceorproceedingsbeforethelowerCourt
asfollows. (Brieflystatewhathappenedatyourevictionhearing,particularlythose
issuesthatrelatetoyourappeal.)
procuedraul saft
7
Apartment 1of4
LandlordorTenant
StatementofProceedings

5
10
15
20
25
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Apartment 2of4
LandlordorTenant

5
10
15
20
25
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Submittedby,
3 15 12
________________________ _________________________
zach coughlin
_________________________
PrintNameofParty
Apartment 3of4
LandlordorTenant

5
10
15
20
25

_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________

21
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
non-partyovertheageof18years,andthaton_____________________,20____, 3 15
__________________________________________________________________,
addressedto:
park terrace how WNM<
gayle kern sue king
courseofbusiness.
SignatureofServer
_______________________________
PrintNameofServer
Apartment 4of4
LandlordorTenant

Hotmail Print Message Page 1 of 22
EvictionsRE:WCSODeputyMachem's"personally
served"Affidavitof11/1/2011
From: ZachCoughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 2/13/12 3:01 AM
To: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: lstuchell@washoecounty.us; mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us; drakej@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov;
cdbaker@richardhillaw.com; jboles@callatg.com; bbuckley@lacsn.org; daolshan@yahoo.com;
jsoderlund@nlslaw.net; jdelikanakis@swlaw.com; jgoodnight@washoecounty.us;
jbosler@washoecounty.us; bdogan@washoecounty.us; mechols@maclaw.com; mclarkson@puc.nv.gov
Subject: Evictions RE: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" Affidavit of 11/1/2011
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:14:01 -0800
Subject: RE: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" Affidavit of 11/1/2011
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:40:39 -0800
From: LStuchell@washoecounty.us
CC: mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us
Mr. Coughlin
Our records indicate that the eviction conducted on that day was personally served
by Deputy Machen by posting a copy of the Order to the residence. The residence
was unoccupied at the time.
Liz Stuchell, Supervisor
WCSO Civil Section
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:58 AM
http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=084f5caf-5632-11e1-... 2/13/2012

To: Stuchell, Liz; Kandaras, Mary; nvrenopd@coplogic.com; Silva, Roxanna;
kadlicj@reno.gov; fourthestate@gmail.com; jamesandreboles@msn.com
Subject: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" Affidavit of 11/1/2011
Dear IA Supervisor Stuchell and DDA Kandaras,
I realize you will likely not read all of this. The main thing is I am respectfully
requesting that you confirm with Deputy Machem that he did, in fact, "personally
serve" the Summary Eviction Order on me at 121 River Rock St., Reno 89501 on
November 1, 2011 at 4:30 pm, in connection with performing the lockout. It is my
position that I was not "personally served" and I am trying to figure out whether
Deputy Machem is lying or whether the phrase "personally served" means something
other than what I believe it means, etc., etc. I appreciate your attention to this.
I am writing to inquire about and complain with regard to an Affidavit of Service
filed by or for WCSO Deputy Machem with respect to the service of a Order
Granting Summary Eviction against me (in my law office where non-payment of rent
was not alleged, no less in violation of NRS 40.253 and where a $2,275 rent escrow
deposit was foisted upon me in violation of 40.253(6), especially where a stay of
eviction was not granted even while the RJC held on to most all my money...).
My issue with the WCSO is that Machem's Affidavit of Service indicates that he
"personally served" me, which kind of reminds me of all that robo-signing and
MERS fraud I come across in my day job (and do you wonder how many attorneys
in the foreclosure defense game I am in constant contact with who are watching and
witness the potential RICO violations this writing mentions?), which includes being
a foreclosure defense attorney. So which is it? Did Machem "personally serve" me
the Summary Eviction Order? Richard G. Hill, Esq. likes to argue that I was "served"
in compliance with all time related rules because it was done in the "usual custom
and practice of the WCSO. What, exactly, is the "usual custom and practice of the
WCSO? I hear a lot about this "within 24 hours" stuff. So, I go hunting for some
black letter law to support what those at the RJC and in the clueless community at
large (which often includes Nevada Legal Services and Washoe Legal Services, the
people you guys had such trouble actually serving in the lawsuits I filed, which may
have actually helped improved legal services in this community, if they were not
dismissed due to insufficiency of service of process, even where the IFP required the
WCSO to served the defendants....). Anyway, back to the "within 24 hours"
phraseology: "
This whole business about 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... is inapplicable to this situation, where an Order Granting Summary

Eviction was signed by October 27th, 2011. That language is only found in situations
inapplicable to the current one. NRS 40.253(3)(b)(2), and NRS 40.253(5)(a) are the
only sections of NRS 40 where this within 24 hours language occurs, and those
situations only apply where, in:
40.253(3)(b)(2): 3. A notice served pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 must: ...(b)
Advise the tenant: . (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
and,
40.253(5)(a): 5. Upon noncompliance with the notice: (a) The landlord or the
landlords agent may apply by affidavit of complaint 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. The court may thereupon issue an order directing the
of the order. The way these summary eviction proceedings are being carried out in
Reno Justice Court presently shocks the conscience and violates Nevada law. There
is not basis for effectuating a lockout the way WCSO's Deputy Machem did in this
case. The above two sections containing the within 24 hours of receipt language
are inapplicable, as those situations do not invoke the present circumstances, where
the Tenant did file an Affidavit and did contest this matter to a degree not often seen.
To require Nevada's tenants to get up and get out within 24 hours of receipt of the
order (what does that even mean? The use of terms like rendition, rendered,
notice of entry, pronounced, is absent here, and this receipt of the order
language is something rarely found elsewhere in Nevada law-see attached DMV
statutory citations, and in employment law litigations where one must file a
Complaint within 90 days of receipt of a Right To Sue Letter, a situation which
follows NRCP 5(b), and NRCP 6(e) in imputing receipt of such a letter, when actual
receipt is not shown, by applying a constructive notice standard that relies upon
the days for mailing extension of time for items served in the mailing, etc.). In
Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, 553 F.3d 114 (1st Cir. 2009), the
record did not reflect when the plaintiff received his right-to-sue letter. The letter
was issued on November 24, 2006. The court calculated that the 90-day period
commenced on November 30, 2006, based on three days for mailing after excluding
Saturdays and Sundays. In order to bring a claim under either Title VII or the ADA,
a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies and sue within 90 days of receipt of
a right to sue letter. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1). See Baldwin County Welcome
Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 148 n.1, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984)
(granting plaintiff an additional three days for mailing pursuant to Rule 6).... ...

Dear Washoe County Sheriff's Office,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_of_process
"Substituted service
When an individual party to be served is unavailable for personal service, many
jurisdictions allow for substituted service. Substituted service allows the process
server to leave service documents with another responsible individual, called a
person of suitable age and discretion, such as a cohabiting adult or a teenager. Under
the Federal Rules, substituted service may only be made at the abode or dwelling of
the defendant.[4] California, New York,[5] Illinois, and many other United States
jurisdictions require that in addition to substituted service, the documents be mailed
to the recipient.[5] Substituted service often requires a serving party show that
ordinary service is impracticable, that due diligence has been made to attempt to
make personal service by delivery, and that substituted service will reach the party
and effect notice.[5]"
I am pretty sure "personally served" means you served the person in person, not that
a person named Machem went and posted a notice on a door, personally himself.
See, I think you guys are thinking of the "person" in the word personally as applying
to the server, when in all instances I have ever seen it used in the law, the "person"
part of "personally" applies to the person being served. Help me out here, Mary.
https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=43084638f32f5f28&resid=43084638F32F5F28!
1897&parid=root
Also, does the WCSO have a position on what type of service is required of eviction
orders prior to the WCSO or whoever does it, being able to conduct a lockout?
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/courtrules/nrcp.html
NRCP RULE 60. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER... (c) Default
Judgments: Defendant Not Personally Served. When a default judgment shall have
been taken against any party who was not personally served with summons and
complaint, either in the State of Nevada or in any other jurisdiction, and who has not
entered a general appearance in the action, the court, after notice to the adverse party,

upon motion made within 6 months after the date of service of written notice of entry
of such judgment, may vacate such judgment and allow the party or the partys legal
representatives to answer to the merits of the original action. When, however, a party
has been personally served with summons and complaint, either in the State of
Nevada or in any other jurisdiction, the party must make application to be relieved
from a default, a judgment, an order, or other proceeding taken against the party, or
for permission to file an answer, in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (b)
of this rule.
Okay, so, really, you guys do this for a living, right...you serve people things....and
sign Affidavits under penalty of perjury and stuff, and you are telling me you believe
"personally served" can included situations where the person was not there?
Okay.....You do know that, like, a Summons and Complaint need to be "personally
served" in the sense that, say Machem, would need to see that person and serve it on
them (I don't think they have to take the paper, they don't need to agree to accept
service, but Machem does need to see that person, in person, personally when he is
swearing under penalty of perjury that he "personally served" somebody. Usually
"personally served" is only done in the case of the first thing filed (unless there is an
IFP) in a case, the Summons and Complaint. Thereafter, typically, people just effect
"substituted service" because its cheaper, less of a hassle, and "personal service" is
only required for serving the pleadings that start a case, the Summons and
Complaint. Wow....Okay, so this is my whole point, these state sponsored lockouts
under color of state law should not be being done so fast, unless you guys
"personally serve" the tenant, I feel the law is quite clear, you have to effect
"substituted service" which, under NRCP 6(a) and NRCP 6(e) and NRCP 5(b)(2)
(and NRCP, not JCRCP is applicable to eviction matters according to NRS 118A)
the tenant cannot be deemed to have received or constructively received the Order
until the 3 days for mailing has passed.
Personal service by process server
Personal service is service of process directly to the (or a) party named on the
summons, complaint or petition. In most lawsuits in the United States, personal
service is required to prove service. Most states allow substituted service in almost
all lawsuits unless you are serving a corporation, LLC, LLP, or other business entity;
in those cases, personal service must be achieved by serving (in hand) the documents
to the "Registered Agent" of a business entity. Some states (Florida) do not require
that the documents actually be handed to the individual. In California and most other
states, the documents must be visible to the person being served, i.e., not in a sealed
envelope. If the individual refuses to accept service, flees, closes the door, etc., and
the individual has been positively identified as the person to be served, documents

may be "drop" served, and it is considered a valid service. Personal service of
process has been the hallmark for initialing litigation for nearly 100 years, primarily
because it guarantees actual notice to a defendant of a legal action against him or her.
Personal service of process remains the most reliable and efficacious way to both
ensure compliance with constitutionally imposed due process requirements of notice
to a defendant and the opportunity to be heard. [2]^ The National Law Review: The
Continuing Relevance of Personal Service of Process
And even if something indicates Coughlin "knew" about the Order, much like in the
case of Coughlin's that was dismissed where the Washoe County Sheriff's didn't
manage to get the "personal service" of the Summons and Complaint done in time, or
"sufficiently", opposing counsel in that matter could tell you that "actual notice" is
not a substitute for compliance with the service requirements.
Which is nice because folks like Richard G. Hill, Esq. have less of an opportunity to
game the system and swoop in with lockout then assert a bunch of hooey about NRS
118A.460 "reasonable storage, moving, and inventorying expenses" subjecting the
tenant's personal property to a lien. Richard G. Hill insisted on throwing away the
last thing my beloved grandmother gave me before she died 2 years ago in the town
dump. He and his contractor lied about so many things, including the fact that they
used my own damn plywood to board up the back porch of the property, then
submitted a bill to the court in an exhibit for $1,060 for "securing" the property
(which doesn't really apply to NRS 118A.460's "reasonable storage moving and
inventorying expenses" like it is required to...further, the charged me $900 a month
for storage and sent me a bill for such prior to my arrest for trespassing at the 121
River Rock location,...well if they charged me $900 to have a home law office there,
then how is it someone could be trespassing if they are being charged the full rental
value for "use and occupancy of the premises"? Further, even if it was a storage
situations, there are sections of NRS 118A devoted to evicting someone from a
storage facility, not arresting them for trespass, and certainly not a custodial arrest
where the RPD Officer Carter and Sargent Lopez admit they never issued a warning
to me or asked me to leave prior to conducting a custodial arrest (which required
$800 of bail, great!, and 3 days in jail, no less). This is especially poor form where
Officer Carter admitted to me that he takes bribes from Richard Hill. Hey, if Officer
Carter did not say that to me, go ahead and sue me, my man....I'm waiting.....that's
what I thought.
He can say he was joking all he wants, but it ain't no joking ass situation to me when
you are arresting me and causing a google search result for my name to show an
arrest....that's damaging the only thing I have of monetary value (my professional

reputation and name). It ain't no stand up hour when you are putting me in cuffs, bro.
And Officer Carter and Sargent Lopez refused to properly query Hill as to whether
he had sent me, prior to the trespassing arrest, a bill for the "full rental value" of the
property, a value that, at $900, was the same charge for the full "use and occupancy"
of the premises. And Richard G. HIll, Esq. was too busy chortling and filling out the
Criminal Complaint to bother setting them straight, despite my cues, I guess.
Now, add to that malfeasance the fact that Judge Sferrazza let Casey Baker, Esq.
prepare the Order, which means faithfully put to writing what the Judge announced,
not attempt to steal $2,275 for your Californian Beverly Hills High School graduate
neurosurgeon client by slipping in something the judge never said, ie, that the
neurosurgeon gets to keep the $2,275 that Judge Sferrazza order the tenant to pay
into the Reno Justice Court as a "rent escrow" deposit required to preserve the right
to litigate habitability issues. Now, nevermind the fact that Judge Sferrazza actually
did not have the jurisdiction to require that (there is not JCRLV 44 in Reno, that's a
Vegas rule, and if Reno wants a rule like that of its own JCRCP 83 requires the RJC
to publish it and get it approved by the Nevada Supreme Court first....period.). Okay,
so, to take it a step even further, Baker's order goes on to say "but the $2,275 won't
be released to the neurosurgeon yet, "instead that sum shall serve as security for
Coughlin's cost on appeal, pursuant to Nevada JCRCP 73...". But wait, doesn't that
mean Coughlin then gets a Stay of Eviction during the pendency of the Appeal? Isnt'
that was a security that large must be for? Because the "Appeal Bond" is set by
statute at only a mere $250....so holding on to 10 times that much of Coughlin's cash
must have been for the "Supersedeas Bond" mentioned a yielding one a Stay of
Eviction in NRS 40.380 and 40.385.
I know, I know, its confusing because actually those sections force the landlord, his
attorneys and the RJC to choose between viewing Coughlin as a residential tenant
whose rent is less than $1,000, and whom therefore is only required to post a measly
supersedeas bond of $250 (and remember, a supersedeas bond equals a stay of
eviction equals not trespassing) or the the other choice is to view Coughlin as a
commercial tenant, which would allow charging a higher supersedeas bond (except
for that pesky part about his rent being under the $1,000 required by the statute to do
so, his rent being only $900), except, darn it, old Richard G. Hill, Esq. and Casey
Baker, Esq. elected to pursue this summary eviction proceeding under a No Cause
Eviction Notice, which is not allowed against a commercial tenant (ie, you can't evict
a commercial tenant using the summary eviction procedures set forth in NRS 40.253
unless you alllege non payment of rent and serve a 30 Day Non Payment of Rent
Notice To Quit, which they didn't because they "are just taking the path of least
resistance here, Your Honor (insert their smug chuckling and obnoxious/pretentious
"can you believe this guy?" laughter and head shaking...).

NRS 40.380 Provisions governing appeals. Either party may, within 10 days, appeal
from the judgment rendered. But an appeal by the defendant shall not stay the
execution of the judgment, unless, within the 10 days, the defendant shall execute
and file with the court or justice the defendants undertaking to the plaintiff, with two
or more sureties, in an amount to be fixed by the court or justice, but which shall not
be less than twice the amount of the judgment and costs, to the effect that, if the
judgment appealed from be affirmed or the appeal be dismissed, the appellant will
pay the judgment and the cost of appeal, the value of the use and occupation of the
property, and damages justly accruing to the plaintiff during the pendency of the
appeal. Upon taking the appeal and filing the undertaking, all further proceedings in
the case shall be stayed.
So, why on earth is the City Attorney's Office still trying to try Coughlin on the
trespass charge for which he endured a custodial arrest and for which old Richard
Hill is still filing Motion's to Show Cause on in the appeal of the summary eviction
matter in CV11-03628? Why, oh why? Does the Reno City Attorney's Office have
some sort of vested interest in keeping Coughlin down, busy, besotted, encumbered,
or otherwise? It, why, it couldn't be because Coughlin has a really good wrongful
arrest cause of action against the Reno Police Department, could it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PR7q4OI5b0
And, well, yeah the Washoe County Sheriff's Office didn't quite get those Summons
and Complaints served in that one case Coughlin was suing his former employer in,
the one where Coughlin was granted an Order to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which
required the Washoe County Sheriff's Office to serve the Summons and
Complaints....But what does that have to to with the 6 days Coughlin spent in jail on
the arrest shown in the youtube video above? Its not like the Washoe County jailed
videotaped a scene where they were forcing Coughlin to get naked and put on a
green dress. What's that? It is? They did do that? Really? No...What? They also
forced him to simulate oral and anal sex with deputies, in the guise of some
ridiculous "procedure" necessary to insure Deputy safety? Oh, wow. And they
retaliated against him for failing to answer their religious preference interrogation
questions by placing him in an icy cold cell for hours at a time, refusing him medical
care despite his plaintive cries for help, while wearing a thin t-shirt? Wow. They
didn't jam a taser needle in his spine for extended periods of time, though, did they?
Your kidding! Whats next, your going tell me Sargent Sigfree of the Reno PD
ordered a custodial arrest on Coughlin for "jaywalking" while Coughlin was
peacefully filming, from a public spot, Richard G. Hill's fraudulent contractor Phil
Howard destroying and taking to the town dump items of enormous sentimental
value to Coughlin that he was prevented from retrieving from the property during the
scant time he was allowed to (after he paid $480 worth of a lien for what he knew

not, because, despite, ol' Contractor Phil's fraudulent $1,060 bill for "securing" the
back porch (with screws facing the outside, inexplicably, and a window unit a/c left
in the window facing the sidewalk near the Lakemill Lodge, secured by nothing but
duct tape
It is kind of a combo neon sign that says "Burglarize this Place, Everybody!"),
Coughlin's former home law office was burglarized on December 12, 2011 while
Richard G. Hill was holding its contents (including, tackily, Coughlin's client's files,
like the ones for the foreclosure defense actions, etc.), asserting his "lien". A lien for
"storage" where the charge for storage, $900, was the same as the charge for "full use
and occupany" was. However, that $900 a month for "storage" also included another
$1,060 charge for "securing" (and that bill actually listed "fixing a leak in the
basement...neither of which seem to have much to do with the "reasonable storage,
moving, and inventorying" expenses such a lien is provided for under NRS
118A.460....). Jeez, your probably going to tell me Sargent Sigfree ordered another
custodial arrest on Coughlin just two days after the jaywalking arrest, for the same
fact pattern that Master Edmondson granted Coughlin's applications for Protections
Orders against based upon the battery and assaults that his former housemates
committed. Because, Sargent Sigfree thinks its "misuse of 911" for Coughlin to call
when he returns home at night and his dog has mysteriously disappeared, and his
housemates make menacing commentary about it. Surely, Coughlin, a former
domestic violence attorney would have nothing helpful to add to Sargnet Sigfree's
expert opinion that "animal abuse is not domestic violence" (tell that to NRS 33.010,
Sarge) and that its, rather, "a matter for animal control" and that Sargent Sigfree was
"trying to help" Coughlin by arresting him, again, and necessitating the $1,500 bail
associated with the gross misdemeanor charge, "Misuse of 911" because, as Sargent
Sigfree told Coughlin "you keep putting yourself in situations where you are
victimized" so it was necessary to arrest Coughlin in that regard.
But hey, at least NV Energy hasn't refused to let Coughlin get any electrical service
for the past week since those with the Protection Orders against them cancelled the
service and NV Energy shut it off, without providing any notice to Coughlin, right.
Nevermind. But...but surely when NV Energy shut of the power to Coughlin's home
law office on October 4th, 2011, just hours prior to the bad faith "inspection" with
videographer of Coughlin' s home law office that Casey Baker, Esq. thought so very
necessary one day before Coughlin's Tenant Answer was due...surely NV Energy did
not leave the back gate to Coughlin's home law office open and speed off, Coughlin's
beloved mountain bike suddenly missing (the one the parents of his girlfriend of 5
years gave him)? Well, NV Energy is probably not retaliating against Coughlin for
complaining about that by refusing him electric service for the past seven days, you
would have to assume....
NRS 40.385 Stay of execution upon appeal; duty of tenant who retains possession of

premises to pay rent during stay. Upon an appeal from an order entered pursuant to
NRS 40.253:
1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a stay of execution may be
obtained by filing with the trial court a bond in the amount of $250 to cover the
expected costs on appeal. A surety upon the bond submits to the jurisdiction of the
appellate court and irrevocably appoints the clerk of that court as the suretys agent
upon whom papers affecting the suretys liability upon the bond may be served.
Liability of a surety may be enforced, or the bond may be released, on motion in the
appellate court without independent action. A tenant of commercial property may
obtain a stay of execution only upon the issuance of a stay pursuant to Rule 8 of the
Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure and the posting of a supersedeas bond in the
amount of 100 percent of the unpaid rent claim of the landlord.
2. A tenant who retains possession of the premises that are the subject of the appeal
during the pendency of the appeal shall pay to the landlord rent in the amount
provided in the underlying contract between the tenant and the landlord as it
becomes due. If the tenant fails to pay such rent, the landlord may initiate new
proceedings for a summary eviction by serving the tenant with a new notice pursuant
to NRS 40.253.
NRS 40.390 Appellate court not to dismiss or quash proceedings for want of form. In
all cases of appeal under NRS 40.220 to 40.420, inclusive, the appellate court shall
not dismiss or quash the proceedings for want of form, provided the proceedings
have been conducted substantially according to the provisions of NRS 40.220 to
40.420, inclusive; and amendments to the complaint, answer or summons, in matters
of form only, may be allowed by the court at any time before final judgment upon
such terms as may be just; and all matters of excuse, justification or avoidance of the
allegations in the complaint may be given in evidence under the answer.
NRS 40.400 Rules of practice. The provisions of NRS, Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure and Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure relative to civil actions, appeals
and new trials, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of NRS 40.220
to 40.420, inclusive, apply to the proceedings mentioned in those sections.
But, back to the Sheriff's Office. And, I am not really buying the idea that you guys
don't know NRCP 4 through 6 like the back of your hand, but....hell, maybe you
don't. But, clearly the language in NRS 40 about how the Sheriff may "remove tenant
from the property within 24 hours of receipt of the Order" do not apply where the
Tenant filed a Tenant's Answer and showed up to the Hearing and litigated the
matter. Especially where, as here the lease had not terminated, by its terms, but was

rather renewed. This is particularly true where NRS 118A prevents so terminating a
holdover tenant's lease for a retaliatory or discriminatory purpose.
I would hate to see people start to think the Washoe County Sheriff's Office is
cutting corners on the whole "personally served" thing (just so a landlord could get
what they want quicker), just like I would hate for people to think the Reno
Municipal Court is letting the bottom line get in the way of providing that whole
Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel where jail time is even a possibility thing. And,
hey, if the RMC denies an indigent attorney the Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel,
the finds him guilty of NRS 22.030, Summary Contempt Commited in the Presence
of the Court, and the puts him in cuffs when the Trial ends, summarily sentencing
him to 3 days in jail for violating NRS 22.030, well....that's no big deal, right, I
mean, the RMC technically kept its promise that the underyling charge, though
technically it could result in incarceration would not...because the incarceration was
for a whole dang different charge, ie, Summary Contempt in the presence of the
Court....and so what if the whole zealous advocate thing and the denying the Sixth
Amendment Right to Counsel thing and the Summary Contempt thing don't go so
well together....Or if 6 court employees had to stay til 9pm getting paid overtime at
the RMC to get 'r done...
NRCP 4: "(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. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (e) Same: Other Service. (1)
Service by Publication. (i) General. In addition to methods of personal service, when
the person on whom service is to be made resides out of the state, or has departed
from the state, or cannot, after due diligence, be found within the state, or by
concealment seeks to avoid the service of summons, and the fact shall appear, by
affidavit, to the satisfaction of the court or judge thereof, and it shall appear, either
by affidavit or by a verified complaint on file, that a cause of action exists against the
defendant in respect to whom the service is to be made, and that the defendant is a
necessary or proper party to the action, such court or judge may grant an order that
the service be made by the publication of summons. Provided, when said affidavit is
based on the fact that the party on whom service is to be made resides out of the
state, and the present address of the party is unknown, it shall be a sufficient showing
of such fact if the affiant shall state generally in such affidavit that at a previous time
such person resided out of this state in a certain place (naming the place and stating
the latest date known to affiant when such party so resided there); that such place is

the last place in which such party resided to the knowledge of affiant; that such party
no longer resides at such place; that affiant does not know the present place of
residence of such party or where such party can be found; and that affiant does not
know and has never been informed and has no reason to believe that such party now
resides in this state; and, in such case, it shall be presumed that such party still
resides and remains out of the state, and such affidavit shall be deemed to be a
sufficient showing of due diligence to find the defendant. This rule shall apply to all
manner of civil actions, including those for divorce"
I guess it don't matter much to me which one of you pays me my damages for the
wrongful eviction, illegal lockout, whether its the landlord, his attorney, or the
Sheriff's Office. Your money is always good with me.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Subject: RE: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" Affidavit of 11/1/2011
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:40:39 -0800
From: LStuchell@washoecounty.us
CC: mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us
Mr. Coughlin,
Our records indicate that the eviction conducted on that day was personally served
by Deputy Machen by posting a copy of the Order to the residence. The residence
was unoccupied at the time.
Liz Stuchell, Supervisor
WCSO Civil Section
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:58 AM

To: Stuchell, Liz; Kandaras, Mary; nvrenopd@coplogic.com; Silva, Roxanna;
kadlicj@reno.gov; fourthestate@gmail.com; jamesandreboles@msn.com
Subject: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" Affidavit of 11/1/2011
Dear IA Supervisor Stuchell and DDA Kandaras,
I realize you will likely not read all of this. The main thing is I am respectfully
requesting that you confirm with Deputy Machem that he did, in fact, "personally
serve" the Summary Eviction Order on me at 121 River Rock St., Reno 89501 on
November 1, 2011 at 4:30 pm, in connection with performing the lockout. It is my
position that I was not "personally served" and I am trying to figure out whether
Deputy Machem is lying or whether the phrase "personally served" means something
other than what I believe it means, etc., etc. I appreciate your attention to this.
I am writing to inquire about and complain with regard to an Affidavit of Service
filed by or for WCSO Deputy Machem with respect to the service of a Order
Granting Summary Eviction against me (in my law office where non-payment of rent
was not alleged, no less in violation of NRS 40.253 and where a $2,275 rent escrow
deposit was foisted upon me in violation of 40.253(6), especially where a stay of
eviction was not granted even while the RJC held on to most all my money...).
My issue with the WCSO is that Machem's Affidavit of Service indicates that he
"personally served" me, which kind of reminds me of all that robo-signing and
MERS fraud I come across in my day job (and do you wonder how many attorneys
in the foreclosure defense game I am in constant contact with who are watching and
witness the potential RICO violations this writing mentions?), which includes being
a foreclosure defense attorney. So which is it? Did Machem "personally serve" me
the Summary Eviction Order? Richard G. Hill, Esq. likes to argue that I was "served"
in compliance with all time related rules because it was done in the "usual custom
and practice of the WCSO. What, exactly, is the "usual custom and practice of the
WCSO? I hear a lot about this "within 24 hours" stuff. So, I go hunting for some
black letter law to support what those at the RJC and in the clueless community at
large (which often includes Nevada Legal Services and Washoe Legal Services, the
people you guys had such trouble actually serving in the lawsuits I filed, which may
have actually helped improved legal services in this community, if they were not
dismissed due to insufficiency of service of process, even where the IFP required the
WCSO to served the defendants....). Anyway, back to the "within 24 hours"
phraseology: "
This whole business about The court may thereupon issue an order directing the
of the order... is inapplicable to this situation, where an Order Granting Summary

Eviction was signed by October 27th, 2011. That language is only found in situations
inapplicable to the current one. NRS 40.253(3)(b)(2), and NRS 40.253(5)(a) are the
only sections of NRS 40 where this within 24 hours language occurs, and those
situations only apply where, in:
40.253(3)(b)(2): 3. A notice served pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 must: ...(b)
Advise the tenant: . (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
and,
40.253(5)(a): 5. Upon noncompliance with the notice: (a) The landlord or the
landlords agent may apply by affidavit of complaint 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. The court may thereupon issue an order directing the
of the order. The way these summary eviction proceedings are being carried out in
Reno Justice Court presently shocks the conscience and violates Nevada law. There
is not basis for effectuating a lockout the way WCSO's Deputy Machem did in this
case. The above two sections containing the within 24 hours of receipt language
are inapplicable, as those situations do not invoke the present circumstances, where
the Tenant did file an Affidavit and did contest this matter to a degree not often seen.
To require Nevada's tenants to get up and get out within 24 hours of receipt of the
order (what does that even mean? The use of terms like rendition, rendered,
notice of entry, pronounced, is absent here, and this receipt of the order
language is something rarely found elsewhere in Nevada law-see attached DMV
statutory citations, and in employment law litigations where one must file a
Complaint within 90 days of receipt of a Right To Sue Letter, a situation which
follows NRCP 5(b), and NRCP 6(e) in imputing receipt of such a letter, when actual
receipt is not shown, by applying a constructive notice standard that relies upon
the days for mailing extension of time for items served in the mailing, etc.). In
Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, 553 F.3d 114 (1st Cir. 2009), the
record did not reflect when the plaintiff received his right-to-sue letter. The letter
was issued on November 24, 2006. The court calculated that the 90-day period
commenced on November 30, 2006, based on three days for mailing after excluding
Saturdays and Sundays. In order to bring a claim under either Title VII or the ADA,
a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies and sue within 90 days of receipt of
a right to sue letter. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1). See Baldwin County Welcome
Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 148 n.1, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984)
(granting plaintiff an additional three days for mailing pursuant to Rule 6).

Further, despite what the inaccurate handouts of Nevada Legal Services may say
about this 24 hours and the applicability of the JCRCP to cases like these, NRS
40.400 Rules of practice, holds that :The provisions of NRS, Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure and Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure relative to civil actions, appeals
and new trials, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of NRS 40.220
to 40.420, inclusive, apply to the proceedings mentioned in those sections. As such
NRCP 6(a),(e) applies to the Order of Summary Eviction that WCSO Deputy
Machem alleged, under penalty of perjury, that he "personally served" upon me on
November 1, 2011. That is a lie by Mr. Machem, unless "personally served" is
defined in a rather impersonal way and or Machem and I have totally different
understanding of the definition of "personally served", which may be the case. Or,
perhaps the Sheriff's Office is busy and doesn't want to wait around to "personally
serve" every tenant it wishes to evict. Fine, then just use the "mail it and allow three
days" rule in NRCP 6(e)...the landlord's might not like it, but they can use that
frustration as an incentive not to jump to litigating every disagreement about
habitability that a tenant brings to them. You may not realize how ridiculous some
landlord's get. In my case, I offered to fix basic things that clearly implicated the
habitability rules in NRS 118A.290 and the Californian neurosurgeon, Beverly Hill
High School graduate landlord balked and complained then hired and attorney four
days into a dispute.....at which point the rules against contacting represented parties
prevented much in the way of real settlement discussion, particularly where opposing
counsel has continuously demonstrated a complete indifference to pursuing
settlement (why would he at the rates he bills hours at?). I just don't think the
Sheriff's Office needs to sully its image or damage the citizen tenants of Washoe
County in the name of pleasing people like Dr. Matt Merliss or Richard G. Hill, Esq.
I AM REQUESTING, IN WRITING, THAT BOTH OF YOUR OFFICES
INVESTIGATE THIS AND PROVIDE A SWORN AFFIDAVIT FROM MR.
MACHEM THAT ADMITS THAT I WAS NOT PERSONALLY PRESENT
WHEN HE SERVED THE ORDER FOR SUMMARY EVICTION IN RJC
REV2011-001708 ON 11/1/12 AT 4:30 PM (ACCORDING TO HIS AFFIDAVIT
OF SERVICE). YOU NEVER KNOW, I MIGHT HAVE IRREFUTABLE PROOF
THAT I WAS SOMEWHERE ELSE AT THAT TIME, SO, BE CAREFUL. There
simply is not anything specific in Nevada law addressing how such Summary
Eviction Orders are to be served and carried out. The sections dealing with
NRS 40.253 Unlawful detainer: Supplemental remedy of summary eviction and
exclusion of tenant for default in payment of rent....
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, the justice court or the district court shall hold a
hearing, after service of notice of the hearing upon the parties, to determine the

truthfulness and sufficiency of any affidavit or notice 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....
7. The tenant may, upon payment of the appropriate fees relating to the filing and
service of a motion, file a motion with the court, on a form provided by the clerk of
the court, to dispute the amount of the costs, if any, claimed by the landlord pursuant
to NRS 118A.460 or 118C.230 for the inventory, moving and storage of personal
property left on the premises. The motion must be filed within 20 days after the
summary order for removal of the tenant or the abandonment of the premises by the
tenant, or within 20 days after:
(a) The tenant has vacated or been removed from the premises; and
(b) A copy of those charges has been requested by or provided to the tenant,
whichever is later.
8. Upon the filing of a motion pursuant to subsection 7, the court shall schedule a
hearing on the motion. The hearing must be held within 10 days after the filing of the
motion. The court shall affix the date of the hearing to the motion and order a copy
served upon the landlord by the sheriff, constable or other process server. At the
hearing, the court may:
(a) Determine the costs, if any, claimed by the landlord pursuant to NRS 118A.460
or 118C.230 and any accumulating daily costs; and
(b) Order the release of the tenants property upon the payment of the charges
determined to be due or if no charges are determined to be due...."
I also want to know why NRS 40. 253(8) was not followed with respect to my
November 17th, 2011 filing of a Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien. Why
didn't the WCSO serve notice, as required by NRS 40.253(8) upon the landlord's
attorney Richard Hill? Why didn't I get a hearing within the 10 days called called for
by that section (to get back my client's files no less), but rather, I had to wait a full 33
days to get a hearing, and service of notice of the hearing was not effectuated, as
required by NRS 40.235(8), by the WCSO. Why?
Please provide an indication, in writing, of the names and case numbers for the last
20 incidences when the WCSO has served notice of a hearing set pursuant to NRS
40.253(8). What's that? The WCSO has NEVER served such notice? Yet the WCSO
is there with bells on (or Machem is) to lie in Affidavits of Service to lock out the
citizen tenants of Washoe County impermissilby early vis a vis NRCP 5(b)(2) and
NRCP 6(e)? Why is that? Is it a conspiracy? Does money talk? When I was arrested
for trespassing on November 12th, 2011 by RPD Officer Chris Carter and Sargent

Lopez, Carter admitted to me that "Richard Hill pays him a lot of money and
therefore he arrests whom Richard Hill says to and does what Richard Hill says to
do...." Both Carter and Sargent Lopez refused to investigate, despite prompting,
whether Richard Hill has sent the tenant/arrestee a bill or demand letter in bill for the
full rental value of the property, $900 per month, under some interpretation of the
"reasonable storage, moving, and inventorying expenses" collectable by a landlord
under a personal property line set forth in NRS 118A.460 (one could also interpret
such a bill as Hill's withdrawing or eradicating the Order of Summary Eviction itself,
which was not "personally served" by the Washoe County Sheriff (despite what their
Affidavit of Service says...I wasn't even there at the time they changed the
locks...and so the Summary Eviction Order was not properly served under NRCP 6,
and despite the Reno Justice Court impermissibly converting $2300 of my money
under a "rent escrow" Order its required I comply with in order to litigate habitability
issues in a summary eviction proceeding under NRS 40.253, despite NRS 40.253
(6)'s express dicate against such an Order (unless, pursuant to JCRCP 83, a justice
court gets such a rule, like Justice Court Rule of Las Vegas (JCRLV) Rule 44,
published and approved by the Nevada Supreme Court, which the RJC has not,
rather, the RJC applies all these insidious secret "house rules" (like forcing tenants to
deliver themselves to the filing office to submit to personal service notice of a
summary eviction hearing within, like, 12 hours of the Tenant filing a Tenant's
Answer or Affidavit in response to an eviction Notice, rather than the service
requirements of such notice following NRCP 6 (days for mailing, etc., etc., in other
words, in the RJC everything is sped up imperissilby to help landlord's out, and the
NV. S. Ct ruling in Glazier and Lippis clearly contemplate personal liability against
the Court and or Judges themselves for so doing)....A Qui Tam action or something a
la Mausert's in Solano County, I believe, in California, would be very
interesting...Still haven't heard anything from the Reno PD about the various
complaints I have filed with them in writing related to the wrongful arrests,
excessive force and other misconduct committed against me, though they did arrest
me the other day for calling 911incident to some domestic violence for which I was
granted to Extended Protection Orders against my former housemates....old Sargent
Sigfree ordered that arrest, as he did two days prior when he ordered a custodial
arrest of me for "jaywalking".
Funny thing, I never heard anything back from the RPD about complaints like the
following one:
From:
NvRenoPd@coplogic.com
Sent:

Wed 9/07/11 10:51 PM
****DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL****
We're sorry the following problem was found during review
of your submitted report T11005956:
THIS IS NOT THE FORUM FOR THIS TYPE OF COMPLAINT HOWEVER
THIS REPORT WAS PRINTED AND PASSED ON TO THE OFFICER'S
SUPERVISOR AND IT WILL BE ADDRESSED.
Thank you,
Officer WOZNIAK,
Reno Police Department
What is interesting there is that at least I was provided the name of an officer, a
"Wozniak" (though I have been unable to confirm the existence of
such an RPD Officer...
or whether " THIS IS NOT THE FORUM FOR THIS TYPE OF COMPLAINT
HOWEVER THIS REPORT WAS PRINTED AND PASSED ON TO THE
OFFICER'S SUPERVISOR AND IT WILL BE
ADDRESSED."
What is more strange is that I submitted several online police reports to the Reno PD
(a couple of which asserted complaints against various Reno PD officers, or asked
why RDP Officer Carter, whom admitted taking bribes from Richard G. Hill, Esq. at
the time of my custodial arrest for trespassing (the one where Richard Hill signed a
Criminal Complaint for trespass, then Officer Carter and Sargent Lopez refused to
follow up on my imploring them to ask Hill whether he has recently sent me a bill
for the "full rental value" of the property, the same amount that had been charged for
the "use and enjoyment" of the premises, $900, in comparision to what NRS
118A.460 may deem "reasonable storage" expenses for which a lien is available to a
landlord, though NRS 118A.520 has outlawed rent distraints upon tenant's personal
property....Regardless, between January 8 - 12th, 2012, and was arrested twice by the
Reno PD shortly after submitting these written complaints to the Reno PD.

Actually, upon being released from jail on November 15th, 2011, incident to the
custodial trespass arrest, I went to Richard HIll's office to get my wallet and driver's
license. He refused to provide it to me until late November 22nd, 2011. Hill called
the Reno PD on the 15th (or maybe I did because he was withholding my state issued
ID, the one I would need to rent a room, drive my car, and my wallet, which is kind
of useful in such situations....). Anyways, Sargent Tarter of the Reno PD showed up,
he went inside Hill's office with Hill for quite some time and the result was Tarter
telling me to leave. I did, but while driving down St. Laurence towards S. Virginia
(Hill's office is at 652 Forrest St. 89503 and would have required turning down the
wrong way of a one way street, Forrest, to go back to Hill's Office (so clearly I was
not headed to Hill's office) Sargent Tarter began tailing me, then he pulled me over,
then he gave me a ticket, in retaliation if you ask me for reporting RPD Officer
Carter admitting that he takes bribes from Hill to Sargent Tarter minutes earlier. Uh,
well, anyways, another Sargent calls me later that night, taking the "good cop" role.
But upon informing him of what RPD Officer Carter told me about Hill paying him
money to arrest people during the 11/12/11 trespassing arrest, that Sargent
immediately informed me that, despite this being the first he heard of that, he was
sure that was not happening....I guess RPD Officer Carter is trying to explain away
his comments about Richard Hill paying him money to arrest people by dismissing
them as sarcasm, a joke, said in jest, whatever....but I don't see how that situation (a
license attorney getting arrested for a crime, a conviction for which would result in
that attorney being required to report said conviction to the State Bar of Nevada
under SCR 111, etc., and possibly resulting in a suspension of that attorney's license
to practice law, or worse...) is all that jocular of a situation. Combine that with the
too quick to dismiss my reports of bribery by Richard Hill to officer Carter to the
RPD Sargent who called me on 11/15/11 regarding the retaliation by Sargent Tarter
that I complained of, and I don't think it is all that unreasonable for anyone to take
RPD Officer Carter at his word regarding Richard G. Hill, Esq. paying him money to
arrest whom Hill says to arrest. Add to that Sargent Sigfree ordering my arrest for
jaywalking (by a trainee RPD Officer) on January 12th, 2011 (custodial arrest, bail
of $160 emptied my bank account out, or pretty close to it) while I was peacefully
filming from a public spot Richard G. Hill, Esq's contractor Phil Howard, whom had
submitted bills in courts records and filings under the lien for "reasonable storage
moving and inventorying" found in NRS 118A.460, even where old Phil used my
own plywood at the property to board up the back porch (curiously leaving the
screws holding up the plywood exposed to exterior of the property where anyone
could easily unscrew them, and also leaving in a window unit ac secured only by
ducttape in a window facing a sidewalk by the LakeMill Lodge....which resulted in
$8,000 at least of my personal property being burglarized from my former home law
office on Decmeber 12th, 2011 while Hill was asserting a lien on all my personal
property found therein (and my client's files, which arguably are not even my
property, but rather, the client's property). Hill went on to place what he believes to
be my social security number in court records, on purpose, despite his signing an
Affirmation pursuant to NRS 239B.030 that that was not the case (attaching a two

page report to the RPD as an Exhibit). Then Hill and his contractor Phil Howard both
committed perjury when the signed Declarations attesting that I had climbed on the
contractors truck or ever touched Hill. Hill lies constantly, whether under penalty of
perjury or now, so I don't have time to rebut every little lie he makes (he makes me
out to comes across as a Yosemite Sam caricature of a human being in his filings
when he describes me...).
Further, why am I arrested for trespassing and not those from Nevada Court Services
where they went behind closed gate the the backyard of my home law office and
banged on window extremely loudly for 40 minutes at a time 3 times a day, one guy
ringing the doorbell, one guy moving around all other sides of the property banging
on the windows, peering in closed blinds, and affecting a phony "color of law" tone,
resemblance, and verbal communications, misleadingly announcing that they were
"Court Services, come out now!", wearing their pretend Sheriff outfits, big
equipment saddled belts (including firearms, I believe, and radios), etc. ,etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ132q2O7DY
Add to that that Nevada Court Services Jeff Chandler drives by in his Monster Truck
baring his personalized "NCS" license plate while I am in the RPD squad car,
handcuffed, outside my former law office at 121 River Rock, at the time of the
1/12/12 jaywalking arrest and the appearances are troubling. Now, add to that that
Lew Taitel, Esq. was my court appointed public defender in the Reno Municipal
Court in the trespass case, and that Judge Gardner had refused to provide me the
names of prospective appointed defense counsel (I wanted to run a conflicts check)
at my arraignment (where Marshal Mentzel barked at me in a threatening tone, using
menacing language), whereupon Taitel was appointed as my defense attorney and
filed a notice of appearance, and received my confidential file, pc sheet, arrest
reports, ssn, etc....only its turns out that Taitel shares and office and a receptionist
with Nevada Court Services and they list him and his picture on their website as
"associated with" their Process Server corporation, despite the prohibition lawyers
face against fee sharing with non-lawyers. Then, Taitel somehow manages to get out
of defending my case without filing a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, despite that
being required by the Reno Municipal Court Rule 3(B):
RMCR Rule 3(B): Authorization to Represent (B): An attorney desiring to withdraw
from a case shall file a motion with the court and serve the City Attorney with the
same. The court may rule on the motion or set a hearing.
But, perhaps most troubling of all is the implication that the Reno City Attorney's
Office, which defends actions against the City of Reno Police Department and its
Officers, has a vested interest in discrediting me in advance of the wrongful arrest
lawsuit that the Reno City Attorney's office knew was imminent at the time of all of

the above incidents, relating to the following August 20th, 2011 wrongful arrest by
RPD Officer's Duralde and Rosa. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PR7q4OI5b0
So, that's what attempting to coerce a suspect's consent to an impermissible search
sounds like? Add to that that the trespassing case is before Judge Gardner, whom
most recently was employed with the Reno City Attorney's Office.
And, you know what is funny? Officer Del Vecchio cuffed me and placed me in his
squad car last summer after he terrified me and another gentleman who had bicycles.
He veered across the road and screeched his squad car to a halt, jumped out, and did
some other stuff, then demanded my name and ID...and the lawyer in me didn't like
that that much, and he didn't like me not wanting to give it to him. This occurred
right in front of my home law office in the summer of 2011. He cuffed me and told
me I was going to jail for something about a light on the front of my bicycle (the one
NV Energy likely stole when the shut off my power, unnoticed, on October 4, 2011)
despite my bike actually having such a light....but then Del Vecchio's partner did him
a solid and talked some sense into him, and I humbled it up for Del Vecchio and we
both let it go, and I didn't go to jail....Until Del Vecchio was present supervising
some Officer's training at the scene of my custodial (9 hour) jaywalking arrest) on
1/12/12. But Del Vecchio, I guess either didn't want to or wasn't able to talk some
sense into Sargent Sigfree.....and then Sargent Sigfree (the spelling is likely off) had
me arrested and charged with a gross misdemeanor, "Misuse of 911" just two days
later, on January 14th, 2011 when I called 911 to report that my roommates were
laughing menacingly when I asked them why my dog was missing (I had also been
chased up to my room numerous times since moving in with these people, something
I had to do because so much of my money had been taken up with bail or lost
earnings due to all these wrongful arrests and abuse of processes mentioned
above...also these housemates had chased me with a ten inch butcher knife, two of
my tires were slashed, I was locked out all night on New Years Even when these
changed the locks at around midnight, had my furniture thrown in the street, property
stolen, coffee thrown on me, destroying my smart phone in the process, etc.,
etc...And despite the housemate having an outstanding arrest warrant, and animal
abuse being listed amongst the elements of domestic violence, Sargent Sigfree told
me he was arresting me because I "keep putting yourself in these situations", like,
where I am a victim, and that he was "trying to help you", he said with a smirk and a
laugh to his fellow RPD Officers, whom then proceeded to use excessive force
against me. I guess he was helping me by saddling me with a gross misdemeanor
with a $1,500 bail, especially where its been arranged for Court Services, or pre-
Trial Services to forever deny me an OR, despite my meeting the factors for such set
forth in statute (30 year resident, entire immediate family lives here, licensed to
practice law in Nevada, etc., etc)...I guess it should not be too much of a surprise to
me that Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts failed to address the perjury of all three of
her witnesses or that her fellow Reno City Attorney Christopher Hazlett-Stevens lied
to me about whether or not the Reno City Attorney's Office even had any
documentation related to my arrest or whether it would in the month before my

arraignment, despite that fact that subsequent productions of discovery tend to
indicate that the Reno City Attorney's Office did have those materials at the time. I
could be wrong about some of this...But that would require and awful lot of
coincidences.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Nevada Bar No: 9473
** Notice** This message and accompanying documents are covered by the
electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain
confidential information intended for the specified individual (s) only. If you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and
that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the
contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This message is confidential,
intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is
privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of
this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in
error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail
from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by
anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work
product, or other applicable privilege.

3 19 12 0204 374 Email To Nvbar Bar Grievance Reporting About Kern and WNM

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

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

3 19 12 0204 374 Email To Nvbar Bar Grievance Reporting About Kern and WNM

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

bar grievance reporting unauthorized practice of law

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen