3 20 13 0204 Notice of Appeal of 3 11 13 Order in RCR12-071437

1
2
3
4
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
Nevada Bar No: 9473
Nevaaa law license temporarily suspenaea pursuant to 6/7/12 Oraer in 60838
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Co-counsel with R. Bruce Lindsay, Esq., apparently
IN THE JUSTICE COURT OF RENO TOWNSHIP
COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
ln 1PL AuMlnlS18A1lvL
MA11L8 Cl ZACPA8? 8A8kL8 CCuCPLln
PRE HEARING MEMORANDUM; SUPPLMENTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND
OR MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE 12/20/12 AO12-01;
DECLARATION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN
Zach Coughlin submits this on his own behalI and or provided it to the Law OIIice
oI Robert Bruce Lindsay, Esq., to use as he sees Iit within the context oI Coughlin
consenting to his acting on Coughlin's behalI Ior the limited purpose (until Iurther
agreement) oI pursuing as my co-counsel a global resolution oI the various matters
involving Coughlin, the Reno Justice Court, the Reno Municipal Court, the Second
Judicial District Court, the State Bar oI Nevada, the City oI Reno, Washoe County District
Attorney's OIIice, Reno City Attorney's OIIice, Washoe County, Washoe County District
Attorney's OIIice, Reno Police Department, Washoe County SheriII's OIIice (both Civil
and Criminal Divisions), Reno Justice Court BailiIIs, and City oI Reno Marshals, though
at this time Mr. Lindsay has been listed by the RJC as Coughlin's attorney oI record, as
Iar as Coughlin knows, in only one matter (RCR2012-067980), though Mr. Lindsay was
1/70
COMBINATION MOTION TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO OTHER
FILINGS TO CONSERVE JUDICIAL RESOURCES FURTHER ECONOMY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
present on 2/13/13 at a hearing related to Coughlin's summary incarceration the day
previous in RCR2012-065630 (wherein Judge CliIton indicated something to the eIIect
that Mr. Lindsay's presence had been arranged Ior by the RJC in recognition oI Coughlin's
Right to Counsel even at a civil contempt hearing, which, apparently, was the 2/13/13
hearing therein was (Coughlin Iiled a Notice oI Appeal oI any Order therein that resulted
in a Iinding oI contempt and the summary 5 day incarceration incident thereto wherein
Coughlin was incarcerated Irom 2/12/13 to 2/16/13 due to uncertainty as to whether it was
a 'criminal contempt conviction he was adjudged to have committed, and thereIore
requiring reporting to the State Bar oI Nevada and USPTO, and having negative licensure
consequences...).
Please incorporate herein the arguments and citations made in Coughlin's 3/1/13
Motion to Dismiss the 2/25/13 OSC in AO12-01, or to Continue or Vacate the 3/5/13
Hearing, etc.
Validity, Construction, and Application oI State Vexatious Litigant Statutes, 45
A.L.R.6th 493
(2009)
Manner oI Raising Issue Not Proper: There must be a case Ior the RJC to enter
such an Order. For there to be a case, there needs to be a civil litigation or a criminal
prosecution within which to enter such and order as AO12-01 where such purports to
apply to an individual citizen and limit his rights, and, as here, subject him to the
possibility oI incarceration. See. Jordan v. State. (Nevada), 100 P.3d 30.
Motion Not Made by Proper Party, and, In Fact, No Motion Made At All
2/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Conley 2009 WL 595989. In re Patramala 2011 WL 4855613 (may not be a
published/citable order, and iI so, only presented herein Ior background inIormation).
Also Kroncke v. City oI Phoenix, 2011 WL 680909841. (also might not be a published
opinion)
The ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2012-01 Iiled 12/20/12, signed by then ChieI
Justice SIerrazza (which was purportedly personally served upon Coughlin on 12/26/12,
by an unnamed persona, at an unidentiIied location, according to now ChieI Judge
Pearson's 3/5/13 Order to Show Cause in AO12-01 (not clear what the case number is, or
iI there is a case number at all, or even an opposing party), reads:
'IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER OF:
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2012-01
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has been the subject oI
disciplinary hearings beIore the State Bar oI Nevada Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board
wherein the Board Iound Mr. Coughlin "committed multiple violations oI the Rules oI
ProIessional conduct" and that Mr. Coughlin "engaged in bad Iaith obstruction oI the
disciplinary process"; and
There is no citation to a page number in any Order suIIicient to justiIy the AO12-
01 being issued, judicial notice may not be taken where a certiIied copy oI any purported
'Iinding that such 'Board 'Iound, and where such 'Board or Panel, actually massaged
its way around this issue, iI it actually wrote 'Coughlin continues to engage in bad Iaith...
without actually Iinding any actual instance oI Coughlin doing so with respect to any oI
3/70
1
2
3
4
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 allegations plead in the SBN's 8/23/12 complain (Nevada is a notice-pleading state.
Langevin. ).
'WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has been a party in cases beIore
the Reno Municipal Court including cases beIore the Honorable Dorothy Nash Holmes
and the Honorable Kenneth Howard wherein Mr. Coughlin was held in contempt oI court
Ior Iailing to Iollow the Court's orders and directives; and
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/ :TABLE OF TITLES AND CHAPTERS; NEVADA
REVISED STATUTES; TITLE 2CIVIL PRACTICE; CHAPTER 22 - CONTEMPTS
'NRS22.030Summary punishment oI contempt committed in immediate view
and presence oI court; aIIidavit or statement to be Iiled when contempt committed
outside immediate view and presence oI court; disqualiIication oI judge.
1.II a contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence oI the
court or judge at chambers, the contempt may be punished summarily. II the court
or judge summarily punishes a person Ior a contempt pursuant to this subsection,
the court or judge shall enter an order that:
(a)Recites the Iacts constituting the contempt in the immediate view and
presence oI the court or judge;
(b)Finds the person guilty oI the contempt; and
(c)Prescribes the punishment Ior the contempt...
The 11/30/11 'ORDER FOR SUMMARY PUNISHMENT OF CONTEMPT
COMMITTED IN THE IMMEDIATE VIEW AND PRESENCE OF THE COURT in
22176 by RMC Judge Howard reads:
'WHEREAS NRS 22.030 declares that when a contempt is committed in the
immediate view and presence oI the Court or judge at chambers, it may be punished
summarily, Ior which an order shall be made, reciting the Iacts as occurring in such
immediate view and presence, adjudging that the person proceeded against is thereby
guilty oI a contempt and that he/she be punished as therein prescribed, and WHEREAS,
on the 30th day oI November, 2011, the above named deIendant appeared beIore this
court. NAME: ZACHERY COUGHLIN, who is a DEFENDANT
Party; Witness; Spectator, and
WHEREAS such individual committed the Iollowing act(s) in the immediate view
and presence oI the Court:
4/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(CHECKED) Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the
judge while he is holding court, or engaged in his judicial duties at chambers,
A breach oI the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance in the presence oI
the Court, or in its immediate vicinity, tending to interrupt due to the course oI the trial or
other judicial proceeding,
(NOT CHECKED) ReIusing to be sworn or answer as a witness
(NOT CHECKED) Disobeying a lawIul writ/order/rule/process issued by the
Court/judge at chambers, and WHEREAS such conduct:
(NOT CHECKED) Demeaned the Court
(NOT CHECKED) Derogated the authority oI the Court
(CHECKED) InterIered with the orderly administration oI justice and required
immediate vindication by the Court to preserve order and respect.
Based upon the above Iinding ZACHARYCOUGHLIN is Guilty oI Direct
Contempt. The Contemnor, when asked iI he had anything to say as to why sentence
should not be pronounced, replied: (in handwriting) See Court Record. ThereIore, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the contemnor is hereby
sentenced to the Iollowing punishment:
(NOT CHECKED) A Iine in the amount oI ($500 or less).
(CHECKED) Imprisonment Ior (25 days or less), NO ALTERNATIVE
SENTENCING...
DEFENDANT TO BE RELEASED on 12/3/11 at 8 pm DATED this 30th day oI
November, 2011 KENNETH R. HOWARD, JUDGE, Reno Municipal Court"
I t is very
important to note the colon in the Iollowing Irom that OSPC and the Iact that the blank
Ior the designation immediately preeeding it is not checked. Especially where a
Municipal Court Order is now being asserted as conclusive prooI oI multiple violations oI
the Rules oI ProIessional Conduct suIIicient to justiIy permanently disbarring an attorney
and thereIore taking Irom him his protected, Fourteenth Amendment property right, such
Order must be taken as it is, Ior what it indicates, expressly and speciIically, good or bad,
and be subject to any inadvertence or carelessness that may have attached to the judicial
assistant, er, Judge's rendering oI the Order as entered. As such, the Iailure to check the
blank in this Order Form preceding the Iollowing phrase:
'(NOT CHECKED) Disobeying a lawful writ/oraer/rule/process issuea by the
Court/fuage at chambers, ana WHEREAS such conduct:
(this blank, noticeably and importantly, was NOT CHECKED) Demeaned the Court
Now, ironically, it is the SBN's King whom must have applied to him the very
authority accepted by Panel Chair Echeverria in Granting King's 11/2/12 Motion to Quash
the Supoenas Upon RMC Judges where Judge Howard may not now (especially do to
principles oI double jeopardy and laches) seek to modiIy his 11/30/11 OSPC by inserting
5/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a check in a blank where previously there was none. The Order must stand as it is, and, as
such, that OPSC provides Coughlin conclusive prooI (res judicata, collateral estoppel) that
Coughlin aia not 'Derogated the authority oI the Court or 'InterIered with the orderly
administration oI justice and required immediate vindication by the Court to preserve
order and respect suIIicient Ior RMC Judge Howard to make a Iinding oI Iact or
conclusion oI law, much less and order, that Coughlin can be said to have been adjudged
to have been adjudged to have violated NRS 22.010(2) (all oI NRS 22 relates to civil
contempt statutes, and thereIore no order related thereto comes within the purview oI SCR
111(5) (despite Bar Counsel King's constant assertions and pleading to the contrary,
which, itselI, is arguably a violation oI RPC 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4, 4.1 (the RMC Judges
and RCA), 8.1, 8.2, and 8.4...and also, perhaps, RPC 4.2 to the extent In Re SchaeIer
would have a pro se attorney have RPC 4.2 applied against him where such pro se
attorney contacts a represented party, turnabout being Iairplay, King's contacting a selI
representing Coughlin here, then, arguably is tantamount to King violating RPC 4.2 where
King communicated with Coughlin in Coughlin's role as a client to himselI. Otherwise,
DDA Watts-Vial's interpretation oI things, in his 11/13/12 Iaxed objections to Coughlin's
subpoena, wherein he asserts that Coughlin's 'admission that his law license in Nevada is
suspended (though, it may be that, given Coughlin's USPTO law license is not presently
suspended, Coughlin is entitled to issue subpoenas to whomever he chooses incident
thereto) necessarily means that, under NRCP 45(a)(3), the subpoenas Coughlin had served
that were not issued by the SBN's Clerk oI Court need not be obeyed or responded to.
This, despite the Iact that it is not at all clear that NRCP 45 is even applicable in
disciplinary matters, nor that, even were it applicable, the Iacts oI these particular
circumstances auger Ior an application such as the one suggested by WCDA DDA Watts-
Vial, particularly given Chairman Susich's 7/27/12 written correspondence to Coughlin,
and the import oI such communication when considering the express declaration made by
Bar Counsel King to Coughlin on 10/15/12 that King had conIirmed with ChieI Bar
Counsel David Clark that Coughlin, as a Respondent, even where temporarily suspended,
may, in Iact, issue his own subpoenas, and Iurther where considering that the
SBN/NNDB/Panel/SBN Clerk oI Court had communicated to Coughlin that he was not
required to pay subpoena or witness Iees, both in light oI his inidgent status, and under the
rules applicable to this particular disciplinary matter under SCR 105(4) and SCR 119(3).
'NRS22.010Acts or omissions constituting contempts.The Iollowing acts
or omissions shall be deemed contempts:
1.Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge while the
judge is holding court, or engaged in judicial duties at chambers, or toward
masters or arbitrators while sitting on a reIerence or arbitration, or other judicial
proceeding.
2.A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance in
the presence of the court, or in its immediate vicinity, tending to interrupt the
due course of the trial or other judicial proceeding.
3.Disobedience or resistance to any lawIul writ, order, rule or process issued
by the court or judge at chambers.
6/70
1
2
3
4
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.Disobedience oI a subpoena duly served, or reIusing to be sworn or
answer as a witness.
5.Rescuing any person or property in the custody oI an oIIicer by virtue oI
an order or process oI such court or judge at chambers.
6.Disobedience oI the order or direction oI the court made pending the trial
oI an action, in speaking to or in the presence oI a juror concerning an action in
which the juror has been impaneled to determine, or in any manner approaching
or interIering with such juror with the intent to inIluence the verdict.
7.Abusing the process or proceedings of the court or Ialsely pretending to
act under the authority oI an order or process oI the court.
And, actually, it is WCDA DDA Watts-Vial, and, arguably the Second Judicial
District Court Judges and Clerk oI Court and Assistant Clerk oI Court, and Custodian oI
Records whom should be subject to a Iinding that they have violated NRS 22.030(4).
Further, Reno City Attorney Christensen and the Reno Muncipal Court Judges, Court
Administrator, Custodian oI Record, and those City oI Reno Marshal's whom disobey
such 'subpoena duly served upon them have similarly committed a violation oI NRS
22.030(4) where SCR 110(4) aoes not entitle any oI those individuals or entities to rely
upon the 11/7/12 Order by Chair Echeverria purporting to quash such subpoenas where
SCR 110(4) is quite clear that it is NNDB Chairman Susich, only, whom has jurisdiction
to make such an Order and where there is no indication that any oI those subpoened
communicated an 'open reIusal under RPC 3.4 suIIicient to prevent a Iinding that a
violation oI such was committed by all those subpoened whom are licensed attorneys
(which, would included those RMC Judges subpoened). Similarly, the Reno Justice
Court's Custodian oI Records and Court Administrator Steven Tuttle and ChieI Civil
Clerk Karen Stancil could be said to have violated NRS 22.030(4) as well. Interestingly,
neither DDA Watts-Vial nor any other attorney Irom the WCDA's OIIice communicated
any objection to the subpoen Coughlin had served a non-party over 18 years oI age on
7/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stancil, Tuttle, and the RJC's Custodian oI Records by one Nicholas Hassett oI Reno,
Nevada, a 20 year old at the time. Bur Coughlin really would preIer to just move on Irom
all oI that, make amends, Iocus on things like Judge Flanagan's 6/25/12 attorney Iee
award in CV11-03628 was not a sanction, but rather an applciation oI DCR 13(3), etc., in
his BrieI in 62337, the disbarment appeal.
'WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has been a party in both civil
and criminal matters beIore this Court including cases beIore the Honorable Peter
SIerrazza, the Honorable Scott Pearson, and the Honorable David CliIton wherein Mr.
Coughlin has been admonished Ior Iailing to Iollow the Court's orders and directives; and
There is not citation to any such speciIic instance in AO12-01, and arguably, such
is required.
'WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN is currently the subject oI a
Temporary Order Ior Protection against Harassment in the Workplace requested by the
Washoe County Public DeIender's OIIice, his counsel in several cases beIore this Court;
and
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN is currently the subject oI a
Temporary
Order Ior Protection Against Harassment in the Workplace requested by the State Bar oI
Nevada (page 1) based upon Mr. Coughlin's harassing and disruptive behavior with
employees and oIIicers oI the State Bar; and
8/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
'From: Kandaras, Mary Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:20 AM To: Leslie, Jim
Subject: RE: The Three E's; wcpd Iailure to provide essential 911 call cd discovery oI 8/13
and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012-065630 Importance:
High
Jim:
I believe that you should send this. Supreme Court Rule 104(a)
authorizes State bar counsel to investigate all matters involving
possible attorney misconduct or incapacity called to bar counsel's
attention, whether by grievance or both. This potentially involves
misconduct (violation of law) and incapacity.
Mary Kandaras Deputy District Attorney Civil Division Washoe
County
775 -337 -5723 direct phone
-----Original Message----From: Leslie, Jim Sent: Wednesday,
December 12, 2012 5:11 PM To: Kandaras, Mary Subject:
RE: The Three E's; wcpd Iailure to provide essential 911 call
cd discovery oI 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012
-065630
Thanks, please do. He came to our oIIice aIter my email to
you and caused a disturbance. We called the police, but he
Iled beIore they arrived. jim
-----Original Message----From: Kandaras, Mary Sent:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:17 PM To: Leslie, Jim
Subject: RE: The Three E's; wcpd Iailure to provide essential
911 call cd discovery oI 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in
rcr2012-065630
I will have to review this tomorrow and get back to you.
Mary Kandaras Deputy District Attorney Civil Division
Washoe County
-----Original Message----From: Leslie, Jim
The below email Irom Mr. Coughlin contains a reIerence
at the end oI the Iirst paragraph to a website containing a
video clip Irom the movie Cape Fear. Please advise whether
any action is required oI our oIIice or yours regarding this
possible veiled or indirect threat oI violence against attorneys
in this oIIice by Mr. Coughlin.
9/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:59 PM To: Kandaras,
Mary Subject: FW: The Three E's; wcpd Iailure to provide
essential 911 call cd discovery oI 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to
Coughlin in rcr2012-065630
Mary:
Please review my transmittal to Patrick King at the bar,
below, and let me know iI I should do anything else Irom a
civil perspective.
Thanks,
James B. Leslie, Esq.
ChieI Deputy Public DeIender
December 12, 2012 2:49 PM To: 'patrickknvbar.org'
Subject: FW: The Three E's; wcpd Iailure to provide essential
rcr2012 -065630
Mr. King:
Thank you,
James B. Leslie, Esq. ChieI Deputy Public DeIender Washoe
County Public DeIender's OIIice
-----Original Message----From:
Zach Coughlin |mailto:zachcoughlinhotmail.com| Sent:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:35 PM To: Leslie, Jim;
Bosler, Jeremy; Dogan, Biray; Goodnight, Joseph W; Fortier,
Chris; Tuttle, Steve; Kandaras, Mary; Young, Zach;
skaucreno.gov; wongdreno.gov; kadlicjreno.gov;
complaintsnvbar.org; cvellisbhIs.com; jeeloreno.com;
patrickknvbar.org; davidcnvbar.org; rosecnvbar.org;
laurapnvbar.org; skentskentlaw.com;
miketahoelawyer.com; eiIert.ntaatt.net;
nevtelassnsbcglobal.net; IIlahertydlpId.com;
IIlahertydyerlawrence.com
Subject: The Three E's; wcpd Iailure to provide essential 911
call cd discovery oI 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in
rcr2012 -065630
The Trial yesterday in RCR2012-065630 Ieatured extended
discussions regarding the Iailure oI the WCPD, Dogan, and
Leslie, to turn over discovery propounded by DDA Young in
the Iorm oI cd's Ieaturing 911 calls DDA Young provided to
the WCPD on 8/13/12 and 8/17/12 ... And the heavy hitters
10/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
were there, too (Elliot Sattler) ..... despite numerous written
requests Irom Coughlin that the WCPD do so, and multiple
trips to the WCPD personally by Coughlin to pick such
materials up, and despite more Ilip Ilopping on their story by
Leslie and Dogan regarding whether they ever gave Coughlin
some package oI materials responsive to Coughlin's request
Ior his "Iile" ... But, Jim Leslie is stuck with the 7/27/12 date
he mentions in his email, then he is stuck with what his recent
email wherein he purports to have therein digitally transmitted
Coughlin his "Iile", which obviously does not include the cd's
oI 911 calls (the one's DDA Young took up an enormous
amount oI court time playing, over and over (well, Young
only played over and over the particular calls he Ielt were
strongest Ior his case and most prejudicial, claiming some
"cutting room Iloor mishap" Ior the reoccurrence oI certain
calls, arguing that such a "happy accident" justiIied playing
them again and again, at ever increasing volumes, etc., etc.).
Apparently, I am here to subsidize Young's baby making, just
like I was with Ms. Gorman, as a continuance oI prejudicial
length oI aIIorded to the State where none was Iorthcoming to
Coughlin, despite Leslie and Dogan's obstructionist tantrums,
ones oI a quality that would. I remember when my liIe
Ieatured happy moments like the birth oI twins ... but that was
beIore your leviathan legal system wrecked shop on my
existence. What, sir, shall be my compensation? Do you mind
iI I put my arm around .... http://tinyurl.com/bgmlIdr
This is a Iormal grievance against Dogan, Leslie, Bosler,
Young ... etc....
The link that Leslie reIers to as containing a 'video clip Irom the movie Cape
Fear actually contains only an auaio clip oI a short quote Irom Cape Fear (the 1991
Scorsese version).
It was arguably an abuse oI process by Bar Counsel Patrick King. However,
Coughlin's recollection oI the November 6th, 2012 (the night oI the Presidential
Election...Coughlin asked Nevada Lawyer employee Paula Campbell iI she knew who
was winning in the polls...etc.,) brieI encounter between she and Coughlin was oI one oI
an entirely cordial, proIessional nature.
At that time, Campbell mentioned she was the only one there (working late),
and that Asst. Bar Counsel King had leIt a Iew minutes prior to Iive pm. Coughlin
indicated that he had presented a couple minutes prior to 5 pm to Iile a document where
time was oI the essence and inquired as to the posted closing time oI the SBN and policies
respecting what Iile stamped date such a submission would be given under those
circumstances.
11/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Couglin did not ask Campbell iI he may venture inside the SBN's OIIices at that
time, nor did he ever Ilash his1996 Honda's headlights to gain attention. There was an
issue with the electrical wiring to Coughlin's headlights (the tailights went out due to a
short somewhere in the system, and due to his poverty, Coughlinhad to make do without a
trip to the mechanic and simply splice in some speaker wires Irom the headlights to the tail
lights, and procrastinated in aIIixing an on/oII switch in there, so Coughlin has to,
basically , braid the wires together every time he drives at night and in turning the lights
uon and oII (what a pain)..
..
Exhibit 1 to Mr. King's Temporary Protection Order Application in rcp12-607 contians
mostly unattributed unsworn hearsay and is misleading at best.
The substantive section containing the allegations in Bar Counsel King's TPO
application oI 12/20/12 in RJC RCP2012-000607 is pasted below. It should be noted that
Coughlin has been through quite a lot this year, being wrongIully incarcerated over 10
times and wrongIully evicted 6 times, and as such, he is severely indigent, something Bar
Counsel King is attempting to take Iurther advantage oI by increasing Coughlin's postage
costs and decreasing the time he would have to draIt Iilings given the transport time such
an EPO would add to the service thereoI....Mr. King relied exclusively on hearsay,
conjecture, and inIerence in his account below in those rare instances when he is not just
outright lying. The "violent scen Irom the movie "Cape Fear" was actually an audio clip
Irom the popular website www.harm.com containing an audio only quotation by Robert
Deniro where he conIronts oIIicial misconduct perpetrated against him by his public
deIender by invoking power oI reading, learning, and philosophy...things Mr. King
obviously Iinds litttle utility in:
"Exhibit 1
On November 14, 2012, the OIIice oI Bar Counsel held a disciplinary hearing at
its Reno oIIice with two sheriII personnel in attendance as a measure oI protection. As a
result oI the hearing the panel unanimously agreed to permanently disbar Mr. Coughlin
Irom the practice oI law. On Friday, December 14, 2012 the Panel's Order was Iiled and
copies were mailed to Mr. Coughlin both by regular and certiIied mail.
Mr. Coughlin continues to make repeated calls to the State Bar demanding copies
and inIormation. He is getting increasingly antagonistic and will not listen to our attempts
to reason with him. This morning he announced that he "would be there in 15 minutes" It
is our Iear that iI he shows up we won't be able to get rid oI him - we are not able to satisIy
his demands and that just seems to aggravate the situation. He has shown up aIter hours
presumably to Iile documents; eventually he has used the mail slot Ior the documents but
has sat in his car in Iront oI the oIIice Ilashing his lights to get attention. Employees have
been aIraid to leave and, on a couple oI occasions, the police have been called - we don't
know iI they have shown up because once he leaves, we leave. On one particular occasion,
a Iemale employee was in the oIIice alone. Mr. Coughlin knocked on her window and
gestured to the Iront door so he could gain access to the building. Eventually the employee
12/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
was able to get him to leave and the police were called but did not arrive beIore Mr.
Coughlin leIt the premises.
This past Monday Assistant Bar Counsel Pat King did dispatch the police
because Mr. Coughlin again announced that he was coming to the oIIice - two oIIicers did
show up and one was dispatched to the Panel Chair's oIIice (9432 Double R Blvd.)
because Coughlin has also threatened and intimidated John Echeverria's oIIice staII. When
Coughlin called the Echeverria law Iirm that particular day he stated that he needed some
"Iace time" with John. Mr. King has received numerous e-mails detailing what Mr.
Coughlin perceives to be a miscarriage oI justice in his discipline matter and has indicated
that he will "expose him as a liar and a Iraud".
In a letter dated November 7, 2012, prior to the discipline hearing, the OIIice oI
Bar Counsel sent Mr. Coughlin a letter asking that he reIrain Irom coming to the State Bar
oIIices without calling beIorehand. On November 17, 2012, aIter the discipline hearing,
the Panel Chair issued an Order instructing Mr. Coughlin to reIrain Irom contacting any
member oI the Panel, the Court Reporter (whom Mr. Coughlin had contacted by phone at
her residence), any oI the Panel Chair's oIIice staII, or either oIIice oI the State Bar oI
Nevada.
On one occasion, an e-mail was sent to several recipients, including Iour (4)
employees oI the State Bar, which included a link to a violent scene Irom the movie "Cape
Fear" . The State Bar Ieels that this is a direct suggestive threat to oIIice staII and Bar
personnel. ThereIore, the State Bar requests that a Protective Order be and that Mr.
Coughlin be prohibited Irom the Bar's Reno and/or Las Vegas OIIice by telephone, by e-
mail or by Iax. Because he is currently temporarily suspended Irom the practice oI law
and his disciplinary hearing has concluded Mr. Coughlin has no business on State Bar
Double R Blvd or 600 E. Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas, NV)., oI Exhibit 1 disciplinary
matter will soon submitted to the Nevada Supreme Court Ior a de novo review at which
time he will receive a complete set oI all oI the pleadings, both Iiled and unIiled,, in this
matter.
It should be noted that the State Bar and its Reno staII Iind it very diIIicult to
work under these conditions. Mr. Coughlin continues to monopolize our time and
resources and is causing an unnecessary amount oI stress."
The email oI Coughlin's copied above goes on Ior several more pages detailign the
prejudice to his deIense in 12-065630 inherent to WCPD Leslie reIusing to turn over the
8/13/12 and 8/17/12 production oI two discs oI ECOMM 911 calls by the WCDA to
Coughlin. Where Leslie attests that he had turned over a collection oI materials on
7/27/12, he necessarily admits to having Iailed to turned over the discs only propounded
aIter that point. Further Leslie subpoened recordings Irom ECOMM on 10/3/12 in 11-
13/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
063341 but never turned them over to Couglhin, despite only being removed as counsel oI
record well over 15 days thereaIter, on 10/22/12.
It's not at all clear how a request and subsequent Order apparently prohibiting
Coughlin Irom calling, emailing or Iaxing the SBN would address the alleged threat oI
physical harm. One cannot be physically harmed by a Iax, email, or phone call. Further,
phone calls, Iaxes, and emails are common in pending litigations, even one's where post-
judgment motions are being sought and where Coughlin has a duty to seek a stipulated
continuance oI, say, the deadline to Iile an appeal brieI in 62337 prior to Iiling a motion
seeking one. The EPO apparently would perhaps even Iorbid Coughlin Irom utilizing a
messenger service to deliver a Iiling to the SBN's Clerk oI Court's OIIice Ior the securing
oI a Iile stamp to beat a deadline, such as the 1/3/13, or 1/4/13 (depending upon whether
holidays are included in the 3 days Ior mailing calculus under NRCP 6(e) and the Deboer
decision), Ior Coughlin to Iile a NRCP 52 or 59 Motion as to the 12/14/12 NNDB Panel
Findings oI Fact, Conclusions oI Law, which recommends that Coughlin be irrevocably
disbarred (disbarments became irrevocable in 2008). To curtail the time Coughlin had to
prepare such a motion, which was scant to begin with, by applying an onerous EPO
application, or the threat oI arrest Ior anything arguably violative oI it, would work and
injustice, and has here, as Coughlin was arrested and charged with a Ielony EPO violation
Ior some alleged violation in connection with his seeking Irom the SBN a stipulation to an
extension oI time to Iile his appeal brieI in 62337 on or around the deadlien to do so oI
1/23/13. The SBN has Iailed to respond to Coughlin's reasonable inquiries in that regard,
as has the WCDA DDA Young (rather, Coughlin is Iunneled to an Inspector Covington,
whom is arguably committing the unauthorized practice oI law, and such circumstances
14/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
only Iurther underscore the extent to which the WCDA OIIice should be disqualiIied Iorm
prosecuting Coughlin, particularly where DDA Kandaras' above email admits to Ieeling
Coughlin's competency is brought into question, the events involving two Iormer WCDA
Criminal Division prosecutor's turned RJC Judges on 2/13/13 in (an Order Ior
Competency Evaluation signed and entered by Judge Pearson at an 8:30 am hearing in 11-
063341 was provided, in writing, to Judge CliIton in 12-065630, with 'shall language,
and DDA Young's willingness to go along with Judge CliIton in reIusing to Iollow NRS
178.405's mandatory stay is arguably impermissible. To have RJC BailliII's then Order
Coughlin to remain at the RJC, then go into a hearing brought on an Emergency Basis
upon DDA Young making an Ex Parte Request Ior Judge CliIton to resconsider his Order
Ior Competency Evaluation
Add to that the eIIorts oI the WCPD's Leslie in working with SBN King in a
Memorandum Iound in the Iile Leslie provided to Lindsay, Esq., upon the WCPD and
APD being conIlicted out oI representing Coughlin (and Leslie clearly violates his duty oI
conIidentiality to Coughlin under RPC 1.16 in the Iollowing and beyond):
'Memorandum
To: Zach Coughlin Iile, RCR12-067980, PD number 144825
From: 1im Leslie Chief Deputy Public Defender Re: Threat
Date: 12/13/12
On the above date, I received a return call Irom Patrick King
and David Clark at the State Bar. They were responding to my
email to King yesterday regarding possible threat by Coughlin as
contained in an email Coughlin had sent to me, other attorneys in
this oIIice, and several other recipients. Copy oI that email is
attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and copy oI the website that the
end oI the Iirst paragraph oI the email leads to is attached hereto
as Exhibit "2".
King and Clark both agreed that the email Irom Coughlin, in
context and with the reIerence to the website with the video clip
15/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and other materials Irom "Cape Fear", constitutes a threat oI
violence against me and other attorneys in our oIIice. They
disclosed that they had had their own problems with Coughlin,
including having to have armed security at his State Bar hearing
and that they each had considered obtaining restraining orders
against him and probably will do so upon completion oI the Bar
proceeding. They both stated that "heightened alert" is
appropriate in light oI the email he sent and generally when
dealing with Mr. Coughlin.
They told me that iI I reIer the email in question to law
enIorcement they would not consider it a breach oI attorney client
conIidentiality under Rule 1.6(c) and also because Mr. Coughlin
includes so many recipients in the email that he has waived
conIidentiality. J indicated I was intended to ask to be relieved oI
the remaining case our oIIice has with Coughlin, and they agreed
I could and should do so. I am moving Iorward with asking to be
relieved Irom Coughlin's case in RCR12-067980 and am also
considering possible reIerral oI the email to law enIorcement.
END
Even iI one accepts Leslie's waiver oI conIidentiality argument where he writes :
They told me that iI I reIer the email in question to law enIorcement they would not
consider it a breach of attorney client confidentiality under Rule 1.6(c) and also
because Mr. Coughlin includes so many recipients in the email that he has waived
conIidentiality, that still does not excuse the extent to which Leslie then reIers to matters
outside such email in violating his duty oI conIidentiality. Further, again, Leslie, like the
SBN's King, and like RMC Judge Nash Holmes, relies heavily upon unsworn, oIten
unattributed hearsay.
However, the TPO/EPOs may be void given the purported service oI the TPO and
Notice oI the EPO Hearing appears to violate Courthouse sanctuary doctrine, on top
oI the dictate against serving attorney's process while they access the courts.
Additionally, neither WC nor SBN put up the bond statutorily required
for a workplace TPO, and exhibits on their face demonstrate that the link in the
email Coughlin alleged to have sent on or about 12/12/12 was to a hark.com
audio clip only not a movie. NRCP 56(g), bad faith affidavits, untenable,
16/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
particulary where WCPD 1im Leslies admits to failing to provide coughlin 911
audio Iiles on two dics propounded by the WCDA on 8/13 and 8/17/12. Further,
audio clip speaks to learning, reading, and philosophy, which would not seem to
support a Iinding oI the sort oI conduct required to support such an Order.
Additionally, Iree speach and access to SBN Iiling oIIice procedures, including those
under SCR 105(4), including those expressed by the SBN and its Clerk oI Court and
Iax Iiling (some authority equates email with Iax as well) may present claim oI right
deIense to any alleged EPO violation.
As Such, the diIIiculties associated with being arrested on 2/8/13 and charged with a
Ielony and gross misdemeanor incident to alleged EPO and TPO violations occuring
on day oI deadlines to Iile NRCP 52 and or 59 motions as to 12/14/12 NNDB Panel
Findings and Motion Ior Extension Io Time Ior Appeal BrieI in 62337, have made it
inordinately diIIicult to prepare Ior 2/25/13 Show Cause Hearing. Additionally, it
may have been improper to apply rigid and Iormulaic In Re Erickson application oI
procedural rules to pro se deIendant in various RJC matters, where DDA Young has
obtained several Emergency Ex Parte Orders and or Motions Settings (11/27/12 no
Iaxing in 065630...the approach to the Order For Competency Evaluation in 063341 as
it relates to the Stay required on 2/12/13 in 065630 ('shall...NRS 178.405). May be
impermissible Ior RJC BailiIIs and or Judge CliIton to required Coughlin, essentially
to waive any notice or service requirement Ior improptu reconsideration Hearing
presided over by ChieI Judge Pearson setting aside the Order For Competency Eval
made just an hour previous, and such may have been the result oI extrajudicial
communications which may not be a permissible basis Ior such action (adjudicatory
boundaries limited to what parties appropriately put Iorth to the Court...Ex parte
communications by DDA Young at RJC Counter and or anythign communicated to
Judge Pearson on 2/12/13 may not be appropriate basis Ior setting aside Order Ior
Competency Evaluation). Lastly, DAS OIIicer Celeste Brown email to Coughlin oI
1/24/13 indicates the 'video showed Coughlin presented to the security Check in
arguably a timely manner on 1/23/13 suIIicient to rebut a Iinding oI a violation, or at
least demonstrate a good Iaith attempt to comply. Further, arrest report/booking sheet
Ior 2/2/13 arrest by DAS indicates time oI arrest 7:02 pm, which may violate NRS
171.136 dicate against misdemeanor arrest between 7pm and 7am without a warrant.
Coughlin ordered to exit his residence aIter 7pm by DAS OIIicer.
Further, as to WCPD Jim Leslies's TPO application it is telling he mistates the
12/12/12 email as continaing a link to a violent video clip when in Iact the link is to
nothing more than an audio clip that relates to learning, reading, and philosophy (the
17/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
verbatim transcript oI the entirety oI the audio only clip linked to in the 12/12/12
email is as Iollows:
'I ain't no white trash piece oI shit. I'm better than you all. I can out learn
you. I can out read you. I can outthink you, and I can out philosophize
you. And I'm going to outlast you. You think a couple oI whacks to my
good old boy gut's gonna get me down? It's going to take a hell oI a lot
more than that, Counselor, to prove you're better than me! (Max looks
around in an attempt to Iind where Sam is hiding)
The link to this in the 12/12/12 email does not contain a single violent
statement or image. II the link had been to a clip oI Max Cady's 'Your going to learn
about loss... speach, Iine, that may amount to an implied threat. But it wasn't. It
was to a short audio clip oI Cady making the above statement. Leslie is adding his
own remembrances oI 'Cape Fear where he alleges that such quotations occurs aIter
Cady has beaten two men. Actually, iI one went and view that whole scene Irom the
movie, it shows Cady being attacked by about six men that his public deIender, played
by Nick Nolte, had hired to go and attack and beat Cady with 'baseball bats and
bicycle chains. Cady Iought them oII, then delivered a speach to a trash dumpster
that he Iigured his Iormer 'counselor Nolte was hiding behind when he heard a
rustling emanate Irom behind it Iollowing his successIully warding oII the attack by
the six hired thugs. Leslie demonstrates a complete lack oI candor to the tribunal in
his application (as does WCDA DDA Watts-Vial, whose 11/13/12 last minuted Iaxed
objections to Coughlin's SCR 110 Subpoenas upon 2JDC Judges Flanagan and Elliot,
Clerk oI Court Hastings and the 2JDC Custodian oI Records, where Watts-Vial admits
to extended discussions with the very Bar Counsel whom conIirmed to Coughlin that
he, as a respondent suspended attorney appearing pro se in his Iormal disciplinary
matter, may, in Iact, issue his own subpoenas (and, given NNDB Susich's 7/27/12
email to Coughlin, Coughlin was entitled to rely upon such express indications by Bar
Counsel King, provided as a message conIirming such King was relaying to Coughlin
upon conIirming such with his supervisor, ChieI Bar Counsel David Clark. nstead,
leslie chooses to Iocus on a tertiary aspect oI some description oI the Iilm incident to a
link to buy the Iilm where he writes (NOTE: ONE RATHER IMPORTANT THING
LESLIE GETS WRONG IS THE DATE SENT FOR THE EMAIL LESLIE
ALLEGES COUGHLIN SENT HIM WITH A LINK TO THE AUDIO ONLY CLIP
OF A SPEECH FROM THE MOVIE 'CAPE FEAR THE DATING ON THAT
EMAIL, AS EVINCED BY THE ATTACHMENT'S TO DDA WATTS-VIAL AND
LESLIE TPO APPLICATION, INDICATES THAT EMAIL WAS SENT ON
18/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12/13/12, RATHER THAN, AS LESLIE INDICATES BELOW, ON 12/12/12) Also,
a lot oI Leslie's allegation (most oI them are actually inaccurate anyways, but..) need
to be taken in the context or with the knowledge that Coughlin grew up in Reno,
attending Swope and Reno High with both oI his WCPD on these cases (Joe
Goodnight in 11-063341 was a classmate Ior 6 years and part oI similar circles oI
Iriends as Coughlin throughout those years) and Biray Dogan in 12-065630 (Dogan
and Coughlin went through school together Irom 7
th
through 12
th
grade, both
graduating with the Reno High School class oI 1995) and Coughlin and those two
have much more oI an easy ready Iaimilarity with each other and their respectivie
senses oI humor. Then, all the sudden, Jim Leslie, Esq., who moved to Washoe
County in the early nineties Irom Missouri, barges in and takes over all the cases in a
belligerent arrogant manner, and ultimately winds up getting a TPO against Coughlin
and encourageing the SBN to do so as well, which now has Coughlin Iacing Ielony
charges, disbarment, etc., etc.. Further Coughlin coached Judge HascheII's son in
Basketball when he was a 9
th
grader at Reno HS in 2008, went to school sandwiched
between the graduating class containing both oI WLS's Paul Elcano's sons (PM in
1994 and John in 1996) and Judge Albright's children (Erin in '94 and Ross in '96).
The point being that Couglin has lived in this commuity Ior a long time and has an
established track record oI being non-violent (as is oIten the case with individuals oI
Coughlin's size (6 Ioot 4, 250 pounds) Coughlin has been socialized to be docile and
gentile to whatever extent he was not already. Leslie and the SBN (again, via Pat
King, someone whom did not grow up here, has little history her, moved here Irom
San Diego in the mid 90's) would have the RJC view Coughlin as some unknown
violent driIter type not to be trusted, but rather Ieared, with little to no track record oI
civilized behavior, which is hardly the case. Coughlin was twice a team captain Ior
the Reno High School basektball team in the mid 1990's, a National Merit Finalist in
1995, has volunteered Ior local non-proIits like Very Special Arts Nevada, and has
been a participating member oI the SBN's Lawyers Concerned Ior Lawyers since
2003, and Iormerly worked Ior legal aid provider Washoe Legal Services as a
domestic violence attorney, and beIore that local law Iirm Hale Lane. He went to
Swope, Reno High, then UNR, then UNLV's Boyd School oI Law with WCDA DDA
Chris Hicks and Jen Christie, and worked at Hale Lane with DDA Patricia Halstead.
Any alleged linking to a short audio clip Irom a mainstream movie like 'Cape Fear,
especially where the clip speaks only to learning, and does not contain any oI the
violent imagery or other contextual reIerences that Leslie cites to (Leslie's TPO
application Statement in Exhibit assumes a great deal oI inIormation and context
about the audio clip in question that one would only be aware oI Irom watching the
entire move, and in no way would be aware oI Irom simply listening to a paragraph
19/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
worht oI an audio clip such as that allegedly linked to, Iound at a mainstream website
like www.Hark.com...and Leslie Iails to actually get into what the audio clip actually
says, rather, he Iocuses on matters in no way depicted in the audio clip (allegations
that the Iormer client just beat several men, that he utilized a weapon or blunt
instrument to do so, that he had theirs and his blood on his (therre is a still image
depicted in the clip, but Coughlin has an add-on in his browser that blocks such
image, so even iI it is proven that Couglin sent such an email, he would not have been
aware oI the still image depicted upon clickin on such link, and regardless, that image
is oI a mainstream actor, Robert Deniro, and it is not clear what he is holding or what
he has been doing or why, or whether or not it is in Iact blood on his shirt...Iurther in
that still image, Deniro has his hand in a placid, resting position as though balancing
his weight on a golI putter or something, hardly a menacing stance. The audio clip is
28 seconds long. Regardless, to whatever exten Leslie, the WCPD, King or the SBN
Ielt threatened or actually IearIul (which is highly unlikely given all their associated
bluster and purposeIul aggravation and taunting oI Coughlin Ior a sustained period oI
time and groupthink, belligerent, pack-like, institutionalized bullying behavior in
some, but not all, instances (David Clark menacingly commented to Coughlin about
being 'sad that he didn't get a chance to prosecute that one attorney beIore the
schmuck committed suicied...Pat King Iaux expressing sadness in an ultra
condescending tone when mentioning the high likelihood oI Coughlin being disbarred,
Jim Leslie's histrionics and 'Scrappy-Do-like behavior (Scrappy-Do ('Jim Leslie is a
Scrappy Dude reIerence sounds like something a taller person might make up on the
spot in an attempt to obIuscate a reIerence that might come across as hurtIul to a
shorter person whom had Iinally aggravated the taller person enough to make an
arguably hurtIul comment based upon one's short statute. Couglin has been tall most
all oI his liIe. Its not all its cracked up to be...however, Coughlin has Ielt empathy
towards shorter men, has always attempted to and managed to make personal
invective based upon other's physical appearances, etc., and iI Coughlin did make a
reIerence to Jim Leslie being like the character Scrappy-Do Irom the children's
cartoon series 'Scooby-Do it was only aIter being aggravated endlessly by a mean
spirited, at times, but not always, Jim Leslie, whom is likely stressed out at times Irom
handling a large case-load, and having people's Ireedom in his hands day aIter day
(somethign Ior which Coughlin had a great deal oI respect Ior the Iact that such is the
case incident to Leslie's job and position...For background, the cartoon character
Scrappy-Do is a diminutive canine Iriend oI Scooby-Do whom oItens picks Iights
with much large opponents, only to then have his large Iriends, like Shaggy and
Scooby come in and either do the Iighting Ior him, or, more typically, dispell the
situation created by Scrappy-Do's antagonizing bluster...Iairly similar to what
20/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
occurred on October 9
th
, 2011 when RJC BailiII Reyes was called in (as Leslie has
done with RJC BailiII's time and again) to crack down on or intimidate Coughlin or
other Leslie client's whom have Iinally started to broach at Leslie's treatement oI them
and reIusal to advocate on their behalI. And while Leslie alleges Coughlin to have
seemingly mostly complaints against other 'attorney's in our oIIice, by Iar,
Coughlin's Irustration has related to Leslie the overwhelming majority oI the time,
though at times Coughlin and Leslie have had a rapport and Coughlin wishes Leslie
no ill will, hopes to look back at all this as Iriends someday, etc..)..:
'
'Exhibit 1 to Application for Temporary Order for Protection
Against Harassment in the Workplace
Zachary Coughlin is a client oI the Washoe County Public
DeIender, and I have been assigned to one or more oI his criminal
cases, It is anticipated that by Tuesday, December 18, 2012, our
oIIice will be relieved as counsel on Mr, Coughlin's single
remaining case with this oIIice. Mr. Coughlin is an attorney on
suspended status with the Nevada State Bar arising from a
conviction for misdemeanor shoplifting which has been
publicized in the press. Mr. Coughlin represented himself in that
criminal proceeding.
On December 12, 2012, I received an email Irom Zachary
Coughlin, a copy oI which is attached hereto as Exhibit" IA" . The
email pertains to a misdemeanor petit larceny case oI Mr.
Coughlin's involving theIt or unlawIul retention oI an iPhone, on
which I and other attorneys in our oIIice previously represented
him, During the course oI the bench trial, our oIIice was relieved
as counsel upon Mr. Coughlin's request to represent himselI.
Throughout the email. Mr. Coughlin makes various derogatory
complaints about and reIerences to me and other attorneys in our
oIIice.
At the end oI the Iirst paragraph oI the email. Mr. Coughlin
complains that his various attorneys and others in the local
criminal justice system have ruined his liIe and he writes 'I
remember when my liIe Ieatured happy moments like the birth oI
twins . , . but that was beIore your leviathan legal system wrecked
shop on my existence. What, sir, shall be my compensation ?" The
email then reIerences the website hLLp.//Linyurl.com/bgmlldr
When that address is cut and pasted into a web browser, it directs
the reader to a website containing a video segment Irom the
21/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
movie "Cape Fear", which the website summarizes as a film that
"tells the story of a convicted rapist who seeks vengeance
against a former public defender whom he blames for his 14-
year imprisonment .... " In the movie, the client, played by
Robert Di Nero, carries out that vengeance by stalking and
trying to kill his former public defender, played by Nick Nolte.
A copy of the print out of the website is attached hereto as
Exhibit IB", The video segment on the website is a scene in
the movie where the client of the public defender has just
beaten two men. The client is wearing a shirt bloodied with his
blood and the blood of the men he just beat, and he is holding
a bluntinstrumcnt weapon or a chain in his hand. He vows to
continue his harassment of his former public defender, who is
hiding nearby behind a garbage dumpster.
The email Irom Mr. Coughlin is addressed to several attorneys
in the oIIice oI the Washoe County Public DeIender, including
attorneys Jim Leslie, Jeremy Bosler, Biray Dogan, Joseph
Goodnight, and Chris Fortier. Mr, Coughlin has previously and
repeatedly expressed signiIicant dissatisIaction with his various
attorneys in our oIIice and has almost continuosly, as he does
throughout the email attachted hereto, blamed them Ior his current
legal problems, his recent criminal convictions, and his suspension
Irom active attorney licensure with the Nevada State Bar. The
email is also addressed to several other persons outside our
office, including but not limited to Steve Tuttle oI the Reno Justice
Court, John Kadlic, and Daniel Wong oI the Reno City Attorney's
OIIice, Mary Kandaras oI the Washoe County District Attorney's
OIIice-Divil Division, and David Clark and Patrick King oI the
OIIice oI Bar Counsel oI the Nevada State Bar.
Based on Mr. Coughlin having included the various
recipients to the email who are not his attomeys, Mr. Coughlin has
waived attomey-c1ient conIidentiality. Additionally, based upon
the nature of the references made in the Iirst paragraph oI the
email to Mr. Coughlin's legal problems and reference to the
"Cape Fear" regarding violence and harassment aga inst former
puhlic defender, Mr, Coughlin has waived attorney-client
confidentiality as per Nevada Rule oI ProIessional Conduct 1.6(c).
Later the same day as the emailn December 12, 2012. Mr.
Coughlin showed up at the oIIices oI the Washoe County Public
DeIender without an appointment, I and an investigator went to the
lobby to see him, since we had decided based on previous encounters
with Mr. Coughlin that it is best not to meet with him alone, With
22/70
1
2
3
4
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 investigator present in the lobby, I asked Mr. Coughlin what he
needed. He said he wanted his discovery documents. Since we
have had prior incidents where Mr. Coughlin received
documents from us and later claimed we did not provide them,
I asked him to email me with his request and that I would
respond to the email. During our discussion I inIormed him that I
would be asking that our oIlicc be relieved Irom his pending
misdemeanor Obstructing and Resisting criminal case. He became
agitated and upset and I asked him to leave and to schedule an
appointment if he thought he needed one and to send me his
email request. He reIused to leave, stating he was writing a note. I
asked what the note was and he became loud and verbally
aggressive and said "None oI your goddamncd business..." His
demeanor was visibly belligerent I asked him again several times
to leave and he rose to his Ieet (he is approximately 6'3" and I am
5'4") and went on a verbal rant against me. I continued to tell him
to leave while I turned to the front desk staff and asked them to
call the police, He tried handing me the note, and in response I
held out my hand to receive it from him, but then he pulled the
note back from me several times in a taunting manner while
smiling. As we waited Ior the elevator, he kept saying he was
"chipping" at me. As he leIt in the elevator, he kept saying "chip,
chip, chip .... , in a taunting manner.
I asked my investigator to summarize the encounter in
writing. A copy oI that written summary is hereto attached as
Exhibit "|-C".
Given Mr. Coughlin's demeanor and behavior, and given the
"Cape Fear" reIerence in the email earlier that day, I Ielt it
appropriate to call the police as result oI Mr. Coughlin's reIusal to
leave, aggressive and hostile demeanor and statements, and the
concern that he might get physically violent. He left the building
before the police arrived.
As a result of the email and the encounter with Mr.
Coughlin in our lobby we have notiIied him via email that he is not
to come to our oIIices without prior conIirmation oI an
appointment with his assigned attorney. See Exhibit" I-D" attached
hereto. We also advised the Iront desk Ior the building, located on
the Iirst Iloor, oI that limitation on his access to our oIIice. See
Exhibit "1-E" attached hereto.
Based on what appears to be Mr. Coughlin's escalating
animosity toward out oIIice and staII as reIlected in the email
23/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
reIerence to "Cape Fear", Mr. Coughlin's expressions in the email
of hostility toward several of the attorneys in our office and his
apparently bleaming oI them Ior his legal problems and criminal
convictions, and his demonstrated aggressiveness toward our
staff, we are applying Ior the restraining order to which this
Exhibit "1" is attached.
Noticeably, WCPD Leslie's own Investigator, Evo Novak's statement that
DDA Watts-Vial attached to the very same TPO Application in 12-599 itselI
contradicts Leslie's accounts (and Leslie contradicts himselI and reveals his own
proIessional misconduct upon a review oI the emails between Coughlin's then
WCPD Leslie and WCDA DDA Kandaras oI 12/12/12 and 12/13/12...and upon a
thorough review oI those emails and Coughlin's 'sent messages Iolder it is
revealed that Couglin did not send Leslie any email on 12/12/12 (which makes it
apparent that the 12/12/12 email Coughlin sent to the SBN and others was
Iorwarded to Leslie by one oI it's recipients, at which point Leslie Iorwarded the
same to WCDA DDA Kandaras, makingly particularly suspect the dubious
mistatements oI the dates involved in Leslie's Ex.1 statement attached to the
Workplace Harrassment TPO Iiled on Leslie's behalI by DDA Watts-Vial (he oI
the dubious 11/13/12 Iaxed objections to Coughlin's SCR 110 subpoenas in this
matter) and reveals the extent to which Leslie engages in violations oI RPC 3.1,
3.3, 1.6, and, possibly, 3.4, NRS 178.405, and RPC 1.14. Novak wrote:
'Leslie, Jim From: Sent: To: Subject: Novak, Eva Wednesday,
December 12, 2012 4:51 PM leslie, Jim Coughlin oIIice visit
121212 11:58:11 am, 12-21-2012 23/32 Knowing Mr
Coughlin's volatile past behavior I was asked to accompany Jim
leslie to the lobby to assist Coughlin, He was seated in a chair
writing a note, Jim leslie asked Coughlin what he needed,
Coughlin mentioned he needed some discovery from a case .
Jim Leslie advised him make any communications by way oI
email, he would handle that way, Coughlin asked if I was
present as witness, Jim Leslie confirmed that, Jim stated that
he was going to ask to be relieved Irom the current Coughlin
case, Coughlin's demeanor became belligerent. 1im Leslie asked
Coughlin to leave the office, Coughlin refused claiming he
was writing a note, 1im Leslie asked what the note was.
Coughlin said " it's none of your goddamn business and
walked past 1im and left the note at the reception desk,
Coughlin was advised several times by 1im Leslie to leave the
office. 1im Leslie advised him that the police were going to be
called. At that point the elevator arrived, Prior to the elevator
door closing he continued his rant toward Jim Leslie until the
door closed, Evo Novak
24/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Additionally, WCPD and WCDA DDA-Civil Division DDA
Mary Kandaras may have violated NRS 178.405, Coughlin's
rights incident to Leslie's representation in RJC RCR2012-
067980, and 11-063341, 12-065630 in light oI RPC 1.16(c) in,
but not limited to, the Iollowing (an in consideration oI WCDA
DDA Watts-Vial's and Leslie's subsequent TPO Application in
RJC RCP2012-000699, both appear to have violated RPC 1.1,
1.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2, 3.4, 3.4, 3.5A, 3.7, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 8.1,
8.3, and 8.4 (especially considering Leslie's continuing to
maintain that he 'knows that his oIIice sent Coughlin written
notice oI the 8/6/12 combination hearing in 12-067980 and 12-
065630 when his legal assistant, Linda Gray, admitted to
Coughlin on 8/8/12 that she Iailed to mail out the written notice
to Coughlin in light oI her belieI that Coughlin's then 'PO Box
3961, Reno, NV 89505 mailing address was 'no longer good
(where Gray was presumably unaware that Coughlin bailed out
oI jail on 7/21/12, upon the ridiculous Order Iollowing the
unnoticed 7/5/12 bail increase hearing incident to the Iraudulent
testimony by RPD OIIicers Weaver and or Dye, and the
'advocacy by RMC court appointed counsel Keith Loomis
(which was anything but) resulting in RMC Judge W. Gardner
raising Coughlin's then bondable $1,415 bail to a cash only
$3,000 (based upon three charges that were completely phoney,
drummed up, and spurious to begin with.
TITLE 14PROCEDURE IN
CRIMINAL CASES; Chapter 178
General Provisions:
~INQUIRY INTO COMPETENCE
OF DEFENDANT AND
PROCEDURE FOLLOWING
FINDING OF INCOMPETENCE...
NRS178.405Suspension of
trial or pronouncement of judgment
when doubt arises as to competence of
defendant; notice of suspension to be
provided to other departments.
1.Any time aIter the arrest oI a
deIendant, including, without
limitation, proceedings beIore trial,
during trial, when upon conviction the
deIendant is brought up Ior judgment or
25/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
when a defendant who has been placed
on probation or whose sentence has
been suspended is brought before the
court, if doubt arises as to the
competence of the defendant, the court
shall suspend the proceedings, the trial
or the pronouncing of the judgment, as
the case may be, until the question of
competence is determined.
2.II the proceedings, the trial or the pronouncing oI the judgment are suspended,
the court must notify any other departments of the court of the suspension in
writing. Upon receiving such notice, the other departments oI the court shall suspend
any other proceedings relating to the defendant until the defendant is determined
to be competent.
From: Kandaras, Mary Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:20
AM To: Leslie, Jim Subject: RE: The Three E's; wcpd Iailure to
provide essential 911 call cd discovery oI 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to
Coughlin in rcr2012-065630 Importance:
High
Jim:
I believe that you should send this. Supreme Court Rule 104(a)
authorizes State bar counsel to investigate all matters involving
possible attorney misconduct or incapacity called to bar counsel's
attention, whether by grievance or both. This potentially involves
misconduct (violation of law) and incapacity .
Mary Kandaras Deputy District Attorney Civil Division Washoe
County
December 12, 2012 5:11 PM To: Kandaras, Mary Subject:
RE: The Three E's; wcpd Iailure to provide essential 911 call
cd discovery oI 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012
-065630
26/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Thanks, please do. He came to our oIIice aIter my email to
you and caused a disturbance. We called the police, but he
fled before they arrived. jim
-----Original Message----From: Kandaras, Mary Sent:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:17 PM To: Leslie, Jim
Subject: RE: The Three E's; wcpd Iailure to provide essential
rcr2012-065630
I will have to review this tomorrow and get back to you.
Mary Kandaras Deputy District Attorney Civil Division
Washoe County
-----Original Message----From: Leslie, Jim
The below email Irom Mr. Coughlin contains a reIerence
at the end oI the Iirst paragraph to a website containing a
video clip Irom the movie Cape Fear. Please advise whether
any action is requirea oI our oIIice or yours regarding this
possible veiled or indirect threat of violence against
attorneys in this oIIice by Mr. Coughlin.
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:59 PM To: Kandaras,
Mary Subject: FW: The Three E's; wcpd Iailure to provide
essential 911 call cd discovery oI 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to
Coughlin in rcr2012-065630
Mary:
Please review my transmittal to Patrick King at the bar,
below, and let me know iI I should do anything else Irom a
civil perspective.
Thanks,
-----Original Message----
From: Leslie, Jim Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:49
PM To: 'patrickknvbar.org' Subject: FW: The Three E's;
wcpd Iailure to provide essential 911 call cd discovery oI 8/13
and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012 -065630
Mr. King:
Thank you,
James B. Leslie, Esq. ChieI Deputy Public DeIender Washoe
County Public DeIender's OIIice
27/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-----Original Message----
From: Zach Coughlin |mailto:zachcoughlinhotmail.com|
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:35 PM To: Leslie,
Jim; Bosler, Jeremy; Dogan, Biray; Goodnight, Joseph W;
Fortier, Chris; Tuttle, Steve; Kandaras, Mary; Young, Zach;
skaucreno.gov; wongdreno.gov; kadlicjreno.gov;
complaintsnvbar.org; cvellisbhIs.com; jeeloreno.com;
patrickknvbar.org; davidcnvbar.org; rosecnvbar.org;
laurapnvbar.org; skentskentlaw.com;
miketahoelawyer.com; eiIert.ntaatt.net;
nevtelassnsbcglobal.net; IIlahertydlpId.com;
IIlahertydyerlawrence.com
Subject: The Three E's; wcpd Iailure to provide essential 911
call cd discovery oI 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in
rcr2012 -065630
The Trial yesterday in RCR2012-065630 Ieatured extended
discussions regarding the Iailure oI the WCPD, Dogan, and
Leslie, to turn over discovery propounded by DDA Young in
the Iorm oI cd's Ieaturing 911 calls DDA Young provided to
the WCPD on 8/13/12 and 8/17/12 ... And the heavy hitters
were there, too (Elliot Sattler) ..... despite numerous written
requests Irom Coughlin that the WCPD do so, and multiple
trips to the WCPD personally by Coughlin to pick such
materials up, and despite more Ilip Ilopping on their story by
Leslie and Dogan regarding whether they ever gave Coughlin
some package oI materials responsive to Coughlin's request
Ior his "Iile" ... But, Jim Leslie is stuck with the 7/27/12 date
he mentions in his email, then he is stuck with what his recent
email wherein he purports to have therein digitally transmitted
Coughlin his "Iile", which obviously does not include the cd's
oI 911 calls (the one's DDA Young took up an enormous
amount oI court time playing, over and over (well, Young
only played over and over the particular calls he Ielt were
strongest Ior his case and most prejudicial, claiming some
"cutting room Iloor mishap" Ior the reoccurrence oI certain
calls, arguing that such a "happy accident" justiIied playing
them again and again, at ever increasing volumes, etc., etc.).
Apparently, I am here to subsidize Young's baby making, just
like I was with Ms. Gorman, as a continuance oI prejudicial
length oI aIIorded to the State where none was Iorthcoming to
Coughlin, despite Leslie and Dogan's obstructionist tantrums,
ones oI a quality that would. I remember when my liIe
Ieatured happy moments like the birth oI twins ... but that was
beIore your leviathan legal system wrecked shop on my
28/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
existence. What, sir, shall be my compensation? Do you mind
iI I put my arm around .... http://tinyurl.com/bgmlIdr
This is a Iormal grievance against Dogan, Leslie, Bosler,
Young ... etc....
The link that Leslie reIers to as containing a 'video clip Irom
the movie Cape Fear actually contains only an auaio clip oI a short
quote Irom Cape Fear (the 1991 Scorsese version).
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF MATERIAL INCONSISTIENCIES AND
CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE EVEN JUST LESLIE AND EVO NOVAK'S
ACCOUNTS, MUST LESS LESLIES MISTATING THE DATE OF THE 'THREE
E'S EMAIL TO ADD EFFECT, INCLUDING LESLIE MISLEADING
STATEMENTS (SHOWN BY THE LACK THEREOF IN NOVAK'S ACCOUNTS)
OF WHETHER COUGHLIN ATTEMPTED TO HAND LESLIE THE NOTE
(COUGHLIN DID, THEN LESLIE PUT HIS HAND FAR OUT TO EACH SIDE AS
IF TO SAY HE WOULDN'T TAKE IT, AT WHICH POINT COUGHLIN,
DISTRUSTING LESLIE TO TAKE THE NOTE ANYWAYS, PLACED IT AT THE
RECEPTIONISTS TABLE IN FRONT OF HER WINDOW...NOVAKS FAILURE
TO COORBORATE LESLIE'S ALLEGATION THAT HE BEGAN
THREATENING TO CALL THE POLICE RIGHT AWAY, THE INABILITY OF
COUGHLIN TO LEAVE UNTIL THE ELEVATOR ARRIVED REGARDLESS,
AND THE FACT THAT COUGHLIN WAS SAYING 'SCRAP, SCRAP, SCRAP,
NOT 'CHIP, CHIP, CHIP LIKELY IN AN ATTEMPT TO DISGUISE ANY ILL-
ADVISED STATEMENT'S REFERENCING SCRAPPY-DO, WHERE COUGHLIN
MAY HAVE ALLEGEDLY ALSO SAID AT THAT TIME 'JIM, YOU ARE A
SCRAPPY DUDE
'Exhibit 1 to Application for Temporary Order for Protection
Against Harassment in the Workplace
...
On December 12, 2012, I received an email Irom Zachary
Coughlin, a copy oI which is attached hereto as Exhibit" IA" . The
email pertains to a misdemeanor petit larceny case oI Mr.
Coughlin's involving theIt or unlawIul retention oI an iPhone, on
which I and other attorneys in our oIIice previously represented
him, During the course oI the bench trial, our oIIice was relieved
as counsel upon Mr. Coughlin's request to represent himselI.
Throughout the email. Mr. Coughlin makes various derogatory
29/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
complaints about and reIerences to me and other attorneys in our
oIIice.
At the end oI the Iirst paragraph oI the email. Mr. Coughlin
complains that his various attorneys and others in the local
criminal justice system have ruined his liIe and he writes 'I
remember when my liIe Ieatured happy moments like the birth oI
twins . , . but that was beIore your leviathan legal system wrecked
shop on my existence. What, sir, shall be my compensation ?" The
email then reIerences the website hLLp.//Linyurl.com/bgmlldr
When that address is cut and pasted into a web browser, it directs
the reader to a website containing a video segment Irom the
movie "Cape Fear", which the website summarizes as a film that
"tells the story of a convicted rapist who seeks vengeance
against a former public defender whom he blames for his 14-
year imprisonment .... " In the movie, the client, played by
Robert Di Nero, carries out that vengeance by stalking and
trying to kill his former public defender, played by Nick Nolte.
A copy of the print out of the website is attached hereto as
Exhibit IB", The video segment on the website is a scene in
the movie where the client of the public defender has just
beaten two men. The client is wearing a shirt bloodied with his
blood and the blood of the men he just beat, and he is holding
a bluntinstrumcnt weapon or a chain in his hand. He vows to
continue his harassment of his former public defender, who is
hiding nearby behind a garbage dumpster.
The email Irom Mr. Coughlin is addressed to several attorneys
in the oIIice oI the Washoe County Public DeIender, including
attorneys Jim Leslie, Jeremy Bosler, Biray Dogan, Joseph
Goodnight, and Chris Fortier. Mr, Coughlin has previously and
repeatedly expressed signiIicant dissatisIaction with his various
attorneys in our oIIice and has almost continuosly, as he does
throughout the email attachted hereto, blamed them Ior his current
legal problems, his recent criminal convictions, and his suspension
Irom active attorney licensure with the Nevada State Bar. The
email is also addressed to several other persons outside our
office, including but not limited to Steve Tuttle oI the Reno Justice
Court, John Kadlic, and Daniel Wong oI the Reno City Attorney's
OIIice, Mary Kandaras oI the Washoe County District Attorney's
OIIice-Divil Division, and David Clark and Patrick King oI the
OIIice oI Bar Counsel oI the Nevada State Bar.
Based on Mr. Coughlin having included the various
recipients to the email who are not his attomeys, Mr. Coughlin has
30/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
waived attomey-c1ient conIidentiality. Additionally, based upon
the nature of the references made in the Iirst paragraph oI the
email to Mr. Coughlin's legal problems and reference to the
"Cape Fear" regarding violence and harassment aga inst former
puhlic defender, Mr, Coughlin has waived attorney-client
confidentiality as per Nevada Rule oI ProIessional Conduct 1.6(c).
Later the same day as the emailn December 12, 2012. Mr.
Coughlin showed up at the oIIices oI the Washoe County Public
DeIender without an appointment, I and an investigator went to the
lobby to see him, since we had decided based on previous encounters
with Mr. Coughlin that it is best not to meet with him alone, With
the investigator present in the lobby, I asked Mr. Coughlin what he
needed. He said he wanted his discovery documents. Since we
have had prior incidents where Mr. Coughlin received
documents from us and later claimed we did not provide them,
I asked him to email me with his request and that I would
respond to the email. During our discussion I inIormed him that I
would be asking that our oIlicc be relieved Irom his pending
misdemeanor Obstructing and Resisting criminal case. He became
agitated and upset and I asked him to leave and to schedule an
appointment if he thought he needed one and to send me his
email request. He reIused to leave, stating he was writing a note. I
asked what the note was and he became loud and verbally
aggressive and said "None oI your goddamncd business..." His
demeanor was visibly belligerent I asked him again several times
to leave and he rose to his Ieet (he is approximately 6'3" and I am
5'4") and went on a verbal rant against me. I continued to tell him
to leave while I turned to the front desk staff and asked them to
call the police, He tried handing me the note, and in response I
held out my hand to receive it from him, but then he pulled the
note back from me several times in a taunting manner while
smiling. As we waited Ior the elevator, he kept saying he was
"chipping" at me. As he leIt in the elevator, he kept saying "chip,
chip, chip .... , in a taunting manner.
I asked my investigator to summarize the encounter in
writing. A copy oI that written summary is hereto attached as
Exhibit "|-C".
Given Mr. Coughlin's demeanor and behavior, and given the
"Cape Fear" reIerence in the email earlier that day, I Ielt it
appropriate to call the police as result oI Mr. Coughlin's reIusal to
leave, aggressive and hostile demeanor and statements, and the
31/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
concern that he might get physically violent. He left the building
before the police arrived.
As a result of the email and the encounter with Mr.
Coughlin in our lobby we have notiIied him via email that he is not
to come to our oIIices without prior conIirmation oI an
appointment with his assigned attorney. See Exhibit" I-D" attached
hereto. We also advised the Iront desk Ior the building, located on
the Iirst Iloor, oI that limitation on his access to our oIIice. See
Exhibit "1-E" attached hereto.
Based on what appears to be Mr. Coughlin's escalating
animosity toward out oIIice and staII as reIlected in the email
reIerence to "Cape Fear", Mr. Coughlin's expressions in the email
of hostility toward several of the attorneys in our office and his
apparently bleaming oI them Ior his legal problems and criminal
convictions, and his demonstrated aggressiveness toward our
staff, we are applying Ior the restraining order to which this
Exhibit "1" is attached.
Noticeably, WCPD Leslie's own Investigator, Evo Novak's statement that
DDA Watts-Vial attached to the very same TPO Application in 12-599 itselI
contradicts Leslie's accounts and reveals the extent to which Leslie engages in
violations oI RPC 3.1, 3.3, 1.6, and, possibly, 3.4, NRS 178.405, and RPC 1.14.
Novak wrote:
'Leslie, Jim From: Sent: To: Subject: Novak, Eva Wednesday,
December 12, 2012 4:51 PM leslie, Jim Coughlin oIIice visit
121212 11:58:11 am, 12-21-2012 23/32 Knowing Mr
Coughlin's volatile past behavior I was asked to accompany Jim
leslie to the lobby to assist Coughlin, He was seated in a chair
writing a note, Jim leslie asked Coughlin what he needed,
Coughlin mentioned he needed some discovery from a case .
Jim Leslie advised him make any communications by way oI
email, he would handle that way, Coughlin asked if I was
present as witness, Jim Leslie confirmed that, Jim stated that
he was going to ask to be relieved Irom the current Coughlin
case, Coughlin's demeanor became belligerent. 1im Leslie asked
Coughlin to leave the office, Coughlin refused claiming he
was writing a note, 1im Leslie asked what the note was.
Coughlin said " it's none of your goddamn business and
walked past 1im and left the note at the reception desk,
Coughlin was advised several times by 1im Leslie to leave the
office. 1im Leslie advised him that the police were going to be
called. At that point the elevator arrived, Prior to the elevator
32/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
door closing he continued his rant toward Jim Leslie until the
door closed, Evo Novak
Leslie's TPO Application in 12-599 seems to clearly be in
retaliation Ior Coughlin Iiling a grievance (SEE RICHARD G.
HILL, ESQ., 1/14/12 GRIEVANCE TO THE SBN AGAINST
COUGHLIN AND RMC JUDGE NASH HOLMES 3/14/12
GRIEVANCE TO THE SBN AGAINST COUGHLIN, WHICH
ATTACHED A 3 YEAR OLD SANCTION ORDER THAT
BECAME A GRIEVANCE BY HOLME'S FELLOW RMC
JUDGE W. GARDNER THAT HE RECIEVED FROM HIS
SISTER, 2JDC FAMILY COURT JUDGE L. GARDNER
WHEREIN SHE SANCTIONED COUGHLIN RESULTING IN
HIS FIRING FROM WLS IN 2009, AND 53833 AND 54844
AND 60303 AND 60317...) against Leslie with the SBN,
including the Iollowing:
'Iormal written grievance against Skau, Young, Leslie, Dogan,
etc. FW: 911 calls missing Irom what was produced by City
Attorney Skau? 12/04/12
To: ... zyoungda.washoecounty.us, complaintsnvbar.org,
patrickknvbar.org, davidcnvbar.org,
...bdoganwashoecounty.us, jlesliewashoecounty.us
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlinhotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 12/04/12 2:07 PM
Outlook Active View 12 attachments (total 16.1 MB) CR11-
2064-2676094 (Opposition to Motion to Dismiss CR11-2064-
2676094.pdI).pdIDownload 11 7 12 subpoenas 063341 gricela
alvarez and hassett prooI oI service or waivers.pdIDownload
CR11-2064 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Mtn Ior
Extension oI Time).pdIDownload CR11-2064-2655401 (Mtn to
Dismiss ...).pdIDownload CR11-2064-2676094 (Exhibit
2).pdIDownload Download all as zip
33/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dear OIIice oI Bar Counsel, This is a Iormal grievance against
City Attorney Skau, Public DeIender 1im Leslie and Biray
Dogan, and DDA Zach Young.
A portion oI a recent email Irom City Attorney Skau reads:
"Fwd: FW: Case No. RCR2011-063341? From: Creighton C.
Skau (skaucreno.gov) Sent: Fri 11/09/12 11:45 AM To:
zachcoughlinhotmail.com Cc: Jeannie Homer
(HomerJreno.gov) 1 attachment photo|1|.JPG (181.2 KB)
Dear Mr. Coughlin, Please be advised that 1udge Sferaza
authorized service upon you by email in an Order.
Accordingly, authorized service has already been effected...
Set Iorth below is the language oI Judge SIeraza's Order and the
language oI the City's Motion. ...
But, a listen to around the 9:25 am mark on the audio transcript Iorm the RJC Javs
recording oI the 11/8/12 hearing in rcr2011-063341 reveals Mr. Skau Iraudulently
procurred Couglin's attendance at the 11/13/12 Hearing (and considering 11/12/12
was a holiday, Skau would have been prevented Irom eIIecting contstructive service
prior to the 11/13/12 hearing date set...This prejudiced not only Coughlin's Iormal
disciplinary hearing but also the petty larceny trial oI 11/19 and 11/20 and is a straight
scum bag move by Creig Skau. Judge SIerrazza granted Coughlin a waiver oI witness
Iees Ior subpoenas and subpoena duces tecums at the 48 minute mark oI the second
wmv Iile Irom the JAVS audio transwcript oI the 10/22/12 Hearing in RCR2012-
063341. Regardless, City Attorney Skau not only doesn't know who Jeremy Bosler,
Esq. is, but he cites to a JCRCP 45 to challenge a subpoena in a criminal misdemeanor
case and he Iails to inIorm the court oI the waiver oI service signed by an individual
who indicated she had authority to do so, Gricela Alvarez (whom, somehow, Judge
SIerrazza was apparently aware oI and had opinions on....curiously). Speaking oI
scum bag moves, there's is 1im Leslie jumping in at the 9:06 am mark on the
11/20/12 javs recording 112012coughlin1 for rcr2011-063341 (really, everything
1im Leslie did in this case or any other in "representing" Coughlin is hall of fame
sleazy) "I can jump in as stand by counsel if you feels he is dragging his feet,
your honor...He's wasting county assets."...Really, 1im, this is a grievance against
you for seeking to coerce a waiver of Coughlin's fifth amendment rights incident
to your refusal to utilize any of the exculpatory media Coughlin provided you at
either the Supression Hearing or the Trial..
'
34/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AO12-01 goes on: 'WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN is currently
a party in cases beIore this court; and
WHEREAS, citizens, whether or not indigent, have a constitutional right to
access to the courts with the protection of due process of law; and
WHEREAS, Irivolous or vexatious claims and deIenses overburden limited
judicial resources, hinder the timely resolution oI meritorious claims and increase the costs
oI engaging in business and providing proIessional services to the public; and
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has repeatedly caused a
disturbance in
the filing office of the Reno 1ustice Court, disrupted the orderly business of the Court
and
overburdened the limited judicial resources oI this Court thereby hindering the timely
resolution oI meritorious claims and increasing the costs oI engaging in business and
providing proIessional services to the public; and
WHEREAS, "a breach oI the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance in
the
presence oI the court, or in its immediate vicinity, tending to interrupt the due course oI
the trial or other judicial proceeding" constitutes contempt oI court in the State oI Nevada;
and
WHEREAS, "disobedience or resistance to any lawful writ, order, rule or
process issued by the court or judge at chambers" constitutes contempt oI court in the
State oI Nevada; and '
35/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin has never Iiled anything that was not based in both Iact and law. Richard
G. Hill, Esq., and Casey Baker, Esq., are good at making it seam otherwise, at least Irom a
distance:
not longer and eIiler, but was between 1/4/12 until deactivation in
mid November oI 2012. All during that time the only pdI available
Ior the 1/4/12 Supplemental in CV11-03628 was the attached 3 page version, which
Iails to include the actual documents or Iilings listed in the "Appeal Receipt". Such a
Iailure to include those Iiled, especially one that is characterized as "Emergency Letter
to Court Irom Zach Coughlin, Esq" (which is not a "letter" but rather my submission
Ior Iiling oI a "Notice oI Appeal" oI the 12/21/11 Order Resolving Motion to Contest
Personal Property Lien by RJC Judge SIerrazza. The Iailure to include such items in
what was provided to Judge Flanagan Ior review in the ROA became very deleterious
to my case in a number oI ways, including as mentioned in Judge Flanagan's 3/30/12
Order denying my appeal, and now, arguably in the 12/14/12 Findings and
Conclusions and Recommendation to disbar me permanently Irom the practice oI law
in Nevada incident to opposing counsel Hill's allegation that my pursuing a stay, on or
around December 22nd 2011, under NRS 40.385 was vexatious or otherwise violative
oI RPC 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions) (which I believe the attached
transcript Irom Venetian v. Two Roads disproves).
I am writing to request the 2JDC email me or provide an electronic copy (or, a hard
copy) oI the entirety oI what it received, at any point, Irom the RJC in connection with
the 1/4/12 Supplemental Iiling in CV11-03628.
I believe it would appropriate not to charge me Ior this given anything beyond the
intial 3 page version oI that 1/4/12 Iiling was never available during an 11 month
period wherein I did have an eFlex subscription.
A Iootnote on page 5 oI Judge Flanagan's 3/30/12 Order in CV11-03628 indicates:
"... In addition, because Coughlin failed to timely file his notice of appeal
regarding the personal property lien, see NRS 40.253(8), and because Coughlin's
notice of appeal fails to identify an error regarding the court's procedure in
setting a hearing on this issue, this Court will no consider this issue."
The testimony at Coughlin's Iormal disciplinary hearing on 11/14/12 included the
Iollowing:
"FORMAL HEARING - Vol. I, (Pages 51:10 to 54:17)
51
...
12 Was Mr. Coughlin, in his dealings with you as
36/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13 an attorney, was he truthIul or did he show candor in his
14 dealings with you as a lawyer?
15 MR. COUGHLIN: I'm sorry, your Honor. II I
16 can interject. It's been well over 15 minutes.
17 MR. ECHEVERRIA: That's true. Do you want to
18 wrap it up, Mr. King?
19 MR. KING: Yes.
20 BY MR. KING:
21 Q With that said, did he show candor to you?
22 A In our dealings with Mr. Coughlin, you could
23 not trust him at all. No agreement ever made with
24 Mr. Coughlin was honored by him.
25 For example, when Judge SIerrazza ordered that
52
1 Mr. Coughlin could have two days -- he was originally
2 given a week to move his stuII out beIore the eviction
3 order was served. ThereaIter there was a hearing. The
4 judge gave Mr. Coughlin two days to go in and remove his
5 possessions.
6 Mr. Coughlin -- we went over there, opened the
7 doors about 8:00 o'clock. He wasn't there. About 11:00
8 o'clock we get an e-mail Irom Mr. Coughlin saying I have
9 appealed Judge SIerrazza's ruling. That means his ruling
10 is stayed. That means I can go back into the house. I'm
11 staying in the house, and there's nothing you can do about
12 it.
13 MR. COUGHLIN: Objection, hearsay.
14 MR. ECHEVERRIA: Overruled.
15 THE WITNESS: Sometime later that day we got
16 an order Irom Judge SIerrazza saying that the request Ior
17 a stay had been denied. Mr. Coughlin had burned basically
18 a whole day doing nothing trying to get his stuII out.
19 That was typical....

53
1 top oI what was going on.
2 Finally, when we got in the district court, we
3 were able to use the e-Ilex system, and we were able to
4 keep track oI what was going on.
5 BY MR. KING:
6 Q Let me restate the question. The question is:
7 As an attorney, having a responsibility to be truthIul and
8 to have candor with opposing counsel, was Mr. Coughlin
37/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9 truthIul, and did he use candor with you?
10 A No.
11 MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. King, wrap it up, please.
12 You're limited to 15 minutes.
13 BY MR. KING:
14 Q SpeciIically relating to Mr. Coughlin's candor
15 to the court, did he show candor to the courts?
16 A No.
17 Q In his demeanor --
18 MR. COUGHLIN: Objection. Lack oI Ioundation.
19 MR. KING: My last question.
20 MR. COUGHLIN: Pretty damming statement to
21 have no Ioundation.
22 MR. ECHEVERRIA: Please don't interrupt. We
23 haven't heard the question yet to which you've objected.
24 MR. COUGHLIN: The last one, whether I showed
25 candor to the court, and he said no.
54
1 MR. ECHEVERRIA: You object to that one? It's
2 overruled. Go ahead.
With respect to the NRS 40.385 Motion Ior Stay issues, I believe it may also be
relevant the extent to which my attempted Iilings were reIused by the 2JDC Irom that
time, especially given NRAP 8. Please see attached emails and CV11-03051.
AO12-01 goes on: 'WHEREAS, Nevada's courts are constitutionally authorized
to issue all writs "proper and necessary to the complete exercise of their
jurisdiction." Nev. Constart. 6, 6(1); and
WHEREAS, to protect the peaceIul and eIIective operation oI this Court,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shall not enter the premises oI the Reno
Justice Court at One South Sierra Street except as Iollows:
38/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a. Justice Court or attend a hearing in the Reno Justice Court he must notiIy the
security personnel (page 2) at the main security entrance located at the east entrance oI
One South Sierra Street and wait Ior a bailiII oI the Reno justice Court to respond to his
location.
b. II ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN wishes to make a request oI the Reno
Justice Court Ior copies, transcripts, access to a court Iile or to ask a question he shall do
so in writing and either mail the request to the Reno 1ustice Court or deliver the
written request to a bailiff of the Reno 1ustice Court by first contacting the bailiff
through court security as detailed above. The bailiII will then Iile the document Ior Mr.
Coughlin and provide him a Iile stamped copy in return.
c. II ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN wishes to attend a Court hearing in the
Reno Justice Court he shall be escorted by a bailiII oI this Court.
2. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shall not be present in the exclusive
premises oI the Reno Justice Court including the criminal, civil, citation or administrative
Iacilities located on the Iirst Iloor oI the North Tower oI One South Sierra Street and the
entire area located on the second Iloor oI the North Tower oI One South Sierra Street
without the escort oI a bailiII oI this Court and without Iirst Iollowing the procedures
outlined above.
3. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN is not allowed to contact any member
of this Court other than a uniformed bailiff.
4. II ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN is a party to a case he may address the
Court during the Court proceedings.
39/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. Any violation oI this Order may be considered contempt oI court and punished
pursuant to NRS Chapter 22 by a Iine oI up to $500 and/or incarceration Ior up to 25 days
in the Washoe County Detention Facility.
6. This Order is effective upon personal service upon Mr. Coughlin.
Dated this 20
th
day oI December (NOTE: THERE IS NOT YEAR LISTED
THEREIN) /s/ Peter J. SIerrazza, ChieI Justice oI the Peace
For an order such as AO12-01 to be valid and Ior Coughlin to have violated it, it
must be clear, and there must not have been some waiver or alteration oI its terms
maniIested by the RJC or one's upon whose conduct Coughlin is reasonably entitled to
view as made on behalI oI the RJC or with authority given to it by the RJC. AO12-01 is
not suIIicinetly clear and or maniIest such alterations or waiver (particularly in view oI the
new language in the 2/25/13 OSC in AO12-01 related to 'calling BailiIIs:
('On January 7, 2013 (NOTE: Coughlin has a hearing set Ior RCR 2012-067980 on
1/7/13, shortly aIter his previous attorney oI record, WCPD Jim Leslie, was granted an
Order allowign him to suddenly withdrawal on 12/18/12, at a hearing Ior which Couglin
was provided insuIIicient notice and little to no opportunity to be heard, leaving Coughlin
uncertain as to whom his attorney would be iI any, and whether the hearing was still to
occur, in addition to the RJC apparently changing the start times oI such hearings upon the
calendar year changing...its was at the RJC that morning upon Coughlin appearing Ior
such hearing that Coughlin met Mr. Lindsay and became aware oI his representaiton and
the continuance stipulated to with DDA Young (do to Young needed to attend an
40/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
important work related investigatory sort oI matter) Coughlin telephoned three
employees of the Reno 1ustice Court at the Court's phone number.
The 2/25/13 OSC Iails to identiIy such employees or speciIy why they believe such
to be true, whether any such communication was oI a de minimis or emergency nature or
otherwise suIIiciently justiIiable, and or whether such caller requested to be transIerred to
the BailiIIs upon being unable to locate the BailiII's number (which is not as readily
accesible as other RJC numbers upon conducting a Google Search).
The 2/25/13 Order reads, in relevant part: 'On January 7, 2013 Coughlin was
inIormed by a uniIormed bailiII oI this Court that he was not to have any contact with any
employee oI the Court other than uniIormed bailiIIs and he was provided the telephone
number for the bailiffs station.) where there is apparent contradiction in the dictate
that Couglhin shall: 'do so in writing and either mail the request to the Reno 1ustice
Court or deliver the written request to a bailiff of the Reno 1ustice Court by first
contacting the bailiff through court security as detailed above when viewed in
comparision to the subsequent passage: is not allowed to contact any member of this
Court other than a uniformed bailiff :
'b. II ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN wishes to make a
request oI the Reno Justice Court Ior copies, transcripts, access
to a court Iile or to ask a question he shall do so in writing and
either mail the request to the Reno 1ustice Court or deliver
the written request to a bailiff of the Reno 1ustice Court by
first contacting the bailiff through court security as detailed
above. The bailiII will then Iile the document Ior Mr. Coughlin
and provide him a Iile stamped copy in return.
...
3. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN is not allowed to
contact any member of this Court other than a uniformed
bailiff.
41/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
While not admitting to any alleged violation oI AO12-01, and not waiving any oI
his arguments as to the insuIIiciency oI service oI process thereoI, lack oI jurisdiction to
so order such, apparent ae minimis nature oI any such violations, and insuIIiciency oI
notice oI the 3/5/13 Hearing in AO12-01, and lack oI due process or opportunity to be
heard and or prepare, pursue a deIense, subpoena witnesses, etc., attendant to the lack oI
speciIicty in the sparse Iactual allegations contained in the 2/25/13 Order to Show Cause
in AO12-01, etc., (in addition to that Iailure oI such to meet the NRS 22.030(2)
requirement Ior an AIIidavit Ior such alleged conduct apparently occurring outside the
Court's presence, in addition to the In Re StuhII precedent which holds that Ior 'conduct
to be 'disrputive it must occur insiae a courtroom, while court is in session. The
disruption must have occurred in the courtroom. One cannot disrupt a tribunal with
conduct outside oI the courtroom. In re Michael StuhII, 108 Nev. 629, 837 P.2d 853
(1992).
The 12/20/12 AO12-01 itselI is likely void in that it deprived Coughlin oI a
protected Fourteenth Amendment right (to access courts, to put on a deIense, to subpoena
witnesses, to conIront his accusers under the Sixth Amendment, also) where it provided no
notice or opportunity to be heard as to the various apparent Iactual Iindings made therein
(the parts about the alleged contempt Orders by RMC Judges Nash and Holmes contain
inaccuracies...Further, Coughlin does not recall ever being admonished by Judge Pearson
prior to that 12/20/12 date oI entry oI that AO12-01, and is not all that sure Judge CliIton
or SIerrazza did so either, technically. Coughlin was aIIorded no notice or opportunity to
be heard as to any Iindings oI Iact, conclusions oI law, or terms oI such Order (and the
2/25/13 OSC appears to materially depart Iorm the 12/20/12 AO12-01 where it seems to
42/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
allow Ior an alleged verbal indication by an RJC BailiII to alter such order to then allow
Ior Coughlin to call the RJC BailiII's on the telephone.
Regardless, Coughlin really wishes to resolve all oI this, means absolutely no
disrespect to the RJC, its Judges, BailiIIs, or Court Personnel, and is resolved in improve
his aIIect and behavior and continuing pursuing such goals, by participating in NNAHMS
counseling, medication clinic, and Lawyers Concerned Ior Lawyers, and NAMI meetings
'NRS22.030Summary punishment oI contempt committed in immediate view and
presence oI court; aIIidavit or statement to be Iiled when contempt committed outside
immediate view and presence oI court; disqualiIication oI judge.
1.II a contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence oI the court or
judge at chambers, the contempt may be punished summarily. II the court or judge
summarily punishes a person Ior a contempt pursuant to this subsection, the court or judge
shall enter an order that:
(a)Recites the Iacts constituting the contempt in the immediate view and presence oI
the court or judge;
(b)Finds the person guilty oI the contempt; and
(c)Prescribes the punishment Ior the contempt.
2.II a contempt is not committed in the immediate view and presence of the
court or judge at chambers, an affidavit must be presented to the court or judge of
the facts constituting the contempt, or a statement oI the Iacts by the masters or
arbitrators.
3.Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, iI a contempt is not committed in
the immediate view and presence oI the court, the judge of the court in whose contempt
the person is alleged to be shall not preside at the trial of the contempt over the
objection of the person. The provisions oI this subsection do not apply in:
The 2/25/13 Order Iails to identiIy which 'judge oI the court in whose contempt
the person is alleged to be, and thereIore, prevents any IulIillment oI the rights accorded
under NRS 22.030(3).
Current ChieI Judge Pearson's 2/25/13 Order to Show Cause (it it believe that the
RJC will assert that OSC was personally served on Coughlin upon Coughlin presenting to
the security check-in on Wednesday, 2/28/13, (please incorporate by reIerence herein the
43/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
authority set out in Coughlin's recent email to the WCDA's OIIice and Mr. Lindsay
seeking a global resolution) to comply with the terms oI his probation in 11-063341 and
take a PBC test with the Department oI Alternative Sentencing (DAS) OIIice, which has a
small vestibule oI sorts immediately to the leIt aIter one enter's the RJC Criminal Division
Filing OIIice and where a posted sign thereon indicates something close to 'DAS is
separate Irom the RJC Filing OIIice. Do not bother them with RJC Filing OIIice matters,
which, would run somewhat counter to the statements on the record by Judge Pearson on
2/2/13 at an Order to Show Cause Hearing at 8:30 am in 11-063341 (which was
improperly noticed to Coughlin on his Jail Inmate Release InIormation paperwork as
being set Ior February 5
th
, 2013, which, incidentally, the 2/25/13 OSC in AO12-01
includes as one oI the dates wherein Coughlin is alleged to have violated the AO12-01
('On February 5, 2013 Coughlin contacted two employees who are not bailiIIs at a
number other than that provided to him as the bailiII s station. At Page 2. It is possible
that someone inquired with the RJC on that 2/5/13 date as to whether any such hearing in
11-063341 was still on calendar and that an RJC employee, whom may have been a
BailiII, indicated that such 2/5/13 Hearing in 11-063341 was, in Iact, not still on calendar,
but, rather, had been incorrectly listed on Coughlin' WC Jail Inmate Release InIormation
paperwork where such Hearing was actually set Ior, and did, in Iact take place on, 2/2/13
at 8:30 am. Whether now it is the case that the RJC Judges intended the 2/2/13 Hearing
to be a Gagnon I style hearing and such Hearing indentiIied in Coughlin's WC Jail Inmate
Release InIormation paperwork to be a 'Gagnon II type oI Hearing is possible. It may
be possible that an RJC employee, whom may have been a BailiII, but, whom may also not
have been a BailiII incorrectly indicated to someone whom may have inquired with the
44/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RJC with regard to whether such 2/5/13 Hearing in 11-063341 was still on calendar that
such Hearing was not still on calendar oI set to take place, but had, in Iact, been vacated.)
The 2/25/13 OSC in AO12-01 reads:
'On January 23, 2013 Coughlin contacted an employee other than a uniIormed
bailiII at a number other than that provided to him as the bailiII s station.
To have an opportunity to deIender himselI, Coughlin has a right to be aIIorded a
more detailed allegation and notice oI the Iactual assertions thereto, Ior discovery purposes
and otherwise. As such a continuance oI this 3/5/13 Show Cause hearing would be
appropriate and is requested, especially given the materially negative consequence to
Coughlin's law license and mental health recuperation eIIorts that a summary incarceration
here would result in (please see N. S. Ct. case 62337, the appeal oI the disbarment and
pressing appeal brieI deadline, especially considering the 'kitchen sink style pleading
approach in the 8/23/12 Complaint by bar counsel (12 RPC's alleged violated an
unenumerated number oI times, speciIied only by a scant, sparse 5 page complaint that
Iails to identiIy which Iactual assertions therein relate to which RPC alleged violated).
ChieI Justice Pickerings 2/7/13 Order striking the SBN's ROA is instructive as to Bar
Counsel King and Clerk Laura Peters less than one year experience in their positions, and
RCP2012-00607 and some oI the Iallout ancillary to the manner in which they prosecuted
Coughlin has had collateral consequences to local Courts, attorney's, public deIenders, and
our Bar and Bench as a whole. Nobody's perIect, but seemingly only Coughlin is
operating here without the beneIit oI immunity.
45/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
'On February 11, 2013 on two separate occasions Coughlin contacted an employee
other than a uniIormed bailiII at a number other than that provided to him as the bailiIIs
station. read the AO12-01:
Coughlin had a continuation oI his Trial in RCR2012-065630 on 2/12/13. The
start times oI hearings in the RJC has changed with the calendar year changing, leading to
some conIusion. The above allegaiton lacks speciIicity as also alleged supra with regard
to other similar Iactual allegations.
~If Coughlin is indigent and wishes to apply for court appointed counsel he
must fill out the proper paperwork by utilizing the procedures set forth in
Administrative Order 2012-01 before 4:00 p.m. on February 28, 2013.
Coughlin presented a Iiling to court security prior to 4:00 pm responsive to the
above, supplementing it on 3/1/13, and has yet to hear whether he will be aIIorded counsel
pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, and his indigency, and asks judicial notice be taken oI
the 1/9/13 IFP Order in CR12-2025, and the same in RJC RCR2012-065630.
RJC ChieI Judge Pearson entered his 2/25/13 Show Cause Order setting Ior
hearing such matter on 3/5/13, based upon some unsworn, unattributed, allegations that
Coughlin had made various 'contacts with non-RJC BailiII personnel, though the
complete lack oI speciIicity, the violation oI the requirement Ior such out oI the presence
oI the court alleged conduct constituting contempt under NRS 22.030(3), and the general
lack oI notice as to the charges against him (what did such contacts entail? Who exactly
would the witnesses oI such contacts be? How can Coughlin subpoena them without
suIIiciently detailed notice thereoI? Why is Couglhin not aIIorded at least the 10 judicial
46/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
days seemingly required to prepare Ior any such Show Cause Hearing. Is not the
purported service oI such Show Cause Order incident to Coughlin checkign in with DAS
insuIIicient service oI process Ior the same reasons other such service attempts in 12-607,
12-599, RJC AO 12-01, etc., should Iail? Do not the TPO's and EPO's in 12-607 and 12-
599, and AO12-01 exceed the jurisdiction to make such orders where they impinge upon
Coughlin's Iirst Amendment Rights and rights as a litigatin in his Iormal disciplinary
hearing and the appeal thereoI, and where such orders are in now way reasonably or
narrowly tailore to achieve the purported saIety goals to which they address?
Coughlin has made diligent eIIorts to comply with all Orders oI the RJC, and
humbly asks this Court grant a continuance here, issue and Order Ior a Competency
Evaluation, or make a Iinding that good cause is not present to hold Coughlin in contempt/
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: Robert Lindsay <rbrucelindsaylaw@yahoo.com>; "zyoung@da.washoecounty.us"
<zyoung@da.washoecounty.us>; "mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us"
<mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us>; "dwatts@da.washoecounty.us"
<dwatts@da.washoecounty.us>; "mcovington@da.washoecounty.us"
<mcovington@da.washoecounty.us>; "plippar@da.washoecounty.us"
<plippar@da.washoecounty.us>; "plipparelli@da.washoecounty.us"
<plipparelli@da.washoecounty.us>; "jhelzer@da.washoecounty.us"
<jhelzer@da.washoecounty.us>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:14 PM
Subject: proposal that might be your office some more money and resolve this whole thing.
Dear Mr. Lindsay and WCDA's OIIice,
47/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I respectIully submit this in the hopes that a global deal can be entered into, as without
that, I will certainly be disbarred irrevocably, and Judge CliIton and Judge Pearson, I
am pretty sure, will be sentencing me to substantial amounts oI jail time, in addition to
what may issue incident to the 3/6/13 arraignment on allegations oI violating the SBN
TPO/EPO and the 12-01 Administrative Order by Judge SIerrazza. It would mean so
much to me and be so very appreciated. I lived here my whole liIe, its would be
pretty sad to see things continue where they are going (ie, me disbarred permanently,
doing lots oI time, etc...). I realize I am not special and I haven't handled things very
well in many instances, but, I am doing my best, and have been. I don't get help Irom
my Iamily, in Iact, my Dad oIten seems to be trying to sabotage my liIe in some
misguided attempt to twelve step me/hijack my mental health care...
I complete my intake with Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health this Monday, and
am starting counseling and am set to meet with a Dr. Kim on 3/13/13 to see about
arranging Ior my medications to always be available to me iI I cannot aIIord them
(and thereIore, hopeIully avoid the Iree Iall my liIe had been in since that occurred
and was Iollowed by a string oI arrests and evictions starting in August 2011 (please
see my email to Bar Counsel detailing that and attaching prooI thereoI with my
complete prescription history since about 2008, showing I went oII Adderall and
Wellbutrin in early August 2011...Please see my 5/14/12 email to SBN Bar Counsel
detailing the Iall out oI my not being able to aIIord my medications starting in August
2011, the string oI arrests and eviction occurring immediately thereaIter, etc.
Judge Weller, Judge McGee, and Judge Van Walraven are all mentors to me and I
believe would be willing to indicate that I am probably not competent to stand trial at
this point, and that I am not such a bad person in the grand scheme...I have been
attending Coe Swobe's Thursday Night 7pm Lawyers Concerned Ior Lawyers
meeting, and Coe would conIrim that at 322-2154. I truly do want to resolve all these
criminal matters and don't want to pursue any civil claims. I just want to get back to
normal liIe and am sorry to have upset so many people. I did my best under some
extremely trying circumstances that one likely could not Iully understand without
living through them.
Please note, I have not Iiled the attached 2/27/13 Motion Ior Continuance or whatever,
its just a proposed thing to provide some suggestions Ior how all the various criminal/
civil/administrative things might be resolved, iI I am very, very lucky and Iortunate.
Maybe the State can pay Mr. Lindsay in exchange Ior appearing Ior me in these
various criminal matters and brokering this global resolution. The Gagnon case set
out below provides support Ior such right to counsel under these circumstances.
Today, I checked in with DAS. Upon checking in the RJC BailIiIs served me a new
Order to Show Cause Ior the Administrative Order 12-01 entered on 12/20/12 by
Judge SIerrazza. the hearing to be held on 3/5/13 at 2 pm. See both the 2/25/13 Show
48/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cause Order and the underlying 12/20/12 Administrative Order 12-01 attached. I
believe I am still an attorney, even where suspended (under Florida Bar v. Ross) and,
as such, am immune Irom service oI such process (in addition to the service oI process
attempted by RJC BailiIIs during other DAS Check ins Ior the WCPD and SBN
Protection Orders against me in 607 and 599.
attorney's exemption Irom service oI process, see Am. Jur. 2d, Process 35. While
DDA Watts made a nice argument in objecting to my subpoenas on 2JDC personnel
in my Iormal bar hearing, based upon my being suspending, I believe Florida Bar v.
Ross, the Iact that I was given permission to issue my own subpoenas therein (ie, even
iI NRCP 45(a)(3) applies, I was "authorized to appear" in that "court") would provide
a counter to any extension oI that argument that would suggest that my being
suspended by the State Bar oI Nevada (but not the USPTO, thereIore, I am still a
patent attorney, I think...) would vitiate any "attorney immune Irom service oI process
oI the TPO/EPO applications or Orders while doing his DAS probation check-ins in
the RJC Iiling oIIice"argument...Try to ease up on me a little here, I am doing the best
I can everyone. I took in about $13,800 in Iees while practicing law between July
2011 and my suspension in June 2012, and lost way, more money than that (especially
counting the sanctions awards that remain unpaid, etc.)...One cost saving measure to
the county would be to work out a deal very soon (like beIore the 3/5/13 Show Cause
Hearing in the RJC, that would avoid the preparation oI about 15 hours oI trial
transcript at public expense incident to the 1/9/13 Order by Judge Elliott in the appeal
oI the conviction in 11-063341 (CR12-2025). I'll sign away any civil law claims I
have against any County entities, personnel, etc., especially iI my SBN woes, RJC
criminal law woes, and hopeIully a thing or two else, can be bargained away (iI that is
legal...I think it is, but the WCDA's OIIice would need to approve oI it, I believe...).
II. AMENABILITY TO SERVICE OF PROCESS
B. Persons Immune to Service oI Process
2. Persons Attending Court or Governmental Hearings
c. Attorneys
Topic Summary Correlation Table ReIerences
35. Generally
West's Key Number Digest
West's Key Number Digest, Federal Civil Procedure k415, 416
West's Key Number Digest, Process k117, 118
Attorneys at law at times enjoy certain privileges and exemptions not generally
enjoyed by
lay persons, when they are considered necessary Ior the due administration oI justice
and the
protection oI a client's rights.|FN1| At common law, an attorney was exempt Irom the
service
oI civil process while attending court.|FN2|
49/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Currently, whether an attorney at law is exempt Irom the service oI process in a civil
action
while attending court may turn upon the attorney's residence within the state or county
oI
suit. Immunity Irom the service oI civil process has been extended to a nonresident
attorney
while going to, remaining at, or returning Irom the place where the client's business is
transacted,
upon the ground that the administration oI justice demands such an exemption,|FN3|
even though resident attorneys have no such immunity.|FN4|
Some jurisdictions take the view that an attorney is privileged Irom the service oI
process
while attending court in a proIessional capacity in a county other than the county oI
his or her
residence,|FN5| while others hold that the attorney is not immune Irom service.|FN6|
|FN1| Am. Jur. 2d, Attorneys at Law 196.
|FN2| Long v. Ansell, 293 U.S. 76, 55 S. Ct. 21, 79 L. Ed. 208 (1934); Lamb v.
Schmitt, 285 U.S. 222, 52 S. Ct. 317, 76 L. Ed. 720 (1932).
|FN3| Durst v. Tautges, Wilder & McDonald, 44 F.2d 507, 71 A.L.R. 1394 (C.C.A.
7th Cir. 1930).
|FN4| Williams v. Hatcher, 95 S.C. 49, 78 S.E. 615 (1913).
|FN5| Ada Dairy Products Co. v. Superior Court, Seminole County, 258 P.2d 939
(Okla. 1953) (holding that a duly licensed and practicing attorney oI one county, while
present in another county to represent the client, may not be served with summons oI
a
suit against a corporation oI which he is the president, in the second county).
|FN6| Parker v. Reddick, 196 Tenn. 472, 268 S.W.2d 357, 45 A.L.R.2d 1096 (1954).
Here's an idea...the 3/6/13 arraingment Ior the Ielony and gross EPO/TPO violations,
what about a Motion to Set Aside both the WCPD and SBN, or just the SBN EPO
itselI based upon Coughlin's immunity Irom service oI process while attending court,
especially where his attending was at least tangentially related to the basis or subject
matter oI the TPO/EPO. II the service was no good, the violation charge Iails...
Please consider:
" 25. The role oI retained counsel; in generalSettlement or disposition
without hearing; Iorm oI release
Settlement is the ideal goal in every case. Seldom can any good come Irom
having a hearing. Even though the accused attorney claims complete
innocence, the committee members may wonder why the matter was not
disposed oI earlier. They are quite aware oI the Iact that such matters do not
get to the hearing stage without the recommendation oI the investigating bar
attorney, who must have Iound evidence oI wrongdoing to justiIy Iiling
50/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Iormal charges. Thus, the deIense is Iaced with a suspicion oI some act oI
misconduct. Logically, thereIore, the goal oI avoiding a hearing is the most
desirable one, and the approach taken should be one that is least likely to lead
to a hearing. It makes little sense to set one's goal Ior a hearing when the use
oI diplomacy can avoid it. Settlement is possible only up to a point prior to
the hearing, however. Once the hearing commences, it is usually too late Ior
the accused attorney to settle with the complainant. The most satisIactory and
beneIicial settlements are those reached within two weeks oI the Iiling oI the
complaint. The potential Ior various settlement possibilities are plentiIul, but,
unIortunately, they are usually predicated on a commodity in short supply Ior
most attorneys: money. OIten it will be necessary Ior the client to contact
Iamily members and give promissory notes Ior loans in order to bargain with
cash that may be easily replaced, rather than his license, which cannot. It
should be noted that while it is unethical conduct to "buy oII" complaining
witnesses, nearly all states provide that if the district attorney either
approves or encourages a civil settlement, then disciplinary proceedings
may be avoided. Retained counsel must make certain he violates none oI the
canons oI ethics himselI. The key to avoiding trouble is to be open and
candid with all concerned. Retained counsel should immediately make clear
to the accused attorney that he is to take no action whatever Iollowing
representation, and a careIul inquiry should be made to determine what action
he has taken to date. Invariably, steps will have to be taken to straighten out
the harm that he may already have done. The single most important
ingredient Ior success is the attitude oI the accused attorney. II the grievance
committee receives the impression that he is merely interested in a "dodge" to
avoid the consequences oI his acts, then great diIIiculty can be expected. II
on the other hand the accused is genuinely contrite, both in his words and his
actions, Iew committees are likely to take severe action, even in serious
cases. On the other hand, some attorneys may attempt some sort oI cover-up.
They may lie to the committee or may otherwise do great disservice to their
own cause when they are not represented. It should always be kept in mind
that a contrite attitude by the accused attorney is a diIIicult one Ior a
grievance committee to resist, particularly when it is coupled with a clear and
deIinite plan oI corrective action. Contrition, however, must always be
coupled with cooperation, and cooperation must always be coupled with
corrective action. Should one oI these elements be missing, a good result
cannot be expected. Once deIense counsel takes the client Iirmly in hand,
directs a corrective-action program, and, most importantly, establishes and
maintains a good relationship with bar counsel, he may expect good results,
51/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
even in serious cases." Irom "DeIending Lawyers in Disciplinary
Proceedings"m 31 AMJUR TRIALS 633.
Coughlin would stip to anything that would essentially put the EPOs back in place
thereaIter, he doesn't want to bother anybody or any drama, etc. Coughlin realizes it
would be a mistake to try to "expose" Bar Counsel King, and anyways, Coughlin
generally likes Mr. King, that whole Iormal hearing just got a bit contentious, but Mr.
King need not be worried about any damage to his reputation or allegations oI his
being a "Iraud". There may be some issue with the manner in which the WCSO
carries out 24 hour lockout ORders incident to evictions. Coughlin doesn't intend to
pursue having DDA Watts-Vial answer his SCR 110 subpoenas, especially iI all this
SBN/criminal/civil stuII can be resolved, hopeIully with Coughlin still having a law
license at some point, but iI necessary, a disbarment by consent contingent upon all
the criminal stuII (an, iI permissible things like the $42K attorney Iee civil award in
03628 being addressed) may be a path to pursue. Doesn't sound like the most heart
warming resolution, but iI everybody is that mad at Coughlin and truly cannot see any
basis Ior mitigation or why he contested this or that or how the manner in which the
eviction in 1708 was carried out may have been a bit harsh, well...
As to the manner in which the WCSO carries out 24 hours eviction orders to mean
"within 24 hours" as meaning that the SheriII can race over to a house right aIter the
hearing, versus, must wait at least 24 hours...Coughlin would enter a conIidentiality
agreement or some agreement whereby he will be quite about that/relinquish any
claims he may have, Iorego any qui tam action (just kidding, really), etc., etc.
How about this, I apply tomorrow Ior appointed counsel Ior the 3/5/13 Show Cause
Hearing, and to oIIicially have Bruce appointed Ior the 3/11/13 DAS Probation
Violation Hearing, in addition to in the appeal in CR12-2025 (the 1/9/13 Order
granting me IFP by Judge Elliott might help with that) and in the appeal I Iiled Irom
the 2/13/13 hearing wherein Bruce appeared, Ior the Contempt Hearing, "Iree oI
charge" as you indicated (under Feick, I believe Bruce should have been paid). I Iiled
a Notice oI Appeal oI that 5 day contempt conviction (not sure iI it was civil or
criminal, iI its criminal, I have to report it to the SBN and USPTO, thus I appealed it,
but the RJC probably just viewed that as me being more a pain in the ass and not
getting the picture...I don't want to Iight it unless its a criminal contempt
conviction....). I think Iiling the Notice oI Appeal in 12-065630 may have resulted in
the 2/25/13 Show Cause Order, that, or Judge Pearson was upset that the 2/25/13 DAS
Probation Violation Hearing didn't go on as scheduled on 2/25/13.... See the language
in the 2/25/13 Show Cause Order that suggests that, iI I apply Ior counsel by 4pm on
2/28/13, that some will be appointed (ie, money Ior your oIIice, a good thing in my
opinion).
52/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
More money hopeIully upon your oIIice being appointed in the appeal in cr12-2025
and the new appeal I Iiled within the 10 days pursuant to NRS 189.010 Irom the 5 day
incarceration order Ior Contempt ( I guess) Irom 2/13/13 (the hearing Bruce appeared
at, to my surprise).
Right to Counsel
here is no absolute due process right to counsel in probation revocation proceedings.
(Gagnon, supra, 411 U.S. at 790.) On the other hand, there are "cases in which
fundamental fairness - the touchstone of due process - will require that the State
provide at its expense counsel for indigent probationers or parolees." (Ibid.) Although
there are no rigid guidelines, the United States Supreme Court has suggested that counsel
should be provided anytime the deIendant makes a timely and colorable claim (i) that he
has not committed the alleged violation oI the conditions upon which he is at liberty; or
(ii) that, even iI the violation is a matter oI public record or is uncontested, there are
substantial reasons which justiIied or mitigated the violation and make revocation
inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise diIIicult to develop or
present.(Ibid.) In CaliIornia, however, the Supreme Court has proclaimed a right to
counsel in probation revocation proceedings as a judicially declared rule oI procedure.
(Vickers, supra, 8 Cal.3d at 461-462.)
The totality oI the circumstances, including the DAS materials Coughlin was provided,
extreme health problems (including a reaction preventing Couglin Irom appearing at a
1/3/13 EPO hearing in 12-599 and 12-607, even to contest service, process, or juridiction,
includign to assert an attorney's (even a suspended attorney appearing pro se) immunity
Irom service oI process at the courthouse, including under courthouse sanctuary doctrine,
situational stress incident to Coughlin's Iormal disciplinary hearing regarding the
irrevocable revocation oI his law license, misleading sworn statements by both SBN Bar
Counsel Pat King and WCPD Jim Leslie, and verbal statements and writings to Coughlin
by DAS staII, including OIIicer Celeste Brown, support this colorable claim by Coughlin
that he has not violated the terms oI his probation , much less in a manner suIIicient to
support a summary arrest. Coughlin has received indications Irom DAS staII including
OIIicer Brown that, in exigent circumstances calling or writing, especially ahead oI time,
may provide a basis Ior not Iinding a probation violatin, and Coughlin submits that both
alleged probation violation (incident to DAS OIIicer Ramos's PC sheet oI 2/1/13, which
53/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
indicate such violation occured on 1/3/13 and 1/24/13...which just happend to be days
where Coughlin had deadlines in 62337 and where Couglin now Iaces Ielony and gross
charges upon allegations oI TPO and EPO violations occuring on those dates) augers
towards either dismissing the charge oI an alleged probation violation or aIIording
Coughlin representation at publice expense, especially where, apparently B. Lindsay, Esq.
Showed up to the 12-067980 contempt hearing on 2/13/13 as a 'Ireebie, upbeknownst to
Coughlin and counter to at least the implicit representation made to him by the Court and
Lindsay upon being led into court in restraints that morning, absent any consultations with
Lindsay beIorehand whatsoever..
I think Mr. Lindsay and his paralegal Diana are doing a good job and we are making
progress towards ultimately (hopeIully, Iingers crossed) getting the original plea deal
that I voluntarily accepted on 8/27/12 put back on the record and accepted by the RJC,
even disposing oI the appeal oI the convictions in 11-063341 (now on appeal in
CR12-2025):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vBnQWmL4chY That is the audio oI the 8/27/12 hearing in 11-063341
where Couglin voluntarily accepted the plea, though it was rejected. Next time, Coughlin promises, he will hit
his mark more cleanly and get his lines right.
The other stupid youtube stuII is coming down. The plea deal was as Iollows:
'From: Leslie, Jim
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 11:17 AM
To: 'Zach Coughlin'
Subject: Coughlin: Settlement oI RCR11-063341, RCR12-065630 and
RCR12-067980
Mr. Coughlin:
As I had noted earlier, I had relayed the oIIer you had sent Ior a settlement.
You had sent it to Zach Young directly, as well as me and other recipients.
I then Iorwarded your email oIIer to Mr. Young and asked him to reply.
Mr. Young took the position that any prior State oIIers had been rejected
by you or had expired by their terms or by virtue oI lapse oI reasonable
time. Nevertheless, he has replied indicating willingness to settle as
Iollows:
The entry oI plea pursuant to this settlement must occur in Reno Justice
Court no later than Monday August 27, 2012.
The plea would be to two misdemeanor disturbing the peace charges, one
such charge in RCR11-063341 (the iPhone case) and once such charge in
RCR12-065630 (the 911 case);
Sentence would be 90 days jail on each charge, suspended and concurrent
to each other, with the Iollowing conditions: (1) obey all laws (except that
54/70
1
2
3
4
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 parties agree that traIIic violations do not constitute violation oI this
condition), (2) mental health counseling as recommended by your
psychiatrist or mental health treatment provider, with regular reports every
60 days Ior a period oI one year, (3) take medications and engage in
counseling as recommended by said psychiatrist or mental health treatment
provider.
In exchange Ior this plea settlement, the State will dismiss RCR12-067980
(resisting case).
Please note that Mr. Young was emphatic that this plea settlement must be
entered by the August 27, 2012, expiration date or it is rescinded. The
August 29 trial in RCR11-063341 will not be vacated until the settlement
plea is entered on monday.
Time is oI the essense, since any settlement must be entered at RJC by
monday, so please reply via email with your acceptance and I will set up a
hearing Ior monday.
Thank you,
Washoe County Public DeIender's OIIice
I would absolutely voluntarily agree to that plea deal right now, especially
iI it could dispose oI the appearl in CR12-2025 in a manner that would
allow Ior a SCR 111(10) application like that in the setting aside oI the
conviction oI Iormer Pahrump DA Beckett in In Re Beckett.
The only reason I went into court is because I am selI representing
on 063341. Bruce Lindsay is not my attorney oI record on that
case, nor have I ever consented to his becoming my attorney oI
record therein. I believe
I am asking in writing iI Bruce Lindsay, Esq. was appointed as my
counsel oI record in 2012-065630 Ior the 2/13/13 Contempt
Hearing, at which I received 5 days in jail Ior being late, wherein
Judge CliIton alleged I had already had the beneIit oI a warning, yet
I maintain that Robbin Baker told me the start time oI the trial in
that matter on 12/11/11 had been moved Irom 9 am to 1:30 pm.
Judge CliIton maintained that he did not change the start time, then
55/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
insisted Robbin Baker did not tell me that, then reIused to indicate
just how he could possibly know what Robbin Baker had told me.
Subsequently it was learned that Robbin Baker was not even at
work that day, and that no one had called her that day to inquire as
to whether I was correct in my assertion as to her having
communicated the start time oI the trial as having changed. I
believe it is situations like that that resulted in the current
Administrative Order 12-01 (which may not even still be binding
considering it was Irom 2012 and by Iormer ChieI Judge SIerrazza)
wherein I seemingly am prevented Irom communicating with any
court personnel besides the BailiII's, based upon some unnoticed
Iinding that I had caused distruptions in the Iiling oIIice, an
accusation to which I was never provided an opportunity to be
heard on.
Previously, Judge SIerrazza reIused to allow me to appear on my
own behalI, despite my having been a licensed attorney in Nevada
at the time in 11-063341, and despite my having Iiled a Notice oI
Appearance therein, and an Authorization to represent. Then Judge
SIerrazza, at trial on 8/27/12 and 8/29/12 reIused to allow me to selI
represent still. Then he reIused to accept the plea agreement that
would have disposed oI all three matters to which I am a deIendant
in the RJC (11-063341, which is now on appeal in CR12-2025, with
the Appeal BrieI, per the attached BrieIing Schedule, on March 9th,
2013, and where Judge Elliott entered an Order granting my IFP on
1/9/13 providing Ior the preparation oI the transcript at public
expense; 11-065630, which stemmed Iorm a 1/14/12 "misuse oI
emergency communications" gross misdemeanor arrest, that had the
trial start on 12/11/12, where the WCPD was releived on 11/27/12
(the day pre-trial motions were due, I maintain I was Iorced to
proceed pro se due to Biray Dogan's complete lack oI
representation, including Iailing to appear where required at the
2/14/12 arraignment on a gross misdemeanor (indigent deIendnans
entitled to representation on gross misdo and Ielonies "at all
56/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
stages"...); and the matter wherein Bruce is counsel oI record, 12-
067980, where Bruce has stipulated to several continuances...and
now today apparently DDA Young tried to pull something where he
Iailed to stip to the continuance in 11-063341, reIuses to take my
calls or respond to any written communications. Further WCDA
Legal Assistant Tina Galli inIormed me today that I am not to call
their oIIice on 11-063341 and that "Diana Irom Bruce Lindsay's
OIIice is handling it". That is not true at this point, as Iar as I
understand, but I think Mr. Lindsay and Diana could be very
instrumental in resolving these various matters, saving the County a
great deal oI money and resources expended prosecuting me, etc.
and help me to save myselI Irom myselI. I am selI representing, I
never consented to Bruce Lindsay, Esq. appearing as attorney oI
record in 11-063341. Further, I never expressly consented to
Lindsay appearing in 11-065630 at the 2/13/13 Contempt Hearing,
wherein I was brought in upon being summarily taken into custody
the day beIore, and without consulting with Lindsay at all or ever
consenting to his appearing on my behalI, Lindsay was seated at the
deIendants desk.
From: Charles M. McGee(judgemcgeemsn.com)This sender is in your saIe list.
Sent: Fri 1/18/13 1:39 PM
To: zach Coughlin (zachcoughlinhotmail.com)
Dear Zach,
! can, ! think, but only with your assistance and approval, help you.
And the only avenue that ! think is left to you Zack (my godson is Zach--sorry for the misspell) is a
SCR 117 Disability Petition.
You, in my opinion, after considerable though on the matter, need to realize that you need some
help.
You shoot you own self in the foot every time.
But if ! am wasting my time, let me know.
Ny heart is in the right place.
Chuck"
57/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I would preIer that all three matters be resolved (and hopeIully the
appeal oI 11-063341 in CR12-2025 beIore Judge Elliott can be
included in such a global resolution) in accordance with the terms I
agreed to on the record on 8/27/13 in 11-063341 (a hearing which
arguably was combined with the other two matters).
B. Due Process Rights 1. Background The loss oI liberty entailed in the revocation oI
probation is a serious deprivation requiring that the deIendant be accorded certain due
process rights. The minimum due process requirements Ior a probation revocation
proceeding are: (1) written notice oI the claimed violation oI probation; (2) disclosure
oI the evidence against the probationer; (3) an opportunity to be heard in person and to
present witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) the right to conIront and cross-
examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing oIIicer speciIically Iinds good cause
Ior not allowing conIrontation); (5) a neutral and detached hearing body; and (6) a
written statement by the Iact-Iinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons Ior
revoking probation. (Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) 411 U.S. 778, 786.) In Gagnon,
supra, 411 U.S. at pp. 781-782, the United States Supreme Court applied its parole
revocation due process jurisprudence to probation revocation. Parole-14- revocation
due process rights were established in Morrissey v. Brewster (1972) 408 U.S. 471.
BeIore Gagnon was decided, however, The CaliIornia Supreme Court, in People v.
Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451, 457-458, had applied the Morrissey parole revocation
requirements to probation. In Vickers, supra, at 458, the court said: '|T|he precise
nature oI the proceedings Ior such |probation| revocation need not be identical |to
parole revocation proceedings| iI they assure equivalent due process saIeguards.
Subsequent CaliIornia cases concerning the suIIicient amount oI due process required
beIore probation may be revoked have relied on Vickers. The Iew that have indirectly
addressed the question oI whether Gagnon requires greater due process than Vickers
have disagreed. (Compare People v. Mosley (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1173- 1174
|noting that 'any uncertainty remaining in the wake oI Vickers appears to have been
quelled by...Gagnon... which explicitly requires written notice oI any claimed
violation as part oI the minimal due process requirements in probation revocation
cases| with People v. BuIord (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 975, 981 |which continues to cite
Vickers and Morrissey as allowing Ior 'Ilexible due process standards without any
due process sine qua nons|). 2. Written notice Concerning written notice, People v.
Mosley, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d at p. 1174, held that where the deIendant was given
written notice oI certain grounds Ior violation, it was improper to base a revocation on
other grounds not included in the notice, even though the other grounds were shown at
the hearing. (See also In re Moss (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 913, concerning the
importance oI written notice.) However, in People v.-15- Felix (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d
58/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1168, 1171-1172 |First Dist., Div. 3|, the court held that the trial court's oIIer to grant
a continuance where the deIendant clFelix (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 1168, 1171-1172
|First Dist., Div. 3|, the court held that the trial court's oIIer to grant a continuance
where the deIendant claimed he had not received notice oI certain grounds Ior
revocation was suIIicient to meet constitutional concerns. Felix did not address
Gagnon, and its ruling may not meet the due process standards oI that case.(See
People v. Mosley, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1173-1174). 3. Motion Ior revocation
There is scant case law on the question oI when a motion to revoke has been made too
long aIter the deIendant`s violation oI probation to satisIy due process concerns.
People v. Villines (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1298, 1303-1304, cites two Iederal
appellate decisions concerning the timeliness oI motions to revoke probation: United
States v. Tyler (5th Cir. 1979) 605 F.2d 851 |due process concerns not satisIied when
the alleged violation oI probation occurred more than one year beIore the motion to
revoke and a probation oIIicer had previously made a decision not to make a motion|
and United States v. Hamilton (9th Cir. 1983) 708 F.2d 1412 |unreasonable delay
when probation was revoked three years aIter the violation and the deIendant
attempted to bring the deIault to the court`s attention|. 4. Waiver Probationer`s due
process rights may be expressly waived, and may be deemed to have been waived iI
the deIendant, with knowledge oI the rights, Iails to assert them in a timely manner.
(In re La Croix (1974) 12 Cal.3d 146, 153; People v. Dale (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 191,
195.) 5. Summary Revocation A summary revocation oI probation, upon probable
cause that a violation oI probation has occurred, is accepted practice. Summary
revocation 'tolls the clock on the term oI probation, and is simply a device by which
the deIendant may be brought beIore the court, and jurisdiction retained, beIore
Iormal revocation proceedings begin. (People v. Pipitone (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d
1112, 1117; People v. Barkins (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 30, 32-33; Pen. Code 1203.2,
sub. a.) II, however, it is determined at a subsequent revocation hearing that the
deIendant did not violate the terms oI probation, the deIendant gets back the time that
passed between the summary revocation and the determination that no violation, in
Iact, occurred. (People v. Tapia (2000) 91 Cal.App.4th 738, 743.) Though Gagnon,
supra, 411 U.S. at 781-782, would seem to require both a preliminary hearing and a
Iinal revocation hearing beIore probation may be revoked, People v. Coleman (1975)
13 Cal.3d 867, 895, held that 'a unitary hearing will usually suIIice in probation
revocation cases to serve the purposes oI the separate preliminary and Iormal
revocation hearings outlined in Morrissey. 6. Right to Counsel 6. Right to Counsel-
17- There is no absolute due process right to counsel in probation revocation
proceedings. (Gagnon, supra, 411 U.S. at 790.) On the other hand, there are "cases in
which Iundamental Iairness - the touchstone oI due process - will require that the State
provide at its expense counsel Ior indigent probationers or parolees." (Ibid.) Although
there are no rigid guidelines, the United States Supreme Court has suggested that
counsel should be provided anytime the deIendant makes a timely and colorable claim
(i) that he has not committed the alleged violation oI the conditions upon which he is
at liberty; or (ii) that, even iI the violation is a matter oI public record or is
uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justiIied or mitigated the violation
59/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise
diIIicult to develop or present.(Ibid.) In CaliIornia, however, the Supreme Court has
proclaimed a right to counsel in probation revocation proceedings as a judicially
declared rule oI procedure. (Vickers, supra, 8 Cal.3d at 461-462.) 7. Standard oI
ProoI/Review The standard oI prooI applicable to probation revocation proceedings is
prooI by a 'preponderance oI the evidence. (People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d
437, 441.) In order to overturn a trial court decision that the deIendant violated the
terms oI probation, an appellate court would determine, looking at the record in the
light most Iavorable to the prosecution, whether the record 'discloses substantial
evidencethat is,-18- evidence which is reasonable, credible, and oI solid valuesuch
that a reasonable trier oI Iact could Iind that the deIendant violated the terms oI
probation. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) C. Evidentiary Issues 1.
Hearsay Documentary evidence, whose source is not live testimony, may be admitted
when it is accompanied by reasonable indicia oI reliability. (People v. Maki (1985) 39
Cal.3d 707,716 |deIendant`s signature on a car rental invoice seized Irom deIendant`s
home|; People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1156-1157.) However, a diIIerent
rule applies to testimonial hearsay. Any attempt by the prosecution to introduce a
preliminary hearing transcript in lieu oI live witness testimony requires a showing oI
'good cause beIore a deIendant's right oI conIrontation at a probation revocation
hearing can be dispensed with.... (People v. Maki, supra, 39 Cal.3d at 714-716.) The
CaliIornia Supreme Court has held that it is improper to revoke probation based upon
hearsay statements oI the sole percipient witness to the claimed violation where there
has been no showing oI the witness's legal unavailability and no speciIic Iinding oI
good cause to deny the right to conIront and cross-examine witnesses. (People v.
Winson (1981) 29 Cal.3d 711, 719; People v. Arreola, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1159.) In
People v. Arreola, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp.1158-1159, the court stated: II the declarant
is available and the same -19- inIormation can be presented to the trier oI Iact in the
Iorm oI live testimony, with Iull cross-examination and the opportunity to view the
demeanor oI the declarant, there is little justiIication Ior relying on the weaker
version. When two versions oI the same evidence are available, longstanding
principles oI the law oI hearsay, applicable as well to ConIrontation Clause analysis,
Iavor the better evidence. In People v. O`Connell, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at 1066-
1067, the court attributed no error to the trial court`s decision to allow into evidence
an 'Adult Drug Program Termination Report` prepared by...the program manager...
to show that the deIendant had Iailed to satisIactorily participate in drug counseling
sessions as required by the terms oI probation. The court analogized this report to the
'documentary evidence Maki prong oI the Arreola hearsay analysis, determining that
the report 'was prepared contemporaneously to, and speciIically Ior, the hearing
where appellant's lack oI compliance with the deIerred entry oI judgment program
was at issue, and 'such reports were routinely received without undertaking the
added burden oI calling the author to authenticate it because the reports were prepared
in response to a reIerral Irom the court. (People v. O`Connell, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th
at pp.1066-1067.) -20- 2. Exclusionary Rule Generally, the exclusionary rule does not
apply to probation revocation proceedings. (People v. Harrison (1988) 199
60/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cal.App.3d 803, 808.) However, evidence that has been previously suppressed at a
preliminary hearing because oI an illegal search or seizure may not be introduced at a
probation revocation hearing iI the criminal charges were dropped and a new
complaint or indictment was never Iiled. (People v. Zimmerman (1979) 100
Cal.App.3d 673, 676 |statutory interpretation oI Pen. Code 1538|.) Illegally seized
evidence will be excluded, moreover, iI the police conduct was so egregious as to
shock the conscience. (People v. Washington (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1120, 1128.) 3.
Probationer`s testimony The testimony oI a probationer at a probation revocation
hearing, and its Iruits, cannot be used in a later criminal prosecution. (People v.
Coleman, supra, 13 Cal.3d at 891-892.) However, iI the probationer takes the stand at
a later criminal trial, the earlier revocation hearing testimony can be used to impeach
the probationer`s truthIulness. (Id. at p. 892.) -21- 4. Collateral Estoppel The doctrine
oI collateral estoppel does not generally apply to issues raised in both probation
revocation hearings and criminal trials. Thus, Iacts and issues may be relitigated
regardless oI which hearing was held Iirst and what determination was made. (Lucido
v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 347-349.) Likewise, reIiling oI a motion to
revoke probation, Iollowing dismissal oI the Iirst revocation proceeding, is
permissible. (People v. Villines, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at 1305.) It is within the
reasonable discretion oI the trial court to decide whether to hold a revocation hearing
beIore or aIter trial Ior a new oIIense. (People v. Jasper (1983) 33 Cal.3d 931, 935.)
MORE ON THE IDEA OF THE TPO/EPO'S BEING SET ASIDE BASED UPON
VIOLATIONS OF COURTHOUSE SANCTUARY DOCTRINE OR AN
ATTORNEY'S IMMUNITY FROM SERVICE OF PROCESS AT THE COURT,
ETC.:
http://caselaw.Iindlaw.com/ny-district-court/1372465.html
"THE LAW
('COURTHOUSE SANCTUARY)
Despite antagonistic dicta to the contrary; most modern era precedent dealing with the
issue oI 'Courthouse Sanctuary Irom service oI process have held that New York State
residents receive no such immunity protections. Baumgartner v. Baumgartner, 273 A.D.
411, 77 N.Y.S.2d 668 (1st Dept.1948); Department oI Housing Preservation, City oI New
York v. Koenigsberg, 133 Misc.2d 893, 509 N.Y.S.2d 270 (N.Y. Civ.Ct.1986); Ford
Motor Credit Co. v. Bobo, N.Y.L.J., 1 Misc.3d 901(A), 2003 WL 22928513 (Dec. 17,
2003, J. Miller, Nassau Co. Dist. Ct.) These cases hold that the Courthouse Sanctuary is
only available to Ioreign state residents who come into New York's Courts to contest
jurisdiction. This doctrine has been slightly expanded to include New York residents
who enter the jurisdiction oI a New York Court oI limited territorial jurisdiction to contest
jurisdiction. See Palazzo v. ConIorti, 50 N.Y.S.2d 706 (N.Y. Civ.Ct.1944); Singer v.
61/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Reising, 154 Misc. 239, 276 N.Y.S. 714 (Queens County 1935).
The Baumgartner Appellate Division panel also acknowledges a limited 'Courthouse
Sanctuary rule Ior New York residents iI such service ' would constitute a disturbance
directly tending to interrupt the proceedings of the Court or to impair the respect
due its authority. This rule by itselI would not be applicable to the instant case as
service oI process was eIIected in the Courtroom but outside the Court's presence and in
between calendar calls.
STATE RESIDENCY IMMUNITY DISTINCTION?
The English Common Law made no New York State residency distinction. The doctrine
oI immunity Irom arrest oI a litigant attending a trial oI an action to which he is a party
Iound early recognition and dates back to the book oI 13 Henry IV, J.B. Sampson v.
Graves, 208 A.D. 522, 203 N.Y.S. 729 (1st Dept.1924). This is Ior the obvious reason
that England had no sovereign states. The privilege is not a creature oI statute, but was
created and deemed necessary Ior the due administration oI justice. See Matthews v.
TuIts, 87 N.Y. 568 (1882); citing to Van Lien v. Johnson (N.Y. Ct. Appeals, unreported
1871).
The logical question now arises, exactly when did New York's Appellate Court's recognize
a residency distinction Ior application oI the 'Courthouse Sanctuary? The answer is that
the Court oI Appeals never established such a rule. In contra point oI Iact, the Court oI
Appeals has opined that:
It is the policy of the law to protect suitors and witnesses from arrests upon civil
process while coming to and attending the court and while returning home. Upon
principle as well as upon authority their immunity from the service of process for the
commencement of civil actions against them is absolute eundo, morando et redeundo.
Person v. Grier, 66 N.Y. 124 (1876). Emphasis Added.
In this unanimous opinion, the Court oI Appeals expressly addressed the New York State
resident immunity distinction and established in its dicta that 'whether any distinction
should or does in Iact exist, is at least doubtIul. This immunity is one oI the necessities
oI the Administration oI Justice, and Court's would oIten be embarrassed iI suitors or
witnesses, while attending Court, could be molested with process. It is noted that
Person involved a Ioreign state resident. In establishing the sanctuary doctrine, the Court
stated that 'this rule is especially applicable in all its Ioreign suitors . By direct
implication, the Court oI Appeals is also applying the protective rule to New York
residents.
The basis oI the 'Courthouse Sanctuary rule is that parties should be allowed to contest
jurisdiction without submitting to it. 'Allowing Re-service makes a mockery oI the
traverse hearing and essentially allows the plaintiII to use a deIective deIault judgment as a
weapon to compel the deIendant to submit to the service oI process. Ford Motor Credit
Co. v. Bobo; cite supra. The location oI an individual's residence does little to legitimize
such a mockery. Absent the compulsion oI clear controlling precedent; this Court will
not condone such a situation..."
a. In General
62/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21. Generally
West's Key Number Digest, Process k117 to 120
Litigants, their attorneys, and witnesses are immune Irom service oI process while
attending
court.|FN1| The basis Ior this rule, sometimes known as the "Courthouse Sanctuary" rule,
is that parties should be allowed to contest jurisdiction without submitting to it.|FN2|
Process
immunity is not Ior the convenience oI the person seeking it but is Ior the convenience oI
the
court, and should be made available only to Iurther the administration oI justice.|FN3| The
test is whether the privilege, iI allowed, would so obstruct judicial administration in the
cause
Ior the protection oI which it is invoked as to justiIy withholding it; this depends on the
nature
oI the proceeding in which the service is made and its relation to the principal suit.|FN4|
Because
the privilege is designed Ior the court's convenience, it is not automatic, and the party
must aIIirmatively show that it is in the court's own interest in the Iurtherance oI the
administration
oI justice to quash the summons.|FN5|
Once the plaintiII makes a prima Iacie showing oI jurisdiction, the burden shiIts to the
deIendant
seeking immunity Irom the service oI process to produce evidence establishing immunity
by showing that he or she was attending a judicial proceeding.|FN6|
Caution:
In at least one state, the immunity rule is no longer the law, whether the person seeking
immunity
is a nonresident witness or a nonresident party.|FN7|
CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT
AMJUR PROCESS 21 Page 1
62B Am. Jur. 2d Process 21
Service oI process eIIected in courtroom, but outside court presence and in between
calendar
calls, was not aIIected by limited courthouse sanctuary rule, which provided immunity
Irom service oI process Ior New York residents iI such service would constitute a
disturbance
directly tending to interrupt proceedings oI court or to impair respect due its authority.
North
Fork Bank v. Grover, 3 Misc. 3d 341, 773 N.Y.S.2d 231 (Dist. Ct. 2004).
|END OF SUPPLEMENT|
|FN1| Lamb v. Schmitt, 285 U.S. 222, 52 S. Ct. 317, 76 L. Ed. 720 (1932); Stewart v.
Ramsay, 242 U.S. 128, 37 S. Ct. 44, 61 L. Ed. 192 (1916); Moreo v. Regan, 140
63/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A.D.2d 313, 527 N.Y.S.2d 547 (2d Dep't 1988); Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. District
Court oI Fourteenth Judicial Dist. In and For Tulsa County, 1980 OK 3, 605 P.2d
1323 (Okla. 1980).
|FN2| North Fork Bank v. Grover, 3 Misc. 3d 341, 773 N.Y.S.2d 231 (Dist. Ct. 2004).
|FN3| Lamb v. Schmitt, 285 U.S. 222, 52 S. Ct. 317, 76 L. Ed. 720 (1932); Page Co. v.
MacDonald, 261 U.S. 446, 43 S. Ct. 416, 67 L. Ed. 737 (1923); Stewart v. Ramsay,
242 U.S. 128, 37 S. Ct. 44, 61 L. Ed. 192 (1916); ARW Exploration Corp. v. Aguirre,
45 F.3d 1455 (10th Cir. 1995).
|FN4| Lamb v. Schmitt, 285 U.S. 222, 52 S. Ct. 317, 76 L. Ed. 720 (1932).
|FN5| ARW Exploration Corp. v. Aguirre, 45 F.3d 1455 (10th Cir. 1995); Republic
Productions, Inc v. American Federation oI Musicians oI U S and Canada, 173 F.
Supp. 330 (S.D. N.Y. 1959).
|FN6| LaRose v. Curoe, 343 N.W.2d 153 (Iowa 1983).
|FN7| Silverman v. Superior Court, 203 Cal. App. 3d 145, 249 Cal. Rptr. 724 (2d Dist.
1988).
a. In General
25. Remedies Ior violation oI rule oI immunity
West's Key Number Digest, Process k126
The service oI process on one who is privileged or exempt Irom
service is not void but voidable.|FN1| To secure the right to claim
privilege or immunity Irom service oI process, the party must
appear and move to quash the service or proceed otherwise as
required by the applicable rules oI practice. It is insuIIicient to Iile a
motion giving notice to the court oI a claim
oI immunity; the party must appear and submit the question to the
court Ior decision.|FN2| FN1| Northwestern Casualty & Surety Co.
v. Conaway, 210 Iowa 126, 230 N.W. 548, 68 A.L.R. 1465 (1930);
Beckham v. Johnson, 220 Tenn. 572, 421 S.W.2d 94 (1967). |FN2|
Northwestern Casualty & Surety Co. v. Conaway, 210 Iowa 126,
230 N.W. 548,
68 A.L.R. 1465 (1930).
64/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
b. Litigants
27. Generally
There is conIlicting authority on the question oI whether a party
litigant may claim an exemption Irom service oI process while
attending trial.|FN1| The generally prevailing rule is that
nonresident litigants are privileged Irom service oI civil process
while going to, attending, or returning Irom, court.|FN2| The rule is
especially true where parties may be examined as witnesses,|FN3|
or where such a party is attending a trial to testiIy as a witness.
|FN4| The privilege is generally limited to nonresidents and to
residents attending court in a county outside their county oI
residence, and does not extend generally to residents.|FN5| In
contrast, some jurisdictions have declined to extend to nonresident
litigants protection Irom the service oI process in another action.
|FN6| |FN1| Mertens v. McMahon, 334 Mo. 175, 66 S.W.2d 127,
93 A.L.R. 1285 (1933). |FN2| Lamb v. Schmitt, 285 U.S. 222, 52
S. Ct. 317, 76 L. Ed. 720 (1932); Stewart v. Ramsay, 242 U.S. 128,
37 S. Ct. 44, 61 L. Ed. 192 (1916); Durst v. Tautges, Wilder &
McDonald, 44 F.2d 507, 71 A.L.R. 1394 (C.C.A. 7th Cir. 1930);
LaRose v. Curoe, 343 N.W.2d 153 (Iowa 1983); Massengale v.
Lester, 403 S.W.2d 697 (Ky. 1966); Commercial Bank & Trust Co.
v. District Court oI Fourteenth Judicial Dist. In and For Tulsa
County, 1980 OK 3, 605 P.2d 1323 (Okla. 1980); Lox, Stock and
Bagels, Inc. v. Kotten Mach. Co. oI CaliIornia, Inc., 261 Pa. Super.
84, 395 A.2d 954 (1978); Parker v. Reddick, 196 Tenn. 472, 268
S.W.2d 357, 45 A.L.R.2d 1096 (1954); State ex rel
65/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
b. Litigants
28. Parties who may claim privilege
The rule oI immunity oI litigants Irom a Ioreign jurisdiction Irom
the service oI process
while attending court typically includes both plaintiIIs and
deIendants.|FN1| There is authority,
however, to the eIIect that nonresident plaintiIIs are not privileged
Irom the service oI
process,|FN2| on the theory that a plaintiII who voluntarily seeks
the aid and protection oI
courts oI another state should not be shielded Irom the processes oI
those courts, a condition
which should not apply to a deIendant whose attendance is
compulsory.|FN3| Moreover,
some courts, while usually extending the exemption to nonresident
plaintiIIs, hold that nonresident
plaintiIIs who voluntarily come within the jurisdiction oI the courts
oI a state to attend
the trial oI litigation commenced by them against citizens oI that
state are not exempt
Irom service oI a summons in an action by deIendants Ior relieI
connected with the subject oI
the litigation commenced by them, where a Iull and complete
adjustment oI the rights oI the
parties cannot be had in the Iirst action, and where Iull relieI would
be denied the citizens oI
that state in courts oI the state oI the plaintiIIs' residence.|FN4|
66/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
|FN1| Stewart v. Ramsay, 242 U.S. 128, 37 S. Ct. 44, 61 L. Ed. 192
(1916); Marlowe
v. Baird, 301 F.2d 169 (6th Cir. 1962); LyI-Alum, Inc. v. C & M
Aluminum Supply
Corp., 29 Wis. 2d 593, 139 N.W.2d 601 (1966); State v. District
Court oI Eighth Judicial
Dist. in and Ior Cascade County, 73 Mont. 265, 235 P. 766 (1925).
|FN2| Wilson Sewing Mach. Co. v. Wilson, 51 Conn. 595, 1884
WL 1053 (1884);
Livengood v. Ball, 1916 OK 1008, 63 Okla. 93, 162 P. 768 (1916).
CONCLUSION:
Please grant the relieI sought herein
OrDER:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE HEARING SET IN 11-063341
FOR 3/13/13 IS VACATED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
_________________________
1UDGE
I declare under penalty oI perjury that the Ioregoing is true and correct and not
interposed Ior the purposes oI delay. NRS 53.045 (Buckwalter decision holds Declaration
shall suIIice Ior any AIIidavit Requirement)
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
The undersigned does hereby aIIirm that the preceding document does not contain the
social security number oI any person.
DECLARATION IN LIEU OF AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO NRS 53.045
67/70
1
2
3
4
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 assertions herein are made, pursuant to NRS 53.045 under penalty oI perjury and
based upon my Iirst hand knowledge oI these matters, except to those matters stated upon
inIormation and belieI, AND THE REQUESTS MADE HEREIN ARE MADE IN GOOD
FAITH AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF DELAY
Dated this 3/5/13
/s/ Zach Coughlin, signed electronically
Zach Coughlin
DeIendant
68/70
1
2
3
4
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
I, Zach Coughlin, declare:
On this date, I, Mr. Zach Coughlin served the Ioregoing document by
personally delivering to WCDA OIIice, Iaxing, and email to:
DDA Watts-Vial and
ZACHARY N. YOUNG, ESQ.
Washoe County DA OIIice
Address: 1 South Sierra
P.O. Box 30083
Reno, NV 89520
Phone Number: 775-328-3200
Fax number: 775-325-6703
Email: zyoungda.washoecounty.us
DATED this 3/5/13
/s/ Zach Coughlin, signed electronically
Zach Coughlin, pro per DeIendant
69/70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
1. VARIOUS RELEVANT MATERIALS AND PROPOSED ORDER
70/70
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
1/1/02 62337: Case View
caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csD=30514 1/2
Disclaimer: The information and documents available here should not be relied upon as an official record of
action.
Only filed documents can be viewed. Some documents received in a case may not be available for viewing.
Some documents originating from a lower court, including records and appendices, may not be available for
viewing.
For official records, please contact the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Nevada at (775) 684-1600.
Case Information: 62337
Short Caption:
IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
Classification: Bar Matter - Discipline - Appeal
Lower Court
Case(s):
NONE Case Status: Briefing in Progress
Disqualifications:
Panel
Assigned:
En Banc
Replacement:
To SP/ Judge: SP Status:
Oral Argument:
Oral Argument
Location:
Submission
Date:
How
Submitted:
+ Party Information
+ Due Items
Docket Entries
Date Type/ Subtype Descri pti on Pendi ng Document
12/24/2012 Filing Fee - Filing Fee Waived Filing Fee Waived: bar matter.
12/24/2012
Record on Appeal Documents -
Record of Bar Proceedings
Filed Record of Bar Proceedings, Pleadings
and Transcript of Hearings. Vols. 1
through 3. --STRICKEN PER 2/7/13 ORDER-
-
12/24/2012
Notice/Outgoing - Notice of
Briefing Schedule/Bar Discipline
Issued Notice of Briefing Schedule/Bar
Discipline. Due date: 30 days. If no
opening brief is filed, the matter will be
submitted for decision on the record
without briefing or oral argument.
12-40572
01/25/2013
Order/Clerk's - Order Granting
Extension Per Telephonic
Request
Filed Order Granting Telephonic Extension.
Opening Brief due: January 30, 2013.
13-02731
01/25/2013 Motion - Motion
Filed Supplemental Motion for Extension
and Exceed Page Limitations.
13-02770
01/31/2013 Brief - Opening Brief
Received Opening Brief and Appendix from
Zachary Coughlin. -RETURNED UNFILED
PER 2/7/13 ORDER-
Filed Motion upon Stipulation to Extend
Appellant Coughlin's Time to File Opening
Brief, or Alternatively, Motion Showing
Good Cause why Extension of 30 Days to
File Opening Brief Should Issue.
13-03407
Filed Request to Inspect 12/24/12 Record
on Appeal and Strike Defective Transcript
and Defective ROA and Suspend Briefing
Schedule.
13-03473
Filed Order we direct the clerk to strike
Search Here
000001
1/1/02 62337: Case View
caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csD=30514 2/2
02/07/2013 Order/Procedural - Order
the three-volume record filed December
24, 2012, and we order the State Bar to
re-submit the record in the proper format.
Appellant: 30 days after record filed to
submit an opening brief. All other pending
motions are denied. All pleadings
submitted to this court must be in the
required format. No appendix is required:
the parties shall cite to the record. Any
further pleadings submitted which do not
comply with the applicable rules may be
returned.
13-04051
02/13/2013
Record on Appeal Documents -
Record of Bar Proceedings
Filed Record of Bar Proceedings, Pleadings
and Transcript of Hearings. Vols. 1
through 9.
000002
000003 000004
000005 000006
000007 000008
000009 000010
000011 000012
000013 000014
000015 000016
000017 000018
000019 000020
000021 000022
000023 000024
000025 000026
000027 000028
000029 000030
000031 000032
000033 000034
SJAJ1 bA1 1VA1A
cDIudIy 1+, 2012
ZdCH LOu_HIH, SQ.
1+22 .
t
b!Icc!
cHO, IN 812
. LIIcVdHC C xL I2-0204 / iCuIu L. i
cdI wI. IOu_HIH.
00 at LhaictOn Vd.
La Nc_a, P 910+-153
QhOnc 70Z.3Z.ZZ00
toll Dcc 00.Z5+.Z797
D 70Z.35.Z7
9+5 Loub!c b !vd., btc.
bcno, N 95Z1-5977
QhOnc 775.3Z9.+100
D 775.3Z9.05ZZ
uuu.nrbaror]
JHc \IHCc OI dI LOUHSc HdS IcCcIVcU !Hc cHCOScU COIIcSQOHUcHCc IIOH ICHdIU |.
I, SQ., WHICH dc_cS QIOIcSSIOHd HISCOHUuC! OH yOuI QdIl. S SuCH, d _IIcVdHCc Hc HdS
DccH OQcHcU.
cdSc IcSQOHU IH WII!IH_ !O !HIS _IIcVdHCc WI!HIH !cH (l0) UdyS IIOH !Hc Ud!c OI !HIS c!!cI
dHU Kudy dtcc yout tc8gou8c o hc bac at'8 Hcuo occ. OuI IcSQOHSc SHOUU dUdcSS
0dCH dc_d!IOH COH!dIHcU WI!HIH wI. IS _IIcVdHCc dHU, WHcHcVcI QOSSIDc, d dQQt'uDc
UUCuHcH!d!IOH IH SuQQOI! OI yOuI IcSQOHSc SHOuU Dc IHCuUcU.
I yOu IH!cHU !O SuQQcHcH! yOuI IcSQOHSc, QcdSc IHUICd!c dH cXQcC!cU Udlc OI IcCcIQ! IOI
!Hc SdHc IH yOuI IcSQOHSc. I yOU HdVc dHy QucS!IOHS, QcdSc UO HO! HcSI!d!c !O COH!dC! Hc.
bIHCcIcy,
d!IICK \. IH_
1SSIS!dH! dI LOuHSc
\Q
HCOSuIc
000035
`..
KLHKL O.
rh l{rthu|Jh|/u\:um
L1O1 . HLK
cd|uKc}|,l1:hurUhluu.Cum
KK/ /, c_u SSSIunI
Sh l_rlchulUhluV+um
K . ^/^ c_u HSSSIunl
8/|lcScnqr!churJhIu\+Om
3. OrcSI IrcCI
ciC, C\uUu 89509
OSl L])uC OI .J31
KcAO, tVuUu 895u5
NP LNPL LILY
1u!IICKhIDg, LSq.
PSSIS!uD! DuILUuDSC!
b!u!CDuIU PCVuUu
Qq_O lUuD!C K.D!VU.
KCHU, ICVuUu bQ_21
BI. hIDg.
Ve: Zachary B. Coughln, sq.
Nevada Bar No. Qqg
JuDuuIy Iq, 2OI2
(5) 348-0888
I (5 348-0858
wVu.r!churUhlu\.COm
YUuuDUDuVCICVIUuS!yUISCuSSCUNI. LUugD!ID. NI. LUugD!ID, UuC!U
DISUCD!u!IDS!uDI!I!y, !uCKUID!CgII!y,uDUCUU!C!CIDCUUC!CDCC, CUDS!I!u!CSuUuDgCI
!U!DCuD!ICI DCISu!!UWCU!UCUD!IDuC!UIuC!ICC!uW. JDIS!C!!CI!S WII!lCD !U
UISCDuIgCDIyuDU UyuSSUCIu!CS ICUI!IDg UD!Igu!IUDSuDUCI K1L b._. 1!CuSCCUDSIUCI
!C U!!UWIHg:
. SSODc L. CC$$U, LV1O-O!_qI. P!!DOugDDU! uUDHgNI. LUugD!IHS
i1US!SIgDIHCuD!C!DICu!VIU!u!IUHS, I!ICSCH!SugUUUUICIUCUSUUDISUCIC!IC!IUDS. NI.
LCSSID WuSuC!ICD!U UuIUICC. CUCIuuUCU!DC!uID!IH, uSISDIS modus operundi ID
UCu!IHg WI!D WUUCD. PIUXII1u!C!yUDCyCuI uHCI JuUgUCD! WuS CD!CICU uDU!DCCuSC
CUHC!uUCU, NI. LUug!ID ID!CIJCC!CUIUSC! IH !DCCuSCUD DCDu! ULCSSID, !IyIDg !U
CU!!CC! UHu SuHC!IUD uWuIU uguIHS! UUSIHg CUuHSC!. ! !uIHS Uu! !Du! DCCuuSCCDuU
H!CU DuHKIu!Cy, LCSSIHHU!UD_CIUWHS!IS C!uII1. yUu !UUKu!!DCI!C, yUuWI!! SCC
!u! LUupD!IH uCuICUuDU !CH H!CU H DI7uIIC u!Iu!WI!UIuWu!` UUCIl!1CD! UH
lCCCUDCI b, 2OII.
000036
LC!!CI!U1u!IICK hIDg, LSq.
JuDuuIy Iq, 2OI2
1ugC2
buDSCquCD! !U!Du!!IUC, LUugD!IDDuSDCCD gDUS!WII!IDg UUCuUCD!S !Du!
uIUI! !UDCIUULCSSID, IDUIVIUuu!!y, uDUC-H!IDg!DCUUI LCSSID. lCISuSIDg!DC
S`UI LCSSIDS SIgDu!uIC. JDCSCuICC!CuI!yDU! UUCuDICD!S!Du!uIC SIgDCU UI
ICuICUDyNI. LCSSID, uDU !DCuC!!Du!SUUCDUUy[LUugD!ID) C-D!CS!DCUCUDIIUSDC
ISgDUS!WII!IDgWI!DUu! !DCICquIICUUISC!USuIC. DuUUI!IUD, I!uCuIS!Du! LUugD!ID
DuS uCI!I!u!CU!DC UWDu!DIuyDC uIuuUu!CD!DuDKIu!CyUDDCDu!U LCSSID.
LUugD!IDS !uCK ISUCUUDS!Iu!CUID!DCLCSSIDCuSCDy!DCuC!!Du!DC
UUCSDU! CCC!UD!DCUWDCISDIULCSSIDSU!CD!Iu! C!uIUSIUU
LCSSIDDuVIDgH!CUuDuDKIu!Cy, [LC., !DCC!uIUSDUWDC!UDg!U!DCDuDKIu!Cy!IuS!CC,
DU! LCSSID.)
PSW 7!D u!!U!DCU8!!CISICCICDCCUDCDW, S!IUD!ySuggCS!!Du!yUu
CUD!uC!!DC bCCUDUJuUICIu! lIS!IIC! LUuI! uDUgC!C-I!IDguCCCSS!U!DCCuSCSUCD!IUDCU
SUyUuCuD!UUK u!!DCUUCuUCD!SyUuISC!. L!uUC u!!, LSq.,ISUUSIDg CUuDSC!ID!Du!
CuSC uDUUuyDCUDC!!UyUu.
2. uUIDUIUCU uDU DC!ICVC !Du! NI. LUugD!ID WuS ICCCD!!y CUDVIC!CU U u
!DC!CIIUCID KCDU NuDICIu!LUuI!. uUHI1DCIIDUIUCU !Du!!DCUu!!CI uIISCSUu!U
SDU!I!IDgu!Yu!UuI!. JDu!CuSCISICSCD!!yUD uCu!!U!DCUIS!IIC!CUuI!IDCuSC
DuUDCI LKl-2OOq. NI. LUugD!IDIS ICICSCD!IDgDIUSC!.
_. NI. LUugD!IDISICSCD!!yuCIDgCIIUIDu! CDuIgCSICguIUIDg!DC!DC!U
uDI1UU. JDu! ISCDUIDgID KCDU JuS!ICC LUuI! uS CuSC DuUDCI KLK2OII-OO__q1.
DuVCICVICWCU!DCI!C. NI. LUugD!IDgU!ID!USUUCSUI!UuIguI1CD!WI!DDISuD!IC
UCCDUCI. PSuICSu!!, DCWuSICCIICUUu!UIuCUUC!CDCyCVu!uu!IUD.
q. YCICICSCD! lI. Nu!!DCWNCI!ISS, uDySICIuDIUULDICU, Lu!IUIDIu.
lI. NCI!ISSUWDS!DCIUCI!yu! I21 KIVCI KUCK b!ICC!, KCDU, ICVuUu. DCgIDDIDgID
NuICD2OIO,!DCIUCI!yWuS!CuSCU !UNI. LUugD!IDuDUDIS!DCDgII!IICDU. DC!CuSC
CXIICUID CbIuuIy2O11. JhC gII!IICDU!CH!DCCUUUuDI!yIDuIUXIUu!C!yNuy2OII.
lI.NCI!ISSCUD!uC!CUuSIDuIUXDu!C!yPuguS!2OII!UuSSIS!IDCVIC!IDgNI.
LUugD!ID. LUugD!IDDuUDU!uIUICD!UIu!I!I!ICSSIDCCNuy. lCCUD!CDUCU!Du!!DCIC
WCICDuDI!uDI!I!yISSuCSWI!D !DCIUCI!y!Du!]uS!IUCUDISWI!DDU!UIDgICD!. P!!UDIS
c!uHDSWCICUCCIUCUuUVCISC!y !UDISUSI!IUD u!!DCCVIC!IUDDCuIIDg. JuS!ICCU!DC
1CuCC1C!CIb!CIu77uUIUCICULUugD!IDCVIC!CUIUU!DCICUISCSCCC!IVCIUVCUDCI I,
2OII. LD !Du! Uu!C, !DC YuSDUC LUuD!y bDCIIS lCuI!UCD!CIUIUCU !DCII DUIUu!
CVIC!IUDIUCCUuIC: !UCKSWCICCDuDgCU uDU !DC CVIC!IUDDU!ICCWuSUS!CUUD!DCIUD!
UUUI. CVIUCU!uCU !DC DUUCuDUI!ScUD!CD!Su!!Du! !IUC. LUDIDSCC!IUDUVCI!DC
uCX! ICWUuyS, I!DCCuI1CuuICD!!Du!`SUUCDUUy`WuSDICuKIDgID!U !DCDU1CUD u
ICgu!uIDuSIS.
|D buDUuy, IUVCDIDCI I_, 2OII, lI. 1CI!ISSCuUC!U!UWD, uDU !1C!DI!1
u!IDCDU1CI1 KIVCI KUcKb!ICC!. PSWCWu!KCU!DIUugD!DCDUUC,I!WuSUDVIUuS!Du!
000037
lC!!CI !U 1u!IICK IDg, Sq.
JuDuuIy Iq, 2OI2
1ugC_
SU!1CUDC DuU DCCD ID |DCICSIDCC DuU !uS!DCCDIDSCVCIu!UuySDCUIC. lI. NCI!ISS
UISCUVCICU!Du!!DCDuSCIuCD!UUUIWuSDuIIICuUCU [DU!!UCKCU) IUDI!DCIDSIUC. JDC
KCDU1UCC lCuI!UCD!WuSSuDIDIUDCU. JDCy!IICU!UCUuXWDUCVCIWuSID!DC
DuSCUCD!Uu!, WI!DUu! SuCCCSS. P!CI lI. NCI!ISSDuU!UKICK!DCUUUI UUWD, I!\vuS
UISCUVCICU!Du! NI. LUugD!IDDuU DIUKCDIDuDUWuS ID!DCDuSCUCD!. lCWuS
uIICS!CU uDUISICSCD!!yuCIDgCIIUIDu!!ICSuSSCDuIgCSID KCDUNuDICIul LUuI!. bCC
CuSC DU. IILK2OqO_2I. CISu!SUuCIDguCUD!CU!UU!IUDIDIUD!UJuUgCbCIu77u
ID!DCCVIC!IUDCuSC. bCIuZZuDuSS!uyCU!Du!Uu!!CI CDUIDg!DCICSU!u!IUDU!DC
CIIUIDu!!IIu!. JDuI WuSSCDCUu!CUUIJuDuuIy IO, 2OI2,Du!WuSCUD!IDuCU u!!DC
ICquCS!U NI. LUugD!IDSDCWu!!UIDCy.
_. JDC CVIC!IUDUIUCIISDUWUDuCu!!U!DCbCCUDUJuUICIu!lIS!IIC!
LUuI!. CC CuSC \1I-O_O2b,CDUIDgIDlCuI!UCD!/. PS|uI!O!DCCVIC!IUDIUCCSS,
u!ICDWuS uSSCI!CUuguIDS!!DCCISUDu!IUCI!y!Du! LUugD!ID!CHDCDIDUu!!DCDUUC.
LDIUVCUDCI IO, 2OII, LUugD!IDH!CUuUU!IUD!UCUD!CS!!DC!uDU!UIUS!ICDID!DC KCDU
JuS!ICC LUuII. JDCCUuI!!IICU!UIUU!!ySC!uDCuIIDg, Du!LUugD!IDICuSCU!U
CUUCIu!C IDSC!!IDg!DCUu!!CI, uDU !DCCUuI!!UUKI!UH Cu!CDUuI. LUugD!ID!DCDIC-
IDI!Iu!CU!Du!IUCCSSuDUuDCuIIDgWuSDC!UIDlCCCUDCI, u!WDICD!IUC!DCCUuI!DCuIU
CVIUCDCCULUugD!IDS!uCKUCUUCIu!IUDIDSC!!IDg!DC IUVCUDCIDCuIIDg. YUuUuy
u!SUWuD!!UCUD!uC! KCDUJuS!ICCLUuI!S!u, uDUIDuI!ICu!uI,CDICC!CIKhuICDb!uDCI!,
uDUu! NI. LUugD!IDSuDuSIVC!ICu!UCD!UDCIuDUDCIS!uH. P!CI!DCDCuIIDg, !DCCUu!!
ISSuCUuDLIUCI gIuD!IDg LUugD!IDu !WU-Uuy!IUCWDUUW!UICUUVC DISCISUDu!
IUCI!y. JDC HIS!UuyWuSJDuISUuy, lCCCUDCI22, 2OII. PHCI LUugD!IDWuSu!!UWCU
ID!U!DCDUUC!Du!HIS!Uuy, DCSCD!Uu!uDC-UuI!!U!DCCCC!!Du!DCCuuSCDCDuU
uCu!CUJuUgC bCIu77uSUIUCI,DCWuSCD!I!!CU!Uu S!uyUIUCCCUIDgSuDU WuS
!UICSuUC ID!DCDUUC. PSuICSu!!, DCUIUVCIy!I!!!C!UICUUVCuDyUDISCISUDu!
IUCI!y!Du!Uuy. LD IIUuy, lCCCUDCI2_, 2OII, u!CIDC!CuIDCU, uguID, !Du!DISS!uy
DuUDCCDUCDICU, LUugD!IDuSSCUD!CUuSUu!!CICWuDU!DCyWCICuD!C!UICUUVCu
SuDS!uD!Iu!uUUuD!UDISCISUDu!IUCI!y. [YUuDCCU!UuDUCIS!uDU!Du!NI.
LUugD!IDISuDUuIUCI. YCDuVC!DCDU!USuDU VIUCUSI yUuWUu!U!IKC!USCC!DCU.)
UWCVCI, NI. LUugD!IDUIUDU!gC!u!!UDISIUCI!yUu!. UICXuU!C, CUuD!CUI_CuI
SCu!S!Du!DCDuUSUUCDUWUuDugCU!UgC!UUWuID!U!DCDuSCUCD!.
uVIDguI!CU!UICUUVCu!! U DISDC!UDgIDgS, NI. LUugD!ID !DCDUUVCU
DC!OIC JuUgC !uDuguD IUIu !CUUIuIyICS!IuIDIDg UIUCI!UICVCD!!DCUISUSu! UDIS
uDuDUUDCU IUCI!y IDuCCUIUuDCCWI!DJuUgC bCIu77uSUIUCI. P!!uCDCUISNI.
LUugD!IDSUU!IUD, UyUHCCSUUSI!IUD, uDU NI. LUugD!IHSIC!y. JDCSCUUCuUCD!S
UCUUDS!Iu!C NI. LUugD!IDS CUU!C!C uDU u!!CIIDCUUC!CDCCuSuD u!!UIDCy.
LD JuDuu J 2OI2, JuUgC !uDuguD UCDICU NI. LUugD!IDSICquCS!UI u
!CDIUIuIICS!IuIDIDgUIUCI. LD JuDuuIy I2, 2OII, !DCCUD!IuC!UIDIICU!UC!CuD!DC
UuSCCG1UCuCCU WUIK. NI. LUugD!ID !1uggCU !DC CUD!IuC!UIUUWDID!IuHC WDCDDC
[!DCCUD!IuC!UI) WuSUD ISWuy!U!DCUHHQWI!D!DCuDuDUUDCU QIUCI1yIUU!DC
DU!11C. LUugD!IDCu!!CU!DCU!ICC, WDU uIIIVCUu!!DC!IuDSCIS!u!IUD. LUugD!IDWuS
I0!SC!yuSSCI!Iug!hu!!DC CUH!IuC!UIDuU!IICU!UIuDIDI UVCI. C u!SU |U!U!DC U!ICC
000038
lC!!CI!U1u!IICK hIDg, Sq.
JuDuuIy 1q, 2O12
1ugCq
!Du! !DCCUD!IuC!UIDuU S!U!CDDISUSSCSSIUDS. P!CI ICSCD!CU!DCCUuI!UIUCISlUlDC
U!ICC, !DCCUD!IuC!UIWuSu!!UWCU!UIUCCCU. P!!DCIIIDS!IuC!IUD, DuVCDUWDuUuJ1L
ISSuCUuguIDS!LUugD!ID Dy KCDUJuS!ICCLUuI!.
lUWCVCI, DCUIC!DCCUD!IuC!UICUu!UgC!DuCKlU !DC KIVCI KUCKDUuSC,
LUugD!IDWuS!DCIC. CDuUDISVIUCUCuUCIu uDU WuSWu!KIDguuDUUUWD!DCS!ICC!
SCICuUIDguDUyC!!IDgCU!ICC, u!lDCCUD!IuC!UI, uDUu! UC, WDCD uIIIVCU. NI.
LUugD!IDCDUCU uDCHguIICS!CUuDU!uKCD!U]uI!. JDCU!ICCIDUIUCUUC!Du!
DCCuuSCU!DCDuUDCIuDU!yCSU CUD!uClS!DCyDuVCDuUWI!D DIU, DCISDU!UDgCI
C!IgID!CUICI!u!IUDSID !DCCVCDlUIDIuC!IUDS.
DC!USCUyUuWI!!HDUuCUy Uu Su!CUCD!u!UUCuUCD! H!CUDyNI.
LUugD!ID UDJuDHR!y J_, .O12, uDUSCDl!UUySluuDU DyCUuI!IUULUu_D!ID !Du!
UUIDIDg. 1!CuSC DU!C!Du!!DCu!!UIDCyUCSIgDu!IUD UD !DC HIS! ugCIDUICulCS!DulI!IS
DCIDg H!CUDyLUugD!IDuSuC!!uD!. YUuWI!!DU!C!Du!!DCCu!IUDISIUUuUIHCICD!
CuSC. !ISuDC!CuIIDWDICDCuSCNI. LUugD!ID ID!CDUCU!UH!C!DISUUCuUCDl, u!lDUugD,
DCCuuSCU!DCCuSCDuUDCIuDU!DCCu!IUD, IluCuIS!UDuVCu!lIUulC!yDCCDIUu!CU !U
!DCLuICD!ICICuSC(CVC8-O1,O) uDUDU!!DCCVIClIUDuCu!CuSC(CV11-O628). uU
!U!U!Du!CUuDSC!ID!DCCulIUDCUCuSCUuyu!SUDCID!DCIUCCSSUHIDguDuI
CUU!uID!uguIDS!LUugD!ID.
O. YDCD!DCDUuSCWuSSCCuICUu!CILUugD!IDSuIICSl,WCUuDUuCIuCK
ICuDU uDug UWDu!uCuICU!U DC UuII]uuDu. DCCUD!IuC!UI u!SUICUI!CU HDUIDgu
UXU I!!S uDUuVIu!U!SUUCSU!!. YCuDUCIS!uDULUUgD!IDDuSuD8uCCCSSu!!y !IICU
!DC luWyCIS LUDCCIDCUUI luWyC!SIUgIuU, uDU!Du!DCDuSuDIS!UIy USuDS!uDCC
IUD!CUS.
,. NI. LUugD!IDDuSH!CU!WU!uWSuI!SuguIDS!DISUIUCICU!UyCI,
Y8SDUC lCgu!bC!VICCS. CDuSSuCUu!!U!DCDUuIUUUIICC!UISuDU!DCUuDugCUCD!U
!DC CUUuDy. DU!D CuSCSDuVCDUWDCCDUISUISSCU. DU!DCuSCSUCUUDS!Iu!CDIS!uCK U
CUmC!CDCC. SuggCS! yUuCUD!uC! JUSCD LuIID, LSq., ID LuS NCguS, uSDCWuSCUuDSC!
!UI !DC UCCDUuD!SID!Du!CuSC. YUuUuyWuH!!UCUD!uC!1uu! ICuDU, Sq., !DCUIICC!UI
U!YuSDUC lCgu! bCIVICCS.
b. NI. LUugD!IDDuSuDuDI!UIDI!Iu!IDgCuSCSuDUuSKIDg!UIUCCCUin
]rmc pcuperis. lCDuS UUDCL IH CuSCSuguIDS!UC, UyUHCC, UyC!ICD!, uDUYuSDUC
lCu!bCIVICCS. YUu WI!!IDU!DCUIyUuIuDuSCuICDUILUugD!IDZ UD!DCbCCUDU
JuUICIu!lIS!IIC!LUuI!WCDSI!C. DCCUu!!S!Du!DuVCICVICWCUlDCUUCuUCD!SDuVC
uDCIu!!yUCDICUDIS!CquCS!S. YDu!ISUDU!CIS!Du!DISICICSCD!u!IUDS ID!DC
u!ICu!IUDS!U IUCCCUin ]rmc pcupcris u!CIDCUDSIS!CD!\vI!D uDUCUD!Iu!y!U!DC
u!CSCH!u!UDS!Du! DC DuS !1uUC!U JuUgC!uDuguDID!DCCUD!CX!U SCCKIDg u
|u1DUIuy tS!IuIDIDg UUCI. LD !DCUDCDuDU, DC!C!!S !DC CUuI! DCIS IUKCuDUDuSDU
UC!!y, uDU 0D !DCU!DCIDuDU, DC IS !C!!IDg!DCCUuI!!Du!DC DuSugICu!UCu! U
vu!uuD!C0CI!yu! !DCDUHC!Du!HCCUS!UDC!U!CC!CU. DISUCHUDS!Iu!CSu gIUSS
ucK 0! CuDUU!WI!D !DC!IIDuDu!SWI!D\\DICDDCUCu!S.
000039
* 4
lC!!CI !U lu!IICK hIDg, Sq.
JuDuu!y Iq, 2O12
lugC
. LUuD!ID DuS u!SU!IICU !UH!CuCuSCuguIDS!UC, l1yuSSUCIu!C, l1yC!ICD!,
uDUU!DCIS, IDC!uUIDg !DC KCDUJuS!ICCLUuI!. !ISu!SU!UDCUuDUUD!DCWCDSI!C.
JuUgC b!CIDDCIUCI DuS Iu!CU!Du!DCUIUDU! CUU!yWI!D IKL b.
IO. LUugD!IDSDCDuVIUIWuSuDuSuu!!US!uI!, uDUDuSDCCUUCUUICuDU
!1UICDI7uIICUuIIDg!DC WCDuVC DCCD UCu!IDgWI!D DIU. lC SCIVCS uCIS DCUUCS
DU!H!C, uDU H!CS UUCSDU! SCIVC. lCCUDSIS!CD!!y SIgDS CCI!IHCu!CS USCIVICC
!Du! DCDuSUuI!CU!ULis, Du!WCDuVCDCVCIICCCIVCU IUU DIUDyUuI!. lCDuS
US!CUVIUCUSU !DCCVIC!IUD SCIVICC u!!CU!S uDUuI!S U!DC!IIu!UDYUuuDC,
IDC!uUIDgSUUCICCUIUIDSDCSCCIC!!yUuUCIDCUuIlWI!DDISCC!!DUDC.
I1. PDU!DCICXuU!CUDISIDCUUC!CDCCIS!Du!DCUUCSDU!uDUCIS!uDU
Wu!UIUCISuIC, unUuIC HO!, uCu!uD!C. lCUUCSDU!uDUC!S!uDu!Du! H!IDu DU!ICC U
uCu! UIVCS!S!DC!UWCICUuI!U)uIISUIC!IUD.
uUCUDHUCD! !Du!UDCCyUu!UUKID!U!DISUu!!CI, yUuWI!!ugICC!Du! NI.
LUuD!IDSDUu!UDU!DCIuC!ICIDg!uW. lC ISuUuDgCI!U!DCCUUUuDI!y.
bIDCCIC!y,
/b/
KICDuIU L. I!!
Kl.KD
DC!USuICS.
-LUuD!IDUCDUCU LUCICDCy NU!IUDUI KCS!IuIDIDLIUCI
-NCIISS LUSI!IUD !U NU!IUDUIKL
-LUuD!ID KC!y!ULUSI!IUD!UNU!IUDUIKL
-bu!C!1CD!u!KC!y!ULUSI!IUDUu!CU1]1_]12
000040
DO 5OO7H N1MC1W1A 3+FE3 =\1 2O1 HWC WENACA MC2
l} 322-AO FAX lYY) B22-4A7
SDfUBQ T,
t. ZBCD. LDUgD|R
D YPD0 |l %By L0DCSf,
D|S lSl !S D C!||Q P8 {3CR LOUgHR HBS DOBR Ui0EI Ry S|RC P|ll TZ,
Z4. O S 0BgRDSQ BS PRVRg %BjDf |OSSVO SDf0Ef BR0 PlRlOR
0lCVMy0|8Cvy 60fdBf RR0 S CU|IDy DR P00BfB|| Z0g BR0
YS||DUlID L 0g . M S WB RB|R8RO0 BR0 00PS RD BDUS0 PlS
060CDRS | yDU D8V BRy dRD! QUOSDRS, |BBS CDR3C DO DHlC.
RCOIy,

%UjBP!0 BSU|, %.L.
000041
000042
RE: Update
From: Brown, Celeste (CBrownwashoecounty.us) This sender is in your saIe list.
Sent: Thu 1/24/13 3:10 PM
To: 'Zach Coughlin' (zachcoughlinhotmail.com)
Fer lhe vicec, ycu :hcwec up cl 2:5 p.m Frcm here cn cul Zcch, ycu neec lc check in Lelween :45 cnc 2:00 p.m. Lel: :ee if we ccn fix lhe prcL|em ck

Sgl. C} rovn
WC Depl. Of AIlernalive Senlencing
1 Soulh Sierra Sl.
Reno, Nv 895O1
desk 775)327-8384 fax 775)327-8383
From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com|
Sent : Thursday, January 2+, 2013 2:+2 PN
To: Brown, Celeste
Subject : Update

Dear OIIicer Brown,

I appreciate your recent note. Thank you. It meant a lot. I came in yesterday well more than 5 minutes prior to 3 pm, but
was detained too long at the security station Ior BailiII Medina to escort me to the DAS OIIice (then ChieI Judge SIerrazza's
Administrative Order 12-01 oI December 20th, 2012 requires as much). I saw Judge Linda Gardner's bailiII, Deputy
Kirkham milling about with Iour or Iive other deputies near the courthouse exit perIorming a pbc test on a man, and
requested permission to wait my turn and take one as well. I memorialized this in a note that I gave to BailiII Medina Ior
which he agreed to provide to DAS. Deputy Kirkham made some sneering commentary about alcoholism and dependency
issues in general (I cannot recall speciIically whether or not she then "high-Iived" one oI her Iellow deputies) as they relate
to me, and perhaps the Irish race and my ancestry in general, then reIused to allow me to take a pbc test and document it on
the note I leIt with BailiII Medina Ior DAS. Deputy Kirkham decided against assisting in a pbc test. Deputy Kirkham, the
SBN arranged, was present Ior my 11/14/12 Iormal disciplinary hearing at the State Bar oI Nevada, despite the involvement
oI 2JDC Family Court Judge Linda Gardner (the SBN has been purposeIully vague and obstructionist as to whether ng12-
0435 is a grievance with a grievant oI Linda Gardner given some oI the ethical problems associated with Judges writing
letters whether oI recommendation or condemnation (or Orders AIter Trial) and submitting them voluntarily (or having their
brother RMC Judge William Gardner do so by way oI taking the 4/13/09 Order AIter Trial by his sister and passing it to
RMC Judge Nash Holmes, then having her include that in the 3/14/09 grievance she herselI Iiled on behalI oI RMC Judge
William Gardner and all other RMC Judges....especially where RMC Judge W. Gardner reIused to recuse himselI Irom the
criminal trespass prosecution oI Coughlin Irom his Iormer home law oIIice incident to the summary eviction Irom it
presided over by RJC Judge SIerrazza (where a $2,275 rent escrow deposit was ordered by the RJC in violation oI Nevada
000043
2/11/13 OutlookPrint Message
https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=5dd2623b-aaf3-4a9f-8fd3-fcd6a2574a23,m&isSafe=false&FolderD=66666666-6666-6666-6666-66. 1/7
Update
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlinhotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 1/24/13 2:41 PM
To: cbrownwashoecounty.us (cbrownwashoecounty.us)
Dear OIIicer Brown,
I appreciate your recent note. Thank you. It meant a lot. I came in yesterday well more
than 5 minutes prior to 3 pm, but was detained too long at the security station Ior BailiII
Medina to escort me to the DAS OIIice (then ChieI Judge SIerrazza's Administrative Order
12-01 oI December 20th, 2012 requires as much). I saw Judge Linda Gardner's bailiII,
Deputy Kirkham milling about with Iour or Iive other deputies near the courthouse exit
perIorming a pbc test on a man, and requested permission to wait my turn and take one as
well. I memorialized this in a note that I gave to BailiII Medina Ior which he agreed to
provide to DAS. Deputy Kirkham made some sneering commentary about alcoholism and
dependency issues in general (I cannot recall speciIically whether or not she then "high-
Iived" one oI her Iellow deputies) as they relate to me, and perhaps the Irish race and my
ancestry in general, then reIused to allow me to take a pbc test and document it on the note
I leIt with BailiII Medina Ior DAS. Deputy Kirkham decided against assisting in a pbc test.
Deputy Kirkham, the SBN arranged, was present Ior my 11/14/12 Iormal disciplinary
hearing at the State Bar oI Nevada, despite the involvement oI 2JDC Family Court Judge
Linda Gardner (the SBN has been purposeIully vague and obstructionist as to whether
ng12-0435 is a grievance with a grievant oI Linda Gardner given some oI the ethical
problems associated with Judges writing letters whether oI recommendation or
condemnation (or Orders AIter Trial) and submitting them voluntarily (or having their
brother RMC Judge William Gardner do so by way oI taking the 4/13/09 Order AIter Trial
by his sister and passing it to RMC Judge Nash Holmes, then having her include that in the
3/14/09 grievance she herselI Iiled on behalI oI RMC Judge William Gardner and all other
RMC Judges....especially where RMC Judge W. Gardner reIused to recuse himselI Irom
the criminal trespass prosecution oI Coughlin Irom his Iormer home law oIIice incident to
the summary eviction Irom it presided over by RJC Judge SIerrazza (where a $2,275 rent
escrow deposit was ordered by the RJC in violation oI Nevada law and still not returned to
Coughlin by the time oI the trespassing arrest or during any period in which Coughlin was
expected to hire movers and rent a uhaul and arrange Ior an alternate location to place such
personalty). Further RMC Judge Garder Iailed to disclose that his sister is 2JDC Family
Court Judge Linda Gardner during the audio record oI the 2/2/12 hearing in 11 CR 26405
wherein Coughlin prompted Judge Gardner to disclose any such matters that would tend to
create an appearance oI impropriety or a basis Ior a conIlict or bias, whether or not such
did, in Iact exist, and whether the judge himselI thought such did in Iact exist.
000044
As to the permissibility oI such voluntary extra-judicial contacts with adjudicatory panels
(including that by RJC Judicial Secretary Lori Townsend on 4/11/12 to the SBN wherein
she volunteered Iilings by Coughlin in 063341 and 065630 and the dockets in those
respective cases):
"
In re Fr ank, 753 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 2000) (retired appellate judge publicly
reprimanded Ior actions while on bench, including making Ialse or misleading
statements under oath concerning his involvement in divorce litigation oI his
daughter; not recusing himselI Irom appeals based on his Iriendship with
attorney in those appeals; impr oper ly inter Ier ing with Bar gr ievance
pr oceeding oI that attor ney; threatening to have son-in-law arrested or
committed to psychiatric Iacility during divorce proceedings involving his
other daughter).
In re Inquiry Concerning Ward, 654 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1995) (judge received
public reprimand Ior writing character reIerence letter Ior criminal deIendant
recommending probation; letter was not response to oIIicial request by
deIendant's probation oIIicer).
In re Fogan, 646 So.2d 191 (Fla. 1994) (judge sanctioned Ior writing character
reIerence letter on oIIicial court stationery Ior personal Iriend Iacing
sentencing in Iederal court; Iriend's Iederal probation oIIicer had not
requested letter).

http ://www.Ilcour ts.or g/genpublic/cour ted/bin/judicialethicsbenchguide.pdI
6. What Contact with Investigati ve or Adjudicator y Bodies Is Per mitted?
The case law and committee opinions advise that a judge may not initiate
contact with an investigatory or adjudicatory body determining rights, duties,
privileges, or immunities oI a person requesting that the judge contact the
body on his or her behalI. Opinion 75-6 (improper to write character letter Ior
attorney who is principal in disbarment proceeding); Opinion 75-
18 (impr oper to wr ite letter to bar gr ievance committee or supr eme cour t
in disciplinar y pr oceeding or to Ieder al judge in cr iminal sentencing
without oIIicial r equest); Opinion 82-15 (improper to write letter voluntarily
to Board oI Bar Examiners); Opinion 89-15 (impermissible to appear beIore
judicial nominating commission to introduce candidate or express opinion
000045
about who is best qualiIied to serve as judge...See Judge SIerrazza's letter in
2007 on this and Judge Linda Gardner's submitting numerous letters oI
recommendation Irom local judges:
http://www.washoecounty.us/largeIiles/agendas/071007/35.pdI page 101-
104);
4. May Judge Write Letters oI Recommendation or Serve as Character
Witness?
Canon 2B governs letters oI recommendation and states in pertinent part: 'A
judge shall not lend the prestige oI judicial oIIice to advance the private
interests oI the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to
convey the impression that they are in a special position to inIluence the
judge. Generally, Florida Supreme Court opinions allow, and Committee
opinions advise, that it is ethically acceptable Ior judges to write letters oI
recommendation to educational institutions on behalI oI persons about whom
they have actual knowledge based on personal observation. See In re Code oI
Judicial Conduct, 643 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 1994) (citing Committee opinions 75-
18, 75-22, 77-17, 79-3, 88-19, 92-2, 92-30, and 93-1, all identiIied as proper
interpretations oI the canon). Similarly, the opinions cited above indicate that
a judge may write a letter oI recommendation Ior a person applying Ior
employment iI the judge has actual knowledge and communicates Iactual
inIormation regarding character, knowledge, skills, and ability relevant to the
job in question or relevant to proIessional competence generally.
5. What Contact with Investigative or Adjudicatory Bodies Is Permitted?
The case law and Committee opinions advise that a judge may not initiate
contact with an investigatory or adjudicatory body determining rights, duties,
privileges, or immunities oI a person requesting that the judge contact the
body in his or her behalI. See In re Inquiry Concerning Ward, 654 So.2d 549
(Fla. 1995) (judge wrote letter oI character reIerence on oIIicial court
stationery on behalI oI Iriend awaiting sentencing in Iederal court, a violation
oI Canon 2B, Ior which judge received public reprimand). See Opinion 75-6
000046
(improper to write character letter Ior attorney who is principal in disbarment
proceeding); Opinion 75-18 (improper to write letter to bar grievance
committee or Supreme Court in disciplinary proceeding or to Iederal judge in
criminal sentencing without oIIicial request); Opinion 82-15 (improper to
write letter voluntarily to Board oI Bar Examiners); Opinion 88-11 (improper
to communicate with Florida Bar members on behalI oI Florida Bar
presidential candidate); Opinion 89-4 (improper to ask Board oI Bar
Examiners to expedite application Ior law clerk); Opinion 89-15
(impermissible to appear beIore judicial nominating commission to introduce
candidate or express opinion about who is best qualiIied to serve as judge).
Recent case law, in two notable decisions, does, however, suggest that some
communications initiated by a judge with an investigative or adjudicatory
body may be permissible. In In re Frank, 753 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 2000), the
court was Iaced with a judge who contacted Bar grievance attorneys to
express Irustration with their handling oI a matter. Notably, the judge did not
ask Ior or demand special treatment based on his position. The court noted at
1240-41:
Knowledge that one is a judicial oIIicer or respectIul conduct in response to
such knowledge does not automatically translate into a determination that a
judicial position has been abused. Judge Frank did not IorIeit the right to make
proper inquiry concerning the pending matters simply because he held judicial
oIIice. A judicial oIIicer should not be sanctioned simply because those with
whom he or she has interaction are aware oI the oIIicial position. The use oI a
judicial position or power oI the position in an...
May 7, 2004 OPINION: JE04-004 http://judicial.state.nv.us/je040043new.htm
THE PROPRIETY OF VARIOUS EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONDUCT. Issue 1.
May a judge write a letter oI recommendation on behalI oI a candidate Ior
admission to law school? 2. May a judge write a letter oI support on behalI oI
a doctor in a medical licensing hearing? ... DATE ISSUED: May 7, 2004
OPINION: JE04-004 THE PROPRIETY OF VARIOUS EXTRA-JUDICIAL
000047
CONDUCT. Issue 1. May a judge write a letter oI recommendation on behalI
oI a candidate Ior admission to law school? 2. May a judge write a letter oI
support on behalI oI a doctor in a medical licensing hearing? Finally, the judge
has asked the Committee whether judicial stationery may be used Ior the
letters oI support approved above. This Committee has previously rendered an
opinion that the use oI judicial stationery while not expressly prohibited, is
disIavored when used as a letter oI congratulation to successIul candidates Ior
election to judicial or non-judicial oIIice. See JE03-002. Judicial ethics
committees around the country are divided on whether judges may use oIIicial
stationery to write letters oI recommendation. See generally,
Recommendations by Judges, supra, p. 6. This Committee believes that as
long as the letters oI recommendation are written upon personal knowledge
and otherwise comply with the cautions set out above to prevent the prestige
oI judicial oIIice being used Ior the private gain oI others, that the use oI
judicial stationery is allowable. ReIerences Canon 2B; Canon 4; Canon 4B;
Florida Advisory Opinion 75-6; Missouri Advisory Opinion 137 (1988);
Recommendations by Judges, Cynthia Gray, American Judicature Society,
1966 at p.10; Canon 5; Sections 5B(2) and 5C(1); Canon 5A(1); Canon 5A(1)
(b); Canon 4C(1); Canon 4G; Canon 4C(4)(a); Canon 4C(4)(a)(ii); and JE03-
002. This opinion is issued by the Standing Committee on
Judicial Ethics and Election Practices. It is advisory only. It is not binding
upon the courts, the State Bar oI Nevada, the Nevada Commission on Judicial
Discipline, any person or tribunal charged with regulatory responsibilities, any
member oI the Nevada judiciary, or any person or entity which requested the
opinion. Phillip W. Bartlett
Committee Chairman"
FindACase" _ lNQUlR CONCFRNlNC A JUDCF NO. 98-45 RO8FR1 J 0204 judges leLLers ol recommendaLion.pdl
CJF Opinion No 0204 MassachuseLLs advisory opinion on Judges wriLing leLLers ol recommendaLion lor disbarmenL
proceedings 0204.pdl
28 8 0204 068 WLS decision in 8 0 02 1ax appeal Lo SLaLe 8oard ol FqualizaLion email lorm AniLa Moore.pdl
000048
0204 in re ward regarding judges wriLing volunLarily characLer relerence leLLers 0204 op-82248.pdl
in re logan judge leLLer ol recommendaLion 0204.pdl
5 7 04 judicial discipline commission opinion nv on judges wriLing leLLers.pdl
Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline 0204 nv judges wriLing leLLers ol recommendaLion.pdl
Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline appearance ol improprieLy conLacLs 0204 evicLion.pdl
logan Lype case 0204.pdl
NO. 06-8-2222 in Re John WhiLaker Judge wriLing relerence leLLer on leLLerhead presLige Lo advance inLeresL ol anoLher
disciplinary maLLer 0204.pdl
Download all
One thing that I am particular.y unhappy about is what I perceive to be the sexism displayed
by the RJC BailiIIs as it relates to their curious insistence upon only attempting to violate
courthouse sanctuary doctrine within the relatively cramped conIines oI the DAS check in
room. Perhaps they do so in some attempt to set up an argument that court house
sanctuary doctrine has not been violated where they attempt to eIIect service oI the
spurious abuse oI process Iound in the State Bar oI Nevada and Washoe County Public
DeIender's recent Applications Ior Orders oI Protection and RJC ChieI Judge Pearson's
subsequent granting thereoI.
However, to me it seems more in line with the regrettably typical approach by so many
males whom cannot bring themselves to respect the jurisdiction oI a woman such as
yourselI who has ascended to a position oI power and inIluence, and at such a young age to
boot. I Ieel that, at least as long as a DAS participant is in the check in room Ior DAS, that
the RJC BailiIIs should respect the sanctity oI the process and not impinge upon the Iine
and important work being done therein in their attempts to legitimize the spurious abuse oI
process by DDAs Kandaras, D. Watts-Vial (more troubling is the relation the 2JDC Family
Court Judge Walker's Administrative Assistant Laura Watts-Vial given the 54844
Mandamus action's reception by the Family Court Judges in general, which, to say the
least, has not been as equinimitable, according to John Springgate, Esq., (whom back in
2009 suggested I Iocuse more on "repairing your relationship with the Family Court
Judges" as though they were a collective vindictive whole whom blanche biliously at any
advocacy counter to their preIerence) as I might have hoped it would be...), WCPD Jim
Leslie, Esq., and the SBN's Patrick O. King, Esq.
While my resources and time are scarce currently given the pendency oI the BrieIing
Schedule in the Appeal oI the FOFCOL seeking to permanently disbar me...I will come in
today to submit Ior another pbc iI you tell me to, or tomorrow iI you do not get this
message today, and I have mental health evaluation scheduled and will get the results to
you post haste.
Sincerely,
000049

Z 8 C L S 8 nv 1 l ZC
000050
000051 000052
000053 000054
000055 000056
000057 000058
000059 000060
000061 000062
000063 000064
000065 000066
000067 000068
000069 000070
000071 000072
000073 000074
000075 000076
000077 000078
000079 000080
000081 000082
000083 000084
000085 000086
000087 000088
000089 000090
000091 000092
000093 000094
000095 000096
000097

3 20 13 0204 Notice of Appeal of 3 11 13 Order in RCR12-071437

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

3 20 13 0204 Notice of Appeal of 3 11 13 Order in RCR12-071437

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen