1

2
3
4
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: 2645
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 4!"
#422 E. th $t. %2
&eno, N' (5#2
)ele: !!5*""(*(##(
+a,: 4*66!*!4-2
ZachCoughlin.hotmail.com
/ttorne0 1or /22ellant
3N )4E $EC5ND 67D3C3/8 D3$)&3C) C57&) 5+ )4E $)/)E 5+ NE'/D/
3N /ND +5& )4E C57N)9 5+ :/$45E
Z/C4 C57;483N<
/22ellant,
vs.
C3)9 5+ &EN5
&es2ondents.
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
C/$E N5: C&##*2-64
DE>). N5: #-
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
C5?E$ N5:, /22ellant Zach Coughlin, @0 and through his attorne0, Zachar0 BarAer
Coughlin, Esq , and o11ers his $7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?3$$. )he undersigned Bas
instructed @0 the $econd 6udicial District Court to su@mit a cdCdvd 1or 1iling as an e,hi@it to a 1iling
in this manner.
?cCrar0 v. ?cCrar0, !64 >.2d 522, #(( 5D #22 E5Ala. Nov -#, #((= EN5. 62,(#4=
Fudgment is deemed rendered onl0 Bhen its G52! terms are announced to the 2arties @0 the Fudge,
and a Fudgment in a@sentia is not HrenderedI until notice o1 its entr0 is mailed to the 2arties.
?cCullough v. $a1eBa0 $tores, 3nc., 5Al., 626 >.2d #""2 E#(#=< &ules o1 /22ellate >rocedure, #2
5.$.#(#, Ch. #5, /22. 2, &ule #.##E@=. $ee: >eralta v. 4eights ?edical Center, 3nc., 4(5 7.$. (-,
- 1
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?3$$
F I L E D
Electronically
02-01-2012:04:46:41 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2736761
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
#-( $.Ct. (6, 8.Ed.2d !5 E#((=. :e also note that a1ter the trial courtJs ruling the intervenors
attem2ted to o@tain e,traordinar0 relie1 1rom this Court to 2rohi@it the court 1rom 2roceeding
1urther, and Be denied relie1. )here undersigned @elieves, under 2enalt0 o1 2erFur0, that >am
&o@erts Bas not even in the courtroom Bhen 6udge 45Bard @rought the undersigned @acA in chains
to correct that Bhich he has @een KremissK in not doing earlier Eie, maAing rulings related to the $ta0
o1 the Contem2t 2unishment, and the deadline to 1ile a notice o1 a22eal, or even in1orming the
underisgned o1 his right to 1ile an a22eal and the requirments=. 6udge 4oBard did sa0 some stu11
a@out hoB he Kis sure 0ou AnoB thisK or that a@out the 2rocedural technicalities that 6udge 4oBard
encounters ever0da0 in his Fo@, 0et the undersigned reall0 does not AnoB such things. #- da0s to 1ile
a notice o1 a22ealL didnJt AnoB that. N&C> 6Ea= and Ee= donJt a22l0 to such mattersL 3ts straight
da0sL &endition, not notice o1 entr0L DidnJt AnoB none o1 that. )hats Bhat the $i,th /mendment
is 1or. +urther that rule sucAs. 9ou get more 2rotection in a civil matter to a22eal a laBsuit over a
@o, o1 Bidgets. :E are talAing a@out m0 laB license here, 6udge 4oBard maAes the trial a
l0nching. But liAe 2 million 3rish 2eo2le @etBen #(4( and #(5- Bho starved to death Bhile
surrounded @0 a sea o1 1ish, 6udge 4oBard maAes liAe the English and tries to arrest one 1or 1ishing.
)he rule shoudl @e changed. But, at the least the &?C shoudl have to 1olloB it, and the0 didnJt.
+urther, &o@erts ma0 have violated 2rosecutorial conduct rules related to su@orning 2erFur0,
2ro2ounding or disclosing e,cul2ator0 evidence, etc. ,and argua@l0 she should @e required to 2ut
such into evidence or re1rain 1rom o11ering that Bhich contradicts such evidence in her 2ossession or
that Bhich she should @e required to 1ind u2on a reasona@l0 diligent inquir0. &o@erts a22arentl0
didnJt discover and 1ootage 1rom this @ehemoth retailer Bith cameras ever0Bhere in the store
relevant to an0 o1 the accused acts. No2e, its all he said she said here, e,ce2t the interrogation room
videos, Bhich shoB the " Bitness &o@erts o11ered lied. 3n the 1olloBing cases it Bas held that an
- 2
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
attorne0Js contem2tuous conduct cannot @e e,cused or Fusti1ied @0 the 1act that the attorne0 @elieved
his conduct to @e necessar0 to the 2ro2er and thorough re2resentation o1 his client, and that an
attorne0 ma0 summaril0 @e held to @e in contem2t notBithstanding such good*1aith @elie1. )he court
held that a trial attorne0Js @elie1 that certain action is necessar0 to 2rotect the record 1or a22ellate
revieB, and to re2resent his clientJs interests, does not e,cuse his deli@erate de1iance o1 the trial
FudgeJs orders in >enns0lvania v 3nternational 7nion o1 52erating Engineers E#!!, C/" >a= 552
+2d 4(, cert den 4"4 7$ (22, 54 8 Ed 2d !, ( $ Ct 6!, Bhere the court a11irmed tBo summar0
orders o1 criminal contem2t entered against a de1ense attorne0. )he contem2t holdings had @een
@ased on the attorne0Js insistence u2on stating the reasons 1or his o@Fections to certain holdings @0
the trial court, and his re1usal to com2l0 Bith the courtJs direction 2ertaining to the cross*
e,amination o1 a Bitness. 3n essence, said the court, the attorne0 asserted that he Bas 1ree to violate
a direct order o1 a trial Fudge i1 he @elieved that the 2rotection o1 his clientJs interests on a22eal
required such action. )he court recogniMed an attorne0Js right to @e conscientious, 1earless, and
Mealous in re2resenting his clientJs interests, @ut held that a direct order o1 the trial Fudge 1i,es the
limits o1 2ro2er advocac0< the vigor 2ermissi@le in re2resenting a clientJs interest does not include
the 1louting o1 a FudgeJs rulings. )he necessit0 o1 2reserving the record 1or a22eal, said the court, is
not a talisman Bhich a@solves a laB0er 1rom his usual o@ligation to com2l0 Bith a trial FudgeJs direct
orders. )he attorne0 also argued that his disregard o1 the FudgeJs order Bas necessar0 to 2ersuade the
Fudge to retract his restriction on the attorne0Js method o1 cross*e,amination. /n a22eal, it Bas said,
Bould 2rovide an inadequate means o1 challenging the restriction since the Bitness Bas said to have
@een cornered, and since the attorne0 had achieved a momentum Bhich 2ro@a@l0 never could @e
resumed at a neB trial a1ter an a22eal. )he court held, hoBever, that the attorne0 could not
2ermissi@l0 de10 the FudgeJs order in the interests o1 seiMing an allegedl0 irrecovera@le o22ortunit0.
- 3
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
/n attorne0Js good*1aith @elie1 in the necessit0 o1 his actions, in order 2ro2erl0 to re2resent his
client, Bas held not to Fusti10 contumacious @ehavior in 7nited $tates v 511utt E#56, DC Dist Col=
#45 + $u22 ###, mod on other grounds #-# /22 DC !, 24! +2d ((, cert den "55 7$ (56, 2 8 Ed
2d 64, !( $ Ct (5, Bhere, on remand, the court held that the trial court 2ro2erl0 had summaril0 held
an attorne0 to @e in contem2t @ased u2on insulting and o11ensive remarAs made to the court. )he
attorne0 asserted that Bhat he said Bas true, and that he said it in order to maAe a record 1or a22eal,
and in order to com2l0 Bith the advice given him @0 counsel Bith Bhom he had consulted.
4oBever, the court held that advice o1 counsel is not a de1ense to a charge o1 contem2t, stating that
neither such advice, nor ignorance, nor Meal 1or his client, could alter the contumacious character o1
the attorne0Js conduct. )he courts in the 1olloBing cases, Bhile not holding that good*1aith vigorous
advocac0 ma0 2reclude the summar0 2unishment o1 an attorne0 1or contem2t, recogniMed that an
attorne0 must @e given @road latitude in his re2resentation o1 his client, and that this 1actor must @e
taAen into account in determining Bhether conduct o1 an attorne0 amounts to contem2t Bhich is
summaril0 2unisha@le @0 the court. 3n 7nited $tates v $chi11er E#65, C/6 )enn= "5# +2d #, cert
den "(4 7$ #--", #6 8 Ed 2d #-#!, (6 $ Ct ##4, reh den "(5 7$ (-, #! 8 Ed 2d #2#, (! $ Ct #2,
the court, in u2holding the trial courtJs summar0 2unishment o1 an attorne0 1or contem2t under &ule
42Ea= o1 the +ederal &ules o1 Criminal >rocedure, said that in contem2t cases against laB0ers the
evidence must @e care1ull0 scrutiniMed in order that there @e no undue inter1erence Bith their right
2ro2erl0 to re2resent their clients< nevertheless, it Bas held that the 2unishment im2osed Bas
Barranted in vieB o1 the deli@erate, continuous, and re2eated contumacious acts o1 the attorne0,
e,tending throughout the trial, Bhich Bere said to have @een Bholl0 unBarranted. )he court in &e
Dellinger E#!2, C/! 3ll= 46# +2d "(, on remand END 3ll= "5! + $u22 4 and on remand END 3ll=
"!- + $u22 #"-4, a11d EC/! 3ll= 5-2 +2d (#", cert den 42- 7$ -, 4" 8 Ed 2d 6!#, 5 $ Ct #425,
- 4
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
stated that attorne0s must @e given great latitude in the area o1 vigorous advocac0, and that an
attorne0 ma0 Bith im2unit0 taAe 1ull advantage o1 the range o1 conduct that our adversar0 s0stem
alloBs. Nevertheless, said the court, the 1act that an attorne0 is re2resenting his client in good 1aith
does not immuniMe all conduct undertaAen in that cause, although the court reversed the trial courtJs
summar0 im2osition o1 2unishment u2on tBo de1ense attorne0s 1or contem2t, and remanded the
numerous s2eci1ications o1 contem2t 1or a hearing @e1ore a di11erent Fudge, on the ground that the
trial Fudge Bas required to disquali10 himsel1 1rom hearing the contem2t 2roceedings @ecause he had
@een the reci2ient o1 numerous and un2recedented attacAs and insults @0 the attorne0s charged
during the course o1 the trial. :here the trial Fudge is ar@itrar0 or a11ords counsel inadequate
o22ortunit0 to ar*gue his 2osition, counsel must @e given su@stantial leeBa0 in 2ressing his
contention, said the court, 1or in this manner the court ma0 recogniMe its mistaAe and 2revent error
1rom in1ecting the record. /22ellate courts, the court said, must insure that trial Fudges are not le1t
1ree to mani2ulate the @alance @etBeen vigorous re2resentation and o@structions o1 Fustice so as to
chill e11ective advocac0 Bhen deciding laB0er contem2ts. 3t Bas said that Bhere the conduct
com2lained o1 in a summar0 contem2t 2roceeding is that o1 an attorne0 engaged in the
re2resentation o1 a litigant, the search 1or the essential elements o1 the crime o1 contem2t must @e
made Bith 1ull a22reciation o1 the role o1 trial counsel and his dut0 o1 Mealous re2resentation o1 his
clientJs interests in 7nited $tates e, rel. &o@son v 5liver E#!2, C/! 3ll= 4!- +2d #-. +urthermore,
said the court, in close cases Bhere the line @etBeen vigorous advocac0 and actual o@struction de1ies
strict delineation, dou@ts should @e resolved in 1avor o1 vigorous advocac0. )he attorne0 re2resented
one o1 a num@er o1 de1endants in a criminal 2rosecution in Bhich the de1endants Bere charged Bith
mutilating dra1t records. 3n cross*e,amining a code1endant, the attorne0 re1erred to a 2hotogra2h o1
a hallBa0, a22arentl0 through Bhich the de1endants had 2assed to reach the o11ice in Bhich the
- 5
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
records Bere contained, and asAed him i1 he could maAe out a little sign stating Ka@andon 0e all ho2e
Bho enter here.K 3n vieB o1 the e,treme li@eralit0 a11orded trial counsel in their re2resentation o1
clients, and resolving an0 dou@ts in 1avor o1 vigorous advocac0, the court concluded that such
conduct did not rise to the level o1 mis@ehavior necessar0 to su22ort
a contem2t citation. Commenting that the attorne0Js question Bas related to the de1endantsJ
2ro11ered theor0 o1 de1ense and touched on the insane K2rece2tionsK and KdelusionsK Bhich the
de1endants claimed to have held 2rior to maAing the raid on the dra1t @oard 1iles, the court reversed
the trial courtJs holding o1 contem2t. But in the 1olloBing case, it Bas held that Bhere an attorne0 in
good 1aith @elieves that his dut0 o1 advocac0 requires his conduct, a summar0 contem2t conviction
@ased u2on such conduct cannot Bithstand challenge, at least Bhere the attorne0 @elieved that the
court did not understand his 2osition. )hus, it Bas held in &e Dellinger E#!", ND 3ll= "!- + $u22
#"-4, a11d EC/! 3ll= 5-2 +2d (#", cert den 42- 7$ -, 4" 8 Ed 2d 6!#, 5 $ Ct #425, that an
attorne0 could not 2ro2erl0 @e summaril0 2unished 1or contem2t in the 2resence o1 the trial court
Bhere the attorne0 sincerel0 @elieved that his acts Bere necessar0 @ecause the trial court did not
understand the argument Bhich the attorne0 Bas asserting. )he trial court had sustained a
government o@Fection to testimon0 @0 a Bitness concerning a certain s2eech given @0 a 2erson Bho
Bas not a Bitness at the trial. /1ter the courtJs ruling, the attorne0 continued to argue that the s2eech
Bas relevant, des2ite re2eated directions 1rom the Fudge to discontinue that argument, in that such
testimon0 allegedl0 Bould have demonstrated the nonviolent intent o1 the de1endants, Bho Bere
charged Bith violation o1 the +ederal /nti*&iot /ct. )he court, in hearing the contem2t question
u2on remand 1rom an a22ealN""O o1 the trial courtJs action in that regard, held that the attorne0 Bas
not guilt0 o1 the s2eci1ication, 2ointing out that the attorne0 sincerel0 @elieved that the Fudge had not
given him a reasona@le o22ortunit0 to @e heard and that the Fudge did not 1ull0 understand his
- 6
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
2osition. 6udge 4oBard 2la0ed 1oot@all at 7N&, and, 2erha2s, liAe ther undersignedJs 1ather, Bho
2la0ed tail@acA 1or )ulane in the $EC on scholarshi2 1rom Da0ton 5hio Ethird 1astest Bhite @o0 in
5hio circa #6"=, 6udge 4oBardJs a22roach here Khits the / ga2 a little too hardK. )he undersigned
is no stranger to getting 1ouled @0 the 1ine com2etitors 4ug 4igh $chool 2roduces, liAe Charles,
Claude, DuAe, /rmon, )re0, $hondor, )0e, and )omm0, though: &eno 4igh BasAet@all Cli22ings
#(!*2--(ish: htt2:CCcid22e2e@ee5aa!1d1.sA0drive.live.comC@roBse.as2,C.>u@lic
htt2:CCBBB.n1hs.orgCrecord@ooAC&ecords.as2,LCategor03dP#-!" 3m2ertinence, attacAs u2on
com2etenc0 or im2artialit0, or the liAeQConduct held not to Barrant summar0 2unishment 7nder
the 2articular circumstances o1 each o1 the 1olloBing cases, it Bas held that remarAs @0 an attorne0,
considered @0 the trial court to @e an attacA u2on its conduct o1 the trial and there1ore to @e
contem2tuous, did not Barrant that courtJs summar0 2unishment o1 the attorne0. 3n >armelee
)rans2. Co. v Deeshin E#6#, C/! 3ll= 22 +2d (-6, a case arising out o1 a trial courtJs summar0
2unishment o1 an attorne0 1or contem2t, and a22arentl0 governed @0 &ule 42Ea= o1 the +ederal &ules
o1 Criminal >rocedure,N4"O the court held that the record did not su22ort the trial courtJs action, even
though the trial court had regarded certain conduct o1 the attorne0 to @e im2ertinent and
disres2ect1ul. 3n one o1 the s2eci1ications o1 contem2t, the trial court cited the 1act that, u2on that
courtJs sustaining o1 o@Fections to certain questions 2ut @0 the attorne0 to a Bitness, the attorne0 had
remarAed Kthat is craM0,K @ut the court, noting that the remarA Bas not intended to @e heard @0 either
the trial court or Fur0, and that the record 1ailed to shoB that the trial Fudge tooA an0 notice o1 the
remarA at the time, held that contumacious conduct had not @een 2roved under the s2eci1ication. )he
court also held that the attorne0Js remarA that the trial court had Ka sardonic sense o1 humor,K in
commenting u2on certain actions taAen @0 that court, did not constitute contem2t 1or Bhich the trial
court had the authorit0 to im2ose summar0 2unishment.N44O /nd see 7nited $tates e, rel. &o@son v
- 7
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
5liver E#!2, C/! 3ll= 4!- +2d #-, Bhere the court stated that an attorne0Js remarAs ma0 have
suggested disres2ect 1or the trial courtJs rulings, @ut nevertheless reversed the trial courtJs summar0
im2osition o1 2unishment u2on the attorne0 1or contem2t, under &ule 42Ea= o1 the +ederal &ules o1
Criminal >rocedure, on the ground that such remarAs did not cause an actual disru2tion o1 the trial
2roceedings. 3n 4am2ton v 4anrahan E#!, C/! 3ll= 6-- +2d 6--, revd, in 2art on other grounds
446 7$ !54, 64 8 Ed 2d 6!-, #-- $ Ct #(!, reh den 44( 7$ #", 65 8 Ed 2d ##!6, #-# $ Ct ""
and reh den 44( 7$ #", 65 8 Ed 2d ##!!, #-# $ Ct "" and on remand END 3ll= 4 + $u22 64- and
on remand END 3ll= 522 + $u22 #4-, the court reversed the trial courtJs summar0 holding that an
attorne0 Bas in contem2t on the ground that the attorne0Js conduct did not o@struct Fustice, @ut the
court also 2ointed out that the attorne0Js remarA, u2on Bhich the contem2t holding Bas @ased, Bas
misinter2reted @0 the trial Fudge as @eing intended to re1lect im2ro2erl0 u2on him, Bhere in 1act the
remarA Bas made @0 the attorne0 in an attem2t to clari10 a 2revious statement.N45O /n attorne0Js
mere statement that the trial courtJs sustaining o1 an o@Fection to a question o1 the attorne0 2recluded
the attorne0 1rom cross*e,amining the Bitness Bas held in >helan v ;uam E#6(, C/ ;uam= "4
+2d 2", not to Barrant the summar0 im2osition o1 2unishment u2on the attorne0 1or criminal
contem2t, under &ule 42Ea= o1 the +ederal &ules o1 Criminal >rocedure E7.$.C./., +&Cr> &ule
42Ea==. )he court 2ointed out that the attorne0 had asAed 1or an e,ce2tion to the courtJs ruling,
Bhereu2on the court voluntaril0 tooA it u2on itsel1 to tell the attorne0 Bh0 the court had sustained
the o@Fection. )he attorne0 then de1ended the 2ro2erness o1 his question. 3n reversing the trial courtJs
holding o1 contem2t, the court 2ointed out that there Bas nothing in the language used @0 the
attorne0 Bhich could @e construed as hostile or de1iant, or in an0 manner o@structing the 2rocedure
o1 the trial. 3m2ro2er questioning NCumulative $u22lementO 3n the 1olloBing cases, it Bas held that
an attorne0Js 2ersistent im2ro2er questioning o1 Bitnesses constitutes ground 1or the im2osition o1
- 8
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
summar0 2unishment 1or contem2t @0 a 1ederal trial court. /n attorne0Js 2ersistence in cross*
e,amining Bitnesses Bith regard to irrelevant matters, a1ter o@Fections had @een sustained Bith
res2ect to such questioning, Bas held in 4allinan v 7nited $tates E#5-, C/ Cal= #(2 +2d ((-, cert
den "4# 7$ 52, 5 8 Ed #"!5, !# $ Ct #-#-, reh den "42 7$ 56, 6 8 Ed !#-, !2 $ Ct 62" and
reh den "4" 7$ "#, 6 8 Ed #"4#, !2 $ Ct !56, to Fusti10 the trial courtJs im2osition o1 summar0
2unishment 1or contem2t under &ule 42Ea= o1 the +ederal &ules o1 Criminal >rocedure. )he
questioning u2on Bhich the trial courtJs contem2t holding Bas @ased related to a 2rior de2ortation
2roceeding against the de1endant, Bhich in no Ba0 Bas related to the 2resent 2rosecution, to alleged
Bireta22ing o1 the de1endantJs tele2hones in order to o@tain evidence in such 2rior de2ortation
2roceeding, and to the 2ractices o1 a 2rosecution Bitness Bith regard to his duties as an attorne0 1or
the Bureau o1 3mmigration and NaturaliMation. Noting that the attorne0Js 2ro2er course o1 action, i1
the trial court erroneousl0 had held that the matters inquired into Bere irrelevant, Bas to a22eal
those holdings rather than to continue to attem2t to introduce irrelevant evidence, the court u2held
the 2unishment im2osed @0 the trial court. /n attorne0Js im2ro2er questioning o1 Bitnesses,
including the use o1 questions Bhich o@viousl0 Bere intended to @esmirch those Bitnesses, Bas held
to Fusti10 a summar0 holding o1 criminal contem2t, under &ule 42Ea= o1 the +ederal &ules o1
Criminal >rocedure, in 511utt v 7nited $tates E#5"= " /22 DC #4(, 2-( +2d (42, revd on other
grounds "4( 7$ ##, 8 Ed ##, !5 $ Ct ##, Bhere the court a11irmed such a holding @0 the trial
court, although reducing the 2unishment im2osed. 3t Bas noted that on several occasions the
attorne0 had asAed the Bitnesses questions that Bere highl0 2reFudicial to those Bitnesses and 1or
Bhich there Bas no 1oundation. +or e,am2le, he had asAed the victim o1 an a@ortion, charged
against the de1endant, KBhenK she Bas arrested in the case, Bhereas in 1act she never had @een
arrested. 3t Bas held that such conduct su22orted the trial courtJs summar0 1inding o1 contem2t.
- 9
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
C7?78/)3'E $7>>8E?EN) Cases: /ttorne0Js conduct in continuing to cross*e,amine 2olice
o11icer a1ter Fudge had ruled that 2olice log Bas not admissi@le Bas not contem2t Bhere attorne0
claimed that he Bas tr0ing to im2each BitnessesJ memor0, not la0 1oundation 1or admission o1 log,
so that his conduct could not @e said to @e Bill1ul. 7nited $tates v ;iovanelli E#-, C/2 N9= (!
+2d #22!. 3n criminal 2rosecution, trial court 2ro2erl0 meted out Fudgments o1 criminal contem2t to
de1ense counsel 1or misconduct in cross*e,amining Bitnesses Bhere trial Fudge on several occasions
Barned counsel that he Bould not alloB them to 2ursue lines o1 questioning that he later held to @e
contem2tuous, on one occasion he alloBed them to e,2lain at length Bh0 the0 thought questioning
Bas 2ro2er, and Bhere Fudge made 1ull and convincing e,2lanation o1 actions in Britten orders
issued shortl0 a1ter adFuging counsel in contem2t. 7nited $tates v 8oBer0 E#(4, C/! 3ll= !"" +2d
44#, cert den E7$= (" 8 Ed 2d 264, #-5 $ Ct "2!. &esort to summar0 dis2osition o1 criminal
contem2t 2roceeding under &ule 42Ea=, +ederal &ules o1 Criminal >rocedure, is 2ermissi@le onl0
Bhen e,2ress requirements o1 rule are met and Bhen there is com2elling reason 1or immediate
remed0 or Bhen time is o1 essence. )hus, attorne0Js conviction 1or criminal contem2t
in 2ursuing line o1 questioning 1or@idden @0 court Bould @e reversed, since record shoBed that
there Bas no com2elling need 1or immediate remed0 2rovided @0 &ule 42Ea=, +ederal &ules o1
Criminal >rocedure, and that trial court, @0 its oBn actions, did not consider time to @e o1 essence<
trial court should have o@served KnormalK 2rocedureK o1 notice and hearing, 2rovided @0 &ule 42E@=,
+ederal &ules o1 Criminal >rocedure. 7.$. v. ?oschiano, 65 +.2d 2"6, #2 +ed. &. Evid. $erv. #24
E!th Cir. #(2=. $ee 7nited $tates v )urner E#(!, C/## /la= (#2 +2d #552, R #4. )he undersigned
Kcontinuing lines o1 inquir0K Bas not sanctiona@le. 8egitimate rationale e,ists and or Bas o11ered
1or all inquir0 2ursued. +urther, 6udge 4oBard admitted in the last 2art o1 the audio record that he
had Eat the time o1 maAing his $ummar0 Contem2t 1inding announcement= @e mistaAen in @elieveing
- 10
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
that the Novem@er #4, 2-## original trial date did not go o11 due to the undersignedJs 1ault, Bhich
Bas not the case. the undersigned shoBed u2 1or that trial, its Bas some@od0 else 1ault that it did not
go o11. )ardiness or 1ailure to a22earQConduct held not to Barrant summar0 2unishment
NCumulative $u22lementO )he courts in the 1olloBing cases have held that an attorne0Js a@sence or
tardiness did not Fusti10 the trial courtJs summar0 2unishment o1 the attorne0 1or contem2t. /n
attorne0Js 1ailure to a22ear at a Fudicial hearing Bas held not to Barrant the summar0 im2osition o1
2unishment 1or contem2t, under &ule 42Ea= o1 the +ederal &ules o1 Criminal >rocedure, in 6essu2 v
ClarA E#!", C/" >a= 4- +2d #-6(. )he attorne0 had @egun a trial in a state court 2 da0s 2rior to
the date scheduled 1or the 1ederal court trial at Bhich he 1ailed to a22ear. )he state court trial
continued through the da0 o1 the scheduled @eginning o1 the 1ederal court trial. )he attorne0 stated
that he had continued to conduct the state court trial @elieving that he Bas o@ligated to do so, and
that he had @rought the matter to the attention o1 the state court Fudge and Bas instructed @0 that
Fudge to remain at the state court trial. )he 1ederal courtJs 1inding o1 contem2t Bas reversed, it @eing
held that the attorne0Js conduct did not taAe 2lace in the 2resence o1 the court, as required 1or
summar0 2unishment under &ule 42 Ea=, and that there had @een no need 1or immediate 2enal
vindication o1 the dignit0 o1 the court.N5-O /nd see &e ?onroe E#!6, C/5 )e,= 5"2 +2d 424,
Bhere it Bas held that an out*o1*state attorne0Js 1ailure to a22ear at trial did not amount to contem2t
under the circumstances. 3t is not clear Bhether the case 1alls Bithin the sco2e o1 this annotation
since, although the trial court recited as authorit0 &ule 42Ea= o1 the +ederal &ules o1 Criminal
>rocedure, that court stated that it Bas not going to charge the attorne0 Bith criminal contem2t @ut
onl0 civil contem2t, Bhereas &ule 42Ea= a22lies onl0 to summar0 criminal contem2t 2roceedings.
Nevertheless, the a22ellate court stated that, as a matter o1 laB, there Bas no contem2t, the court
2ointing out that the attorne0 Bas una@le to a22ear @e1ore the trial court @ecause o1 his 2artici2ation
- 11
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
in a murder trial in another state Bhich had @egun several months 2reviousl0. +urther, the attorne0Js
1ailure to 1ile a motion 1or continuance at least #- da0s @e1ore the trial date, as required @0 local
rules, Bas in 2art caused @0 a dela0 in the mails and a dela0 in his a@ilit0 to o@tain re2lacement local
counsel a1ter his local counsel had BithdraBn 1rom the case. 4is motion 1or continuance had in 1act
arrived at the trial court # BeeA @e1ore the trial date. Noting that it Bas not esta@lished that the
attorne0 had actual AnoBledge o1 the #-*da0 rule, or that local counsel had advised him o1 it, the
court concluded that the attorne0Js conduct Bas at most negligent, stating that such conduct did not
contain the elements o1 intentional or Bill1ul action or 1lagrant disregard o1 the courtJs rules or orders
necessar0 1or contem2t. )ardiness or 1ailure to a22ear at a court hearing Bas held not to Fusti10 the
im2osition o1 summar0 2unishment u2on attorne0s 1or contem2t, under &ule 42Ea= o1 the +ederal
&ules o1 Criminal >rocedure, at least Bhere such 1ailure or tardiness is unintentional, in 7nited
$tates v Delahant0 E#!", C/6 D0= 4(( +2d "6. 5ne attorne0 Bas a22ro,imatel0 #- minutes late
1or a 2retrial con1erence @ecause o1 his un1amiliarit0 Bith the cit0, tra11ic congestion, and di11icult0
in 1inding a 2arAing s2ace. / second attorne0, Bho Bas cocounsel Bith the 1irst attorne0,
intentionall0 did not a22ear, @ecause he had other matters to attend to in a di11erent cit0, @ut he had
requested the 1irst attorne0 to re2resent @oth o1 them at the hearing. 3n reversing the summar0
2unishment im2osed @0 the trial court, the court held that the conduct com2lained o1, the a@sence o1
the attorne0s 1rom the courtroom, did not occur Bithin the actual 2resence o1 the court as required
under &ule 42Ea=, and that the essential element o1 criminal intent Bas a@sent. N5#O /nd see &e /llis
E#!6, C/ Cal= 5"# +2d #"#, cert den 42 7$ --, 5- 8 Ed 2d #(5, ! $ Ct 26!, su2ra R ##,
Bhere the court, in holding that an attorne0Js tardiness is not summaril0 2unisha@le @0 a court, under
&ule 42Ea= o1 the +ederal &ules Criminal >rocedure, since it is not conduct committed in the actual
2resence o1 the court, commented that tardiness alone is not contem2t, since the reasons 1or such
- 12
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
tardiness are im2ortant in determining the e,istence o1 the requisite Brong1ul intent on the 2art o1
the attorne0. )he notice o1 a22eal does and should a22l0 to the $ummar0 Contem2t 5&der as Bell,
that order Bas ridiculous and shame1ul."" /8& "rd 44(, /22eala@ilit0 o1 Contem2t /dFudication or
Conviction. &ight to counsel )he need 1or a22ointed counsel in a civil contem2t 2roceeding 1or
non2a0ment o1 child su22ort turns on an initial determination o1 indigenc0, 1or unless a 2art0 is trul0
indigent, the $tate need not 2rovide re2resentation< i1 an indigent 2art0 1aces the threat o1 2ossi@le
incarceration 1or the non2a0ment o1 child su22ort, the court should then seeA to @alance the 2rivate
li@ert0 interest at staAe, the governmentJs interest, and the risA o1 an erroneous 1inding, taAing into
account the com2le,it0 o1 the legal and 1actual issues and the 2art0Js a@ilit0 to e11ectivel0
communicate on his oBn @ehal1. &odrigueM v. Eighth 6udicial Dist. Court e, rel. Count0 o1 ClarA,
2--4, #-2 >."d 4#, #2- Nev. !(, certiorari denied #25 $.Ct. 2-5, 545 7.$. ###6, #62 8.Ed.2d 2(.
Child $u22ort 4# 3n determining Bhether an indigent 2art0 in a contem2t 2roceeding @ased on
non2a0ment o1 child su22ort has a due 2rocess right to a22ointment o1 counsel, a1ter @alancing each
o1 the due 2rocess elements against the other, the0 as a Bhole are measured against the 2resum2tion
that a right to a22ointed counsel arises onl0 Bhen the indigent 2art0 ma0 lose his 2ersonal 1reedom.
&odrigueM v. Eighth 6udicial Dist. Court e, rel. Count0 o1 ClarA, 2--4, #-2 >."d 4#, #2- Nev. !(,
certiorari denied #25 $.Ct. 2-5, 545 7.$. ###6, #62 8.Ed.2d 2(. Constitutional 8aB 444 N. &. $.
22.-#-, N' $) 22.-#- /Bout #- minutes into the K)rialK 6udge 4oBard +ound the undersigned in
contem2t, Bhereu2on the si,th amendment righ to counsel Bas invoAed, Bhich 6udge 4oBard curtl0
dismissed. the $ummar0 Contem2t 5&der is void, avaingst 2u@lic 2olic0, 2revented a 1air trial,
demonstrated evident im2artialit, and severl0 curtailed the undersigned 1aith in the court and @elie1
that an0 evidence he o11ered or testimon0 Bould @e given 1air treatment, @ut rather, the undersigned
Bas givne the message that he Bould @e clu@@ed Bith an0thing he said, as such, testimon0 and
- 13
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
evidence Ethat Bhich Bas not @eing Bithheld illegall0 @0 &ichard 43ll, Esq. 2ursuant to an unlaB1ul
rent distraint= Bas not given a legitimate o22orutnit0 to @e admitted or o11ered.+or 2ur2oses o1
statute governing summar0 contem2t 2roceedings 1or direct contem2t committed in FudgeJs
2resence, Bhich requires court to Henter an order,I Bhile a trial courtJs oral contem2t order is
immediatel0 en1orcea@le, a Britten order including the statuteJs required elements must @e 2rom2tl0
entered. 4ouston v. Eighth 6udicial Dist. Court e, rel. Count0 o1 ClarA, 2--6, #"5 >."d #26, #22
Nev. 544. Contem2t 52 6. **** $u11icienc0 /22ro2riate remed0 1or attorne0 Bho had @een 1ound in
direct contem2t o1 court in divorce 2roceeding in Bhich he re2resented Bi1e, Bhere contem2t order
had @een 1ound to @e insu11icient @0 $u2reme Court, in that it did not contain a su11icient statement
concerning Bhat conduct Bas held to @e contem2tuous, Bas to 2ermit trial court to enter amended
order, given that $u2reme CourtJs o2inion addressed issue o1 1irst im2ression and announced
standard 1or contents o1 Britten contem2t order. 4ouston v. Eighth 6udicial Dist. Court e, rel.
Count0 o1 ClarA, 2--6, #"5 >."d #26, #22 Nev. 544. Contem2t 66E(= / Britten summar0 contem2t
order, issued 2ursuant to statute governing summar0 contem2t 2roceedings 1or direct contem2t
committed in FudgeJs 2resence, must set 1orth s2eci1ic 1acts concerning the conduct 1ound to @e
contem2tuous. 4ouston v. Eighth 6udicial Dist. Court e, rel. Count0 o1 ClarA, 2--6, #"5 >."d #26,
#22 Nev. 544. Contem2t 52 :ritten summar0 contem2t order 1inding attorne0 1or Bi1e in divorce
2roceeding in direct contem2t o1 court 1ailed to indicate Bhat 2articular comments @0 attorne0 Bere
held to @e contem2tuous, and, thus, order Bas insu11icient, under statute governing summar0
contem2t 2roceedings 1or direct contem2t committed in FudgeJs 2resence. 4ouston v. Eighth 6udicial
Dist. Court e, rel. Count0 o1 ClarA, 2--6, #"5 >."d #26, #22 Nev. 544 6udge 4oBardJs $ummar0
Contem2t 5&der is laugha@l0 conclusor0 and generic. 3t must @e set aside on that an other @asis.
+urther, the record on a22eal demonstrates that the Contem2t 5&der does
- 14
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
not seem to have @een served, their is no >roo1 o1 $ervice as 1ar as 3 can tell so 1ar....to either the
undersigned or the Cit0 /ttorne0. /$ such, a Notice o1 Entr0 is required and the District Court ma0
not even have Furisdiction 0et on this / K2leadingK is not a KmotionK, @ut... &78E #5. /?ENDED
/ND $7>>8E?EN)/8 >8E/D3N;$ )e,t Ea= /mendments. / 2art0 ma0 amend the 2art0Ss
2leading once as a matter o1 course at an0 time @e1ore a res2onsive 2leading is served or, i1 the
2leading is one to Bhich no res2onsive 2leading is 2ermitted and the action has not @een 2laced
u2on the trial calendar, the 2art0 ma0 so amend it at an0 time Bithin 2- da0s a1ter it is served.
5therBise a 2art0 ma0 amend the 2art0Ss 2leading onl0 @0 leave o1 court or @0 Britten consent o1
the adverse 2art0< and leave shall @e 1reel0 given Bhen Fustice so requires. / 2art0 shall 2lead in
res2onse to an amended 2leading Bithin the time remaining 1or res2onse to the original 2leading or
Bithin #- da0s a1ter service o1 the amended 2leading, Bhichever 2eriod ma0 @e the longer, unless
the court otherBise orders. N/s amended< e11ective 6anuar0 #, 2--5.O E@= /mendments to Con1orm to
the Evidence. :hen issues not raised @0 the 2leadings are tried @0 e,2ress or im2lied consent o1 the
2arties, the0 shall @e treated in all res2ects as i1 the0 had @een raised in the 2leadings. $uch
amendment o1 the 2leadings as ma0 @e necessar0 to cause them to con1orm to the evidence and to
raise these issues ma0 @e made u2on motion o1 an0 2art0 at an0 time, even a1ter Fudgment< @ut
1ailure so to amend does not a11ect the result o1 the trial o1 these issues. 31 evidence is o@Fected to at
the trial on the ground that it is not Bithin the issues made @0 the 2leadings, the court ma0 alloB the
2leadings to @e amended and shall do so 1reel0 Bhen the 2resentation o1 the merits o1 the action Bill
@e su@served there@0 and the o@Fecting 2art0 1ails to satis10 the court that the admission o1 such
evidence Bould 2reFudice the 2art0 in maintaining the 2art0Ss action or de1ense u2on the merits. )he
court ma0 grant a continuance to ena@le the o@Fecting 2art0 to meet such evidence. N/s amended<
e11ective 6anuar0 #, 2--5.O Ec= &elation BacA o1 /mendments. :henever the claim or de1ense
- 15
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
asserted in the amended 2leading arose out o1 the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set 1orth or
attem2ted to @e set 1orth in the original 2leading, the amendment relates @acA to the date o1 the
original 2leading. Ed= $u22lemental >leadings. 72on motion o1 a 2art0 the court ma0, u2on
reasona@le notice and u2on such terms as are Fust, 2ermit the 2art0 to serve a su22lemental 2leading
setting 1orth transactions or occurrences or events Bhich have ha22ened since the date o1 the
2leading sought to @e su22lemented. >ermission ma0 @e granted even though the original 2leading is
de1ective in its statement o1 a claim 1or relie1 or de1ense. 31 the court deems it advisa@le that the
adverse 2art0 2lead to the su22lemental 2leading, it shall so order, s2eci10ing the time there1or.
Nevada N&C> 6-E@=E"= alloBs a 2art0 to move 1or relie1 1rom a Fudgment Bhich is void, and Bhile
motions made under N&C> 6-E@= are generall0 required to K@e made Bithin a reasona@le timeK and
to @e adFudicated according to the district courtJs discretion, this is not true in the case o1 a void
Fudgment. Necessaril0 a motion under this 2art o1 the rule di11ers marAedl0 1rom motions under the
other clauses o1 &ule 6-E@=. )here is no question o1 discretion on the 2art o1 the court Bhen a motion
is made under Nthis 2ortion o1 the &uleO. Nor is there an0 requirement, as there usuall0 is Bhen
de1ault Fudgments are attacAed under &ule 6-E@=, that the moving 2art0 shoB that he has a
meritorious de1ense. Either a Fudgment is void or it is valid. Determining Bhich it is ma0 Bell
2resent a di11icult question, @ut Bhen that question is resolved, the court must act accordingl0. B0
the same toAen, there is no time limit on an attacA on a Fudgment as void. . . . NEOven the requirement
that the motion @e made Bithin a Kreasona@le time,K Bhich seems literall0 to a22l0 . . . cannot @e
en1orced Bith regard to this class o1 motion. 7nderstanda@l0, the 2arties Bere not attuned to our
recent 6aco@s decision during oral argument. /ccordingl0, it Bas determined at that time to alloB
the 2arties to su22lement their @rie1s in order to determine Bith certaint0 Bhether, in 1act, no de1ault
had @een entered against ;arcia 2rior to the entr0 o1 the de1ault Fudgment. ;arciaJs su22lemental
- 16
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
material su22lied additional evidence that no de1ault Bas ever entered, including an a11idavit @0
ClarA Count0 Court ClerA 8oretta BoBman attesting that no such 1iling e,ists in the case 1ile.
&es2ondents also acAnoBledged that no de1ault Bas ever entered @ut argue in their su22lemental
@rie1 that 6aco@s should not @e a22lied retroactivel0, noting that the de1ault Fudgment at issue herein
Bas entered 2rior to our 6aco@s decision. )his argument is Bithout merit. )he court in 6aco@s
determined, consistent Bith laB 1rom other Furisdictions, that the de1ault Fudgment entered in 6aco@s
Bas void. :e accordingl0 ordered the district court to grant relie1 1rom the void Fudgment, des2ite
the 1act that the ruling in 6aco@s Bas, o1 course, 2receded @0 entr0 o1 the de1ault Fudgment against
6aco@s. 31 this case, rather than 6aco@s, Bere @e1ore us as a case o1 1irst im2ression, Be Bould have
reached the same conclusion. / void Fudgment is void 1or all 2ur2oses and ma0 not @e given li1e
under a theor0 @ased u2on lacA o1 legal 2recedent. ;arcia v. 3deal $u22l0 Co., ##- Nev. 4", (!4
>.2d !52 ENev. 5C#C#4=. )he de1ective service rendered the district courtJs 2ersonal Furisdiction
over ;assett invalid and the Fudgment against her void. +or a Fudgment to @e void, there must @e a
de1ect in the courtJs authorit0 to enter Fudgment through either lacA o1 2ersonal Furisdiction or
Furisdiction over su@Fect matter in the suit. >u2hal v. >u2hal, 66 >.2d ## E3daho #("=. 3n >rice v.
Dunn, #-6 Nev. #--, !(! >.2d !(5 E#-=. :e noB hold that the 1iling o1 a motion to set aside a
void Fudgment 2reviousl0 entered against the movant shall not constitute a general a22earance. $ee,
e.g., Do@son v. Do@son, #-( Nev. "46, "4, ("- >.2d #""6, #""( E#2=. Nonetheless, since the
order Bas void, a Fudgment @ased thereon Bould liAeBise @e void.. Nelson v. $ierra Constr. Cor2.,
!! Nev. ""4, "64 >.2d 4-2. 7nder N&C> 6-E@= a motion to set aside a void Fudgment is not
restricted to the si, monthsJ 2eriod s2eci1ied in the rule. N&C> 54Ea= 2rovides that the Bord
KFudgmentK as used in these rules includes an0 order 1rom Bhich an a22eal lies. )here1ore there is no
merit to a22ellantsJ contention that the motion to vacate the Fudgment Bas not timel0 made. +oster v.
- 17
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
8eBis, !( Nev. ""-, "!2 >.2d 6! ENev. 6C#C#62=. / void Fudgment is su@Fect to collateral attacA<
a Fudgment is void i1 the issuing court lacAed 2ersonal Furisdiction or su@Fect matter Furisdiction< $ee
4 C.6.$. 6udgments R 4-#, at !2 E#4! T su22. ##=< 46 /m.6ur.2d 6udgments RR 62#*56 E#6
T su22. ##=. NeB ?e,ico 31 a courtJs decision is 2lainl0 contrar0 to a statute or the constitution,
the court Bill @e held to have acted Bithout 2oBer or Furisdiction, maAing the Fudgment void 1or
&ule #*-6-EB= 2ur2oses, even i1 the court had 2ersonal and su@Fect*matter Furisdiction. $ee, e.g.,
7nited $tates v. 3ndoor Cultivation Equi2., 55 +."d #"##, #"#! E!th Cir. #5= E1or1eiture statute
required that com2laint @e 1iled Bithin si,t0 da0s o1 certain action< 1ailure to meet that deadline
meant that court had no 2oBer to order 1or1eiture, and its order Bas void=< :atts v. >incAne0, !52
+.2d 4-6, 4- Eth Cir. #(5= Ea1ter Fudgment aBarded, de1endant 2aid, then 1ound out this Bas
action in admiralt0 that should have @een @rought solel0 against 7nited $tates< court held that
Fudgment Bas void=< Com2ton v. /lton $.$. Co., 6-( +.2d 6, #-4 E4th Cir. #!= EFudgment @0
de1ault aBarded 2enalt0 Bages under ina22lica@le statute< court held that Fudgment Bas void, not
Fust erroneous=< see also '.)./., 3nc. v. /irco, 3nc., 5! +.2d 22-, 224*25 E#-th Cir. #!= Enoting
that Fudgment can @e void i1 courtJs action involves a K2lain usur2ation o1 2oBerK=< Cros@0 v.
Bradstreet Co., "#2 +.2d 4(", 4(5 E2d Cir. #6"= Ecourt had no 2oBer to im2ose unconstitutional
2rior restraint on 2u@lication o1 true statements, so thirt0*0ear*old consent Fudgment Bas void=. 3n
/>C/, />C/ as a de1endant 1iled a cross*claim against de1endant ?artineM, @ut it Bas void
@ecause not served on ?artineM. 5n +e@ruar0 2(, #6(, entr0 o1 Fudgment Bas made on />C/Js
cross*claim against ?artineM. +our 0ears later, ?artineMJ heirs moved to set aside the />C/
Fudgment under &ule 6-E@= and in Decem@er, #!2, the #6( Fudgment Bas set aside @ecause it Bas
void. No time limit a22lies Bhere a void Fudgment is entered. /l@uquerque >rod. Credit /ssJn v.
?artineM, # N.?. "#!, 5!" >.2d 6!2 E#!(=. $ince the #!" Fudgment Bas void, the #!6 district
- 18
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
court Bas required to set it aside 2ursuant to N.?.&. Civ.>. 6-E@=E4= NR 2#*#*#E6-=E@=E4=O, N.?.$./.
#5" E&e2l. 'ol.#!-=. )here is no discretion on the 2art o1 a district court to set aside a void
Fudgment. $uch a Fudgment ma0 @e attacAed at an0 time in a direct or collateral action. ChaveM v.
Count0 o1 'alencia, (6 N.?. 2-5, 52# >.2d ##54 E#!4=. /t this 2oint Be call attention also to
language 1ound in the o2inion in ?oore v. >acAer, #!4 N.C. 665, 4 $.E. 44, 45-, noticed @0 us
and quoted Bith a22roval in the Eal0 case. 3t Bas there said: K/ void Fudgment is Bithout li1e or
1orce, and the court Bill quash it on motion, or e, mero motu. 3ndeed, Bhen it a22ears to @e void, it
ma0 and Bill @e ignored ever0Bhere, and treated as a mere nullit0.K /ll the a22ellees rel0 u2on this
general rule in ansBer to a22ellantsJ challenge that the0 never tooA an a22eal 1rom the order and
Fudgment setting
aside the 6une, #"! de1ault Fudgment and decree. )he court @eing Bithout Furisdiction to set aside
its earlier Fudgment and decree, quieting title, a22ellees might ignore it as a void order or Fudgment,
the0 sa0, and 1or this reason Bere not required to taAe an a22eal there1rom, and ma0 question the
Furisdiction o1 the court and the validit0 o1 the order or Fudgment at an0 time. Board o1 Count0
Commissioners o1 Uua0 Count0 v. :asson, "! N.?. 5-", 24 >.2d #-(< +ullen v. +ullen, 2# N.?.
2#2, #5" >. 24< Baca v. >erea, 25 N.?. 442, #(4 >. 4(2< De Baca v. :ilco,, ## N.?. "46, 6( >.
22. 3n the case o1 72Fohn Co. v. Board o1 Commissioners o1 $ocorro Count0 E$te2henson,
3ntervener= 25 N.?. 526, #(5 >. 2!, 2(-, Be held a Fudgment against a garnishee void Bhere
service o1 the Brit o1 garnishment Bas made @0 a 2erson other than the sheri11, Bhere Be said: K)he
2roceeding is Bholl0 statutor0, and com2liance Bith the statute is essential to con1er u2on the court
Furisdiction o1 the res.K /nd held that the court Bas vested Bith 2oBer to set aside and vacate such
void Fudgment at an0 time. / void Fudgment is one that has merel0 sem@lance, Bithout some
essential element or elements, as Bhere the court 2ur2orting to render it has not Furisdiction. /n
- 19
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
irregular Fudgment is one entered contrar0 to the course o1 the court, contrar0 to the method o1
2rocedure and 2ractice under it alloBed @0 laB in some material res2ect, as i1 the court gave
Fudgment Bithout the intervention o1 a Fur0 in a case Bhere the 2art0 com2laining Bas entitled to a
Fur0 trial, and did not Baive his right to the same. 'ass v. Building /ssociation, # N. C. 55< ?cDee
v. /ngel, - N. C. 6-. /n erroneous Fudgment is one rendered contrar0 to laB. )he latter cannot @e
attacAed collaterall0 at all, @ut it must remain and have e11ect until @0 a22eal to a court o1 errors it
shall @e reversed or modi1ied. /n irregular Fudgment ma0 originall0 and generall0 @e set aside @0 a
motion 1or the 2ur2ose in the action. )his is so @ecause in such case a Fudgment Bas entered
contrar0 to the course o1 the court @0 inadvertence, mistaAe, or the liAe. / void Fudgment is Bithout
li1e or 1orce, and the court Bill quash it on motion, or e, mero motu. 3ndeed, Bhen it a22ears to @e
void it ma0 and Bill @e ignored ever0Bhere, and treated as a mere nullit0.K ?oore v. >acAer, #!4 N.
C. 665, 4 $. E. 44, at 2age 45-. N)Ohe a22lica@le ground N1or relie1O Bould @e &ule 6-EB=E4=, void
Fudgment, under Bhich the 1ailure to move to vacate Bithin one 0ear a1ter the entr0 o1 Fudgment
Bould not @e controlling. Classen v. Classen, ## N.?. 5(2, (" >.2d 4!(, "4 N.?. $t. B. Bull. 24
EN.?./22. -2C2!C#5=. )he a22ellants contend that the court lost Furisdiction over the action thirt0
da0s a1ter the Fudgment Bas vacated. )he0 argue that the a22ellees never a22ealed the order Bhich
vacated the Fudgment, consequentl0, thirt0 da0s later the court Bas divested o1 authorit0 to entertain
an0 motion concerning these 2arties and the same cause o1 action, and that 1or these reasons the
motion to amend the cross*claim Bas im2ro2erl0 granted. )his 2oint is not Bell*taAen. )he 2ertinent
2ortions o1 &ule 6-E@= state: 5n motion and u2on such terms as are Fust, the court ma0 relieve a
2art0 or his legal re2resentative 1rom a 1inal Fudgment, order, or 2roceeding 1or the 1olloBing
reasons:... E4= the Fudgment is void.... /n order granting a motion 1or relie1 under 6-E@= must @e
tested @0 the usual 2rinci2les o1 1inalit0< and Bhen so tested Bill occasionall0 @e 1inal, although
- 20
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
2ro@a@l0 in most cases it Bill not @e. )hus Bhere the court, in addition to determining that there is a
valid ground 1or relie1 under 6-E@=, at the same time maAes a re*determination o1 the merits, its order
is 1inal since it leaves nothing more to @e adFudged.... $ince ?artineM never received notice o1 the
cross*claim, the sti2ulated Fudgment Bas void as to him. )here1ore, it Bas com2letel0 2ro2er 1or his
heirs to move to set aside that void Fudgment under &ule 6-E@=E4=. :hen the original Fudgment Bas
vacated as to ?artineM, the status o1 the case Bas as though no Fudgment had @een entered as to him.
:uenschel v. NeB ?e,ico Broadcasting Cor2., (4 N.?. #-, 5-- >.2d #4 E#!2=< Benall0 v.
>igman, !( N.?. #(, 42 >.2d 64( E#6!=< /rias v. $2ringer, 42 N.?. "5-, !( >.2d #5" E#"(=.
&ule 6-E@= o1 the &ules o1 Civil >rocedure a@olishes the common laB Brit o1 coram no@is @ut
authoriMes relie1 1rom a K1inal Fudgment, order, or 2roceedingK on si, s2eci1ied grounds. ;round E2=
involves neBl0 discovered evidence< ground E4= involves a void Fudgment< and ground E6= involves
Kan0 other reason Fusti10ing relie1K. /lthough &ule 6-E@= is a civil rule, $tate v. &omero, su2ra, held
that Bhere a 2risoner had served his sentence and had @een released, this civil rule could @e utiliMed
to seeA relie1 1rom a criminal Fudgment claimed to @e void. )his result Bas @ased on an intent to
retain all su@stantive rights 2rotected @0 the old Brit o1 coram no@is. $ee $tate v. &a@urn, su2ra<
&oessler v. $tate, ! N.?. !(!, 45- >.2d #6 ECt. /22. #6=, cert. denied, "5 7.$. 6!, ( $. Ct.
2##5, 2" 8. Ed. 2d !54 E#6=. Continuing Furisdiction over 1inal Fudgment. )he Fudgment entered
on /2ril 25 Bas a 1inal Fudgment. )he Cit0 argues that BrooAs could o@tain relie1 1rom the Brit
issued on ?a0 # onl0 under $C&/ #(6, "*!-4EB= E&e2l. >am2. #-=, Bhich limits relie1 to E#=
mistaAe, inadvertence, sur2rise or e,cusa@le neglect< E2= 1raud, misre2resentation or other
misconduct< E"= a void Fudgment< or E4= satis1action, release or discharge o1 the Fudgment or the
reversal or vacation o1 a 2rior Fudgment u2on Bhich it is @ased. 4oBever, N?$/ #!(, $ection "4*
(/* 6EE= E&e2l. >am2. #-=, states that K/ll Fudgments rendered in civil actions in the metro2olitan
- 21
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?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
court shall @e su@Fect to the same 2rovisions o1 laB as those rendered in district court.K 7nder
N?$/ #!(, $ection "*#*# E&e2l. >am2. ##=, 1inal Fudgments and decrees entered @0 the district
courts remain under the control o1 such courts 1or thirt0 da0s a1ter entr0 thereo1. )here1ore, the
metro2olitan court retained control o1 its Fudgment and had the right to set it aside a1ter granting a
rehearing on the matter. $ee, e.g., Nichols v. Nichols, ( N.?. "22, "26, 64( >.2d !(-, !(4 E#(2=
Edistrict court is authoriMed under $ection "*#*# to change, modi10, correct or vacate a Fudgment on
its oBn motion= Eciting DesFardin v. /l@uquerque NatJl BanA, " N.?. (, 56 >.2d (5( E#!==.
)he 1act that the void Fudgment has @een a11irmed on revieB in an a22ellate court or an order or
Fudgment reneBing or reviving it entered adds nothing to its validit0. $uch a Fudgment has @een
characteriMed as a dead lim@ u2on the Fudicial tree, Bhich ma0 @e cho22ed o11 at an0 time, ca2a@le
o1 @earing no 1ruit to 2lainti11 @ut constituting a constant menace to de1endant.K :/88$ v.
E&7>C35N ?3N. C5. 6 >.2d #-2# Novem@er ", #"#. 6udge 4oBards 6udgment and $ummar0
Contem2t 5&der are @oth void 1or all the reasons listed a@ove in vieB o1 all the 2leadings and
2a2ers and attachments on 1ile in this matter, es2eciall0 Bhen one adds in all the 1iling and materials
that should @e in the &ecord on /22eal, @ut strangel0 are not. correcting clerical errors in Fudgments:
Nevada /lamo 3rr. Co. v. 7.$., (# Nev. "-, 4-4 >.2d 5 E#65= Q $u22 Channel #" o1 8as 'egas,
3nc. v. Ettlinger, 4 Nev. 5!(, 5(" >.2d #-(5 E#!(= Q $u22 +inle0 v. +inle0, 65 Nev. ##", #(
>.2d ""4 E#4(= Q $u22 ;ottBals v. &encher, 6- Nev. "5, ( >.2d 4(#, #26 /.8.&. #262 E#4-= Q
$u22 3veson v. $econd 6udicial Dist. Court, 66 Nev. #45, 2-6 >.2d !55 E#4= Q $u22 DirA2atricA
v. )emme, ( Nev. 52", 654 >.2d #-## E#(2= Q $u22 Doester v. /dministrator o1 Estate o1
Doester, #-# Nev. 6(, 6" >.2d 56 E#(5= Q $u22 ?cDissicA v. ?cDissicA, " Nev. #", 56-
>.2d #"66 E#!!= Q $u22 52aco 8um@er T &ealt0 Co. v. >hi22s, !5 Nev. "#2, "4- >.2d 5 E#5=
Q $u22 $ilva v. $econd 6udicial Dist. Court in and 1or :ashoe Count0, 5! Nev. 46(, 66 >.2d 422
- 22
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?3$$
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E#"!= Q 33, 3V, V33, V333, V', V'3i, V3V $mith v. E22erson, !2 Nev. 66, 24 >.2d "62 E#56= Q
$u22
CONCLUSION
&egardless, the K6udgmentK or K5rderK here Bas not a22ro2riatel0 served on the undersigned
on Novem@er "-th, 2-##. +urther, the undersigned made man0, man0 calls and Britten attem2ts
and tri2s to the &?C to o@tain a co20 o1 the Contem2t 5rder, the ;uilt0 6udgment, and the audio
recording o1 the )rial and all Bere either not granted, not 2rovided, or 2rovided in such a dela0ed
manner as to create an undul0 2reFudicial situation adversel0 e11ecting the undersigneds rights
su11icient to im2ermissi@l0 com2romise 1undamentals notions o1 1airness and due 2rocess.
+urther, the 5rder is KrenderedK Bhen 6udge 4oBard sa0s it is KrenderedK, and 6udge 4oBard
clearl0 indicated, on the record, as demonstrated in the audio record, Bhich Bill @e availa@le to the
District Court ultimatel0, the #- da0 deadline 1or 1iling a Notice o1 /22eal Bould not @egin running
until a1ter the " da0 $ummar0 Contem2t 5rderJs three da0 Fail sentence concluded. Damn, this
stu11 is com2licated. $ure it nice to see the government goign hard as a mother to 2rotect lil olJ
:al*?art Bhom is rumored to @e the su@Fect o1 a documentar0 a@out hoB the0 have a intricate
s0stem o1 Beasling out o1 their K&eturn >olic0K and retaliating against those Bho call them on it.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
/lso, this document does not contain an0 social securit0 num@er or other ina22ro2riate material
2ursuant to N&$ 2"B.-"-.
Dated this +e@ruar0 #, 2-#2
CsC Zach CoughlinWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
>ro $e /ttorne0 /22ellant
- 23
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?3$$
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
3, Zach Coughlin, declare:
5n 1e@ruar0 #, 2-#2, 3, ?r. Zach Coughlin served the 1oregoing document @0 1a,ing and
delivering and serving u2on registered e1ilers and de2ositing a true and correct co20 in the 7$ ?ail
addressed to:
>/? &5BE&)$, E$U
654N D/D83C, E$U
Reno City Attorney's Office - Criminal Division
P.O. Box 1900 Reno , N !9"0"
P#one N$m%er& ''"(()*0"0
+ax n$m%er& ''"(()*)*0
/ttorne0 1or &es2ondent, Cit0 o1 &eno
*****************************
Zach Coughlin
/;EN) 5+ />>E88/N)
- 24
$7>>8E?EN) )5 ?5)35N )5 D3$?3$$