Request/Praecipe For Default: Opposition To Notice of Default and

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zach Coughlin,Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
121 River Roc !".
Reno, N# $9%&1
'ele: 77%(33$($11$
)a*: 949(++7(74&2
,""orne- .or /e.endan" Ro0er" 1eller
2N3'E/ !','E! B,N1R24'C5 C62R'
/3!'R3C' 6) NE#,/,
3n Re:
R6BER' 1E77ER
/e0"or.
'8E C,/7E C694,N5,
4lain"i..,
v.
R6BER' 1E77ER,
/e.endan".
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No.: B1 1&(%2+39(g;<
Cha="er 7
,dversar- 4roceeding
No. 1&(&%1&4(g;<
OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND
Request/Praecipe for Default
8earing /a"e: 3>1%>12
8earing 'i?e: 2:3& 49
OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND Request/Praecipe for Default
'his 9o"ion is 0ased on "he .ollo;ing 9e?orandu? o. 4oin"s and ,u"hori"ies as ;ell
as 7R +(1, Rule 7&1% )ed. R. Banr. 4. and Rule 1%@2: )ed. R. Civ. 4. and o"her a==lica0le rules.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3.
!','E9EN' 6) ),C'!
3??edia"el- =rior "o "he scheduled hearing in "his ?a""er on 3>1%>12, Aashoe Coun"- !heri..Bs /e=u"ies, in ?-
o=inion, unla;.ull- en"ered ?- loca"ion ;i"h a locs?i"hBs hel= and a""e?="ed "o e..ec" serve o. an 6rder o. !u??ar-
Evic"ion ;here non=a-?en" o. ren" ;as no" alleged .ro? a ho?e la; o..ice ;i"h guns dra;n in viola"ion o. "he service
require?en" o. NR! 4&.2%3 and NRC4 +@a: and +@e: and as caugh" on "a=e here:
h""=:>>;;;.-ou"u0e.co?>;a"chCvDssE&)A8)NE5 and, here:
- -
6446!3'36N '6 N6'3CE 6) /E),27' ,N/ Reques">4raeci=e .or /e.aul"
Case 10-05104-gwz Doc 52 Entered 03/30/12 15:03:22 Page 1 of 19
Note" this filing has been edited down for convenience much like Chairman Susich's SCR 117 Petition directed to
Coughlin contained mere allusions to or portions of purportedly suspect filings by Coughlin
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
h""=:>>;;;.-ou"u0e.co?>;a"chCvD1EF2aEEslr4
'his a0use o. =o;er and la; en.orce?en" ?isconduc" necessi"a"e ?- gra00ing ;ha" clien" ?a""ers 3 could in "he
scan" "i?e allo;ed, "hen arriving "o "he schedule hearing a ?inu"e or ";o la"e. Ahen 3 arrived, 3 could hear Gudge
Beesle- "aling "o 9r. 6BRoure, 0u" 3 ;as no" sure i. i" ;as 9r. 6BRoure or "his case "ha" ;as 0eing discussed. 3
;ai"ed and ul"i?a"el-, 3 0elieve on "he record, s=oe ;i"h Gudge Beesle- ;ho gran"ed ?e an e*"ension o. a" leas" 3& da-s
"o .ile "he a?ended ans;er and coun"erclai?s and assured ?e a de.aul" ;ould no" issue.
'he doce" in "his ?a""er reads, in relevan" =ar":
H4$ )iled I En"ered: &3>14>2&12 9o"ion "o E*"end 'i?e /oce" 'e*":
9o"ion "o E*"end 'i?e '6 )37E ,9EN/E/ ,N!AER ,N/ C62N'ERC7,39
'6 ,9EN/E/ C6947,3N' ,N/ ,!!6C3,'E/ 96'36N! '6 /3!93!!
,N/ /3!C6#ER5 REJ2E!'! ;i"h Cer"i.ica"e o. !ervice )iled 0- Z,C8
C62F873N on 0ehal. o. R6BER' 1E77ER @C62F873N, Z,C8:
49 )iled I En"ered: &3>2&>2&12 No"ice o. En"r- o. /e.aul" /oce" 'e*":
No"ice o. En"r- o. /e.aul" o. /e.endan" Ro0er" 1eller )iled 0- 93C8,E7
6BR62R1E on 0ehal. o. C,/7E C6 @,""ach?en"s: K @1: ,..idavi" /eclara"ion o.
9ichael 6BRoure su==or"ing Reques" .or En"r- o. /e.aul":@6BR62R1E,
93C8,E7:
%& )iled I En"ered: &3>2$>2&12 Reques">4raeci=e .or /e.aul" /oce" 'e*":
Reques">4raeci=e .or /e.aul" agains" Ro0er" 1eller )iled 0- 93C8,E7 6BR62R1E
on 0ehal. o. C,/7E C6 @,""ach?en"s: K @1: ,..idavi" /eclara"ion o. 9ichael
6BRoure su==or"ing 4lain"i..Bs Reques" .or En"r- o. /e.aul"K @2: ,==endi* 4ro=osed
En"r- o. /e.aul": @6BR62R1E, 93C8,E7:
%1 )iled I En"ered: &3>29>2&12 No"ice o. /e.icienc- Regarding Reques"
.or Cler "o En"er /e.aul". /oce" 'e*": No"ice o. /e.icienc- Regarding Reques" .or
Cler "o En"er /e.aul". @Rela"ed docu?en"@s:%& Reques">4raeci=e .or /e.aul" .iled 0-
4lain"i.. C,/7E C6.: @dl?:L
33.
LE!AL ANA"LSIS
,?end?en" o. co?=lain" , =ar"- ?a- a?end "he =ar"-Bs =leading once as a ?a""er o. course a"
an- "i?e 0e.ore res=onsive =leading is served or, i. "he =leading is one "o ;hich no res=onsive
=leading is =er?i""ed and "he ac"ion has no" 0een =laced u=on "he "rial calendar, "he =ar"- ?a- so
a?end i" a" an- "i?e ;i"hin 2& da-s a."er i" is servedM o"her;ise a =ar"- ?a- a?end "he =ar"-Bs
=leading onl- 0- leave o. cour" or 0- ;ri""en consen" o. "he adverse =ar"-, and leave ?us" 0e .reel-
given ;hen Eus"ice so requires. )ed. R. Civ. 4. 1%@a:, ?ade a==lica0le in adversar- =roceedings 0-
)ed. R. Banr. 4. 7&1%. 'his rule is a==lica0le "o co?=lain"s o0Eec"ing "o discharge. )our"h Circui" 3n
- # -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
re 'es"er, %+ B.R. 2&$ @A./. #a. 19$%:. %B )ed. 4roc., 7. Ed. N 9:17%&, 0anru="c- cour" lacs
au"hori"- "o gran" an un"i?el- ?o"ion "o a?end an adversar- co?=lain" "o s"a"e ne; causes o. ac"ion
o0Eec"ing "o discharge ;here such ?o"ion is no" .iled un"il a."er "he deadline .or o0Eec"ing "o
discharge. Eigh"h Circui" 3n re Bo<e?an, 219 B.R. 2%3 @Banr. A./. ,r. 199$:, a..Bd, 22+ B.R.
+27, 42 )ed. R. !erv. 3d 41+ @B.,.4. $"h Cir. 199$:. Ahenever "he clai? or de.ense asser"ed in "he
a?ended =leading arose ou" o. "he conduc", "ransac"ion, or occurrence se" .or"h or a""e?="ed "o 0e se"
.or"h in "he original =leading, "he a?end?en" rela"es 0ac "o "he da"e o. "he original =leading. )ed. R.
Civ. 4. 1%@c:@2:, ?ade a==lica0le in adversar- =roceedings 0- )ed. R. Banr. 4. 7&1%. 'hus, a
=ro=osed a?end?en" "o a co?=lain" o0Eec"ing "o discharge ?a- rela"e 0ac "o "he "i?e o. "he .iling o.
"he original co?=lain". )our"h Circui" 3n re 'es"er, %+ B.R. 2&$ @A./. #a. 19$%:
)ed. R. Civ. 4. 1%@a:, as a?ended and e..ec"ive /ece?0er 1, 2&&9, =rovides "ha" @1: a =ar"-
?a- a?end i"s =leading once as a ?a""er o. course ;i"hin: @,: 21 da-s a."er serving i", or @B: i. "he
=leading is one "o ;hich a res=onsive =leading is required, 21 da-s a."er service o. a res=onsive
=leading or 21 da-s a."er service o. a ?o"ion under Rule 12@0:, @e@, or @.:, ;hichever is earlier. )ed.
R. Civ. 4. 1%@c:@2: ;as redesigna"ed as )ed. R. Civ. 4. 1%@c:@1:@B: in 2&&7.
,?erican Guris=rudence, !econd Edi"ion /a"a0ase u=da"ed Nove?0er 2&11 Banru="c-
Gose=h G. Bassano, G./.M Eric G. /a;son, G./.M 7aura 8un"er /ie"<, G./.M Ro?ualdo 4. Eclavea, G./.M
Eleanor 7. Fross?an, G./., o. "he s"a.. o. "he Na"ional 7egal Research Frou=, 3nc.M Flenda 1.
8arnad, G./., o. "he s"a.. o. "he Na"ional 7egal Research Frou=, 3nc.M ,lan G. Gaco0s, G./.M Rachel
1ane, G./.M Gose=h '. 7a"ronica, G./.M Gac 7evin, G./.M 7ucas 9ar"in, G./.M 1arl 6aes, G./.M 9arie
1. 4esando, G./.M Ge..re- G. !ha?=o, G./.M Eric C. !ure""e, G./.M and 9i"chell Aald?an, G./. 3.
)unda?en"als o. Banru="c- 4rac"ice ,. 3n"roduc"ion "o Banru="c- 2. Foverning 7a; .. Rules @1:
Banru="c- Rules 'o=ic !u??ar- Re.erences N 22. ,dversar- =roceedings Aes"Bs 1e- Nu?0er
- $ -
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 "personallyserved" 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 RJ C 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 RJ C 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
Page 2of 22 Hotmail Print Message
2/13/2012 http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=084f5caf-5632-11e1-...
Case 10-05104-gwz Doc 52-2 Entered 03/30/12 15:03:22 Page 2 of 22
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 J ustice 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 J UDGMENT OR ORDER... (c) Default
J udgments: 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, thecourt, 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 J CRCP 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 byserving (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 areputting 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 J udge Sferrazza let Casey Baker, Esq.
prepare the Order, which means faithfully put to writing what the J udge 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 J ustice Court as a "rent escrow" deposit required to preserve the right
to litigate habitability issues. Now, nevermind the fact that J udge Sferrazza actually
did not have the jurisdiction to require that (there is not J CRLV 44 in Reno, that's a
Vegas rule, and if Reno wants a rule like that of its own J CRCP 83 requires the RJ C
to publish it and get it approved by the Nevada SupremeCourt 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 J CRCP 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 RJ C 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 acommercial 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....). J eez, 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....

NRS40.385Stayof executionuponappeal; dutyof tenant whoretainspossessionof
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 todismiss 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 "removetenant
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, byits 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 J anuary 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
thelatest dateknowntoaffiant whensuchpartysoresidedthere); that suchplaceis
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
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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

From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
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 "personallyserved" 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 RJ C 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 RJ C 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 J ustice 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 J CRCP 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 RJ C
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 uponthe 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 trespassingonNovember 12th, 2011byRPDOfficer ChrisCarter andSargent
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 thetenant/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 J ustice 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 J CRCP 83, a justice
court gets such a rule, like J ustice Court Rule of Las Vegas (J CRLV) Rule 44,
published and approved by the Nevada Supreme Court, which the RJ C has not,
rather, the RJ C 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 RJ C 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 J udges 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
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
****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 J anuary 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 waswithholding 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 J anuary 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 Howardboth
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 J eff 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 J udge 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 alight....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 J anuary 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.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9th t. !2
"EN#, N$ %9&12
tel: 77& 33% %11%
'a(: 949 ))7 74*2
ZachCoughlin+hot,ail.co,
-#:
Cit. o' "eno /arshal 0ivision
1--N: Chie' /arshal "o2er and /arshal 0a.ton
'a(ed to: 377&4 33453%24
/arch 19, 2*12,
0ear Chie' /arshal "o2er and /arshal 0a.ton,

1 6C# 0e2ut. in'or,ed ,e that ,. 2ro2ert. 7as 8eing held in evidence, including a
'li2 2hone st.le cell 2hone, and an 9-C g2 s,art2hone in addition to a ,icro sd
,e,or. card, and an electric shaved, according to that 0e2ut.. 9o7ever, no7 it
a22ears once again .our o''ice has the 2ro2ert.. /arshal 9arle. 7as accusator. during
the search incident to the su,,ar. conte,2t arrest, ,a:ing allegations 'or 7hich he had
not 8asis in 'act. ;urther he 7as a8usive and hostile. <lease 2lace a co2. o' this 7ritten
co,2laint in his e,2lo.,ent 'ile. 1dditionall., he clearl. 7his2ered into 0e2ut. Cit.
1ttorne. #r,aas=s ear during the -rial in 11 -" 2)%**, then 7as evasive regarding 7hat
he 7his2ered. 1dditionall., /arshal 9arle. 7as evasive regarding 7ho, told hi, to
serve ,e and 7ho,e 2rovided the docu,ent 3connected to a "ichard >. 9ill, Esq.,
,atter no less, ,uch li:e the su,,ar. conte,2t 'inding4. u8sequentl., 6C# 0e2ut.
/ache, 'iled a s7orn a''idavit indicating that he 2ersonall. served ,e that ver.
docu,ent that /arshal 9arle. atte,2ted to serve ,e 7hile ? 7as co,,unicating 7ith
0e2ut. Cit. 1ttorne. #r,aas, 7ho indicated she did not care a8out an. ad,issions o'
8ri8er. 8. "ichard >. 9ill, Esq., to the Cit. o' "eno <olice incident to an arrest in 11
C" 2)4*&, in the "/C, a case 7herein 9ill signed a cri,inal tres2ass co,2laint against
,e. -he citations in 11 -" 2)%** 7ere 2ur2orted to 8e in retaliation 'or ,. re2orting
this ad,ission o' 8ri8er. to argent -arter outside "ichard 9ill=s o''ice on 11@1&@11
7hen ? a22eared there to retrieve ,. 7allet, driver=s license, client 'iles, etc. a'ter 8eing
released 'or, Aail incident to the 11@12@12 custodial arrest 'or tres2ass 38ecause a citation
1@2
Aust 7ouldn=t do4. <lease see the attached 22 2age e(2lication o' these ,atters, 2lacing it
along 7ith these corres2ondence in /arshal 9arle.=s 2ersonnel and e,2lo.,ent 'iles.

? 7ould li:e a 7ritten res2onse detailing the chain o' custod. o' all the 2ro2ert. 'or all
ti,es since the arrest, and ite,iBed listing o' the 2ro2ert., and an indication o' 7hen, i'
ever, ? 7ill 8e in'or,ed o' 7h. it is 8eing held and 7hen, i' ever, it 7ill 8e returned to
,e, and and indication o' 7hat e(actl. has 8een done 7ith this 2ro2ert., including
7hether an vie7ing or co2.ing o' the contents has 8een underta:en or 7ill re,ain in
an.one=s 2ossession other than ,ine.

incerel.,
incerel.,
Zach Coughlin
2@2
FW: wrongful eviction service procedures and curious
evidentiary release to Reno Marshals and inconsistent
statements related thereto
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 3/16/12 3:29 PM
To: mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us
8 attachments
3 16 12 fax to wcso re eviction park terrace hill etc.pdf (1761.7 KB) , CV11-03628-2633891
(Reply...).pdf (164.9 KB) , CV11-03628-2625640 (Mtn for TRO).pdf (153.5 KB) , stay eviction 31
thru 36 zc park terrace HOA package fill out reprinted.pdf (78.3 KB) , CV11-03628_2750229
Machem up to his old tricks again.pdf (26.9 KB) , CV11-03628 MOTION FOR EXTENSION FO
TIME.pdf (320.2 KB) , cv11-03628 Motion to Set Aside ORder to Show Cause, etc.odt_0.pdf
(318.3 KB) , ifp11 tr 26800 city of reno coughlin traffic Nash Holmes Tarter.pdf (314.5 KB)
Page 1of 2 http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=5d21298f-6529-475...
http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.... http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.... 3/16/2012

Dear Ms. Kandaras,

Regarding the two recent stays in the jail and the demands for $30 per day, I am indigent, please retract
those demands. Its possible I don't want much more than to be left alone to practice law.

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: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: mhaley@washoecounty.us; tvinger@washoecounty.us; lstuchell@washoecounty.us;
rsilva@washoecounty.us; tdarlington@washoecounty.us
Subject: wrongful eviction service procedures and curious evidentiary release to Reno Marshals and
inconsistent statements related thereto
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 15:27:27 -0700

Dear Sheriff Haley et al,

I respectfully submit these materials to you, Sir.

Sincerely,
Please also accept this correspondence as a LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE REQUIRING YOU TO MAINTAIN
AND PRODUCE TO ME COPIES OF ANY AND ALL RECORDINGS OR DOCUMENTATION OF ANYSORT
CAPTURED OR EVER POSSESSED BY YOUR OFFICE OR ORGANIZATION INCLUDING THOSE MADE
DURING MY RECENT CONVERSATIONS WITH DEPUTY DODGE, TRUDY DARLINGTON, LOCAL ATTORNEY
PAM WILLMORE, AND THOSE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS AND EMAILS OF LATE, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO THOSE, BETWEEN MYSELF AND VARIOUS SECURED PROPERTY PERSONNEL AND SUPERVISORS.
Zach Coughlin

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
Page 2of 2 http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=5d21298f-6529-475...
http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.... http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.... 3/16/2012
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 60952, RENO, NV, 89506
Nevada Bar No 9!"#
$el ""5 ##8 8%%8
&a' 9!9 66" "!02
ZachCoughlin(ho$)ail*co)
+,,N Reno -unici.al Cour$ /udge0, 1onna Ballard, Chie& -ar0hal /u0$in Ro.er, 2iling O&&ice
Per0onnel, and Cour$ +d)ini0$ra$or Ca00andra /ac30on
re %% CR 22%"6, %% cr 26!05, %% ,R 26800, and an4 o$her ca0e0 5herein Zach Coughlin i0 a na)ed
.ar$4 or o$her ad)in0$ra$ive &ile0 involving $he 0a)e*
&a'ed $o ""5 ##! #82!
-arch 26$h, 20%2
1ear Reno -unici.al Cour$ /udge0, 2iling O&&ice Per0onnel, and +d)ini0$ra$or0,

Plea0e no$e )4 ne5 addre00* 6 5a0 recen$l4 $5ice ad7udge a vic$i) o& do)e0$ic violence in 2V%28
00%88 and 2V%2800%8"* 2ur$her, /udge Na0h 9ol)e0 ha0 co).ounded $he di&&icul$ie0 in )ain$aining
)4 0a&e$4 :4 con&i0ca$ing :o$h o& )4 cellular .hone0, 5hich 5ere nece00ar4 $o )4 de&en0e in a recen$
hearing on a -o$ion &or Order $o ;ho5 Cau0e :e&ore /udge 2lanagan in 1e.ar$)en$ ", in $he a..eal o&
$he evic$ion )a$$er $ha$ Richard <* 9ill, E0=*, i0 o..o0ing coun0el on* /udge 2lanagan denied -r*
9ill>0 -o$ion $oda4* 6 have &iled a -o$ion &or Re$urn o& $ho0e i$e)0 o& .er0onal .ro.er$4 $hough 6 have
received no re0.on0e in $ha$ regard or o..o0i$ion ?$hough $he $a).ering 5i$h )4 )ail )a4 have .la4ed
0o)e role in an4 dela4 inciden$ $o $he deliver4 o& an4$hing in $ha$ regard@* 6nciden$ $o $he0e do)e0$ic
violence a$$ac30 $ha$ 6 have :een vic$i)iAed :4 ha0 :een $a).ering 5i$h and di&&icul$ie0 in ge$$ing )4
)ail* 6 a03 $ha$ 4ou co.4 )e via &a' and e)ail on all corre0.ondence0, &iling0, co))unica$ion0 5i$h
$he ;$a$e Bar or o$her govern)en$al agencie0, e$c*, un$il $he .ro:le)0 a00ocia$ed 5i$h $he deliver4 o&
)4 B;P; )ail are re0olved*
Ca0$ 5ee3 6 vi0i$ed $he &iling o&&ice coun$er o& $he R-C and had a civiliAed di0cu00ion 5i$h 2iling
O&&icer ;u.ervi0or 1onna Ballard and 2ron$ Coun$er Cler3, 1aniel* 9o5ever, a..aren$l4 co).le$el4
un.rovo3ed, $5o Ci$4 o& Reno -ar0hal, -ar0hal Co..a and -ar0hal ,ho)0.0on 0$or)ed over and
de)anded $ha$ 6 leave a$ once 5hile 1aniel 5a0 0ee3ing clari&ica$ion &ro) -0* Ballard on a .oin$*
2ur$her, $he audio o& $he ,rial 6 order in %% ,R 26800 i0 0$ill no$ read4, according $o -0* Ballard,
5ho) 5a0 una:le $o $ell )e i& an4 record e'i0$0 o& )4 ever )a3ing a re=ue0$ &or 0uch in $he &ir0$ .lace*
+ddi$ionall4, -0* Ballard indica$ed a co).le$e lac3 o& concern &or $he &ac$ $ha$ $he )a$erial0 6 &iled :4
e)ail :e$5een %%D29D%% and %2D%6D%2 ?a&$er receiving her e'.re00 .er)i00ion $o 0o &ile :4 e)ail in an
a$$e).$ $o avoid over$a'ing $he R-C &a' )achine@ 5ere no$ accura$el4 re.re0en$ed in $he record on
a..eal or $he cer$i&ied co.4 o& $he doc3e$ in R-C %% CR 22%"6* 6 a) a$$aching $o $hi0 corre0.ondence
0o)e )a$erial0 $ha$ 0.ea3 $o 5ha$ a :reach o& her du$4 $ha$ i0 and a03 $ha$ a co.4 o& $hi0
corre0.ondence and $he a$$ached )a$erial0 :e .laced in her .er0onnel &ile* 2ur$her, 6 re=ue0$ $ha$ $he
0a)e :e done &or -ar0hal Co..a and -ar0hal ,ho).0on, 5ho de&iled 5i$h $heir $o$ali$arian :ehavior
la0$ 5ee3 5ha$ 0hould :e an environ)en$ 5here 7u0$ice and $ran0.arenc4 &louri0h* Ra$her, $he4 0ough$
1/2
$o cur$ail $he acce00 $o 7u0$ice, re&u0ed $o .rovide an4 rea0oning &or doing 0o, and a$$e).$ed $o &a:rica$e
a di0hone0$ accoun$ o& even$0 $ha$ da4*
Ca0$l4, i$ ha0 co)e $o )4 a$$en$ion $ha$ /udge Na0h 9ol)e0 i0 0ending $he ;$a$e Bar o& Nevada
corre0.ondence0, da$ed, #D%!D%2, 5herein 0he ci$e0 $o unna)ed E0ource0F $ha$ have here :elieving 6
)gi$h :e E0lee.ing in )4 carF* Plea0e .rovide $he na)e0 o& $ho0e 0ource0 and $he :a0i0 &or 0uch
accu0a$ion0* 6$ i0 hard $o under0$and ho5 )4 variou0 Pe$i$ion0 $o Proceed 6n 2or)a Pau.eri0 have :een
0o roundl4 denied in $he R-C, 4e$, 6 a) 0u:7ec$ $o $he0e hear0a4 accu0a$ion a0 .u:li0hed :4 /udge
Na0h 9ol)e0* 2ur$her, /udge Na0h 9ol)e>0 le$$er $o $he ;$a$e Bar o& Nevada )en$ion0 $ha$ a ca0e 5a0
$ran0&erred $o her due $o 1e.ar$)en$ % having 0urger4* 9o5ever, )4 record0 indica$e a Econ&lic$F 5a0
ci$ed a0 $he rea0oning &or 0uch a $ran0&er* 6& $he0e are $5o di&&eren$ $hing0, .lea0e .rovide 0o)e
indica$ion o& $he correc$ rea0on &or 0uch a $ran0&er ?unle00 $here i0 a )ul$i8&ace$ed ra$ionale &or 0o
$ran0&erring $he ca0e@*
On ano$her no$e), Cour$ +d)ini0$ra$or Ca00andra /ac30on 0en$ )e an e)ail 0o)e $i)e ago .ur.or$ing
$o in$er.re$ /udge 9o5ard>0 Order in %% CR 22"%6, 5here, $he Order indica$e0 $ha$ 6 a) no$ $o 0end
e)ail $o an4 R-C .er0onnel in $he con$e'$ o& $ha$ one .ar$icular ca0e* -0* /ac30on 0ee)0 $o e'$end
$ha$ Order 5here in her e)ail 0he indica$e0 $ha$ 6 a), unli3e an4 o$her ci$iAen, una:le $o u$iliAe
Reno-uniRecord0(reno*gov &or 0i).le record re=ue0$0, and 5here 0he .ur.or$0 $o e'$end $he Order $o
ca0e0 :e4ond $he 7uri0dic$ional li)i$0 a$$endan$ $o /udge 9o5ard>0 Order in %% CR 22%"6* Ou$ o&
re0.ec$ &or /udge 9o5ard, 6 have :a0icall4 &ollo5ed -0* /ac30on>0 a).li&ied Order, :u$ doing 0o ha0
crea$ed an undue :urden on )e a0 a li$igan$ in $he R-C and 6 5ri$e 0ee3ing clari&ica$ion 5i$h re0.ec$ $o
$he $rue i).or$ o& /udge 9o5ard>0 Order in $ha$ regard*
;incerel4,
Zach Coughlin, E0=*
2/2
FAX COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: NOTICE THAT RECORD ON APPEAL IN 11 CR 22176 IS DEFICIENT
February 24th, 2012
From:
ZACH COUGH!", ES#$
"V %AR "O &4'(
1422 E$ )TH ST$ *2
RE"O, "V &)+12
TE: ''+ ((& &11&
FAX )4) ,,' '402
ZACHCOUGH!"-HOT.A!$CO.
To: R.C
Ca//a01ra 2a34/o0
Court A1m505/trator
Court A11re//
O0e South S5erra Street
Re0o, "e6a1a &)+01
.a57508 A11re//
9$O$ %o: 1)00
Re0o, "e6a1a &)+0+
9ho0e: ''+;((4;22)0
Fa:: 775-334-3824
<o00a %a77ar1
Se05or Court S=e35a75/t
Re0o .u0535=a7 Court
1 South S5erra Street
Re0o, "e6a1a &)+01
>''+?((4;(101
9A. RO%ERTS, ES#
2OH" @A<!C, ES#
Re0o C5ty Attor0eyA/ OBB53e ; Cr5m50a7 <565/5o0
9$O$ %o: 1)00 Re0o , "V &)+0+
9ho0e "umber: ''+((420+0
Fa: 0umber: 7753342420
Attor0ey Bor Re/=o01e0t, C5ty oB Re0o
RE:
<!STR!CT COURT A99EA CR11;20,4
R.C 11 CR 221',
RECOR< O" A99EA !S <EF!C!E"T, <O""A %AAR< RECE!VE< EG!%E VERS!O"
CO"E 9AGE 9ER 9AGEC OF EXH!%!T 1
THE EXH!%!T 1 DAS 9ROV!<E< TO THE R.C !" A EG!%E CO"E 9AGE 9ER 9AGEC
FOR.AT, !" CO"TRAST TO THE CFOUR 9AGE 9ER 9AGEC FOR.AT THAT !S !EG!%E
THAT THE R.C 9ROV!<E< THE <!STR!CT COURT$ THE RECOR< O" A99EA SHOU<
CO"TA!" THE EG!%E CO"E 9AGE 9ER 9AGEC VERS!O" THAT <O""A %AAR<
ACCE9TE< TO RE"O.U"!CRECOR<S-RE"O$GOV$ 9EASE CORRECT THE RECOR< O"
A99EA
S503ere7y,
Za3 Cou8h750, E/E$
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Document Code:
Zach Coughlin
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9
th
St. 2
!eno" N# $9%12
&ele: 77%'33$'$11$
(a): 949'**7'74+2
,ttorne- .or /ro Se ,ttorne- /lainti.. Denied Si)th ,mendment !ight to Coun0el
1N &2E SEC3ND 45D1C1,6 D1S&!1C& C35!& 3( &2E S&,&E 3( NE#,D,
1N ,ND (3! &2E C35N&7 3( 8,S23E
C1&7 3( !EN39
/6,1N&1(("
v0.
Z,C2 C35:261N9
DE(END,N&.
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
Case No: 11 TR 26800
Dept No: 3
NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SUMMARY CONTEMPT ORDER; MOTION TO RETURN
PERSONAL PROPERTY CONFISCATED BY RENO MUNICIPAL COURT AND ITS
MARSHALS; MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND TO ALTER OR AMEND SUMMARY
CONTEMPT ORDER
C3<ES N38" De.endant" Zach Coughlin" =- and through him0el. and .ile0 the a=ove title
document on hi0 o>n =ehal..
&he under0igned mean0 to 0ho> nothing =ut re0?ect .or thi0 Court" e0?eciall- con0idering
7our 2onor hold0 the honor o. =eing one o. the .ir0t 1++ >omen ever admitted to ?ractice la> in our
0tate" 7%th. See E)hi=it 1. 6i@e 7our 2onor" m- .ather ha0 a =ac@ground in .oot=all Ahe ?la-ed
.ull=ac@ .or &ulane .rom 19*4'19*$" on 0cholar0hi? .rom Da-ton" 3hio;. 3ne thing that >e donBt 0ee
in .oot=all too much i0 a team hiring a li.etime o..en0ive coordinator to =e the teamB0 de.en0ive
- 1 -
NOTICE OF APPEAL OF !""AR# CONTE"PT ORDER$ "OTION TO RET!RN PERONAL PROPERT# CONFICATED
%# RENO "!NICIPAL CO!RT AND IT "AR&AL$ "OTION FOR NE' TRIAL AND TO ALTER OR A"END
!""AR# CONTE"PT ORDER
NOTE: THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS FILED IN THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT
ON 3/7/12, THOUGH THE RMC FAILED TO FOLLOW NRS 189.030 IN REFUSING
TO TRANSMIT THE RECORD ON APPEAL TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 10
DAYS AND FAILING TO ORDER THE TRANSCRIPT PREPARED, WHICH GREATLY
PREJUDICED COUGHLIN'S ABILITY TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CHARGES
STEMMING FROM THE TRAFFIC CITATION MATTER IN THE FORMAL
DISCIPLINARY HEARING BEFORE THE SBN/NNDB/PANEL.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
coordinator. 7ou Cu0t donBt ever 0ee that. 7et" >e have Cudge0 >ho have 0?ent much o. their careerB0
a0 ?ro0ecutor0 ta@ing the =ench. 5n0u?ri0ingl-" a0 here" the re0ult can o.ten -ield 0ituation0 >here it
a??ear0 the Cudge i0 0till >or@ing a0 a ?ro0ecutor. &hi0 i0" to =e clear" not meant to im?l- an
ina??ro?riate =ia0 or intent. 2o>ever" one 0im?l- doe0nBt ?la- tenni0 right handed their >hole li.e
then move the rac@et to the other hand and immediatel- have Duite the 0ame de)terit-. 2ere"
e..ectivel-" De?ut- Cit- ,ttorne- 3rma0 =ecame the 0econd chair on thi0 ca0e. No>" 0hortl- a.ter 1
have =een adCudge a victim o. dome0tic violence and granted t>o di..erent 3rder0 .or /rotection =-
<a0ter Edmund0on Athi0 Court re.u0ed to hear an-thing a=out thi0 in 0ummaril- den-ing m-
e)cu0a=le neglect argument0 vi0 a vi0 the deadline0 .or ?re'trial motion0...-et 3rma0 and Sargent
&arter are allo>ed to call time out right =e.ore the &rial and com?are their ?o0ition0 or Econ.erEF;.
No>" a0ide .rom having m- alread- 0@int =an@ account ?racticall- em?tied ?a-ign a G3++ to>ing =ill
.or m- car incurred during thi0 0ummar- incarceration" and having 0everal clientB0 ca0e0 =adl-
damaged A>h- thi0 ?uni0hment could not have =een dela-ed even a da- i0 not clear to me" rather" it i0
di0tur=ing...and the e)cu0e the lac@ o. concern .or the0e client0 =- 0hi.ting =lame to the under0igned
.or Healou0l- advocating on =ehal. o. the accu0ed mi00e0 the ?oint and .urther engage0 in a EHero 0um
gameE mind0et that !eno and it0 citiHen0 do not need right no>;. 1n hi0 o>n te0timon- Sargent
&arter admitted to a retaliator- motive .or the citation here. (urther he o?ened the door to 0everal
matter0 thi0 Court clearl- did not >ant to have 0ee the light o. da-. &he0e include" the .act that
Sargent &arter told the accu0ed he @ne> he >a0 going to turn le.t on (orre0t St. and head =ac@
to>ard0 2illB0 la> o..ice" and that i0 >h- he ?ulled the accu0ed over" in addition to the .act that the
accu0ed" allegedl- Edid not come to a com?lete 0to? in front o. the >hite line" =ut onl- a.ter the
>hite lineE. &hi0 EinchingE into the inter0ection >a0 nece00ar- to gain a vie> o. >hether an- car0
mgith =e coming even car0 going the >rong >a- do>n a one >a- 0treet li@e (orre0t Adrun@ or craH-
- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
driver0 do not cea0e to e)i0t" a0 Sargent &arter im?lied" merel- =ecau0e a 0treet i0 de0ignated a0 a
Eone >a-E. 1t0 ironic" =eca0ue the accu0ed and Sargent &arter argued a=out >hether the rationale
Sargent &arter ?ro.erred .or ?ulling the accu0ed over made an- 0en0e" a0" according to the accu0ed"
turning le.t on (orre0t to get =ac@ to 2illB0 o..ice> at *%2 (orre0t St >hile the accu0ed >a0 heading
ea0t on St. 6aurence >ould have reDuired goign do>n the E>rong >a-E o. a Eone >a- 0treet"
(orre0tE...it >a0 at a=out that time that Sargent &arter decided he could hear no more .rom the
accu0ed. !egardle00" &arter >a0 tailing the accu0ed" the accu0ed >a0 a>are o. it" and the accu0ed
care.ull- o=e-ed all la> o. tra..ic a0 he 0u0?ected &arter >ould tr- to >rite 0ome ?hon- tra..ic tic@et.
&hi0 clearl- contradict0 &arter0 a00ertion that he >a0 ?ar@ed and not tailing the accu0ed" nor had he
=egun to" until a.ter >itne00ing the alleged E.ailure to come to a com?lete 0to?E violation" >hich
included &arterB0 highl- 0u0?ect te0timon- >hich 0eemed to de.- the la>0 o. ?h-0ic0 and o?tic0" in
addition to other la>0.
De.endant .ile0 thi0 Aonl- to the e)tent it i0 even nece00ar- and 0ome alternate re0olution
cannot =e had...=arring that" ?lea0e treat thi0 a0 a Notice o. ,??eal a0 >ell" though treating thi0 a0 a
Etolling motionE" N!C/ %2" N!C/ %9Aa;"Ae;" etc. ma- al0o =e a nice a??roach ?reventing the .a0t
?ace a??eal0 ?roceed at an or o=viating the need .or me to .ile 0uch a Notice o. ,??eal; a0 he >a0
denied hi0 Si)th ,mendment !ight &o Coun0el A A thi0 Si)th ,mendment !ight to Coun0el i0
mentioned clearl- in the 2++$ 6imited 4uri0diction CourtB0 Bench Boo@ .or Nevada 4udge0" along
>ith the 2+1+ Su??lement thereto" and >hile a ver- learned 4udge li@e 4udge 2o>ard ma- cite to
Scott v. 1llinoi0 .or 0u??ort that no 0uch right e)i0t0 >here incarceration i0 not actuall- e..ectuated" it
clearl- >a0 here" .ive da-0 >orth" com?lete >ith a G3++ =ill .or the under0ignedB0 car =eing to>ed;"
and .ile0 thi0 <otion &o Set ,0ide 4udge Na0h 2olme0 (e=ruar- 27th" 2+12 Summar- Contem?t
- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3rder and al0o to move .or a continuance >ith re0?ect to the ne)t &rial date that >a0 mentioned >hile
the under0igned >a0 in cu0tod-. See E)hi=it 1.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
,??ellant argue0 that =- den-ing hi0 reDue0t to cro00'e)amine >itne00e0 a=out their ?otential
=ia0" the trial court a=ridged hi0 Si)th ,mendment right to con.ront the >itne00e0 again0t him. Bia0
e)i0t0 I>hen a >itne00 ha0 a general >illingne00 or motivation to te0ti.- .al0el- on the 0tand.J !o0e v.
5nited State0" $79 ,.2d 9$*" 99% AD.C.2++%;. IBia0 cro00'e)amination o. a main government >itne00
i0 al>a-0 a ?ro?er area o. cro00'e)amination and i0 relevant in a00e00ing the >itne00B credi=ilit- and
evaluating the >eight o. the evidence.J Blunt v. 5nited State0" $*3 ,.2d $2$" $33 AD.C.2++4;9
accord" Scull v. 5nited State0" %*4 ,.2d 11*1" 11*% AD.C.19$9; AIBia0 i0 al>a-0 a ?ro?er 0u=Cect o.
cro00'e)amination . and the alleged =ia0 or unrelia=ilit- o. a >itne00 i0 never a collateral i00ueJ
Acitation0 omitted;;. 3n the other hand" although the Io??ortunit- to cro00'e)amine adver0e >itne00e0
i0 an inherent com?onent o. the de.endantB0 Si)th ,mendment right o. con.rontation . that right i0
0u=Cect to rea0ona=le limit0 im?o0ed at the di0cretion o. the trial Cudge . to ?revent hara00ment"
?reCudice" con.u0ion o. the i00ue0" or re?etitive" cumulative" or onl- marginall- relevant Due0tioning.J
1d. at 11*4 Acitation0 omitted;. , I?ro?er .oundationJ i0 reDuired .or cro00'e)amination to e0ta=li0h
=ia0" including a ?ro..er o. .act0 0u..icient to ena=le the court Ito evaluate >hether the ?ro?o0ed
Due0tion i0 ?ro=ative o. =ia0.J 4one0 v. 5nited State0" %1* ,.2d %13" %17 AD.C.19$*;. &he ?ro..er
mu0t include I K0ome .act0 >hich 0u??ort a genuine =elie.L that the >itne00 i0 =ia0ed in the manner
a00erted"J id. Acitation omitted;" or at lea0t Ia K>ell'rea0oned 0u0?icionL rather than Kan im?ro=a=le
.light o. .anc-L to 0u??ort the ?ro?o0ed cro00'e)amination.J Scull" %*4 ,.2d at 11*4 ADuoting 5nited
State0 v. /ugh" 141 5.S.,??. D.C. *$" 71" 43* (.2d 222" 22% A197+;;. &hi0 0tandard i0 a .airl- lenient
one" and an- deci0ion a=out the adeDuac- o. the ?ro..er lie0 >ithin the 0ound di0cretion o. the trial
- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
court. Bro>n v. 5nited State0" *$3 ,.2d 11$" 124'12% AD.C.199*;. (inall-" >hen challenging an
adver0e ruling on a ?ro..er o. >itne00 =ia0" an a??ellant mu0t 0ho> Ithat he >a0 ?rohi=ited .rom
engaging in other>i0e a??ro?riate cro00'e)amination de0igned to 0ho> a ?rotot-?ical .orm o. =ia0 on
the ?art o. the >itne00" and there=- Kto e)?o0e to the Cur- the .act0 .rom >hich Curor0 . could
a??ro?riatel- dra> in.erence0 relating to the relia=ilit- o. the >itne00.L J Dela>are v. #an ,r0dall"
47% 5.S. *73" *$+" 1+* S.Ct. 1431" $9 6.Ed.2d *74 A19$*; Acitation omitted;. ,??ellant argue0 that
he >a0 not a=le to ?re0ent to the Cur- hi0 theor- o. de.en0e" >hich >a0 that the ?olice ?lanted the
evidence allegedl- .ound on or near him in retaliation .or hi0 ?ending civil 0uit" =ecau0e the trial
court limited hi0 a=ilit- to cro00'e)amine the governmentB0 >itne00e0. Be.ore the trial =egan" de.en0e
coun0el ?ro..ered to the court evidence a=out >hich he >i0hed to cro00'e)amine 0ome o. the
government >itne00e0 regarding =ia0. Coun0el e)?lained to the court" a.ter the ?ro0ecutor o=Cected"
that in an earlier incident 3..icer0 <a0on and Branch" >ho >ere al0o ?art o. the 0earch >arrant team"
came to a??ellantB0 home and =ro@e hi0 arm" and that a0 a re0ult a??ellant .iled 0uit.4 De.en0e coun0el
0tated: MBNa0ed on all o. tho0e .actor0" >hether or not the- 0a- the- @ne> the o..icer0 or not" >hether
or not the- tal@ed MtoN the o..icer0 or not" it 0eem0 to u0 that a =ia0 i00ue e)i0t0" and the Court 0hould
?ermit thi0 and let the Cur- decide. M&Nhe Cur- can 0ort out >hether or not thi0 in.ormation 0omeho>
got to ?eo?le >ho >ere ?art o. the arre0t MteamN" and arre0ted the de.endant. % &he court ruled: 1n thi0
ca0e there i0 no relevance at all =ecau0e the o..icer0 that are te0ti.-ing'each one o. them no> ha0 told
u0 that the- had no idea a=out the ?rior incident" the notice or the la>0uit" on the da- o. the arre0t o.
<r. 2o>ard in thi0 ca0e. &o allo> te0timon- a=out that 0e?arate incident that the0e o..icer0 didnBt
even @no> a=out >ould =e con.u0ing" mi0leading" and ?reCudicial" and 1Bm not going to allo> it.* 1t
a??ear0 to u0 that the court mi0ta@enl- a??lied a ?re'trial credi=ilit- .inding" on >hich it had relied to
decide the i00ue o. ?ro=a=le cau0e" to the 0e?arate determination o. the trial'related i00ue o. >hether
- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the de.endant had ?ro..ered 0u..icient .act0 to >arrant cro00'e)amination on ?otential =ia0. ,t the
0u??re00ion hearing" the court had concluded that 3..icer !andol?h" >ho ?re?ared the 0earch >arrant
a??lication" did not @no> o. the ?ending civil 0uit and had not =een directed =- 3..icer Branch or
3..icer <a0on to get a 0earch >arrant .or a??ellantB0 home" 0o the >arrant >a0 valid. &hi0 .inding"
ho>ever" did not .oreclo0e the de.en0e trial theor- that the o..icer0 at the 0cene >ere =ia0ed =ecau0e
o. the la>0uit or ma- have =een im?ro?erl- in.luenced =- 3..icer Branch A>ho >a0 in the room
>hen the drug0 >ere .ound on a??ellant; or 3..icer <a0on A>ho >a0 ?art o. the 0earch team;" and
intentionall- im?licated a??ellant even though Aaccording to the de.en0e; no drug0 >ere actuall-
.ound on hi0 ?er0on. C.. Sullivan v. 5nited State0" 4+4 ,.2d 1%3" 1*+ AD.C.1979; AIMgNreat latitude i0
a??ro?riatel- e)tended to a 0ho>ing o. a com?laining >itne00B =ia0 =- mean0 o. cro00'e)amination
concerning that >itne00B ?ending la>0uit ver0u0 the de.endant again0t >hom he ha0 te0ti.iedJ =ecau0e
the la>0uit i0 Irelevant to a 0ho>ing o. . hi0 ill'>ill to>ard the de.endantJ Acitation0 omitted;;.
,lthough the trial court .ound" at the 0u??re00ion hearing" that 3..icer !andol?h >a0 credi=le and did
not @no> o. the la>0uit at the time he o=tained the 0earch >arrant or the at the time o. it0 e)ecution"
and thu0 concluded that the >arrant >a0 valid" it >a0 not u? to the court to determine the credi=ilit-
o. >itne00e0 at trial regarding their ?otential =ia0. See Ne>man v. 5nited State0" 7+% ,.2d 24*" 2%9
AD.C.1997; AI1n evaluating the relia=ilit- o. the ?ro..er . the court mu0t not 0ee@ to evaluate the
relia=ilit- o. the >itne00J;. De0?ite the courtB0 a00e00ment o. the o..icer0B credi=ilit- in ruling on the
validit- o. the >arrant at the 0u??re00ion hearing" it >a0 error to rel- on that credi=ilit- determination
to ?reclude =ia0 cro00'e)amination at trial =ecau0e IMcNonditioning =ia0 cro00'e)amination on the
courtB0 a=ilit- to a00e00 the credi=ilit- o. the 0ource o. the alleged motive run0 too clo0e to u0ur?ing
the Cur-B0 .unction.J Bro>n v. 5nited State0" 74+ ,.2d %33" %37 AD.C.1999;. ,t trial" de.en0e coun0el
0ought to cro00'e)amine 0ome o. the ?olice >itne00e0 a=out their @no>ledge o. the civil 0uit again0t
- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the ?olice de?artment and to a0@ them >hether that @no>ledge in.luenced the e)ecution o. the 0earch
>arrant. Coun0el ?ro..ered .act0 >hich 0ugge0ted that the >itne00e0 might =e =ia0ed in the manner
a00erted: that 3..icer0 Branch and <a0on had ?reviou0l- =een involved in an incident in >hich
a??ellantB0 arm >a0 =ro@en" that the 0ame o..icer0 A.rom the Si)th Di0trict; >ere ?re0ent at the
e)ecution o. the 0earch >arrant >hich re0ulted in a??ellantB0 arre0t" and that a??ellant had .iled a civil
0uit again0t the ?olice de?artment" a0 >ell a0 3..icer0 Branch and <a0on. &he0e .act0 0u??orted at
lea0t Ia >ell'rea0oned 0u0?icionJ that the o..icer0 involved in the e)ecution o. the 0earch >arrant" all
.rom the Si)th Di0trict" ma- have had a motive to te0ti.- .al0el-" or at lea0t to 0tretch the truth"
regarding the 0eiHure o. drug0 .rom a??ellant. Since Sergeant :aine-" 3..icer !andol?h" and 3..icer
Brac@ett >ere all ?re0ent >hen 0ome or all o. tho0e drug0 >ere recovered" the court 0hould have
allo>ed coun0el to cro00'e)amine the government >itne00e0 =e.ore the Cur- to e)?lore >hat the-
@ne> a=out the la>0uit and >hether the- >ere" during the 0earch" in.luenced in an- >a- in.luenced
=- that @no>ledge. 3nce coun0el made hi0 ?ro..er" the credi=ilit- o. the >itne00e0 >a0 .or the Cur- to
decide" and cro00'e)amination a=out the la>0uit >a0 a??ro?riate. ,0 the Su?reme Court ha0 0aid: 8e
cannot 0?eculate a0 to >hether the Cur-" a0 0ole Cudge o. the credi=ilit- o. a >itne00" >ould have
acce?ted thi0 line o. rea0oning had coun0el =een ?ermitted to .ull- ?re0ent it. But >e do conclude that
the Curor0 >ere entitled to have the =ene.it o. the de.en0e theor- =e.ore them 0o that the- could ma@e
an in.ormed Cudgment a0 to the >eight to ?lace on Mthe >itne00BN te0timon- >hich ?rovided Ia crucial
lin@ in the ?roo. . o. ?etitionerB0 act.J Davi0 v. ,la0@a" 41% 5.S. 3+$" 317" 94 S.Ct. 11+%" 39 6.Ed.2d
347 A1974; Acitation omitted;. &he trial courtB0 concern in thi0 ca0e a=out ?o00i=le Cur- con.u0ion >a0
mi0?laced =ecau0e IMaNn- ?otentialit- o. con.u0ion to the Cur- ma- =e eliminated =- ?ro?er
in0truction0.J Scull" %*4 ,.2d at 11*% A.ootnote omitted;. ,??ellant ha0 I0tateMdN a violation o. the
Con.rontation Clau0e =- 0ho>ing that he >a0 ?rohi=ited .rom engaging in other>i0e a??ro?riate
- 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
cro00'e)amination de0igned to 0ho> a ?rotot-?ical .orm o. =ia0 on the ?art o. the >itne00Me0N" and
there=- Kto e)?o0e to the Cur- the .act0 .rom >ich Curor0 . could a??ro?riatel- dra> in.erence0 relating
to the relia=ilit- o. the >itne00 Me0N.L J #an ,r0dall" 47% 5.S. at *$+" 1+* S.Ct. 1431. &he trial court
erred =- con.u0ing the 0earch >arrant determination >ith the adeDuac- o. the =ia0 ?ro..er in0tead o.
con0idering the ?ro..er 0e?aratel-" and thu0 im?ro?erl- ?recluded relevant cro00'e)amination a0 to
=ia0. Becau0e the trial courtB0 ruling ?revented a??ellant .rom ?re0enting hi0 main de.en0e theor-" >e
cannot .ind harmle00 error under Cha?man v. Cali.ornia" 3$* 5.S. 1$" 24" $7 S.Ct. $24" 17 6.Ed.2d
7+% A19*7;. See #an ,r0dall" 47% 5.S. at *$4" 1+* S.Ct. 1431 Athe denial o. a de.endantB0 o??ortunit-
to im?each a >itne00 .or =ia0 i0 0u=Cect to Cha?man harmle00 error anal-0i0;. &he .act that the
de.en0e >a0 allo>ed to ?re0ent te0timon- =- 6e0ter 2o>ard that he did not 0ee an- drug0 recovered
.rom a??ellant and that he and a??ellant >ere a=u0ed =- the ?olice doe0 not alleviate the harm o.
?rohi=iting the relevant and di0tinct =ia0 te0timon- a=out the >itne00e0B @no>ledge o. the la>0uit. 8e
reached a 0imilar conclu0ion in Scull" in >hich >e held that it >a0 not harmle00 error .or the trial
court to ?reclude the cro00'e)amination o. >itne00e0 a0 to relevant =ia0 A.ear o. their o>n
?ro0ecution; even though it allo>ed other cro00'e)amination o. the 0ame >itne00e0 a0 to =ia0
0temming .rom a di..erent motivation. ISince the i00ue o. thi0 ?ro?o0ed cro00'e)amination >a0
entirel- di0tinct .rom that allo>ed =- the trial court" central to the Cur-B0 evaluation o. the credi=ilit-
o. @e- >itne00e0" and admi00i=le" it0 e)clu0ion >a0 con0titutional error.J %*4 ,.2d at 11**. See al0o
Davi0" 41% 5.S. at 31$" 94 S.Ct. 11+% AI8hile coun0el >a0 ?ermitted to a0@ Mthe >itne00N >hether he
>a0 =ia0ed" coun0el >a0 una=le to ma@e a record .rom >hich to argue >h- Mthe >itne00N might have
=een =ia0ed or other>i0e lac@ed that degree o. im?artialit- e)?ected o. a >itne00 at trialJ;. &here.ore"
the error cannot =e deemed harmle00 =e-ond a rea0ona=le dou=t. 111 ,??ellant al0o argue0 that the
trial court 0hould not have ?ermitted Sergeant :aine- to te0ti.- a=out the re0ult0 o. the internal ?olice
- 8 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
inve0tigation a=out the u0e o. .orce again0t 6e0ter 2o>ard. 2e maintain0 that the admi00ion o. thi0
te0timon- denied him a .air trial =ecau0e he could not cro00'e)amine the >itne00e0 at the ?olice
de?artment hearing.7 3n thi0 ?oint >e .ind no error. 8hile cro00'e)amining Sergeant :aine-"
de.en0e coun0el elicited the .act that the ?olice de?artment had conducted an internal inve0tigation o.
the earlier incident9 the government re0?onded on redirect =- clari.-ing that the u0e o. .orce >a0
ultimatel- .ound to have =een Cu0ti.ied. Such remedial e..ort0 are allo>ed under the doctrine o.
curative admi00i=ilit-. See :oine0 v. 5nited State0" 9+% ,.2d 79%" $++ AD.C.2++*;. &hat doctrine
I?rovide0 that in certain circum0tance0 the ?ro0ecution ma- inDuire into evidence other>i0e
inadmi00i=le" =ut onl- a.ter the de.en0e ha0 Ko?ened the doorL >ith regard to thi0 evidence.J <ercer
v. 5nited State0" 724 ,.2d 117*" 1192 AD.C.1999;. &he doctrine i0 limited" ho>ever" and ?ermit0
remedial evidence Ionl- to the e)tent nece00ar- to remove an- un.air ?reCudice >hich might
other>i0e have en0ued .rom the original evidence.J 1d. Acitation omitted;. Becau0e de.en0e coun0el
o?ened the door to evidence a=out the internal ?olice inve0tigation" it >a0 not an a=u0e o. di0cretion
.or the trial court to allo> the government to a0@ .urther Due0tion0 on redirect. &hrough it0
Due0tioning" the government re.uted the im?lication that Sergeant :aine- might =e =ia0ed =ecau0e o.
the inve0tigation. :aine-B0 te0timon- on redirect >a0 limited to clari.-ing that the ?olice de?artment
routinel- conducted 0uch inve0tigation0 >hen .orce >a0 u0ed =- it0 o..icer0" that he >a0 not .ear.ul o.
=eing im?licated in an- >rongdoing" and that the inve0tigation concluded that the u0e o. .orce in thi0
in0tance >a0 Cu0ti.ied. 8hen the government elicit0 te0timon- on a 0u=Cect during redirect
e)amination that the de.en0e =rought u? during cro00'e)amination" the de.endant Icannot >ell
com?lain o. =eing ?reCudiced =- a 0ituation >hich MheN created"J 6ane- v. 5nited State0" %4 ,??.
D.C. %*" *+" 294 (. 412" 41* A1923;" =ecau0e Ithe error that occurred" i. an-" >a0 invited =- de.en0e
coun0el.J :onHaleH v. 5nited State0" *97 ,.2d $19" $2* AD.C.1997;9 0ee /ar@er v. 5nited State0" 7%7
- 9 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
,.2d 12$+" 12$*'12$7 AD.C.2+++; Aciting :onHaleH and 6ane- ;. Becau0e de.en0e coun0el elicited
te0timon- on the 0u=Cect in the .ir0t in0tance during hi0 cro00'e)amination o. Sergeant :aine-" the
government >a0 entitled on redirect to di0?el an- ?otential ?reCudice and to re.ute" i. it could" an-
im?lication o. =ia0.J 238,!D" v. 5N1&ED S&,&ES" ,??ellee. No. +$'C('173. ,rgued <a- *"
2++9. '' ,ugu0t 27" 2++9
Court .ind0 ?olice chie. and o..icer0 inve0tigated man .or retaliator- rea0on09 damage0 a>arded" ho>ever" >ere
e)ce00ive !a@ovich v. 8ade" $19 (.2d 1393 A7th Cir. 19$7;.
(ederal a??eal0 court rever0e0 deci0ion holding ?olice chie. and o..icer0 lia=le .or alleged retaliator- inve0tigation
!a@ovich v. 8ade" $%+ (.2d 11$+ A7th Cir. 19$$;.
/rocedural: Evidence
&rial CudgeB0 re.u0al to allo> a ?lainti.. in an e)ce00ive .orce la>0uit to cro00 e)amine the
de.endant o..icer regarding hi0 ?rior di0ci?line and conduct" >hich allegedl- >ould have 0ho>n that
he >a0 ha=ituall- di0hone0t in hi0 Co=" re0ulting in hi0 re0ignation" >a0 an a=u0e o. di0cretion"
reDuiring a ne> trial on claim0 again0t the o..icer. &he e)ce00ive .orce claim again0t him revolved
around an i00ue o. hi0 credi=ilit-" 0o that =arring thi0 evidence >a0 not harmle00. ,0 .or claim0
again0t the cit-" alleged negligent monitoring o. an o..icer cannot =e the =a0i0 o. a .ederal civil right0
claim" and the ?lainti.. .ailed to e0ta=li0h an- inadeDuate training =- the cit- on u0e o. .orce or
?roviding reDuired medical care. 2inoCo0a v. Butler" No. +7'%+%**" 2++$ 5.S. ,??. 6e)i0 222$2 A%th
Cir.;.
8hen a trial CudgeB0 in0truction0 a=out the legal 0tandard .or e)ce00ive u0e o. .orce >ere correct"
the CudgeB0 error concerning in0truction0 a=out the ?ro?er u0e o. a ?olice inve0tigatorB0 re?ort
concerning the 0hooting o. a 0u0?ect >ere harmle00. &he re?ort" containing 0tatement0 the 0hooting
o..icer made to a 0u?ervi0or a.ter the 0hooting" >hile Ehear0a- >ithin hear0a-E could have ?ro?erl-
- 10 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Evidence o. charge0 and conviction o. ra?e and @idna??ing >hich >ere rea0on .or arre0t >ere
admi00i=le in civil right0 la>0uit =rought =- arre0tee .or alleged e)ce00ive .orce 2ernandeH v.
Ce?eda" $*+ (.2d 2*+ A7th Cir. 19$$;.
/lainti.. 0ue0 o..icer0 .or e)ce00ive u0e o. .orce in arre0ting him9 no error to admit evidence o. hi0
?rior conviction0 .or ro==er-" ra?e and .orci=le 0odom- 4one0 v. Bd o. /olice Commi00ioner0" $44
(.2d %++ A$th Cir. 19$$;. Congre00ional re?ort on ?olice mi0conduct inadmi00i=le ,nder0on v. Cit-
o. Ne> 7or@" *%7 (.Su??. 1%71 AS.D.N7 19$7;.
State trial CudgeB0 te0timon- a=out o..icer0B credi=ilit- inadmi00i=le in arre0teeB0 civil right0
la>0uit9 o..icer0 granted ne> trial SchultH v. &homa0" $32 (.2d 1+$ A7th Cir. 19$7;.
,rre0tee a>arded G1%1"*$+ .or alleged a00ault =- o..icer09 admi00ion into evidence o. di0mi00al o.
charge0 >a0 error =ut cured =- Cur- in0truction0 4ared v. Cit- o. Ne> 7or@" %19 N.7.S.2d 717 A,.D.
19$7;.
1n =rutalit- 0uit again0t o..icer" 2a>aii 0u?reme court admit0 evidence o. other >rong0 he
committed and character evidence 0ho>ing ?ro?en0it- .or violence <e-er v. Cit- and Count- o.
2onolulu" 731 /.2d 149 A2a>aii 19$*;.
,rger0inger v. 2amlin A4+7 5.S. 2%; e0ta=li0he0 that the right to the a00i0tance o. coun0el"
>hether retained or court a??ointed" i0 reDuired in all ?ro0ecution0 >hich ma- re0ult in
im?ri0onment" unle00 a com?lete (aretta canva0 ha0 =een com?leted and the reDue0t .or >aiving
coun0el i0 granted.
8hile there i0 a time and ?lace" ?erha?0 .or 3rder0 .inding Summar- Contem?t under N!S
22.+3+...?erha?0" the greate0t 0trength a Cudge can demon0trate i0 the a=ilit- to 0ho> a little >ea@ne00"
to demon0trate 0omething other than ruling >ith an iron hand" to do 0omething other than cru0h an-
voice o. di00ent in her court. &o 0trangle out o. litigant0 the .reedom to Healou0l- adovocate on their
- 23 -
NOTE:COUGHLIN EDITED OUT PAGES 10-22 HERE, and to be fair to Judge Nash Holmes, those pages
are somewhat irrelevant to the traffic citation Trial given the citations therein almost all
relate to civil lawsuits against law enforcement, however, Coughlin was at least trying to put
forward authority involving a key disputed issue in RMC 11TR26800, ie, the relevancy of a
retaliatory motive by law enforcement (and evidence related thereto can be elicted for more
than one purpose (ie, beyond truth of the matter, to show state of mind or effect on listener).
NOTE: ON 3/23/12 at the Order to Show Cause hearing in CV11-03628 before Judge Flanagan in the appeal of the
summary eviction matter that RMC Marshal Harley served Coughlin Notice of on 2/27/12 just before the RMC
11TR26800 Trial before Judge Holmes, Judge Flanagan quoted this section and characterized it as poignant. His
2/27/12 Order denied HIll's Motion for ORder to sanction or hold Coughlin in contempt. courthouse sanctuary do
ctrine as to wcso Machen having Harley serve Coguhlin on 2/27/12,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o>n or anotherB0 =ehal. Ain the ca0e o. licen0ed attorne-0; i0 ?erha?0 the mo0t heinou0" 0ad" and ugl-
thing a Cudge could do. , Cudge >hom demon0trate0 an a=ilit- to over0ee that >hich ma@e0 her le00
than com.orta=le in her courtroom" that >hich 0he doe0 not nece00aril- agree >ith" i0 a Cudge 0ecure
in hher a=ilitie0 and a>are o. the ?remium on re0traint and ?atience called .or in order .or a Cudge and
court to tran0cend .rom mere de=t collector .or the Cit- ,ttorne- to im?artial ar=iter o. .act and la>.
&o demon0trate other>i0e ma- create an atmo0?here >here court em?lo-ee0 over0te? their =ound0
and =egin to =ull- and hara00 tho0e 0ee@ing to acce00 Cu0tice" a true violation o. the tru0t in >hich the
?u=lic endo>0 0uch ?u=lic 0ervant0. Even ?erha?0" >here <ar0hal0 are a=le to >hi0?er into 3rma0B0
ear" in o?en court" then >here the under0igned need0 to u0e the re0troom" the Court 3rder0 him to
leave hi0 note?ad in the courtroom" then the udner0igned i0 0ummaril- interrogated =- the Court .rom
the Bench in 0ome >a- a=out Edevice0E li@e he i0 a ma.ia in.ormant =eing rundo>n =- the Don" then
the under0igned i0 arre0ted" 0tri? 0earched" ha0 hi0 ?ro?ert- con.i0cated. ,nd it0 im?ortant ?ro?ert-"
including" =ut not limited to t>o di..erent cell ?hoen0. 2o> i0 the under0igned 0u??o0ed to
communicate >ith client0F (urther" the under0igned i0 a recent victim o. dome0tic violence A(#12'
++1$7 and (#12'++1$$;" and rendering him more vulnera=le through conver0ion o. hi0 mean0 o.
emergenc- communiction0" hi0 cell ?hone0" i0 not Cu0ti.ied here.
N
8here0 De.endant >ent to great length0 to demon0trate to 4udge 2o>ard and the !<C that
he i0 indigent" he" a??arentl-" i0 not Iallo>edJ to =e 0o" 0o much 0o that thi0 Court >ent again0t the
Nevada Court o. 6imited 4uri0diction Bench Boo@ o. 2++$ and it0 2+1+ Su??lement in den-ing the
under0igned the hi0 Si)th ,mendment !ight &o Coun0el" 0et .orth e)?licitl- in 0everal location0 in
the Bench Boo@ and mandator- authorit- in the5nited State0. ,rger0inger v. 2amlin" A4+7 5.S. 2%;.
- 24 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
, /etition to /roceed in 1(/ and receive a co?- o. the audio recording o. an- ?roceeding0 in thi0
matter i0 0u=mitted along >ith thi0 in0tant .iling.
Nevada N!C/ *+A=;A3; allo>0 a ?art- to move .or relie. .rom a Cudgment >hich i0 void" and
>hile motion0 made under N!C/ *+A=; are generall- reDuired to E=e made >ithin a rea0ona=le timeE
and to =e adCudicated according to the di0trict courtB0 di0cretion" thi0 i0 not true in the ca0e o. a void
Cudgment. Nece00aril- a motion under thi0 ?art o. the rule di..er0 mar@edl- .rom motion0 under the
other clau0e0 o. !ule *+A=;. &here i0 no Due0tion o. di0cretion on the ?art o. the court >hen a motion
i0 made under Mthi0 ?ortion o. the !uleN. Nor i0 there an- reDuirement" a0 there u0uall- i0 >hen
de.ault Cudgment0 are attac@ed under !ule *+A=;" that the moving ?art- 0ho> that he ha0 a
meritoriou0 de.en0e. Either a Cudgment i0 void or it i0 valid. Determining >hich it i0 ma- >ell ?re0ent
a di..icult Due0tion" =ut >hen that Due0tion i0 re0olved" the court mu0t act accordingl-. B- the 0ame
to@en" there i0 no time limit on an attac@ on a Cudgment a0 void. . . . MENven the reDuirement that the
motion =e made >ithin a Erea0ona=le time"E >hich 0eem0 literl- to a??l- . . . cannot =e en.orced >ith
regard to thi0 cla00 o. motion. 5nder0tanda=l-" the ?artie0 >ere not attuned to our recent 4aco=0
deci0ion during oral argument. ,ccordingl-" it >a0 determined at that time to allo> the ?artie0 to
0u??lement their =rie.0 in order to determine >ith certaint- >hether" in .act" no de.ault had =een
entered again0t :arcia ?rior to the entr- o. the de.ault Cudgment. :arciaB0 0u??lemental material
0u??lied additional evidence that no de.ault >a0 ever entered" including an a..idavit =- Clar@ Count-
Court Cler@ 6oretta Bo>man atte0ting that no 0uch .iling e)i0t0 in the ca0e .ile. !e0?ondent0 al0o
ac@no>ledged that no de.ault >a0 ever entered =ut argue in their 0u??lemental =rie. that 4aco=0
0hould not =e a??lied retroactivel-" noting that the de.ault Cudgment at i00ue herein >a0 entered ?rior
to our 4aco=0 deci0ion. &hi0 argument i0 >ithout merit. &he court in 4aco=0 determined" con0i0tent
>ith la> .rom other Curi0diction0" that the de.ault Cudgment entered in 4aco=0 >a0 void. 8e
- 25 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
accordingl- ordered the di0trict court to grant relie. .rom the void Cudgment" de0?ite the .act that the
ruling in 4aco=0 >a0" o. cour0e" ?receded =- entr- o. the de.ault Cudgment again0t 4aco=0. 1. thi0 ca0e"
rather than 4aco=0" >ere =e.ore u0 a0 a ca0e o. .ir0t im?re00ion" >e >ould have reached the 0ame
conclu0ion. , void Cudgment i0 void .or all ?ur?o0e0 and ma- not =e given li.e under a theor- =a0ed
u?on lac@ o. legal ?recedent. :arcia v. 1deal Su??l- Co." 11+ Nev. 493" $74 /.2d 7%2 ANev.
%O19O1994;. &he de.ective 0ervice rendered the di0trict courtB0 ?er0onal Curi0diction over :a00ett
invalid and the Cudgment again0t her void. (or a Cudgment to =e void" there mu0t =e a de.ect in the
courtB0 authorit- to enter Cudgment through either lac@ o. ?er0onal Curi0diction or Curi0diction over
0u=Cect matter in the 0uit. /u?hal v. /u?hal" **9 /.2d 191 A1daho 19$3;. 1n /rice v. Dunn" 1+* Nev.
1++" 7$7 /.2d 7$% A199+;. 8e no> hold that the .iling o. a motion to 0et a0ide a void Cudgment
?reviou0l- entered again0t the movant 0hall not con0titute a general a??earance. See" e.g." Do=0on v.
Do=0on" 1+$ Nev. 34*" 349" $3+ /.2d 133*" 133$ A1992;. Nonethele00" 0ince the order >a0 void" a
Cudgment =a0ed thereon >ould li@e>i0e =e void.. Nel0on v. Sierra Con0tr. Cor?." 77 Nev. 334" 3*4
/.2d 4+2. 5nder N!C/ *+A=; a motion to 0et a0ide a void Cudgment i0 not re0tricted to the 0i) month0B
?eriod 0?eci.ied in the rule. N!C/ %4Aa; ?rovide0 that the >ord ECudgmentE a0 u0ed in the0e rule0
include0 an- order .rom >hich an a??eal lie0. &here.ore there i0 no merit to a??ellant0B contention
that the motion to vacate the Cudgment >a0 not timel- made. (o0ter v. 6e>i0" 7$ Nev. 33+" 372 /.2d
*79 ANev. *O19O19*2;. , void Cudgment i0 0u=Cect to collateral attac@9 a Cudgment i0 void i. the
i00uing court lac@ed ?er0onal Curi0diction or 0u=Cect matter Curi0diction9 See 49 C.4.S. 4udgment0 T
4+1" at 792 A1947 U 0u??. 1991;9 4* ,m.4ur.2d 4udgment0 TT *21'%* A19*9 U 0u??. 1991;.
!eno Cit- ,ttorne-B0 8ong and 3rmaa0 0ho>ed a di0tur=ing lac@ o. concern >ith regard to
the re?ort0 that an !/D had admitted to ta@ign =ri=e0 .rom !ichard :. 2ill" E0D. (urther" thi0 Corut
e)?loded at the under0igned at one ?oitn in the &rial" threatening to Ethro> -ou in Cail i. -ou 0a- the
- 26 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
name !ichard 2ill one more timeVE. &hi0 &ra..ic citation0 >a0 i00ued minute0 a.ter the under0igned
>a0 told to leave !ichard :. 2illB0 la> o..ice =- !/D Sargent &arter A>ho didnBt even >rite the tic@et
here" and a0 0uch the *th ,mendment right to con.ront the accu0er >a0 violated =- the other o..icerB"
the material >itne00" not =eing ?re0ent .or the &rial. he >a0nBt ?re0ent .or the ECali.ornia !ollE
either" 0o it0 unclear >h- it0 o@a- .or Sargent &arter to have him >rite the tic@et .or Sargent &arter"
>hom admitted he had onl- >ritten one 0uch tic@et in the entire -ear ?receding hi0 involvment in thi0
11O1%O11 incident. Shortl- =e.ore Sargetn &arter told the under0igned to leave 2illB0 la> o..ice
A>here the udner0igned >ent 0hortl- a.ter =eing relea0ed .rom a lovel- 3 da- 0ta- in Cail ?ur0uant to
2illB0 0ignign a criminal tre0?a00 Com?laint in 11 cr 2*4+% A>here !<C a??ointed de.ender too@ on
re?re0entation de0?ite a clear con.lict" then &aitel agree to a continuance =ecau0e 2ill >a0 goign to =e
on vacation .or a month" all >ithout con0ulting the under0igned client" etc...W;<r. 8ong did e)?re00 a
com?lete lac@ o. concern to the under0igned >hen it >a0 re?orted to him that a !/D 3..icer" Chri0
Carter" had admitted to the under0igned that the o??o0ing coun0el in !4C !E#2+11'++17+$
0ummar- eviction .rom a commercial tenanc- la> o..ice >here non ?a-ment o. rent >a0 not alleged
Ain violation o. N!S 4+.2%3B0 e)?re00 dictate again0t 0uch action0; had ?aid mone- to !/D 3..icer
Carter to arre0t the under0igned Aa =ri=e;. <r. 8ong indicated a com?lete lac@ o. con0ternation in
thi0 regard and e)?re00ed that he intended to conduct Hero .ollo> u? >ith re0?ect to that trou=ling
=reach o. the ?u=lic tru0t" even though" a0 a !eno Cit- ,ttorne-" <r. 8ong li@el- ha0 a dut- to do 0o
and hi0 .ailure to >ill augur 0trongl- to>ard a .inding that the !eno Cit- ,ttorne- i0 lia=le .or an-
!/D mi0conduct on a negligent hiring" training" and 0u?ervi0ion claim and that the !eno Cit-
,ttorne- i0 a>are o. and" in .act" rati.ie0 or endor0e0 0uch =ri=e ta@ing =- the !/D .rom !ichard :.
2ill" E0D" o??o0ing coun0el in that !4C eviction matter.
- 27 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5nder .ederal la>" a0 >ell a0 the la> o. 0ome 0tate0" the mi0=ehavior that ?ermit0 0ummar-
action mu0t in addition ?re0ent an imminent threat to the admini0tration o. Cu0tice9 it mu0t
immediatel- im?eril the Cudge in the ?er.ormance o. hi0 or her Cudicial dut- or con0titute an actual
o=0truction o. Cu0tice. 5.S. v. &urner" $12 (.2d 1%%2 A11th Cir. 19$7; Aattorne-B0 ?o0ing o. 0ingle
Due0tion to >itne00 a=out race o. certain individual0" though in clear violation o. ver=al court order"
did not 0o o=0truct Cu0tice a0 to ena=le court to re0ort to 0ummar- ?rocedure .or contem?t under
(ederal !ule o. Criminal /rocedure 42A=;;9 1n re 2ollo>a-" 99% (.2d 1+$+ AD.C. Cir. 1993; Aattorne-
?ur0ued line0 o. Due0tioning ruled out =- Cudge;.8itne00B0 re.u0al to an0>er Due0tion0 the court
order0 him to an0>er i0 contumaciou0 conduct >hich ma- 0u=Cect >itne00 to 0ummar- ?uni0hment
.or criminal contem?t under Direct contem?t Cu0ti.-ing 0ummar- di0?o0ition i0 con.ined to
e)ce?tional circum0tance0 involving act0 threatening the Cudge" di0ru?ting the hearing" or o=0tructing
court ?roceeding0. !ule 42. 1n re Bo-den" *7% (.2d *43 A%th Cir. 19$2;. Becau0e 0ummar- contem?t
?rocedure .ill0 a need .or the immediate ?enal vindication o. the dignit- o. the court" it0 a??lication i0
con.ined to unu0ual 0ituation0 >here the courtB0 in0tant action i0 nece00ar- to ?rotect the Cudicial
in0titution it0el.. 1n re :u0ta.0on" *19 (.2d 13%4" %$ ,.6.!. (ed. 1 A9th Cir. 19$+;" on rehBg" *%+ (.2d
1+17 A9th Cir. 19$1;.
N!S 22. +3+. Summar- ?uni0hment o. contem?t committed in immediate vie> and
?re0ence o. court9 a..idavit or 0tatement to =e .iled >hen contem?t committed out0ide
immediate vie> and ?re0ence o. court9 di0Duali.ication o. Cudge:
I1. 1. a contem?t i0 committed in the immediate vie> and ?re0ence o. the court or Cudge at
cham=er0" the contem?t ma- =e ?uni0hed 0ummaril-. 1. the court or Cudge 0ummaril- ?uni0he0
a ?er0on .or a contem?t ?ur0uant to thi0 0u=0ection" the court or Cudge 0hall enter an order
that:
Aa; !ecite0 the .act0 con0tituting the contem?t in the immediate vie> and ?re0ence o. the court
or Cudge9
A=; (ind0 the ?er0on guilt- o. the contem?t9 and
Ac; /re0cri=e0 the ?uni0hment .or the contem?t...J
1%4 ,6! 1227" Nece00it- and Su..icienc- o. <a@ing and !ecording Su=0idiar- or Detailed
(inding0 Su??orting ,dCudication o. Direct Contem?t.
- 28 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Statute ?roviding that in all ca0e0 o. contem?t ari0ing >ithout immediate vie> and ?re0ence o.
court" Cudge o. court in >ho0e contem?t de.endant i0 alleged to =e" 0hall not ?re0ide at 0uch
trial over o=Cection o. de.endant" i0 con0titutional. N.C.6.1929" T $943. <cCormic@ v. Si)th
4udicial Di0t. Court in and .or 2um=oldt Count-" 19%+" 21$ /.2d 939" *7 Nev. 31$. Contem?t
(or ?ur?o0e0 o. 0tatute governing 0ummar- contem?t ?roceeding0 .or direct contem?t committed
in CudgeB0 ?re0ence" >hich reDuire0 court to Ienter an order"J >hile a trial courtB0 oral
contem?t order i0 immediatel- en.orcea=le" a >ritten order including the 0tatuteB0 reDuired element0
mu0t =e ?rom?tl- entered. 2ou0ton v. Eighth 4udicial Di0t. Court e) rel. Count- o.
Clar@" 2++*" 13% /.3d 12*9" 122 Nev. %44.
,??ro?riate remed- .or attorne- >ho had =een .ound in direct contem?t o. court in divorce
?roceeding in >hich he re?re0ented >i.e" >here contem?t order had =een .ound to =e in0u..icient
=- Su?reme Court" in that it did not contain a 0u..icient 0tatement concerning >hat conduct
>a0 held to =e contem?tuou0" >a0 to ?ermit trial court to enter amended order" given that
Su?reme CourtB0 o?inion addre00ed i00ue o. .ir0t im?re00ion and announced 0tandard .or content0
o. >ritten contem?t order. 2ou0ton v. Eighth 4udicial Di0t. Court e) rel. Count- o.
Clar@" 2++*" 13% /.3d 12*9" 122 Nev. %44.
2ere" 0eemingl-" the Summar- Contem?t 3rder relie0 in ?art on Econtinuing line0 o. inDuir-
a.ter told =- the Court not to do 0o...E ho>ever an- 0uch alleged in0tance0 o. thi0 are e)?lained a>a-
=- the .act that an- 0uch Due0tion0 >here not ?o0ed to ?rove the truth o. the matter a00erted =ut rather
.or other ?ermi00i=le ?ur?o0e0 Aand thi0 >a0 ?ointed out to the Court at trial; and the ultimate
Due0tion Cu0t ?rior to thi0 CourtB0 continuing the &rial >a0 onl- hal.>a- .ini0hed ?rior to the Court
interCecting the ?uni0hment. (urther" .or 4udge Na0h 2olme0 ruling that it i0 not relevant here
>hether !/D >a0 retaliating again0t the under0igned" or made an- mention o. doing 0o i0 ?lain error.
- 29 -
NOTE: actually, at the point of arrest, Coughlin was "testifying", not continuing lines of
inquiry. "Sargent Tarter lied when he..." was the last thing Coughlin said when Judge Nash
Holmes held him in contempt.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
, >ritten 0ummar- contem?t order" i00ued ?ur0uant to 0tatute governing 0ummar- contem?t
?roceeding0 .or direct contem?t committed in CudgeB0 ?re0ence" mu0t 0et .orth 0?eci.ic .act0
concerning the conduct .ound to =e contem?tuou0. 2ou0ton v. Eighth 4udicial Di0t. Court e) rel.
Count- o. Clar@" 2++*" 13% /.3d 12*9" 122 Nev. %44. 4udge Na0h 2olmeB 3rder i0 a??arentl- not
even in >riting Aa0 .ar a0 the under0igned @no>0 at thi0 ?oint" and i. criminal de.endnat0 can lo0e
their right to an a??eal >here N!S 1$9.+1+ hold0 them to an incredi=l- Duic@ 1+ calendar da-0 to .ile
a notice o. a??eal" thi0 Court 0hould lo0e it0 right to reduce the Summar- Contem?t 3rder to 0?eci.ic"
detailed >ritten order >here it ha0 not alread- done 0o; or in a Echec@ the =o)E variet-" on a
?re?rinted .orm" 0eemingl- ta@en .rom the Bench Boo@" containing mere conclu0or- and circular
0tatement0 a=out the ?ur?orted contem?t and in no >a- 0ati0.ie0 the a=ove 0tandard. 1ndeed" 4udge
Na0h 2olme0 doe0 not 0?eci.- >hat Eline0 o. inDuir-E >ere continued" nor i0 it clear ho> a ?ro 0e
de.endant denied hi0 Si)th ,mendment !ight &o Coun0el could rea0ona=l- @no> >hat i0 reDuired o.
him to com?l- >ith 4udge Na0h 2olme0 vague and menacing contem?t ?ronoucement0 >hile al0o
Healou0l- advocating on the de.endantB0 =ehal.. &he under0igned could not have rea0ona=l- =een
0aid to have =een >arned >ith an- 0?eci.icit- a0 to >hat >a0 ver=oten or ho> he could com?l- >ith
the CourtB0 >arning" ?articularl- i. .undamental notion0 o. due ?roce00 and .air ?la- >ere to a??l-"
>hich i0 im?licit in all action0.
8ritten 0ummar- contem?t order .inding attorne- .or >i.e in divorce ?roceeding in direct
contem?t o. court .ailed to indicate >hat ?articular comment0 =- attorne- >ere held to =e
contem?tuou0" and" thu0" order >a0 in0u..icient" under 0tatute governing 0ummar- contem?t
?roceeding0 .or direct contem?t committed in CudgeB0 ?re0ence. 2ou0ton v. Eighth 4udicial Di0t.
Court e) rel. Count- o. Clar@" 2++*" 13% /.3d 12*9" 122 Nev. %44.
- 30 -
NOTE: Judge Holmes made some findings verbally on the record at after holding Coughlin in
contempt on 2/27/12, mentioning "continuing lines of inquiry"...Coughlin never did receive the
2/28/12 Order, or even become aware of it, until months after it allegedly was entered.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3ther than indicating the de.endant Eloo@ed in thi0 ?oc@et0E" 4udge B0 3rder doe0 little to
com?l- >ith the a=ove 0tandard. (urther" 4udge Na0h 2olme0 ma@e0 allegation0 o. IlaughterJ"
ho>ever" and thi0 goe0 to the Ievident im?artialit-O<otion .or !ecu0alJ" 4udge Na0h 2olme0 0eemed
to go to great length0 to 0tri@e .rom the record an-thing that might =e 0aid to ?lace the !<C or the
!eno Cit- ,ttorne- on notice" 0u..icient ot de.eat an- ?lau0i=le denia=ilit- claim" o. !/D
im?ro?riet-" ?otentiall- in connection >ith a negligent hiring" training" and 0u?ervi0ion claim or other
action" a la 42 5SC Sec 19$3" >herein the training" cu0tom0" and ?olicie0 o. the !/D and !eno Cit-
,ttorne- ma- =e im?ortant to @no>. 44udge Na0h 2olme0 doe0 not ma@e clear ho> attem?t to
?rohi=it 0uch allo>0 .or a de.endant to Healou0l- advocate on hi0 o>n =ehal." or >hether it i0 ever
?ermi00i=le" or even a 0@ill.ul trial tactic" .or a litigant to engage in >hatever it >a0 that u?0et thi0
Court. !eall-" >hat 4udge Na0h 2olme0 0eem0 to >ant the mo0t i0 .or tho0e de.endant0 that he
>i0he0 to .ind guilt- to la- do>n and die a death o. 0ort0 in hi0 courtroom" and to than@ the !<C .or
it0 >i0J
During the .ive da- incarceration .or 0ummar- contem?t ordered in thi0 matter" the
under0igned >a0 denied a 0ingle ?hone call or tier time =- Sheri..B0 De?utie0 on one da-" and on
another ma@ing 0uch ?hone call0 >a0 im?o00i=le given the im?lementation o. a ne> ?hone 0-0tem at
the Cail" re0ulting in much ?reCudice to hi0 clientB0 ca0e0. 1t i0 0im?l- unto>ard .or Cudge0 to leverage
clientB0 >oe0 to .urther ?uni0h an attorne-" >here" a0 here" the Court 0eemed to 0ugge0t that an-
re0?on0i=ilit- o. thi0 Court to a??ro?riatel- con0ider and rule on a <otion to Sta- or other>i0e allo>
.or ?recaution0 to =e ta@en to avoid ?reCudice to client matter0 not the courtB0 concern" =ut rather" >a0
?urel- the under0ignedB0 .ault.
- 31 -
This reference to "laughter" is likely due to a copying and pasting by Coughlin from the Motion for New
Trial following RMC Judge Howard's cursory, conclusory summary contempt Order, that he attempted to
mislead Coughlin into believing was not appealable.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1t i0 in0tructive to com?are 4ac@0onB0 inter?retation o. the 4udge Na0h 2olme0B0 3rder" and to
con0ider to e)tent to >hich 0he ma- =e acting in a Cudicial ca?acit- Aunle00 thi0 Court >ill ?rovide
0ome indication o. >hether 4ac@0onB0 email >a0 done at the =ehe0t o. an- o. the !<C 4udge0;.
<otivational in0?iration .or the !<C" Cit- o. !eno <ar0hal0 2-lin" and Chie. !o?er" and
can =e .ound in 6i??i0 v. /eter0" 112 Nev. 1++$" 921 /.2d 124$ A199*;:
I&he Cudgment a>arding .ee0 in thi0 ca0e im?o0e0 u?on t>o Cu0tice0B court0 and 0even
Cu0tice0 o. the ?eace an o=ligation to ?a- to the tenant0B attorne-0 the 0um o.
G1$"*93.%+. &hi0 Cudgment doe0 ?re0ent a ?ro=lem >hen >e 0tart to thin@ a=out ho>
the0e ?u=lic o..icial0 and t>o court0 o. la> might go a=out allocating the o=ligation o.
G1$"*93.%+. 1t >ould not a??ear that the court0 them0elve0 are 0u=Cect to e)ecution
?roce009 and" there.ore" the .ee" i. it >ere going to =e ?aid" >ould have to =e ?aid =-
the individual Cu0tice0" >ho >ould have to ?a-" i. the matter >ere handled .airl-"
G2"*7+.%+ each. &he Cu0tice0B Cudgment o=ligation to ?a- attorne-0B .ee0 i0 =a0ed A1; on
their having .ollo>ed a ?rocedural rule A4C!C/ 1+*; enacted =- thi0 court and A2; on
their having made 0everal erroneou0 Cudicial deci0ion0. 8e he0itate to get into the
thorn- ?ro=lem0 ?re0ented =- thi0 Cudgment" ?ro=lem0 relating to e)ecution u?on
?u=lic ?ro?ert-" relating to o..icial immunit- and Cudicial immunit- and 0ome other
0imilar ?ro=lem0 that attend the en.orcement o. 0uch a Cudgment...J 6i??i0 v. /eter0"
112 Nev. 1++$" 921 /.2d 124$ A199*;: I1n their action challenging Cu0tice court0B
?ractice o. den-ing a??eal0 to di0trict court in 0ummar- eviction action0" tenant0 did
not allege that the- >ere de?rived o. .ederal right0" and there.ore the- could not claim
attorne- .ee0 under .ederal civil right0 0tatute. 42 5.S.C.,. TT 19$3" 19$$.J
De.endant ma- ultimatel- =e .orced to =e 0o alleging 0uch a de?rivation and or claim 0uch
attorne-B0 .ee09 See, also, Cheung v. Eighth 4udicial Di0t. Court e) rel. Count- o. Clar@" 124 /.3d
%%+" %%2" 121 Nev. $*7" $*9 A2++%;9 Schneider v. El@o Count- Sheri..B0 De?t." 17 (.Su??.2d 11*2"
11*% A199$;9 :.C. 8allace" 1nc. v. Eighth 4udicial Di0t. Court o. State" e) rel. Count- o. Clar@" 2*2
/.3d 113%" 114+X" 127 Nev. ,dv. 3?. *4" *4X A2+11;.
,??eala=ilit- o. contem?t adCudication or conviction. 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ A3riginall- ?u=li0hed
in 197+;9 T 12MaN :enerall-Y!ule o. a??eala=ilit- MCumulative Su??lementN Contem?t ?roceeding0
not characteriHed a0 criminal or civil have .reDuentl- =een held or recogniHed to =e a??eala=le in the
- 32 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
directing the ?lainti.. to a??ear and te0ti.-. 8hile the ?ur?o0e o. that ?roceeding >a0 connected >ith
and had it0 .oundation in the main ca0e" rea0oned the court" it >a0 a 0e?arate ca0e ?ro0ecuted
inde?endentl- to en.orce a com?liance >ith the order o. the court. &he court 0aid that >hether that
order to te0ti.- >a0 interlocutor- or .inal >a0 immaterial: i. it >a0 la>.ull- made it >a0 the ?lainti..B0
dut- to o=e- it" and a Cudgment either that he >a0 guilt- o. contem?t or that he >a0 not >a0 a .inal
Cudgment. See" ho>ever" /eo?le e) rel. :eneral <otor0 Cor?. v Bua A19*7; 37 1ll 2d 1$+" 22* NE2d
*" >here the court 0aid that >hile ordinaril- a contem?t adCudication i0 a .inal and a??eala=le order"
thi0 rule >ould not =e .ollo>ed >here" in0tead o. the traditional .ine or im?ri0onment a0 ?uni0hment
.or contem?t" the de.endant held in contem?t >a0 ?uni0hed =- having it0 an0>er to the amended
com?laint 0tric@en and Cudgment entered again0t it. &he contem?t >a0 adCudged .or .ailure to com?l-
>ith ?retrial di0cover- order0" and >hile the court determined that the 0tri@ing o. ?leading0 and the
entr- o. a de.ault Cudgment >a0 ?ermi00i=le a0 a 0anction .or the non?roduction o. document0 under a
court rule authoriHed =- the legi0lature" the court held that thi0 could not =e u0ed to render an
interlocutor- order .inal and a??eala=le =- the u0e o. contem?t language. &he im?o0ition o. a .ine or
im?ri0onment a0 a 0anction .or contem?t i0 .inal and a??eala=le =ecau0e it i0 an original 0?ecial
?roceeding" collateral to and inde?endent o. the ca0e in >hich the contem?t ari0e0" e)?lained the
court" =ut the 0anction im?o0ed in thi0 ca0e did not directl- a..ect the outcome o. the ?rinci?al action.
&here.ore the court concluded that 0ince the contem?t order" in e..ect" determined lia=ilit- >ithout a
determination o. damage0" it >a0 not -et .inal and a??eala=le. 8hile recogniHing the right to a??eal"
the court in /eo?le v Den 5-l A1949; 323 <ich 49+" 3% N82d 4*7" in con0idering an a??eal .rom
one con.ined .or contem?t in re.u0ing to an0>er certain Due0tion0 =e.ore an e)amining magi0trate"
ruled that the di0mi00al o. the ?rinci?al ca0e A=ecau0e the ?ro0ecution could not ?roceed >ithout the
>itne00B te0timon-; a=ated the contem?t ?roceeding and reDuired the di0mi00al o. the a??eal. &he
- 36 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
court" ho>ever" in the order di0mi00ing the a??eal" al0o di0mi00ed the >arrant o. commitment under
>hich the >itne00 >a0 con.ined. , chancer- decree adCudging a cor?oration to =e in contem?t o.
court .or di0o=e-ing a court order >a0 held a??eala=le in Socon- <o=il 3il Co. v <a00ena 1ron U
<etal Co. A19**; 12% #t 4+3" 217 ,2d %*" on the authorit- o. an earlier ca0eM2N that di..ered .rom the
ca0e at =ar onl- =ecau0e it originated in the Count- Court rather than the Court o. Chancer-" and that
>a0 held to =e ?ro?erl- tran0.erred to the Su?reme Court =- >a- o. a =ill o. e)ce?tion0. ,n' 33
,.6.!.3d 44$ /age 1$2 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ A3riginall- ?u=li0hed in 197+; other ca0e"M3N >hich held
that an a??eal >ould not lie .rom the decree o. thechancellor in matter0 o. contem?t" >a0 relied u?on
to 0u??ort a motion to di0mi00 the a??eal" =ut the court" ?ointing out that a 1941 0tatute ?rovided that
cau0e0 heard in chancer- ?a00 to the Su?reme Court in the 0ame manner a0 a??eal0 .rom Count-
Court" 0aid that the e..ect o. thi0 legi0lation >a0 to a=oli0h a??eal0 in chancer- a0 the- ?reviou0l-
e)i0ted" and to 0u=0titute the 0tatute0 a??lica=le to o=tain revie> o. Count- Court ?roceeding0.
&here.ore" concluded the court" the #ila0 Ca0e ?re0ented no o=0tacle to the ?ending a??eal.
C5<56,&1#E S5//6E<EN& Ca0e0: &o o=tain a??ellate revie>" 0u=?oenaed ?art- mu0t de.-
di0trict courtB0 en.orcement order" =e held in contem?t" and then a??eal contem?t order" >hich i0
regarded a0 .inal. D-neg- <id0tream Service0 v. &rammochem" 4%1 (.3d $9 A2d Cir. 2++*;. 8here
0ecuritie0 trading cor?oration >a0 adCudged in contem?t .or .ailing to turn over ta?e recording a0
ordered =- court" court had Curi0diction to revie> contem?t order even though im?o0ition o. 0anction0
>a0 0ta-ed and no 0anction0 >ere .ormulated ?rior to entr- o. 0ta-. !e &hree :rand 4ur- Su=?oena0
A19$$" C,2 N7; $47 (2d 1+24. , di0trict courtB0 ruling on an a??lication .or a contem?t order i0
revie>ed .or a=u0e o. di0cretion. (rontier'Pem?er Con0tructor0" 1nc. v. ,merican !oc@ Salt Co." 224
(. Su??. 2d %2+ A8.D. N.7. 2++2;. /o0t'Cudgment order0 o. contem?t are >ithin an a??ellate courtB0
Curi0diction a0 revie>a=le E.inal order0.E 2$ 5.S.C.,. T 1291. Berne Cor?. v. :overnment o. &he
- 37 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
#irgin 10land0" %7+ (.3d 13+ A3d Cir. 2++9;. Court o. ,??eal0 had Curi0diction o. de.endantB0 a??eal
o. contem?t order" although contem?t order o. it0el. did not con0titute a .inal order that could =e
a??ealed" >here ?ortion o. order that included contem?t .inding >a0 com?lete and .inal. < U C
Cor?. v. Er>in Behr :m=2 U Co." 2$9 (ed. ,??). 927 A*th Cir. 2++$;. 8hen the di0o=e-ed order
>ould =e inde?endentl- a??eala=le under an e)ce?tion to the .inal' deci0ion rule" then the contem?t
citation al0o ma- =e a??eala=le. S.E.C. v. <cNamee" 4$1 (.3d 4%1" (ed. Sec. 6. !e?. ACC2; / 94172
A7th Cir. 2++7;. :rant or denial o. contem?t order i0 revie>ed .or a=u0e o. di0cretion" =ut order o.
contem?t i0 revie>ed more 0earchingl-. 5.S. v. &ee?le" 2$* (.3d 1+47" $9 ,.(.&.!.2d 2++2'21+2
A$th Cir. 2++2;. Contem?t adCudication i00ued in ?o0tCudgment ?ha0e o. civil action >a0 a??eala=le
>hether contem?t >a0 con0idered to =e civil or criminal" 0ince adCudication ?o00e00ed attri=ute0 o.
o?erativene00 and con0eDuence nece00ar- to a??eala=ilit-. Con0umer0 :a0 U 3il" 1nc. v. (armland
1ndu0trie0" 1nc." $4 (.3d 3*7" 34 (ed. !. Serv. 3d 1%%+ A1+th Cir. 199*;. Denial o. motion .or order to
0ho> cau0e >h- ?art- 0hould not =e held in contem?t i0 .inal" a??eala=le order. &homa0 v. Blue
Cro00 and Blue Shield ,00Bn" %94 (.3d $14 A11th Cir. 2+1+;. , contem?t order i0 .inal and a??eala=le
>hen the o??ortunit- to ?urge the contem?t ha0 ?a00ed and the ?o0ition o. the ?artie0 ha0 =een
a..ected =- the contem?t order. Sei@o E?0on Cor?. v. NuZPote 1ntern." 1nc." 19+ (.3d 13*+" %2
5.S./.S.2d ABN,; 1+11 A(ed. Cir. 1999;" rehBg denied" in =anc 0ugge0tion declined" A3ct. 19" 1999;.
33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ /age 1$3 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ A3riginall- ?u=li0hed in 197+; , contem?t order i0 a
.inal" a??eala=le order. &helman v. State" 37% ,r@. 11*" 2$9 S.8.3d 7* A2++$;. Contem?t Cudgment
i0 revie>a=le .inal order. C.:.S.,. T %1Z33. State v. Bre0cia" 123 Conn. ,??. 342" 1 ,.3d 114%
A2+1+;. ,??ellate Court >ill rever0e a .inding o. contem?t onl- i. the Court conclude0 the trial court
a=u0ed it0 di0cretion. Do>d v. Do>d" 9* Conn. ,??. 7%" $99 ,.2d 7* A2++*;. Even i. adCudication o.
contem?t >a0 con0idered .inal Cudgment" court >a0 >ithout Curi0diction >here notice o. a??eal >a0
- 38 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.iled more than a month =e.ore 0entencing. 8e0t v 5nited State0 ADi0t Col ,??; 34* ,2d %+4. 3rder
o. .amil- court in matrimonial action determining cu0tod- o. children demanding 0u??ort ?a-ment0"
alloting ?er0onal ?ro?ert- and .inding ?art- in contem?t .or violation o. ?rior order >a0 .inal and
a??eala=le" not>ith0tanding continuing Curi0diction o. .amil- court to modi.- order. Cleveland v
Cleveland A1977" 2a>aii; %%9 /2d 744. , contem?t order i0 a??eala=le under the 0ame
circum0tance0 a0 another order or Cudgment entered in a civil or criminal action. Callaghan v.
Callaghan" 142 1daho 1$%" 12% /.3d 1+*1 A2++%;. 5nder rule that revie> o. alread- i00ued contem?t
order mu0t =e =- >rit o. revie> or =- a??eal" >rit o. ?rohi=ition >a0 not ?ro?er remed- =- >hich to
conte0t order .inding divorced >i.e in contem?t .or .ailure to grant vi0itation right0 to divorced
hu0=and. De- v Cunningham" 93 1daho *$4" 471 /2d 71. 3rdinaril-" adCudication in contem?t
?roceeding i0 .inal and a??eala=le =ecau0e it i0 original 0?ecial ?roceeding" collateral to" and
inde?endent o." ca0e in >hich contem?t ari0e0" >here im?o0ition o. 0anction doe0 not directl- a..ect
outcome o. ?rinci?al action" even though 0uch adCudication doe0 not di0?o0e o. all i00ue0 in litigation.
Earle0 v. Earle0" 2$7 1ll. Dec. 4++" $1% N.E.2d 12+3 A,??. Ct. 3d Di0t. 2++4;. 1t i0 a??ro?riate .or a
?art- to reDue0t that a contem?t order =e entered again0t it 0o that ?art- ma- 0ee@ immediate a??eal
o. a trial courtB0 di0cover- order. 8e== v. <ount Sinai 2o0?. and <edical Center o. Chicago" 1nc."
2$3 1ll. Dec. 1$%" $+7 N.E.2d 1+2* A,??. Ct. 10t Di0t. 2++4;. 8hen an individual a??eal0 .rom a
contem?t 0anction im?o0ed .or violating" or threatening to violate" a di0cover- order" the contem?t
.inding i0 .inal and a??eala=le and ?re0ent0 to the revie>ing court the ?ro?riet- o. that di0cover-
order. !eda v. ,dvocate 2ealth Care" 199 1ll. 2d 47" 2*2 1ll. Dec. 394" 7*% N.E.2d 1++2 A2++2;.
4udgment o. contem?t again0t la> .irm .or violating order to >ithdra> a??earance a.ter .irm >a0
di0Duali.ied .rom re?re0enting de.endant con0tituted .inal and a??eala=le Cudgment and ?re0ented to
court .or revie> ?ro?riet- o. courtB0 order" even though 0ugge0tion that la> .irm re.u0e to >ithdra>
- 39 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
court order0 i00ued =- Di0trict Court are .inal and u0uall- unrevie>a=le e)ce?t =- >a- o. >rit o.
certiorari or revie>" e)ce?tion e)i0t0 .or contem?t order0 made in di00olutionZo.Zmarriage
?roceeding0. 1n re <arriage o. Bohar0@i A1993; 2%7 <ont 71" $47 /2d 7+9. ,n a??ellate court"
revie>ing a .inal Cudgment or order in a contem?t ?roceeding" revie>0 .or error0 a??earing on the
record. Dougla0 Count- e) rel. Dougla0 Count- ,00e00orB0 3..ice v. Po>al" 27+ Ne=. 9$2" 7+$
N.8.2d **$ A2++*;. ,??ellate court" revie>ing .inal Cudgment or order in contem?t ?roceeding"
revie>0 .or error0 a??earing on record. Plingin0mith v. 8ichmann" 2%2 Ne=. $$9" %*7 N.8.2d 172
A1997;. , contem?t order im?o0ing a ?unitive 0anction i0 a .inal order and i0 revie>a=le on a??eal.
<cDermott v. <cDermott" $ Ne=. ,??. $*+" *+2 N.8.2d *7* A1999;. 8hether the trial court adhered
to the reDui0ite ?rocedure0 in a criminal contem?t ?roceeding i0 a Due0tion o. la>" >hich i0 revie>ed
de novo. <ortgage S?eciali0t0" 1nc. v. Dave-" 9+4 ,.2d *%2 AN.2. 2++*;. , .inding o. contem?t"
com=ined >ith a 0anction .or contem?t" .orm0 a .inal a??eala=le order. State v. ,dam0" 1%3 3hio
,??. 3d 134" 2++3'3hio'3+$*" 791 N.E.2d 1+4% A7th Di0t. 2arri0on Count- 2++3;. , contem?t
?roceeding" even though it gro>0 out o. another ?roceeding" i0 ordinaril- regarded a0 a collateral or
0e?arate action .rom the underl-ing ca0e and i0 0e?aratel- a??eala=le" >ith a??ellate revie> limited
to the contem?t order it0el.. 6erma v. 8al'<art Store0" 1nc." 2++* 3P $4" 14$ /.3d $$+ A3@la. 2++*;.
3rder o. contem?t i0 .inal and a??eala=le >hen the order contain0 a ?re0ent .inding o. contem?t and
im?o0e0 0anction0. 1n re C.8." 2++$ /, Su?er 2%4" 9*+ ,.2d 4%$ A2++$;. , contem?t order i0
a??eala=le >here the order con0titute0 a .inal one that im?o0e0 0anction0 u?on the o..ending ?art-.
&a@o0@- v. 2enning" 2++* /, Su?er 237" 9+* ,.2d 12%% A2++*;. Su?erior Court >ill rever0e trial
courtB0 determination a0 to contem?t conviction onl- >hen there ha0 =een ?lain a=u0e o. di0cretion.
Com. v. 2aigh" 2++% /, Su?er 139" $74 ,.2d 1174 A2++%;" reargument denied" A4une 17" 2++%;.
Contem?t order ?reventing neigh=or0
- 41 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 @no> 4udge 2o>ard and 4udge Na0h 2olme0 are li@el- ver- u?0et >ith me. Both recentl- 0entenced
me to 0everal da-0 o. incarceration ?ur0uant to a Summar- Contem?t Committed in the CourtB0 /re0ence .inding. (urther"
4udge 2olme0 ha0 a??arentl- had m- t>o cell ?hone0 and ?erha?0 0ome other material0 con.i0cated ?ur0uant to the 0earch
incident to arre0t in connection >ith m- 0ummar- contem?t incarceration incident to the recent &rial in !<C tra..ic
citation matter 11 tr 2*$++ Atic@et num=er %442$1; >hich occurred at 1 ?m (e=. 27th" 2+11 =e.ore 4udge 2olme0"
>herein !eno Cit- ,ttorne- 3rmaa0 >a0 re?re0enting the Cit- o. !eno.
&he Cail did not give me =ac@ m- t>o cell ?hone0 and other item0 o. ?er0onal ?ro?ert-..the- 0aid the !eno
<unici?al Court A!<C; con.i0cated tho0e item0 on 2O2$O12" though the- indicated that the- did not reDuire the !<C
Aactuall- the !eno <ar0halB0 divi0ion; to 0ho> a court order or >arrant ?rior to 0o con.i0cating tho0e item0. ,??arentl-
the- are holding the0e item0 ?ur0uant to E?ro=a=le cau0eE" o. >hat 1 do not @no>. 4udge Na0h 2olme0 0ua 0?onte
interrogated me in o?en court A0hortl- a.ter 1 ?ointed out that <ar0hal 2-lin and !eno Cit- ,ttorne- >ere >hi0?ering in
each otherB0 ear0 during the &rial here; a0 to >hether 1 >a0 recording the ?roceeding. &he ?roceeding0 are recorded a0 a
matter o. la> =- the court" and the ?roceeding i0 an o?en hearing" ?art o. the ?u=lic record" 0o...1 am not 0ure >hat 0he
>a0 getting at" =ut...&he !eno <ar0halB0 <ar0hal 2a-ne- Aor 2ine-" not 0ure; and the !eno Cit- ,ttorne- 3rmaa0 >ere
0een >hi0?ering in each otherB0 ear0 during the hearing A1 noted that ver=all- into the record; and a.ter the hearing" >hile
<ar0hal 2a-ne- >a0 0earching me ?ur0uant to m- =eing arre0ted A>hich >a0 odd given 1 >a0 in the ?roce00 o. attem?ting
to ?a- the alternate di0ci?line 4udge 2olme0 had o..ered" G%++" >hich >a0 0u??o0ed to ena=le me to avoid 0erving the %
da-0 Cail time" then" .or 0ome rea0on" 1 >a0 denied the o??ortunit- to ma@e 0uch a ?a-ment rather a=ru?tl- and >ith great
te0to0terone and .ur- =- <ar0hal 2-ne-;" he immediatel- 0tarted accu0ing me o. ErecordingE and told the other <ar0halB0
to re?ort that 1 had =een doing 0o to the 4udge" 4udge Na0h 2olme0" =a0ed u?on nothing reaon0a=l- allo>ing him to
0u0?ect that or ma@e 0uch allegation0" ?articularl- >here <ar0hal 2ine- >a0 0till 0o u?0et that the under0igned ha0 dared
to Due0tion him earlier that da-" immediatel- ?rior to &rial" >ho gave 2ine- the Notice o. the 2earing on the 3rder to
Sho> cau0e in C#11'+3*2$ Aanother 0ituation involving the alleged tre0?a00 at i00ue here" the eviction in !4C !Ev2+11'
++17+$" and the tra..ic citation i00ued here;. 1t i0 Cun@ .ood Cu0tice to 0ugge0t that none o. thi0 i0 ErelevantE to thi0 matter.
&he ca0e num=er in thi0 !<C tra..ic citation matter i0 11 tr 2*$++ !<C Atic@et num=er %442$1; and the &rial or
2earing occurred at 1 ?m (e=. 27th =e.ore 4udge 2olme0
,=out 1+ da-0 ago 1 .iled an a??lication .or a tem?orar- ?rotection order again0t a !eno 4u0tice Court Baili..
named !e-e0. Baili.. !e-e0 had" on ?ro=a=l- Novem=er 2$" 2+11 or 0o" told me he >a0 going to E?ut hi0 .oot u? -our
- 43 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a00E. 2e continued to =e menacing and aggre00ive to me and .inall- 1 .iled a ?rotection order a=out 1+ da-0 ago. &o m-
@no>ledge" no deci0ion or hearing ha0 =een held on that ?rotection order" and Paren Stancil" Chie. Civil Cler@ >ith the
!4C in.ormed me it >a0 =eing tran0.erred to S?ar@0 4u0tice Court A1 =elieve; do to the !4C having a con.lict. ,l0o" 1
re?orted to !4C Court ,dmini0trator &uttle another incident >herein Chie. Baili.. <ichael Se)ton ha0 made menacing
commentar- to me regarding m- Ea00E a0 >ell" t>ice during &han@0giving >ee@ in the Civil Divi0ion (iling 3..ice.
Additional L!al Point" to Con"idr#
N!S 11$,.39+ 5nla>.ul removal or e)clu0ion o. tenant or >ill.ul interru?tion o. e00ential item0 or 0ervice09
?rocedure .or e)?edited relie.. 1. 1. the landlord unla>.ull- remove0 the tenant .rom the ?remi0e0 or e)clude0 the tenant
=- =loc@ing or attem?ting to =loc@ the tenantL0 entr- u?on the ?remi0e0" >ill.ull- interru?t0 or cau0e0 or ?ermit0 the
interru?tion o. an- e00ential item or 0ervice reDuired =- the rental agreement or thi0 cha?ter or other>i0e recover0
?o00e00ion o. the d>elling unit in violation o. N!S 11$,.4$+" the tenant ma- recover immediate ?o00e00ion ?ur0uant to
0u=0ection 4" ?roceed under N!S 11$,.3$+ or terminate the rental agreement and" in addition to another remed-"
recover the tenantL0 actual damage0" receive an amount not greater than G2"%++ to =e .i)ed =- the court" or =oth. 2. 1n
determining the amount" i. an-" to =e a>arded under 0u=0ection 1" the court 0hall con0ider: Aa; 8hether the landlord acted
in good .aith9 A=; &he cour0e o. conduct =et>een the landlord and the tenant9 and Ac; &he degree o. harm to the tenant
cau0ed =- the landlordL0 conduct. 3. 1. the rental agreement i0 terminated ?ur0uant to 0u=0ection 1" the landlord 0hall
return all ?re?aid rent and 0ecurit- recovera=le under thi0 cha?ter. 4. E)ce?t a0 other>i0e ?rovided in 0u=0ection %" the
tenant ma- recover immediate ?o00e00ion o. the ?remi0e0 .rom the landlord =- .iling a veri.ied com?laint .or e)?edited
relie. .or the unla>.ul removal or e)clu0ion o. the tenant .rom the ?remi0e0" the >ill.ul interru?tion o. an- e00ential item
or 0ervice or the recover- o. ?o00e00ion o. the d>elling unit in violation o. N!S 11$,.4$+. %. , veri.ied com?laint .or
e)?edited relie.: Aa; <u0t =e .iled >ith the court >ithin % Cudicial da-0 a.ter the date o. the unla>.ul act =- the landlord"
and the veri.ied com?laint mu0t =e di0mi00ed i. it i0 not timel- .iled. 1. the veri.ied com?laint .or e)?edited relie. i0
di0mi00ed ?ur0uant to thi0 ?aragra?h" the tenant retain0 the right to ?ur0ue all other availa=le remedie0 again0t the
landlord. A=; <a- not =e .iled >ith the court i. an action .or 0ummar- eviction or unla>.ul detainer i0 alread- ?ending
=et>een the landlord and tenant" =ut the tenant ma- 0ee@ 0imilar relie. =e.ore the Cudge ?re0iding over the ?ending action.
*. &he court 0hall conduct a hearing on the veri.ied com?laint .or e)?edited relie. not later than 3 Cudicial da-0 a.ter the
.iling o. the veri.ied com?laint .or e)?edited relie.. Be.ore or at the 0cheduled hearing" the tenant mu0t ?rovide ?roo. that
- 44 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the landlord ha0 =een ?ro?erl- 0erved >ith a co?- o. the veri.ied com?laint .or e)?edited relie.. 5?on the hearing" i. it i0
determined that the landlord ha0 violated an- o. the ?rovi0ion0 o. 0u=0ection 1" the court ma-: Aa; 3rder the landlord to
re0tore to the tenant the ?remi0e0 or e00ential item0 or 0ervice0" or =oth9 A=; ,>ard damage0 ?ur0uant to 0u=0ection 19 and
Ac; EnCoin the landlord .rom violating the ?rovi0ion0 o. 0u=0ection 1 and" i. the circum0tance0 0o >arrant" hold the
landlord in contem?t o. court. 7. &he ?a-ment o. all co0t0 and o..icial .ee0 mu0t =e de.erred .or an- tenant >ho .ile0 a
veri.ied com?laint .or e)?edited relie.. ,.ter an- hearing and not later than .inal di0?o0ition o. the .iling or order" the
court 0hall a00e00 the co0t0 and .ee0 again0t the ?art- that doe0 not ?revail" e)ce?t that the court ma- reduce them or >aive
them" a0 Cu0tice ma- reDuire.
NRS $$%A&'() Unla*f+l r,o-al or ./l+"ion of tnant or *illf+l intrr+0tion of
""ntial it," or "r-i/"; 0ro/d+r for .0ditd rlif& E1. 1. the landlord unla>.ull-
remove0 the tenant .rom the ?remi0e0 or e)clude0 the tenant =- =loc@ing or attem?ting to
=loc@ the tenantL0 entr- u?on the ?remi0e0" >ill.ull- interru?t0 or cau0e0 or ?ermit0 the
interru?tion o. an- e00ential item or 0ervice reDuired =- the rental agreement or thi0 cha?ter
or other>i0e recover0 ?o00e00ion o. the d>elling unit in violation o. N!S 11$,.4$+" the
tenant ma- recover immediate ?o00e00ion ?ur0uant to 0u=0ection 4" ?roceed under N!S
11$,.3$+...4. E)ce?t a0 other>i0e ?rovided in 0u=0ection %" the tenant ma- recover
immediate ?o00e00ion o. the ?remi0e0 .rom the landlord =- .iling a veri.ied com?laint .or
e)?edited relie. .or the unla>.ul removal or e)clu0ion o. the tenant .rom the ?remi0e0" the
>ill.ul interru?tion o. an- e00ential item or 0ervice or the recover- o. ?o00e00ion o. the
d>elling unit in violation o. N!S 11$,.4$+. %. , veri.ied com?laint .or e)?edited relie.:
Aa; <u0t =e .iled >ith the court >ithin % Cudicial da-0 a.ter the date o. the unla>.ul act =-
the landlord" and the veri.ied com?laint mu0t =e di0mi00ed i. it i0 not timel- .iled. 1. the
veri.ied com?laint .or e)?edited relie. i0 di0mi00ed ?ur0uant to thi0 ?aragra?h" the tenant
retain0 the right to ?ur0ue all other availa=le remedie0 again0t the landlord. A=; <a- not =e
.iled >ith the court i. an action .or 0ummar- eviction or unla>.ul detainer i0 alread-
?ending =et>een the landlord and tenant" =ut the tenant ma- 0ee@ 0imilar relie. =e.ore the
Cudge ?re0iding over the ?ending action. *. &he court 0hall conduct a hearing on the
veri.ied com?laint .or e)?edited relie. not later than 3 Cudicial da-0 a.ter the .iling o. the
veri.ied com?laint .or e)?edited relie.. Be.ore or at the 0cheduled hearing" the tenant mu0t
?rovide ?roo. that the landlord ha0 =een ?ro?erl- 0erved >ith a co?- o. the veri.ied
com?laint .or e)?edited relie.. 5?on the hearing" i. it i0 determined that the landlord ha0
violated an- o. the ?rovi0ion0 o. 0u=0ection 1" the court ma-: Aa; 3rder the landlord to
re0tore to the tenant the ?remi0e0 or e00ential item0 or 0ervice0" or =oth9 A=; ,>ard damage0
?ur0uant to 0u=0ection 19 and Ac; EnCoin the landlord .rom violating the ?rovi0ion0 o.
0u=0ection 1 and" i. the circum0tance0 0o >arrant" hold the landlord in contem?t o. court. E
(urther" NRS $$%A&1%) Landlord2" r/o-r3 of 0o""""ion of d*llin! +nit# E&he
landlord 0hall not recover or ta@e ?o00e00ion o. the d>elling unit =- action or other>i0e"
including >ill.ul diminution or interru?tion or cau0ing or ?ermitting the diminution or
interru?tion o. an- e00ential item or 0ervice reDuired =- the rental agreement or thi0
cha?ter" e)ce?t: 1. B- an action .or ?o00e00ion or other civil action or 0ummar- ?roceeding
in >hich the i00ue o. right o. ?o00e00ion i0 determined9 2. 8hen the tenant ha0 0urrendered
?o00e00ion o. the d>elling unit to the landlord9 or 3. 8hen the tenant ha0 a=andoned the
d>elling unit a0 ?rovided in N!S 11$,.4%+E
- 45 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
N!S 11$,.4$+ come0 into ?la- i. the landlord did ta@e Erecover- o. ?o00e00ionE o. m- .ormer home la> o..ice
at 121 !iver !oc@ St. ?rior to =eing legall- allo>ed to do 0o. &o anal-He thi0" one mu0t @no> >hat t-?e o. 0ervice o.
the 3rder o. Summar- Eviction i0 reDuired. &hi0 =eing a civil matter" the Erendition o. Cudgment or orderE or
ErenderedE language one .ind0 in criminal 0tatute0 li@e N!S 1$9.+1+ A>herein the deadline .or .iling a Notice o.
,??eal .rom a criminal conviction i0 0et .orth; i0 ina??lica=le. &hat =eing 0aid" and a0 e)?licitl- 0et .orth in N!S
, letter .rom the 8a0hoe Count- Sheri..B0 3..ice A8CS3; Civil Divi0ionB0 6iH Stuchell ?rovide0 0ome in0ight a0 to
>hether the loc@out that too@ ?lace on Novem=er 1" 2+11 in thi0 ca0e >a0 ?ermi00i=le.
ESu=Cect: !E: 8CS3 De?ut- <achemB0 E?er0onall- 0ervedE ,..idavit o. 11O1O2+11
Date: &ue" 7 (e= 2+12 11:4+:39 '+$++
(rom: 6Stuchell[>a0hoecount-.u0
&o: Hachcoughlin[hotmail.com
CC: m@andara0[da.>a0hoecount-.u0
<r. Coughlin"
3ur record0 indicate that the eviction conducted on that da- >a0 ?er0onall-
0erved =- De?ut- <achen =- ?o0ting a co?- o. the 3rder to the re0idence. &he re0idence
>a0 unoccu?ied at the time.
6iH Stuchell" Su?ervi0or 8CS3 Civil SectionE
/ut 0im?l-" the Novem=er 1" 2+11 loc@out" .or >hich 8CS3 De?ut- <achem indicate0 he E?er0onall- 0ervedE
the 3rder o. Summar- Eviction" >a0 not la>.ull- conducted" and a0 0uch i0 ine..ective and invo@e0 the ?rovi0ion o.
N!S 11$,.4$+. 8hen con0idering that the tenant did .ile 0uch a com?laint .or illegal loc@out" and the .act that the
!4C .ailed to rule on tenant0 .iling Aand a good deal o. other 0uch .iling0 =- the tenant have langui0hed in the !4C
unruled on de0?ite reDue0t0 .or 0u=mi00ion =eing 0u=mitted...;" the current criminal tre0?a00 ?roceeding in the !<C in
11 C! 2*4+% and the 2earing on the 3rder to Sho> Cau0e currentl- 0et .or <arch 23rd at 11:++ am in De?artment 7 in
C#11'+3*2$" the a??eal .rom the eviction matter involving !ichard :. 2ill" E0D. in !4C !ev2+11'++17+$.
&hi0 >hole =u0ine00 a=out I&he court ma- thereu?on i00ue an order directing the 0heri.. or con0ta=le o. the
count- to remove the tenant >ithin 24 hour0 a.ter recei?t o. the order...J i0 ina??lica=le to thi0 0ituation" >here an
3rder :ranting Summar- Eviction >a0 0igned =- 3cto=er 27th" 2+11. &hat language i0 onl- .ound in 0ituation0
ina??lica=le to the current one. N!S 4+.2%3A3;A=;A2;" and N!S 4+.2%3A%;Aa; are the onl- 0ection0 o. N!S 4+ >here thi0
I>ithin 24 hour0J language occur0" and tho0e 0ituation0 onl- a??l- >here" in:
- 46 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4+.2%3A3;A=;A2;: I 3. , notice 0erved ?ur0uant to 0u=0ection 1 or 2 mu0t: ...A=; ,dvi0e the tenant: \. A2; &hat i. the court
determine0 that the tenant i0 guilt- o. an unla>.ul detainer" the court ma- i00ue a 0ummar- order .or removal o. the tenant
or an order ?roviding .or the nonadmittance o. the tenant" directing the 0heri.. or con0ta=le o. the count- to remove the
tenant >ithin 24 hour0 a.ter recei?t o. the orderJ
and"
4+.2%3A%;Aa;: I%. 5?on noncom?liance >ith the notice: Aa; &he landlord or the landlordL0 agent ma- a??l- =- a..idavit o.
com?laint .or eviction to the Cu0tice court o. the to>n0hi? in >hich the d>elling" a?artment" mo=ile home or commercial
?remi0e0 are located or to the di0trict court o. the count- in >hich the d>elling" a?artment" mo=ile home or commercial
?remi0e0 are located" >hichever ha0 Curi0diction over the matter. &he court ma- thereu?on i00ue an order directing the
0heri.. or con0ta=le o. the count- to remove the tenant >ithin 24 hour0 a.ter recei?t o. the order.J &he >a- the0e 0ummar-
eviction ?roceeding0 are =eing carried out in !eno 4u0tice Court ?re0entl- 0hoc@0 the con0cience and violate0 Nevada
la>. &here i0 not =a0i0 .or e..ectuating a loc@out the >a- 8CS3B0 De?ut- <achem did in thi0 ca0e. &he a=ove t>o
0ection0 containing the I>ithin 24 hour0 o. recei?tJ language are ina??lica=le" a0 tho0e 0ituation0 do not invo@e the
?re0ent circum0tance0" >here the &enant did .ile an ,..idavit and did conte0t thi0 matter to a degree not o.ten 0een. &o
reDuire NevadaB0 tenant0 to get u? and get out I>ithin 24 hour0J o. Irecei?t o. the orderJ A>hat doe0 that even meanF &he
u0e o. term0 li@e IrenditionJ" IrenderedJ" Inotice o. entr-J" I?ronouncedJ" i0 a=0ent here" and thi0 Irecei?t o. the orderJ
language i0 0omething rarel- .ound el0e>here in Nevada la>'0ee attached D<# 0tatutor- citation0" and in em?lo-ment
la> litigation0 >here one mu0t .ile a Com?laint >ithin 9+ da-0 o. Irecei?tJ o. a !ight &o Sue 6etter" a 0ituation >hich
.ollo>0 N!C/ %A=;" and N!C/ *Ae; in im?uting recei?t o. 0uch a letter" >hen actual recei?t i0 not 0ho>n" =- a??l-ing a
Icon0tructive noticeJ 0tandard that relie0 u?on the da-0 .or mailing e)ten0ion o. time .or item0 0erved in the mailing"
etc.;. 1n ,=raham v. 8ood0 2ole 3ceanogra?hic 1n0titute" %%3 (.3d 114 A10t Cir. 2++9;" the record did not re.lect >hen
the ?lainti.. received hi0 right'to'0ue letter. &he letter >a0 i00ued on Novem=er 24" 2++*. &he court calculated that the 9+'
da- ?eriod commenced on Novem=er 3+" 2++*" =a0ed on three da-0 .or mailing a.ter e)cluding Saturda-0 and Sunda-0.
1n order to =ring a claim under either &itle #11 or the ,D," a ?lainti.. mu0t e)hau0t admini0trative remedie0 and 0ue
>ithin 9+ da-0 o. recei?t o. a right to 0ue letter. See 42 5.S.C. T 2+++e'%A.;A1;. See Bald>in Count- 8elcome Center v.
- 47 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Bro>n" 4** 5.S. 147" 14$ n.1" 1+4 S.Ct. 1723" $+ 6.Ed.2d 19* A19$4;Agranting ?lainti.. an additional three da-0 .or
mailing ?ur0uant to !ule *;....J ...
htt?:OOen.>i@i?edia.orgO>i@iOServiceWo.W?roce00
ESu=0tituted 0ervice: 8hen an individual ?art- to =e 0erved i0 unavaila=le .or ?er0onal
0ervice" man- Curi0diction0 allo> .or 0u=0tituted 0ervice. Su=0tituted 0ervice allo>0 the
?roce00 0erver to leave 0ervice document0 >ith another re0?on0i=le individual" called a
?er0on o. 0uita=le age and di0cretion" 0uch a0 a coha=iting adult or a teenager. 5nder
the (ederal !ule0" 0u=0tituted 0ervice ma- onl- =e made at the a=ode or d>elling o. the
de.endant.M4N Cali.ornia" Ne> 7or@"M%N 1llinoi0" and man- other 5nited State0
Curi0diction0 reDuire that in addition to 0u=0tituted 0ervice" the document0 =e mailed to
the reci?ient.M%N Su=0tituted 0ervice o.ten reDuire0 a 0erving ?art- 0ho> that ordinar-
0ervice i0 im?ractica=le" that due diligence ha0 =een made to attem?t to ma@e ?er0onal
0ervice =- deliver-" and that 0u=0tituted 0ervice >ill reach the ?art- and e..ect notice.
M%NE
1 am ?rett- 0ure E?er0onall- 0ervedE mean0 -ou 0erved the ?er0on in ?er0on" not that a ?er0on Aor 8CS3
De?utee; >ent and ?o0ted a notice on a door" ?er0onall- him0el.. See" 1 thin@ the 8CS3 are thin@ing o. the E?er0onE in
the >ord ?er0onall- a0 a??l-ing to the 0erver" >hen in all in0tance0 1 have ever 0een it u0ed in the la>" the E?er0onE ?art
o. E?er0onall-E a??lie0 to the ?er0on =eing 0erved. (urther adding con.u0ion here i0 the .act that 0ome" including tho0e
in the !4C Civil Divi0ion (iling 3..ice 0eem to =elieve that the I>ithin 24 hour0J o. Irecei?t o. the orderJ mentioned
.or 0erving an 3rder .or Summar- Eviction Aonl- >here the tenant did not .ile a &enantB0 ,n0>er" 0o...not li@e in the
in0tant ca0e; reDuire0 the 8CS3 to e..ect the loc@out >ithin 24 hour0 o. the 8CS3 receiving the loc@out
3rder...other>i0e 0uch an 3rder >ould =ecome staleF
1t i0 not 0o rare a gi.t to =e a=le to tear 0omeone do>n" to ?uni0h" to 0care" to con.i0cate. 2o>ever" it i0 trul- a
>ondrou0 0ite to 0ee one >ith the ?o>er to reha=ilitate a lo0t cau0e" and one da- ma@e that lo0t cau0e u0e.ul to another
- 48 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
human =eing. , ?o>er 0een in e0teemed Nevada 6a>-er0 and 4udge0" and legal ?ro.e00ional0 li@e Coe " Peith " &om"
/aul " Chuc@" Bo=" Pell-" <icheal" Pim" Ben" and 0o man- other0 Aand the under0igned .eel0 remi00 at not having a
.emale name to mention among0t tho0e Cu0t cited to;. &here ha0 =een ?lent- o. ?uni0hment here alread-" .amil-
relation0hi?0 have =een tore u? and =arel- remain on li.e 0u??ort. &he !eno Cit- ,ttorne- could ?ro=a=l- get =-
>ithout =loodletting another G17% and 4 ?oint0 .rom the under0igned. 8h- Sargent &arter mu0t =e 0u=Cected to thi0
cro00 e)amination i0 unclear" one >ould thin@ the !eno Cit- ,ttorne- >ould ho?e to avoid it =- 0ome mean0 other
than" 0eemingl-" rel-ing on the !<C to gerr-mander the relevanc- i00ue0 here to hel? Sargent &arter" et al to avoid
an0>ering an- uncom.orta=le Due0tion0. 1t i0 0im?l- tac@ .or CourtB0 to 0ua 0?onte cro00 e)amine de.endant0 an or
>itne00e0 on =ehal. o. ?ro0ecutor0" ?articularl- >here 1 canBt even one time recall 0eeing it done the other >a-.
2o>ever" to tho0e >ho >ould Cudge or a00ert 0ome E0?ecial treatmentE i0 =eing 0ought" a0@ -our0el. >hether
-ou =rought home >ith -ou over the la0t 3+ -ear0 ever-oneB0 overdo0ing on methadone" or >al@ing out o. oneB0 o..ice
a.ter ma@ing ever- a00urance that 0uicide >a0 not at all a ?o00i=ilit- onl- to reveal that" indeed it >a0" or have countle00
>ee@end0 and vacation0 involve ?hone call0 concerning >hether a ?atient i0 E.ull codeE or Eno codeE...7ou =ring that
home >ith -ou .or 3+ -ear0 and tell me >hat 0ort o. com?en0ation i0 a??ro?riate and then com?are it to the managed
care era .amil- ?h-0icianB0 and then >e can di0cu00 E0?ecial treatmentE. ,nd -ou do that >ithout a drin@ in 3+ -ear0
and then -ou can tal@. But all thi0 E0?ecial treatmentE di0cu00ion 0eem0 a =it 0trained >hen di0cu00ing >hether !ichard
:. 2ill com.ort level nece00itate0 e)acting even more mone- out o. me >hen it ought =e .airl- o=viou0 that 1 am doing
ever-thing 1 ?o00i=l- can to" =uc@et =- =uc@et" remove the >ater ?ooling at the =ottom o. m- tin-" one ?er0on canoe.
,nd >here thi0 involve0 a rugged" tall" 23 -ear veteran Sargent o. the !eno /D >ith ?ale =lue e-e0 >ho ha0 dou=tle00
earned the com?en0ation he no> garner0" ?erha?0 the !eno Cit- ,ttorne- >ould =e >i0e to Cu0t let the tra..ic tic@et go.
3r" ?erha?0" not" given the econom- >e are all 0truggling >ith e)act0 it0 .orce0 u?on the Cudgment o. the !eno Cit-
,ttorne-B0 3..ice a0 >ell" and the- didnBt get >here the- are =- =eing light>eight0 or lac@ing in di0cretion or valor.
<a-=e the =e0t thing >ould =e to Cu0t hit the ?au0e =utton .or a >hile and 0ee >hether the ?er0on o. inDuir- continue0
to 0uit u? and 0ho> u? and do their =e0t to .unction a0 a legal ?ro.e00ional an earn an hone0t living. 2o>ever" an-
di0cu00ion o. E0?ecial treatmentE 0hould include allo>ing 3rmaa0 and Sargent &arter e)tra time to Emeet and con.erE
>ell a.ter the 0tart time 0et .or thi0 &rial....it 0hould .urther con0ider that a??arentl- the ?rivilege o. the ?artici?ant that
all >itne00e0 in all trial0 enCo- 0eemingl- doe0 not allo> the under0igned to alleged untruth.ullne00 on Sargent &arterB0
- 49 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
?art a=0ent a 0ummar- % da- incarceration and con.i0cation o. the under0ignedB0 ?er0onal ?ro?ert- >ell therea.ter" even
>ithout a >arrant. So much .or the Bill o. !ight0.
N!S 4+.4++ !ule0 o. ?ractice. &he ?rovi0ion0 o. N!S" Nevada !ule0 o. Civil /rocedure and
Nevada !ule0 o. ,??ellate /rocedure relative to civil action0" a??eal0 and ne> trial0" 0o .ar a0
the- are not incon0i0tent >ith the ?rovi0ion0 o. N!S 4+.22+ to 4+.42+" inclu0ive" a??l- to the
?roceeding0 mentioned in tho0e 0ection0.
N!S 4+.39+ ,??ellate court not to di0mi00 or Dua0h ?roceeding0 .or >ant o. .orm. 1n all
ca0e0 o. a??eal under N!S 4+.22+ to 4+.42+" inclu0ive" the a??ellate court 0hall not di0mi00 or
Dua0h the ?roceeding0 .or >ant o. .orm" ?rovided the ?roceeding0 have =een conducted
0u=0tantiall- according to the ?rovi0ion0 o. N!S 4+.22+ to 4+.42+" inclu0ive9 and amendment0
to the com?laint" an0>er or 0ummon0" in matter0 o. .orm onl-" ma- =e allo>ed =- the court at
an- time =e.ore .inal Cudgment u?on 0uch term0 a0 ma- =e Cu0t9 and all matter0 o. e)cu0e"
Cu0ti.ication or avoidance o. the allegation0 in the com?laint ma- =e given in evidence under
the an0>er.
(urther ?ro=lematic >ith 4udge S.erraHHaB0 a??roach in !4C !ev2+11'++17+$ i0 that" >hile hi0 inter?retation
o. N!S 4+.2%3 allo>ed an eviction =a0ed onl- on a No Cau0e Eviction Notice to 0omeho> reDuire a rent e0cro>
de?o0it o. G2"27% .or a litigant >ith nothing to 0?are" 0uch an a??roach did not allo> .or that tenant to a00ert
counterclaim0" de0?ite the e)?licit authorit- .or the tenant doing 0o u?on a court a??l-ing NRS $$%A&1() A/tion"
4a"d +0on non0a3,nt of rnt# Co+ntr/lai, 43 tnant; d0o"it of rnt *it5 /o+rt; 6+d!,nt for -i/tion.
1ndeed" the under0igned tenant in that matter did attem?t to a00ert 0uch counterclaim0" ho>ever hi0 right to do 0o >a0
denied. Sim?l- ?ut" the landlord >a0 a=le to have it hi0 >a- in 0o man- di..erent >a-0 in thi0 eviction matter. 2e >a0
a=le to ?roceed under a no cau0e 0ummar- eviction notice >herein the non?a-ment o. rent >a0 not alleged >hile at the
0ame time =ene.iting .rom the court .orcing the tenant to de?o0it a rent e0cro> amount o. G2"27%. &hi0 a??roach i0
.urther under0cored =- the .act that onl- 1+ da-0 or 0o a.ter receiving the 0ummar- eviction order the landlordB0 coun0el
0u=mitted to the tenant a landlordB0 a..idavit .or 0ummar- eviction =a0ed on the non?a-ment o. rent. 1t >ould 0eem
onl- .air and indeed reDuired =- N!S 11$,.49+ allo> the tenant to a00ert counterclaim0 >here the tenant i0 0o .orced
to ma@e a rent e0cro> de?o0it. ,nd" >hile the 6ea0e ,greement ?rovided that the landlord 0hall =e" at 0u=0ection 2$:
7%& LIABILITY: management 0hall not =e lia=le .or an- damage or inCur- to !e0ident or
another ?er0on or to an- ?ro?ert- occurring on the ?remi0e0 or an- ?art thereo." or in
common are0 thereo." +nl"" "+/5 lia4ilit3 i" 4a"d on t5 n!li!nt a/t" or o,i""ion of
,ana!,nt8 5i" a!nt8 or ,0lo3...E
4udge S.erraHHa 0ummaril- ruled that :reen ,ction 6a>n Service >a0 an Einde?endent contractorE and" a0
0uch" Su=0ection 2$ o. the 6ea0e ,greement did not a..ord the tenant an o??ortunit- to a00ert counterclaim0 under N!S
- 50 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11$,.4$+. 2o>ever" even i. the ,??ellate Di0trict Court revie>ing !4C !ev2+11'++17$ in C#11'+3*2$ .ind0 thi0 0o"
the .act that the revie> i0 a Ede novoE revie> ?ermit0 the a??ellate court to con0ider >hether" even it >ere the ca0e that
the landlordB0 land0ca?er0 >ere Einde?endent contractor0E" that Su=0ection 2$ >ould 0till allo> .or lia=ilit- .or their act0
to =e accorded to the landlord. !egardle00" 4udge S.erraHHaB0 ruling on >hether or not lia=ilit- e)i0t0 or >hether tenant
>a0 allo>ed to litigate counterclaim0 in the trial court are 0im?l- not matter0 >ell 0uited to 0ummar- Cudgment" and"
regardle00" tenant met hi0 =urden in that regard 0u..icient to ?reclude 0uch a 0ummar- di0?o0ition o. tho0e matter0.
8hile 4udge S.erraHHa ruled that the damage done =- the landlordB0 :reen ,ction 6a>n Service did not ?re0ent
an o??ortunit- .or the tenant to a00ert counterclaim0 Aeven though 0u=0ection 2$ o. the 6ea0e ,greement ?rovide0 0o;"
the tenant 0hould have =een a..orded 0uch an o??ortunit- to 0o a00ert 0uch counterclaim0" ?articularl- >here 0uch a rent
e0cro> de?o0it >a0 not onl- reDuired" =ut then retained =- the court .or at lea0t 1+ da-0 a.ter 0igning the 3rder .or
Summar- Eviction. (urther" it i0 ?reci0el- the0e t-?e0 o. am=iguou0 ?oint0 o. contractual inter?retation that are ill'
0uited to di0?o0al on 0ummar- Cudgment: &he =urden o. ?roo. a??lica=le to a Summar- Eviction /roceeding under N!S
4+.2%3 dictate0 that" the court >ill allo> =oth ?artie0 to 0?ea@ and ?re0ent evidence on their =ehal. a.ter >hich the court
>ill determine >hether there i0 Ia genuine di0?ute o. material .act0.J ASee ,nvui" 66C v. :.6. Dragon" 66C in >hich
the Nevada Su?reme Court held that 0ummar- eviction ca0e0 0hould =e evaluated li@e motion0 .or 0ummar- Cudgment.
in ,nvui" 66C v. :.6. Dragon" 66C" 123 Nev. 212" 1*3 /.3d 4+% A2++7;" the Nevada Su?reme Court ruled that it0
revie> o. an order granting 0ummar- eviction under N!S 4+.2%3A*; i0 Ide novoJ =ecau0e tho0e ?roceeding0 are
analogou0 to an order granting 0ummar- Cudgment under N!C/ %*. 1d. at 21%" 1*3 /.3d at 4+7. Burden o. ?roo. o.
movant" hearing and determination /art- moving .or 0ummar- Cudgment ha0 =urden o. ?roving that no tria=le i00ue0
remain. Nevada !ule0 Civ./roc." !ule %*. 2arr- v. Smith" 199%" $93 /.2d 372" 111 Nev. %2$. 1n order to ?revail on hi0
motion .or 0ummar- Cudgment" general ?artner >a0 reDuired to demon0trate .rom record" a..idavit0" or other evidence"
a=0ence or conclu0ive .al0it- o. limited ?artner0B claim0 o. .raud or mi0re?re0entation in connection >ith di00olution o.
?artner0hi? agreement9 although he >a0 not reDuired to 0u=mit a..idavit0 in 0u??ort o. hi0 motion" he >a0 reDuired to
?rove Iother indiciaJ o. none)i0tence o. .raud. !ule0 Civ./roc." !ule %*. <aine v. Ste>art" 1993" $%7 /.2d 7%%" 1+9
Nev. 721" rehearing denied. Burden o. ?roving a=0ence o. tria=le .act0 allo>ing entr- o. 0ummar- Cudgment i0 u?on
?art- moving .or 0ummar- Cudgment. !ule0 Civ./roc." !ule %*Aa;. Butler v. Bogdanovich" 19$%" 7+% /.2d **2" 1+1 Nev.
449" rehearing denied. 1n 0uit again0t o>ner o. 0ervice 0tation .or death o. em?lo-ee o. contractor engaged in alteration0
at 0ervice 0tation" de.endant >hich moved .or 0ummar- Cudgment had =urden o. e0ta=li0hing that de.endantB0
- 51 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
relation0hi? to decea0ed >a0 tantamount to that o. em?lo-er 0o that ?lainti..B0 e)clu0ive remed- >a0 the 1ndu0trial
1n0urance ,ct. N!C/ %*A=" c;9 N.!.S. *1*.+1+ et 0eD." *1*.+$%. 8eaver v. Shell 3il Co." 197%" %3% /.2d 7$7" 91 Nev.
324. &he =urden o. e0ta=li0hing the lac@ o. tria=le i00ue o. .act i0 u?on the ?art- moving .or 0ummar- Cudgment.
2idden 8ell0 !anch" 1nc. v. Stri? !ealt-" 1nc." 19*7" 42% /.2d %99" $3 Nev. 143.
See" :omeH v. 1nde?endence <anagement o. Dela>are" 1nc." 9*7 ,.2d 127* AD.C. 2++9;: E.n 19. 8e have 0aid
in another conte)t that a claim o. Ia retaliator- motive i0 a Due0tion o. .act .or the Cur- Aor the Cudge in a non'Cur- trial;"
and" li@e other t-?e0 o. claim0 in >hich motive or intent i0 in i00ue" i0 not >ell 0uited to di0?o0ition on a motion .or
0ummar- Cudgment.J ,rthur 7oung U Co. v. Sutherland" *31 ,.2d 3%4" 3*$ AD.C.1993; Are.erring to a claim o.
retaliator- action under the DC2!,;9 0ee Ed>ard0" 0u?ra note 1$" 13+ 5.S. ,??. D.C. at 141" 397 (.2d at 7+2 AI&he
Due0tion o. ?ermi00i=le or im?ermi00i=le ?ur?o0e i0 one o. .act .or the court or Cur-]J;. 8e have 0aid the 0ame thing
a=out claim0 o. di0crimination" 0ee" e.g." 2ollin0 v. (ederal National <ortgage ,00Bn" 7*+ ,.2d %*3" %79'$+ AD.C.2+++;"
=ut >e have" on occa0ion" u?held a trial court grant o. 0ummar- Cudgment in .avor o. a de.endant accu0ed o.
di0crimination. See" e.g." 2amilton v. 2o>ard 5niver0it-" 9*+ ,.2d 3+$" 31%'1* AD.C.2++$;9 8allace v. S@adden" ,r?0"
Slate" <eagher U (lom 66/" 799 ,.2d 3$1" 3$* AD.C.2++2;9 2ollin0" 7*+ ,.2d at %71. 8e there.ore do not .oreclo0e
the ?o00i=ilit- that" on a ?ro?erl- 0u??orted record" the trial court ma- di0?o0e o. a de.en0e o. retaliator- eviction at the
0ummar- Cudgment 0tage. 8hen the 0tatutor- ?re0um?tion o. retaliator- action ha0 =een triggered" ho>ever" the record
>ould have to e0ta=li0h" under the 0tandard0 that govern 0ummar- Cudgment" that the landlord ha0 re=utted it =- clear
and convincing evidence.E
1ndeed" thi0 i0 true >hen con0idering that a tough choice .ace0 the landlord in thi0 matter. 1. the tenant >a0 a
commercial tenant" then N!S 4+.2%3 .or=id0 ?roceeding under the 0ummar- eviction ?rocedure .ound therein >here
onl- a No Cau0e Eviction Notice >a0 0erved Aie" the non'?a-ment o. rent >a0 not alleged;" a0 >a0 the ca0e in that
matter. 2o>ever" to the e)tent the landlord >i0he0 to argue the tenant >a0 not a commercial tenant Ade0?ite the 6ea0e
,greement e)?licitl- allo>ing .or 0uch u0e a0 >ell a0 local Honing la>0; then the dictate0 o. N!S 4+.3$% a??l-" and the
tenant mu0t =e accorded a 0ta- o. eviction u?on de?o0iting >ith the court the ?altr- 0ome o. G2%+" much le00 the G2"27%
Erent e0cro> de?o0it reDuired to ?re0erve the right to litigate ha=ita=ilit- i00ue0E the !4C continued to hold a.ter the
3rder .or Summar- Eviction >a0 0igned" and .or >hich the !4C cla00i.ied it a0 the E=ond to cover the co0t0 on a??ealE.
- 52 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0uit or 0omething....it0 Cu0t =u0ine00 to me" i am not mad at him" =ut he i0 co0ting me mone- and time and energ-. 1 tried
to ?ut 0ome o=Cection0 on the record at the &/3 e)ten0ion hearing A>hich la0t % 0econd0; and !4C 4udge Schroeder"
0narled Edo -ou >ant to go to CailVE" 1 0aid Eno 0ir" -our honorE and ?ac@ed u? m- 0tu.. and le.t...
1 might get 0u0?ended .rom the ?ractice o. la> over 0ome o. thi0 or other>i0e have to re?ort
thing0 to the 0tate =ar under SC! 111 Aconviction o. E0eriou0 crime0E; incident to =eing arre0ted .or
tre0?a00 at m- .ormer la> o..icethen the !4C 0eem0 to .igure out that that0 a no'no and hurrie0 u? to
get me 0erved .or a hearing A>hether 1 li@e it or not or >hether it com?lie0 >ith nrc? * or
0erviceOnotice rule0; to get me =ac@ the G23++...0o the !4C didnBt need m- ?ermi00ion to 0et that
hearing" =ut then the- claim the couldnBt com?l- >ith the Emandator- hold hearing on <otion to
Conte0t /er0onal /ro?ert- 6ien >ithin 1+ da-0 and have notice o. it 0erved =- the Sheri.. u?on
6andlordE .ound in N!S 4+.2%3A7; and A$; =ecau0e E-ou didnBt give u0 ?ermi00ion to 0et the hearingE
Athe <otion to Conte0t /Er0onal /ro?ert- 6ien >a0 .iled 11O17O11" and the- emailed me and 2ill
called 0a-ing a hearing >a0 on .or 11 22 11...1 0ho>ed u? .or it =ut it >a0 vacated or cancelled
=ecau0e 1 EdidnBt give them ?ermi00ion to 0et it or go .or>ard >ith itE or 0omething....0o 1 didnBt get a
hearing on the 6ien undtil 12O2+O11...>hereu?on S.erraHHa e)ceeded hi0 Curi0diction under N!S
4+.2%3A7;" A$; re0erving all thi0 Cur0idiction0" ruling on thing0 he >a0nBt given authorit- to" etc."
etc...&he ca0e i0 on a??eal right no> and 1 am in need o. hel? >ith it....But there i0 0till a chance Ano
claim ?reclu0ion; to .ile a >rong.ul eviction la>0uit Ai >a0 not even ?ermitted to a00ert counterclaim0
in the 0ummar- eviction ?roce00...and =ecau0e the- onl- ?ur0ued that under a No Cau0e Eviction
Notice" =ecau0e the- @ne> alleging non ?a-ment >ould o?en ?andoraB0 =o)" the- violated N!S
4+.2%3B0 dictate that 0ummar- eviction ?roceeding0 are im?ermi00i=le again0t commercial tenant0
unle00 non ?a-ment o. rent i0 alleged. &he- can ?ro=a=l- 0ho> it >a0 m- home and la> o..ice"
=ut...1 0a- mi)ed u0ed or even incidental u0e Duali.ie0 me a0 a commercial tenant. &he 6ea0e
,greement 0a-0 1 can u0e the ?ro?ert- .or an- ?ur?o0e and it >a0 a dui coun0eling 0chool ?reviou0 to
- 54 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
m- tenanc-" 0o it i0 Hone .or commercial u0e" e0?eciall- ?ro.e00ional o..ice u0e" etc....
&here i0 all 0ort0 o. claim0 again0t 2ill here" a=u0e o. ?roce00 Athe ?hon- &/3" !/D 3..icer
Carter admitting 2ill ?a-0 him mone- to arre0t ?eo?le Athe- >ill 0a- it0 >a0 a Co@e" =ut it0 not a
Co@ing 0ituation >hen -ou are arre0ting an attorne- .or tre0?a00 a.ter 2ill 0end0 a =ill .or the .ull
rental value o. the ?ro?ert- Anot Cu0t rea0ona=le 0torage moving and e)?en0e0 undre N!S 11$a.4*+;
G9++ .or Novem=er" ?lu0 21ll ha0 thi0 contractor named /hil >ho @ee?0 0u=mitting the0e Cac@ed u?
=ill0 AG1+%+ to =oard u? the ?orch a0 Erea0ona=le 0torage" moving and inventor-ingE de0?ite hi0 not
ta@ing an un0ecured >indo> unit ac out o. the >indo>...and the ?lace >a0 =urlgariHed on 12O12O11
.or a=out G$"+++ or 0o o. ?er0onal ?ro?ert-;...?lu0 >ithheld m- clientB0 .ile0 .or * >ee@0" m- driver0
licen0e .or 7 da-0...(DC/, violation0...the- 0till havenBt returned the G7++ 0ecurit- de?o0it...hi0
Declaration0 are .ull o. ?erCur-"in m- o?inion" a0 are hi0 contractor0...
CONCLUSION
Ba0ed u?on the .oregoing the under0igned re0?ect.ull- reDue0t0 that thi0 Court Set ,0ide the
Summar- Contem?t 3rder incident to the (e=ruar- 27" 2+12 &rial" return all o. the under0igned
/er0onal /ro?ert-" and Di0mi00 thi0 Criminal Com?laint" and another relie. thi0 Court deem0 Cu0t.
AFFIRMATION PURSUANT TO NRS 7'(B&)')
&he under0igned doe0 here=- a..irm that the ?receding document doe0 not contain the 0ocial
0ecurit- num=er o. an- ?er0on.
Dated: <arch *" 2+12
OSO Zach CoughlinWWWWWWWW
Zach Coughlin" De.endant
- 55 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SER:ICE
/ur0uant to N!C/ %A=;" 1 certi.- that 1 0erved a co?- o. the .oregoing document u?on the
.ollo>ing ?art- =- .a)ing" emailing" dro??ing !. at their o..ice" and ?lacing a true and correct co?-
o. the .oregoing document in the u0 mail. addre00ed t?:
,li0on <. 3rmaa0" E0D.
3ne Ea0t (ir0t Street" 3rd (loor
(a) num=er: 77%'334'422*
ormaa0a[reno.gov" @adlicC[reno.gov
4ohn Padlic" E0D.
!eno Cit- ,ttorne-B0 3..ice ' Criminal Divi0on
/.3. Bo) 19++ !eno " N# $9%+%
&el: 77%'334'2+%+ (a): 77%'334'242+
,ttorne- .or Cit- o. !eno 77% 334 3$24
!eno <unici?al Court .iled =- .a) to :
Date thi0 <arch *" 2+12
OSO Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin" De.endant
- 56 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INDE; TO E;HIBITS
1. E)hi=it 1: variou0 relevant material0" including la> revie> article0" etc. on retaliator- arre0t0"
retaliator- ?ro0ecution0" etc. 3ne hundred 0i)t-'0i) A1**; ?age0.
- 57 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
- 58 -
PDA
seansbabyluv
Prison Talk > U.S. REGIONAL FORUMS > COLORADO > Colorado News & Events > Owens
judge picks were many, male and often DAs
View Full Version : Owens judge picks were many, male and often
DAs
09-09-2007, 01:08 PM
Owens judge picks were many, male and often DAs
By DENNIS HUSPENI (dennis.huspeni@gazette.com)
THE GAZETTE
September 9, 2007 - 8:25AM
Former Republican Gov. Bill Owens appointed more judges in his two terms in office than
any other governor in Colorados history.
Owens 174 appointments, from County Court judge up to Supreme Court justice,
outnumbered both governors before him combined: Roy Romer appointed 114 and Dick
Lamm named 59. Each served three terms.
Owens first pick for the Colorado Supreme Court, Denver Deputy District Attorney Nathan
Ben Coats in 2000, showed early the type of judge Owens preferred.
Almost half of Owens judges were prosecutors or former prosecutors, and 70 percent were
men.
A Gazette review of Owens judicial appointments during his eight years in office shows at
least 72 had served multiple years as prosecutors. In that same period, Owens appointed
only four judges with public defender experience.
Though not even a full year into his first term, Gov. Bill Ritter has appointed more judges
five with public defender experience. One attorney, former Deputy Public Defender
Jonathan Walker, is thought to be the first active public defender named to a judgeship in
nearly a decade. Walker was appointed by Ritter as an El Paso County Court judge in May.
Of Ritters first 22 appointments, five have public defender experience, seven were former
prosecutors and 10 were from private practice or already judges. Nearly 40 percent were
women.
I absolutely think its one of the most important things a governor does, said Ritter,
former Denver District Attorney from 1993 through 2004 and a Democrat.
As of July 1, there were 285 judges in the state: county, district, court of appeals and
Supreme Court justices. That means Owens appointed more than 60 percent of the states
judges in his two terms.
While more recent appointments are bringing judges with diverse backgrounds to the
bench, most legal experts say they dont think the change will have a significant impact on
what happens in most courtrooms.
Its only in the states highest courts that judges rule as a group.
During his tenure, Owens appointed 14 of the 19 Court of Appeals judges, or 73 percent.
Among the seven Colorado Supreme Court Justices, Owens appointed two judges, both
considered conservative.
Still, most of the justices were put on the bench by Romer, a Democrat, and legal experts
say it leans left politically.
Owens declined to comment for this story.
A MATTER OF IDEOLOGY?
Owens judge picks were many, male and often DAs [Archive] - Prison Talk http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-289418.html
1 of 4 3/7/2012 10:18 AM
Political and legal experts say its natural for a governor to appoint judges who share his or
her ideology.
Owens made no secret he wanted tough judges to hand out stiff sentences.
There werent a lot of prosecutors appointed to the bench in recent years, Owens told the
House Republican Caucus shortly after taking office in 1999.
I think Ive done exactly what I said I would do: I said I would appoint a different type of
judge, Owens said in 2002. I said I would, in fact, put judges on the bench who
understand the impact of crime and understand the importance of the criminal justice
system. A major function of government is to provide for public safety. So I plead guilty to
that charge.
A judges leanings toward prosecutors or defense attorneys is important: its one of the
things the states Commissions on Judicial Performance looks at when evaluating judges for
retention recommendations.
Will those judges affect Colorados crowded prison system and county jails?
Many Colorado legal experts dont see a need for alarm.
The impact is not going to be as great as some people might fear, said David Getches,
dean of the University of Colorado at Boulders Law School.
The nominating commissions from each of Colorados 22 Judicial Districts send the
governor three candidates. The governor then has 15 days to make a choice, or it falls to
the states chief justice.
Frankly, they dont send up people who are incompetent, Getches said. Id be very
surprised to see a politicalization of the bench in either direction. ... You dont see any
swerves in the road.
Getches concurs picking judges is a key duty of Colorados governor.
It leaves a lasting legacy, Getches said. When you appoint a couple hundred judges,
theyll be around for 10, 20 or 30 years beyond that governors term. Thats a profound
kind of impact to have.
A QUESTION OF BALANCE
University of Denver law professor Robert Hardaway, an expert in politics and the law,
said Owens reliance on prosecutors for judges didnt bother him.
Many of those prosecutors have private practice experience, which would usually include
criminal defense work, he said.
I have always thought it was a terrible idea to appoint a judge who has only been on one
side of the fence, Hardaway said. If I were governor, I would never appoint someone
who was a lifetime prosecutor. By the same token, I wouldnt appoint someone who had
been a lifetime public defender, either.
Former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis, who founded DUs Institute
for the Advancement of the American Legal System, said theres a difference between an
ideal group of judicial candidates, and reality.
Ideally, the judiciary should be balanced between civil attorneys, criminal attorneys, men,
women and people of all color and backgrounds, Love Kourlis said. On the other hand,
with the exception of the Court of Appeals and the Colorado Supreme Court, each judge
sits alone. So the balance of the whole system is probably less important than each
individual judges ability to set aside personal bias and be fair.
Ritter, a Democrat, said he doesnt look at a judicial candidates political leanings.
Certainly, people will have their own ideologies when coming on the bench, Ritter said. I
always strive for candidates who will check that advocacy role, that part of their political
Owens judge picks were many, male and often DAs [Archive] - Prison Talk http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-289418.html
2 of 4 3/7/2012 10:18 AM
Home
Are We Becoming a Police State?
Traffic enforcement has become a major industry in the United States. This essay
presents a look at some of the social, psychological, and economic trends behind the
emergence of this big business.
Are we becoming a police state? That is a difficult question, but it can certainly be
argued that in some places in the United States, yes, we definitely are. Let's take a look
at some trends that have emerged since the late 1970's.
But first, let's go back in history. Public police forces did not exist in the United States
until the middle of nineteenth century, when their introduction met with significant
resistance from the populace.
1
By the 1950's, excluding the largest cities (many of which
have had problems with corrupt law enforcement officers dating well back into the 19th
century), citizens generally had a highly favorable opinion of law enforcement
officers. Good people had little to fear from the police, and the moral person's
encounters with police were generally favorable. The sheriff was a "good guy," the
"white hat" celebrated in so many of the Old West movies and television programs of that
era. Children at play fought over who got to be the sheriff, and this esteem for law
enforcement could be seen in many other places in our culture.
Contrast this with the present. Good people now become uneasy when a police car pulls
out behind them. The average encounter with police is often stressful and ends with the
citizen having to divert a bunch of his income to the local powers-that-be (perhaps more
like the bands of outlaws, or "black-hats" of those same Old West movies).
What happened? There are a several different phenomena that I believe explain this
cultural shift.
"Us vs. Them" Mentality
Let's go back 40 years. Most places had "beat cops," patrolmen who would travel
around their jurisdiction on foot. These patrolmen would regularly encounter the
merchants and residents in their jurisiction, greet them, exchange some pleasantries or
family news, and maybe even be treated to a free cup of coffee at the corner
store. These cops knew the people they were protecting, and they were reminded several
times a day of the community values they were protecting, and of the people they were
protecting. I attribute much of this to the unofficial face-to-face encounters that were
Are We Becoming a Police State? http://www.freeexistence.org/police_state.html
1 of 5 3/7/2012 10:19 AM
NOte by Coughlin on 12/25/12: in her 3/12/12 Order in 11tr26800 Judge Nash Holmes only mentions "an article about
a police state", failing to point out the additional relevant to that traffic citation matter where this article
traffic enforcement, and revenue considerations by the municipalities in charge thereof.
inherent to the job.
Fast forward to the present. John Q. Suburbia no longer has a single, friendly officer
patrolling his neighborhood on foot. In the interest of police efficiency, a much more
anonymous team of people in cruisers takes turns driving through that same
neighborhood. The community interactions of the average patrolman are now only a
narrow subset of what they once were. Now, for many patrolmen, these on-duty
encounters are typically limited to: 1. getting out of their car to respond to a call (often
because someone is acting irrationally or violently), and 2. pulling people over for traffic
infractions, said people thus being inherently disagreeable. Many of the favorable
interactions are now gone. Good people now see less of the police except in unfavorable
circumstances. And conversely, the police now see less of the citizenry except in
unfavorable circumstances. It's only natural that, in this situation, police officers will
begin to perceive their community as little more than a giant playground of dysfunctional
children who really need to be kept in line. Perhaps I am overstating things with this
metaphor, but the stated situation will, at a minimum, greatly increase the cynicism of our
patrolman.
Now, add to this mix officers who spend the majority of their time enforcing traffic
laws. These patrolmen make their living hunting for speeders, or waiting for drivers to
slip up and make some kind of fine-worthy mistake. The citizens these patrolmen
encounter are quite reasonably regarded by them as prey; the typical citizen who is pulled
over is going to react to the officer with some combination of fear and anger. Obviously,
the bond between the citizen and the patrolman is not exactly strengthened (in either
direction) by this state of affairs. This trend has been exacerbated by the growing power
and budget of state patrols, law enforcement organizations chartered exclusively for
traffic enforcement (and thus, revenue generation; see "Critical Mass," below). State
Troopers are often little more than roving "meter maids" looking to issue tickets for the
most trivial of infractions. Further, they generally lack many of the powers granted to
police officers. As a result of these factors, they are held in much the same public
contempt as meter maids.
This "Us vs. Them" attitude can emerge anywhere, even in the smallest of towns, given
the growing influence of state patrols whose troopers have jurisdiction on any public road
in your state. State patrols typically have very little citizen oversight. Unlike a sheriff's
office where the sheriff must periodically be re-elected (albeit by a populous often
apathetic to such less prominent offices), state troopers have no such motivation to keep
from angering or frustrating the commuting public.
Decreasing Public Confidence
2 of 5 3/7/2012 10:19 AM
The 1982 Figgie Report on Fear of Crime revealed a growing belief that police are not
effective in controlling crime. This sentiment has been echoed in the free market: by
1990, there were over twice as many private police (watchmen, guards, security experts)
as public police in the United States. Between 1964 and 1981, employment at firms
providing these private police services increased over 400 percent as more individuals
and companies sought a more effective solution in the private sector.
1
Police Patrol Resource Critical Mass
This is a simple issue of economics. Note that this example does not rely on any
assumption of community growth. Now, let's assume you live in a a rural county or
small town with few police officers. The duties of the patrolman are going to be
primarily responding to calls, and generally trying to keep their community safe. Now,
add some more officers into our mix. At some point, you'll hit critical mass, that is, you'll
reach a point where, on the average day, you've got more police officers on the clock
than you have work for them to do. What do you do with these extra patrolmen? You
inevitably send some of them out to do traffic patrols (ticketing the out-of-staters and
whatnot). These tickets then bring in additional revenue to our town or county that
would not have existed without the additional traffic patrols. A couple of years pass, and
the local government takes notice of the revenue brought in by our police department or
sheriff's office, and starts directing some of that money back into the police
department. After upgrading some equipment and possibly their facility, they begin
hiring additional police. After all, the sheriff figures, if their current staffing lets them do
a good job at minimizing crime and bringing in revenue, then adding patrolmen will let
them do a great job at those things. What do these additional patrolmen do? In terms of
protecting and serving you, the police department is now even more overstaffed than
before. As such, a significant percentage of the new patrolmen are sent out to do
additional traffic enforcement. This cycle continues, and with each new iteration, the
community ends up with even more officers on the streets. Maybe the crime rate drops
by a couple of percent, and few complain about the cost of all the officers since the
police department is now a significant source of revenue. It is now standard practice for
many police agencies to staff additional officers exclusively for traffic enforcement
duties, under the assumption that these officers will pay their own salaries with income
from traffic citations. Law enforcement agencies refer to such officers as "self-paid".
Also exacerbating things is the way public budgeting works, wherein the failure of an
agency to spend all its annual budget may result in a reduction of budget allocation next
year. This parallels public road construction, wherein construction crews are assigned to
resurface a perfectly good road just to consume and conceal a budgetary
surplus. Likewise, once the agency and local government become dependent on traffic
3 of 5 3/7/2012 10:19 AM
enforcement revenue, this reliance will prevent any reduction in traffic enforcement later
on.
This phenomenon is probably most likely in growing communities, since it's easier to
justify more patrolmen when you're regularly adding to your staff to compensate for
growth. It is not hard to imagine officers in these communities being rewarded (the old
notion of "quotas" for a period of time, or less officially in some law enforcement
organizations, with an award at the end of the period for most citations issued). Such a
reward is just the institutionalization of the organization's desire for more traffic
enforcement revenue.
Big Profits from Enforcement
One particularly alarming trend relating to traffic ticket revenue is the increasing
percentage that police agencies get to keep. Traditionally, only a small amount of the
revenue collected from a given traffic ticket actually went to the police agency issuing the
citation; the rest went into a general fund for the state, county, or municipality in which
the cited offense occurred. This has changed dramatically; some police agencies (such as
the Larimer County Sheriff's Department in Colorado) actually keep 75 percent of
collected revenue from traffic tickets! It doesn't take much imagination (unless you're a
Colorado legislator, evidently) to realize that exploitive levels of enforcement of minor
traffic laws will result, which is exactly what has happened in Larimer County. Such
police agencies are happy to share the wealth with their enforcers: one half of the highest
paid Larimer County officials are officers in the Larimer County Sheriff's
Department! It's hard to imagine a police agency that perpetually complains about having
too low a budget to function paying someone over $100,000 to drive around a rural area
and issue speeding citations to motorists -- a job any high school graduate is qualified to
perform.
Conclusion
It's not hard to see that if either of the above phenomena happen in the community, the
most fundamental values of your local law enforcement organizations have changed
significantly. Overshadowing all of this is the growing profit motive of law enforcement
agencies (mirrored in the "War on Drugs," wherein law enforcement agencies and local
municipalities regularly make a great deal of money through the confiscation of property
loosely attached to a drug transaction). This business model is parasitical by nature, and
this cannot help but color the activities of the law enforcement agency. The motto on the
police cruiser remains "To Protect and Serve," but in many jurisdictions it would more
accurately read "To Raise Revenue off the Backs of the Citizens."
4 of 5 3/7/2012 10:19 AM
Without a doubt, there are still a lot of good people in the field of law
enforcement. Unfortunately, these people are outnumbered at least 2-1 (according to
one law enforcement officer I spoke with) by the glorified hall monitor type figure we
have all come to fear. And perhaps that is the most important difference between the
America of now versus the America of 40 years past.
Recent Updates
April 2011: Corrupt local governments have begun balancing their budgets on the backs
of drivers as states across the US triple speeding fines and add ridiculous surcharges to
moving violations. The City of Los Angeles now makes $1.5 million a year from
cameras at a single intersection in the San Fernando Valley.
November 2010: Many states have a disproportionately large number of judges who
were former prosecutors, but almost no judges who were former public defenders. See,
e.g., this article regarding trends in recent judicial appointments in Colorado.
January 2007: Check out Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America on
the CATO Institute website. This article also has an interactive US map showing recent
botches paramilitary police raids.
December 2006: Do police departments turn away applicants for being too
intelligent? Click here to find out.
Bibliography
1 Benson, Bruce. The Enterprise of Law. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute
for Public Policy, 1990.
Reminder: All content on this site is automatically copyrighted by virtue of the Berne
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
5 of 5 3/7/2012 10:19 AM
IT important to note that RPD Sargent Tarter at first testified on 2/27/12 that he "issues
warnings" to people when he pulls them over...then Tarter had to admit that he didn't issue any
warning to Coughlin, further, Judge Nash Holme's Order mentions, in a footnote, how Sargent
Tarter "gave a break" to Coughlin in not citing him for an "expired driver's
license" (actually, and Tarter was told this by a complaining Coughlin, Richard G. Hill, Esq.
was wrongfully withholding Coughlin's then current Nevada drivers license, and it was an old
driver's license Coughlin was forced to show Tarter...so, not exactly a "break" being given.
Regardless, Judge Holmes ruled it as "irrelevant" the extent to which Hill was wrongfully
withholding Coughlin's driver's license, yet, managed to footnote this "break" related to the
driver's license in her Order?
Columbia Law Review
May, 2009
Note
*755 BETWEEN HEALTHY AND HARTMAN: PROBABLE CAUSE IN RETALIATORY
ARREST CASES
John Koerner
Copyright (c) 2009 Directors of The Columbia Law Review Association, Inc.; John Koerner
This Note addresses a circuit split concerning retaliatory arrest claims. In most cir-
cuits, a defendant police officer cannot be held liable for retaliatory arrest if the arrest
was made with probable cause. This is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in
Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, which requires defend-
ants in retaliation claims to show that they would have taken the same action in the ab-
sence of a retaliatory motive. But there are a number of exceptions to the Mt. Healthy
rule, including the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hartman v. Moore. In Hartman,
the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff in a retaliatory prosecution claim must prove
that the prosecutor brought charges without probable cause. This Note argues that courts
should follow Hartman and require a plaintiff to prove the absence of probable cause
only in a subset of retaliatory arrest cases: cases involving complex causation and cases
where the officer had probable cause to believe that the plaintiff had committed a felony
offense. In all other retaliatory arrest cases, courts should follow Mt. Healthy and permit
plaintiffs to bring suit even if the officer had probable cause. This nuanced approach
strikes the appropriate balance between free speech rights and the needs of law enforce-
ment.
Introduction
On March 12, 1997, Anthony Greene walked into the Grand Rapids police department to
retrieve his car, which had been towed from a no parking zone. [FN1] When he was told that
he would have to pay a storage fee for the car, Mr. Greene started arguing loudly with Lieu-
tenant Jack Barber and cursing at him. [FN2] The argument was loud enough that interns an-
swering telephones nearby had to put their callers on hold. [FN3] Lieutenant Barber told Mr.
Greene, You can't talk to me like that in my building. [FN4] Greene responded that he was
simply exercising his freedom of speech. [FN5] Barber replied, Well, not in my building.
[FN6] Greene said, Well, if that's how you feel, you're really stupid. [FN7] At that point,
Barber told Greene that he was under arrest. [FN8] Greene protested that the arrest *756 was
illegal; as the officers struggled to subdue him, he was pepper sprayed. [FN9] Greene was
charged with creating a disturbance and with hindering and opposing a police officer, but was
acquitted of both charges. [FN10] He sued for retaliatory arrest. [FN11]
109 CLMLR 755 Page 1
109 Colum. L. Rev. 755
2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Police Misconduct: Law and Litigation
Database updated October 2011
Michael Avery, David Rudovsky, Karen Blum
Chapter
2. Actionable Conduct Under the Federal Civil Rights Acts
References
2:16. Retaliatory prosecution
West's Key Number Digest
West's Key Number Digest, Civil Rights 1088(5)
Treatises and Practice Aids
Steinglass, Section 1983 Litigation in State Courts 3:9
Bodensteiner and Levinson, State and Local Government Civil Rights Liability 1:11
Law Reviews and Other Periodicals
Watson, Limiting a Constitutional Tort Without Probable Cause: First Amendment Retali-
atory Arrest After Hartman, 107 Mich. L. Rev. 111 (October, 2008)
Retaliatory prosecutions may be subject to remedy under 1983. In order to establish a
prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the
plaintiff's conduct was constitutionally protected; and (2) the plaintiff's conduct was a "sub-
stantial factor" or "motivating factor" in the defendant's challenged actions.[1] Where an of-
ficer attempts to punish a person for the exercise of First Amendment rights by filing a crim-
inal charge against him, there is a potential cause of action under the Fourth and First Amend-
ments.[2]
In Hartman v. Moore,[3] the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in a retaliatory prosecu-
tion claim must plead and prove the absence of probable cause for the prosecution in order to
have a cause of action. Justice Souter's opinion for the Court argued that it is difficult to prove
that retaliatory animus caused a criminal charge to be brought, because the charge is actually
filed by a prosecutor, not the officer who is alleged to be engaged in retaliation. The absence
of any probable cause may help prove the link between the retaliatory animus of the officer
and the filing of the charge by the prosecutor, and so the Court held it is a required element of
a prima facie case. Justice Souter reached this conclusion even though he acknowledged that
the presence or absence of probable cause is actually not dispositive of whether a prosecution
POLICEMISC 2:16 Page 1
Police Misconduct: Law and Litigation 2:16
was initiated for the purpose of retaliation. He reasoned that since probable cause will be rel-
evant to proof of causation in most cases, the law should make it a requirement in all cases.[4]
The decision will make it very difficult for protestors who are prosecuted only because the
authorities do not like their message to bring civil rights actions to vindicate their First
Amendment rights, if they were arguably violating some minor law during the protest. The
ruling may well bar their claims, even if the law in question was seldom enforced and would
not have been enforced against protestors whose message was acceptable to the authorities.
The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether the absence of probable cause is an element
of a wrongful arrest claim. An argument can be made that where multi-level causation is not a
factor, it is not necessary to prove an absence of probable cause to demonstrate a retaliatory
motive by an officer. The lower federal courts are split on whether a claim for retaliatory ar-
rest requires an absence of probable cause.[5]
[FN1] Abrams v. Walker, 307 F.3d 650, 654 (7th Cir. 2002) (abrogated on other
grounds by, Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928, 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 577, 150 Lab. Cas.
(CCH) P 59878 (7th Cir. 2004)), citing Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v.
Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S. Ct. 568, 50 L. Ed. 2d 471, 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 76
(1977).
[FN2] See cases cited in 2:28.
[FN3] Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 126 S. Ct. 1695, 164 L. Ed. 2d 441 (2006).
[FN4] See, Rehberg v. Paulk, 611 F.3d 828 (11th Cir. 2010), cert granted on other
grounds, 131 S. Ct. 1678, 179 L. Ed. 2d 645 (2011) (plaintiff properly pleaded retaliat-
ory prosecution claim by alleging retaliatory motive and no probable cause; court notes
question of whether there is a constitutional claim for retaliatory investigation, but
grants qualified immunity because no such claim was clearly established); Beck v. City
of Upland, 527 F.3d 853, 862 (9th Cir. 2008) (with respect to First Amendment retali-
atory prosecution claims, previous case law describing factors that could rebut pre-
sumption of independent judgment by prosecutor are overruled in light of Hartman,
plaintiff need only show retaliatory motive on part of official urging prosecution and
absence of probable cause to rebut presumption of regularity and overcome defense of
independent intervening cause; with respect to Fourth Amendment claims, court notes
that Hartman may be inconsistent with previous law but does not overrule the latter in
this case because plaintiff overcame presumption of independent judgment by prosec-
utor under previous case law); Williams v. City of Carl Junction, Missouri, 480 F.3d
871 (8th Cir. 2007) (no showing of lack of probable cause for challenged traffic cita-
tions alleged to be retaliatory); Barnes v. Wright, 449 F.3d 709, 36 Envtl. L. Rep.
20100, 2006 FED App. 0187P (6th Cir. 2006) (applying Hartman).
[FN5] See Howards v. McLaughlin, 634 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2011), petition for cert.
filed (U.S. Aug. 25, 2011) (declining to extend Hartman's absence of probable cause
POLICEMISC 2:16 Page 2
Police Misconduct: Law and Litigation 2:16
Home
Fighting Speeding and Other Traffic
Tickets
(Created 6/27/06; last updated 8/23/11)
Introduction
First of all, let me say right up front that I am not an attorney, and thus could not give
you legal advice even if I wanted to. It is recommended that you consult a competent
attorney before any court appearance. This page is intended as a resource that citizens
and attorneys alike may use to find sample motions, get ideas for strategies to fight traffic
and vehicular equipment tickets, and generally fight back against a system that has
become self-serving and abusive to its citizens. This site is not an authoritative source,
but rather a growing respository of approaches, strategies and motion documents with
empirical results. Your own state/county/city could have different laws, and will
definitely have different judges and motion forms as compared with those discussed
here. Keep this in mind; it is one reason why it's a good idea to retain competent legal
counsel before trying to fight your own traffic tickets. Likewise, be aware that if you use
this web site to advise another party, this may be considered the authorized practice of
law. In any case, the author of this web site shall have neither liability nor responsibility
to any party for any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused by the use of the
information provided herein. Let me reiterate that, by providing this information, I am
not engaged in rendering legal services.
Why This Page?
Fighting Speeding and Other Traffic Tickets http://www.freeexistence.org/tickets.html
1 of 35 3/7/2012 10:11 AM
Note by Coughlin on 12/25/12: Judge Nash Holme's 3/12/12 Order mentions Coughlin's 3/7, 3/9/12 filings contain
materials "from a prisoner's online site", though there is no indication of that in any of the materials, though the
inescapable condescension attendant to the verbalized and written use of the phrase "prisoner's online site" is
indicative of a
lack of respect for
prisoner's and their rights comign from a former Nevada Department of Corrections Administrator.
When I was 16, I fought a ticket in New York using the principles laid out in a "How to
Get Out of Speeding Tickets" article that appeared in a 1980's edition of the online
magazine Phrack. The strategies failed miserably, and I lost. I later learned that the
small town Claverack, New York court (led by a Justice Gibbon, the "Gibbon" part being
far more representative of the man than the "Justice" part) had abused its discretion in a
number of areas, including the judge writing in a corrected name, vehicle color, speed,
and license plate number on the ticket at the time of trial! All were initially incorrect;
years later, an attorney advised me the best strategy would have been to ignore the
summons that was mailed to me, since my name did not equal the misspelled name on
the summons, and my car was not the one described in the ticket; oh well, live and
learn). Anyhow, this site is an attempt to provide tried strategies along with their
outcomes. If there is a formulaic way to get out of any ticket, I have not found it, and I
suspect anyone who says they have is trying to sell you something. There is no magic
phrase that, when uttered to a traffic judge, will get you out of any traffic ticket. Each
state has its own loopholes and technicalities that may be taken advantage of, and it will
take some work to identify these. The strength of your case is up to you, and will
depend on how much work you put into it (although this is not to say that you cannot
win with a weak case that you did not have much time to prepare!) I am merely
providing the tools and assistance so that you may work more effectively, whether you
only have a couple of hours to spare fighting a ticket, or have many days to devote to the
effort. All I ask from visitors is that if they use the information here to successfully get
out of a traffic ticket, email me and let me know of your success. Likewise, if you filed
your own motion with good results, send me a copy with your name/address/case
number blanked out. This site will grow with member support, and hopefully we will all
learn how to more effectively fight traffic tickets. Information on this site is catered to
United States jurisdictions, but may have some relevance to other countries with legal
systems based on common law.
Note that many of my examples here relate to Colorado. I chose this state because its
state troopers are particularly abusive with regard to issuing massive numbers of speeding
tickets, and because Colorado court rules are very unfriendly to motorists making it one
of the most challenging places to fight a speeding ticket. If you can beat a speeding ticket
in Colorado, fighting an identical ticket in a state like New York is a breeze.
Be Proactive
The best way to get out of a traffic ticket is not to get it in the first place. If you get
pulled over, be courteous to the police officer. He might be pulling you over because
he's looking for a missing kid or because a vehicle similar to yours was just involved in a
hit-and-run accident, and he is using a trivial infraction (e.g., driving 8 mph over the
speed limit, too much window tint, etc.) Be nice and he may let you go once he sees
2 of 35 3/7/2012 10:11 AM
on the law. Nevertheless, whenever a clerk informs you of a deadline or a procedure,
make notes on what you were told, by whom, and the time and date. Judges will often
be more forgiving of a procedural error on your part if you can point to misinformation
given to you by the clerk's office (I once had a motion to set aside a default judgement
granted after the statutory limit for such a motion had passed because I was able to point
to misinformation given to me by the clerk's office, and an unreturned phone call to the
same office). If you need something from the clerk, and just aren't getting any
cooperation, see if there is a Judicial Administration office to which the clerk's office is
ultimately accountable, and consider seeking assistance there.
Whenever you file any document with the clerk's office, bring an extra copy of the
document with you, and ask the clerk to stamp it. This stamped copy serves as your
proof that you filed the document. If you file a document and do not get this proof, and
the document is lost, so are your legal rights associated with that document!
PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS, AND IDENTIFYING YOUR OPPONENT
A motion is simply a request (usually written in the case of pre-trial motions, or oral if
you're already before the judge) for the court to decide on something. There are a few
important things you should know about motions. First, expect lots of back-and-forth on
any motion you file. Your traffic court judge will probably resist any but the most
customary motions you make. Unfortunately, your typical traffic court judge is more
interested in facilitating the transfer of your hard-earned money to the local government
than in justice or objectivity. In jurisdictions where the police officer who wrote the
ticket represents the prosecution (instead of, say, an assistant district attorney), your
opponent is probably the judge. The officer will likely know very little about judicial
rules, important cases, and traffic case jurisprudence. You might think this would present
a strategic advantage for you, but chances are, the judge will step in and do the cop's
legal research for him. Try making a motion of any kind, and watch as the officer stands
idly by; the judge will be left to come up with reasons why your motion should be denied
on behalf of the cop, and then will proceed to rule on the objections the cop never
made. As you might imagine, any justifications the judge comes up with on his own are
probably more compelling to him than whatever you came up with!
If your motion gets denied and you think it unfair, or think the judge missed something,
then file a Motion to Reconsider Defendant's Motion for X, where X what you
motioned for initially. If the prosecution files a motion, you argue with it by filing a
Reply to Peoples' Motion. You can argue with the prosecution's reply to your motion by
filing a Surreply to the Prosecution's Reply, a Surreply to Prosecution's Surreply, and so
11 of 35 3/7/2012 10:11 AM
tremendously useful when fighting the government in any court case. In many states,
filing an FOIA request may be more fruitful than filing a motion for
discovery. Why? With discovery, the opposition can refuse to furnish evidence by
arguing that it is irrelevant, unduly burdensome to produce, or other such
reasons. Perhaps even worse, the government can agree to the request but then furnish
only a small, irrelevant subset of evidence you request. Either way, you've got to fight to
convince the judge to grant you access to the evidence. In contrast, government agencies
usually do not have these "outs" when responding to FOIA requests. You'll want to
check your state's FOIA laws, but some states give FOIA requesters an amazing amount
of latitude when requesting government documents. For example, in California, the
courts have established that "idle curiosity" is sufficient grounds for any citizen to make a
request under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Further, if a government
agency turns down your request and you successfully sue to force compliance, the
agency must reimburse your legal expenses! The CPRA is not unique in the latitude that
it grants its citizens; check your state's FOIA-equivalent and you may be surprised to find
out just how much power you have to access government records.
The easiest way to file an FOIA request is using this automatic request generator on the
RFCP site. Simply select your state (or use the federal form if you are fighting a ticket
from a National Park or other federal jurisdiction), fill in the form, and paste in the
evidence you wish to see (see the exemplary discovery request items, above, for some
suggestions). Remember that an FOIA request is technically not connected to your trial;
as such, do not mention "discovery" in your request or it will just cause confusion. Also,
file your FOIA request as early as possible since the police agency may, by law, take a
considerable amount of time to get back to you -- check your local FOIA law to learn
more about the possible timeline -- and the court may be unwilling to grant you a
continuance while you wait for the FOIA request to be processed.
Worst case, if your local FOIA laws are limited in scope (see the RCFP Open
Government Guide for state-by-state FOIA rights and restrictions), you can subpoena the
officer who issued your ticket and make him bring the evidence you seek with him on
your court date! This has some obvious disadvantages over pre-trial discovery, namely
that A) you won't get to see the evidence until your trial, B) the officer may be more
likely to show up to court since you subpoenaed him, making a dismissal for failure to
show up less likely, and C) you will probably have to pay for the officer to be served
with your subpoena.
The reason for C) above is that, while process serving requirements vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, one common denominator is that the person who serves the
document must be an adult who does not stand to gain regardless of how the trial
goes. So barring additional restrictions in your jurisdiction, you can have a friend serve
18 of 35 3/7/2012 10:11 AM
Detail page for J OHN TARTER
Name J OHN TARTER
Position 7555 Sergeant
Reno
Year 2010
Base Pay $109,225.10
Overtime and
Callback Collected
$7,733.14
Other Pay $17,535.81
Total Pay $134,494.05
Benefits Accumulated N/A
Total Pay & Benefits $174,907.34
State Government: Salaries, CAFRS, Main Contracts Page, StateFinancial Documents
Education: CCSD Warrants, NSHE Budgets
Politicians: 2010 Transparency Survey, Congressional Disbursements
Connect: Facebook, Twitter
About Us: Contact Us, FAQ, Disclaimer
TransparentNevada is provided by theNevada Policy Research Instituteas apublic service.
J OHN TARTER TransparentNevada http://www.transparentnevada.com/salaries/2010/reno/john-tarter/
1 of 1 3/7/2012 10:22 AM

Request/Praecipe For Default: Opposition To Notice of Default and

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

Request/Praecipe For Default: Opposition To Notice of Default and

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen