Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000- 1/16
RE: filing of 10/1/13 in cr12-1262 and of 7/31/13 in all criminal cases
From: Zach Coughlin (
Sent: Tue 10/15/13 4:18 PM
To: Wise, Julie (;
(; (; (;
(; (; (; (; (; (;
(; (; (;
(; (; (;
Dear Asst. Clerk of Court Wise and Filing Office Manager Purdy,
A copy of WDCR 18 has been provided to each and every filing office counter clerk. WDCR 18
reads: " Rule18.Papers which do not comply with rules.Except in criminal cases and
writs arising from criminal cases, filing office personnel shall refuse to file any document or
pleading which is not properly signed by all persons, or which does not comply with these rules,
Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, the District Court Rules, or applicable statutes."
So, Ms. Purdy may verbally (put it in writing, please) freestyle that "an appeal of a criminal case is
not a case"...Well, in that "case", NRS 189.030(1) and WDCR 18 require that your court refuse for
filing those items filed by the RJC and RMC that fail to include the transcript required by NRS
189.030(1). Your court's vested interest in avoiding the expense of a trial de novo (which is required
where alleged courts of record under NRS 5.010, NRS 5.073, and Reno Municipal Code Sec.
2.16.080, and NRS 1.020) "shall" transmit the written transcript (in light of NRS 189.030(3)'s
reference to the district court's option to also request the audio transcript fromt these inferior
NRS 189.030 Transmission of transcript, other papers, sound recording and copy of docket to
district court. 1. The justice shall, within 10 days after the notice of appeal is filed, transmit to the
clerk of the district court the transcript of the case, all other papers relating to the case and a
certified copy of the docket.
So, of course, your court is required to, pursuant to WDCR 18 and the "applicable statute" that is
NRS 189.030(1),
"reject for filing" items such as the 12/23/11 (in CR11-2064) 452 page filing by the RMC of an
"Appeal from Municipal's Court" which lacks any transcript whatsoever. Of course, the 2JDC's
Judge Steven Elliott's 3/15/12 Order Affirming Ruling of the RMC is a fraudulent miscarriage of
justice where it premises such order's denying Coughlin's appeal upon an alleged failure by Coughlin
to do that which NRS 189.030(1) required RMC Judge Kenneth Howard to do, ie, transmit the
transcript within 10 (such still has not been transmitted by the RMC) days to the district court. Judge
10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000- 2/16
Elliott's invocation in such order of Thomas v. State and NRAP 28 and 32 is, of course, completely
fraudulent, a judicial Catch-22. Similarly, the 4/16/13 filing by the RJC in CR13-0614 lacks and
transcript whatsoever, and to this day the RJC has failed to comply with NRS 189.030(1) in failing to
ever transmit any such transcript. The RMC and RJC want their cake, and they want to eat it too.
However, at some point NRS 1.360 and NRS 1.370, NCJC Canon 2, Rule 2.15, WDCR 18, and
NRS 189.030(1), and Knox v. District Court must operate to send out a clarion call to the city and
county governmental officials purporting to tell the judges of these courts what their "budgets" are.
Similarly, NRS 189.030(1) has been violated in CR13-0614 (no transcript in the 858 page "Appeal
from Justice's Court" filing of 4/16/13 or in any filings thereafter) and in CR12-2025 (no transcript
filed within 10 days of Coughlin's 12/30/12 Notice of Appeal, and the RJC only had transcripts filed
therein in repsonse to district court Judge Elliott's 1/9/13 Order for Preparation of Transcript at Public
Expense, and even then, some of the transcripts the RJC filed were done by its own employees,
whom failed to affixed the required oath, in addition to failing to sign or print their last names to the
deficient "certifications" offered therein). Additionally, no transcript has been filed in CR13-0011 by
the RMC. Of course, the RMC has refused to comply with NRS 189.030(1), as well, in RMC 11 TR
26800 where Judge Nash Holmes simply continues to strike Coughlin's filing Notices of Appeal (filed
3/7/12 and 10/2/12). Now, today, another Notice of Appeal is filed in yet another vindictive
prosecution by the WCDA's Office in RCR2013-072675, incident to a Coughlin's being convicted of
an SCR 111(6) "serious" offense, NRS 199.280, where the RJC brazenly violated the 1/4/08 Indigent
Defense Order in not only denying Coughlin counsel where the RJC had already ruled Coughlin
indigent, but also in failing to take Judges Clifton and Pearson out of the appointing of R. Bruce
Lindsay, Esq. to Coughlin's defense in that and in RCR2011-063341, and in allowing the judges
presiding over the case to rule on Coughlin's Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Request for
Appointment of Counsel upon Lindsay moving to withdraw from his representing Coughlin
immediately upon such case being assigned to him, without an effort to contact Coughlin
With respect to the transcripts the RJC finally had prepared by "Cathy W." there are some real
issues, especially where Judge Pearson stated, on the record, in one of Coughlin's CCP court
appearances in RCR2011-063341 that the RJC had to spend "between $5,000 - $10,000" having the
transcripts required by Judge Elliott's 1/9/13 Order in CR12-2025 prepared where the RJC employs
a Cathy Wood, and NRS 4.410(1)(a) makes illegal any compensation paid to either Ms. Wood or the
RJC...such work is simply part and parcel of being a "court of record". Further, where the RMC
holds out Pam Longoni as its "in house transcriber", neither she, nor the RMC is entitled to any
compensation (especially where Longoni is not a "court reporter"), no matter how much the RMC's
judges choose to ignore the mandatory dictates of the 1/4/08 Indigent Defense Order, NRS 171.188,
and NRS 4.410(2)
The response to such might involve dismissing unworthy cases (such as every single vindictive
prosecution brought against Coughlin in the past 24 months) early on, or it might involve paying voice
transcribers thousands of dollars to create the required transcripts, or it may involve putting court
employees to work doing such production of transcripts under
NRS 189.035 Procedure where transcript defective.
1. Except as provided in subsection 2, if the district court finds that the transcript of a case which
was recorded by sound recording equipment is materially or extensively defective, the case must be
returned for retrial in the justice court from which it came.
NRS4.400Operation of equipment; transcription of recordings; use of transcript.
10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000- 3/16
1.Each justice of the peace shall appoint and, with the approval of the board of county
commissioners, fix the compensation of a suitable person, who need not be a certified court reporter
and may have other responsibilities in the court to operate the sound recording equipment. The
person so appointed shall subscribe to an oath that the person will so operate it as to record all of
the proceedings.
2.The justice of the peace may designate the same or another person to transcribe the
recording into a written transcript. The person so designated shall subscribe to an oath that the
person has correctly transcribed it. The transcript may be used for all purposes for which
transcripts are used and is subject to correction in the same manner as other transcripts.
(Added to NRS by 1979, 1511; A 1993, 1410)
NRS4.410Compensation for preparing transcript.
1.If the person designated to transcribe the proceedings is:
(a)Regularly employed as a public employee, the person is not entitled to additional
compensation for preparing the transcript.
(b)Not regularly employed as a public employee and not a certified court reporter, the person is
entitled to such compensation for preparing the transcript as the board of county commissioners
(c)A certified court reporter, the person is entitled to the same compensation as set forth
in NRS 3.370.
2.The compensation for transcripts and copies must be paid by the party ordering them. In a
civil case, the preparation of the transcript need not commence until the compensation has
been deposited with the court reporter.
(Added to NRS by 1979, 1511; A 1985, 51; 1987, 910; 1993, 1410; 2005, 190; 2011, 674)
NRS4.030Oath and bond of justice of the peace.Each justice of the peace elected or
appointed in this State shall, before entering upon the duties of office:
1.Take the oath prescribed by law.
2.Execute a bond to the State of Nevada, to be approved by the board of county
commissioners and furnished at county expense, in the penal sum of not less than $10,000 or more
than $50,000, as may be designated by the board of county commissioners. The bond must be
conditioned for the faithful performance of the duties of office and filed in the office of the county
[1:7:1873; B 2978; BH 2254; C 2421; RL 4927; NCL 8474](NRS A 2005, 15)
Of course, judicial immunity is not such a robust doctrine with respect to courts of limited
jurisdiction, especially where a justice of the peace leaves his judicial function and reverts back to
his lifelong prosecutorial role on behalf of the executive branch, such as RJC Chief Judges Pearson
and Sferrazza and now Tahoe Justice Court Judge Glasson, whom RJC Chief Judge Pearson
named as a last minute replacement for RJC Judge Clifton in RCR2013-072675 (a prosecution
brought against Coughlin based upon Coughlin's purported resisting of a command by RJC Bailiff
John Holguin Reyes made incident to the illegal 12/20/12 Administrative Order 2012-01 by then RJC
Chief Judge Sferrazza that his successor, current RJC Chief Judge Pearson rebranded with a
criminal case number, RCR2013-071437, on 3/6/13 (and where Pearson and the RJC and Lindsay
have refused to comply with NRS 189.030(1) in relation to Coughlin's filing a Notice of Appeal of
such Administrative Order 2012-01 on 3/20/13). WCDA DDA Hick's late filed 5/31/13 Criminal
Complaint against Coughlin references such "previous court order" in alleging the command by
Bailiff Reyes (who is not a public officer under NRS 199.280, no matter how much sua sponte
advocacy for the WCDA's Office that Judge Glasson makes in his asserting the JCRRT 8 is
somehow dispositive of the issue, particularly where Coughlin correctly pointed out that JCRRT 2
10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000- 4/16
makes expressly clear that the JCRRT do not apply to criminal cases). Now, Judge Glasson, in his
amending the 12/20/12 Administrative Order 2012-01 (RCR2013-071437) on 10/14/13, has himself
possibly assumed the executive branch's prosecutorial role.
Also, where Judge Glasson ruled that the 12/20/12 Administrative Order 2012-01 (RCR2013-
071437) was "an anti-nuisance injunction", then proceeded to convict Coughlin for a violation of NRS
199.280 based upon Coughlin's allegedly not complying with Bailiff Reyes command made pursuant
to just such Administrative Order 2012-01...only to acquit Coughlin of the second charge,
commission of nuisance in a public place, collateral estoppel applies to invalidate the NRS 199.280
conviction for violating such "anti-nuisance injunction", no?
Coughlin hereby requests that the preparation of the transcript of the 10/14/13 trial in RCR2013-
072675 begin immediately upon the filing of Coughlin's Notice of Appeal of the 10/14/13 conviction of
a violation of NRS 199.280 (with this correspondence also meant to satisfy the reporting
requirements of SCR 111(2), on 10/15/13, and Coughlin asks that, where the RJC has maintained
that NRS 189.030(1) (not to mention the 1/4/08 Indigent Defense Order in ADKT 0411) is something
that it is free to ignore, Sunshine Litigation Services begin, or be direct to begin, the preparation of
such transcript, as well as all other transcripts required by NRS 189.030(1) in all of the cases in
either the RMC, RJC, or 2JDC wherein Coughlin is a party and a transcript is required, especially
where Coughlin receives food stamps and has a yearly income of less than even 100% of the
Federal Poverty Guideline, in satisfaction of the presumptive threshold for a finding of indigency of
indigency by, again, one other than the judge presiding over such matters.
Other Incoming Document -
Filed Petition for Emergency
10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000- 5/16
USPS mailed and faxed to 755 684-1723 Court Administrator, Nevada Supreme Court, Robin Sweet
(NRS 1.360, NRS 1.370)
Respectfully submitted,
Zachary Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and Fax: 949 667
10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000- 6/16
Subject: RE: filing of 10/1/13 in cr12-1262 and of 7/31/13 in all criminal cases
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 19:16:15 +0000
Dear Mr. Coughlin:

WDCR Rule 10(8) notes, If pleadings or documents are presented for filing with multiple case
numbers, a separate original must be filed for each individual case. Pursuant to this rule, please
present a separate original document for each individual case.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you,

Julie Wise
Assistant Clerk of Court
Second Judicial District Court
Phone: (775) 325-6623
Fax: (775) 328-3463
From: Zach Coughlin []
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:16 PM
To: Purdy, Michelle; Wise, Julie
Subject: filing of 10/1/13 in cr12-1262 and of 7/31/13 in all criminal cases

Dear Ms. Purdy and Ms. Wise,

I am writing to request that my filing of 10/1/13 in cr12-1262 be filed i all the other criminal cases
listed therein (in the long caption reminiscent of Chief Judge Hardy's 6/11/13 Order in CR12-1262 et
10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000- 7/16
a;/ WDCR 10 amD WDCR 18 combined to provide that multiple criminal case number can be place
on on ecopy of a filing. YOur office seemed to recongize this in filing Coughlin's 7/31/13 Petition in
all the various criminal case numbers listed therein, despite Coughlin only submitting one copy of it.
I believe the same approach should be accord to the filing of 10/1/13 in cr12-1262.

Zachary Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and Fax: 949 667
FW: Reno Municipal Court fraud per NRS 189.030(1), NRS 5.010 NSCT case 60838
From: Zach Coughlin (
Sent: Wed 10/09/13 6:36 PM
To: (;
(; (
Dear Ms. Hines,
Interested in pro bono production of transcript, or, better yet, forcing the City of Reno and Washoe
County to pay a CCR to produce the various transcripts Coughlin is entitled to under NRS
Transcript by Pam Longoni in second Coughlin case in the RMC, from 6/18/12 criminal trespass trial
in 11 CR 26405:
Coughlin was convicted in the Reno Justice Court in RCR2011-063341, which he appealed. Of
course, the RJC fails to comply with NRS 189.030(1) as well...Coughlin took what should have been
an unneccesary step of obtaining a 1/9/13 Order for Publication of Transcript at Public Expense in
the appeal thereof in CR12-2025 (Coughlin had already been ruled indigent in the RJC case,
063341...and NRS 4.410(2) and NRS 189.030(1) do not permit the RJC or RMC to simply fail to
transmit the transcript within 10 days...its not even clear that, under Nevada law, per "NRS 4.410,
that criminal defendants are even required to pay for transcripts, indigent or not...but ,regardless.
NRS 4.410(2) makes quite clear that, in criminal cases, no down payment whatsoever is required in
order to trigger NRS 189.030(1)'s mandatory requirement that the RMC/RJC order the transcript
transmitted to the district court, and notice the appellant that such has been done...perhaps it come
down to who is "the party ordering" the a criminal appellant "the party ordering the
10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000- 8/16
transcript" merely in light of their filing a notice of appeal, or, is the judge "the party ordering the
transcript" where NRS 189.030(1) places the burden of ensuring the transcript is transmitted to the
district court squarely on the judge....
Regardless, now the RJC and Sunshine have both essentially transcribed the same trial in 063341.
Apparently the RJC, once Coughlin obtained the 1/9/13 Order for Preparation of Transcript at Public
Expense from the district court in cr12-2025, somehow decided to make an effort to comply with
NRS 189.030(1) (perhaps under the belief that it would therefore be able to submit a bill for the
ridiculous "$5,000 to $10,000" (a rather curious figure given that the RJC would then apparently be
reimbursed for by either the county or state, apparently...the perhaps this underscores the extent to
which the RJC needs to embrace its "inherent authority" against someone other than Coughlin, and
rather, tell its masters in County and or State government that it is ordering reimbursement of the
transcribing services done by its Cathy Wood, by the government, as necessary to fulfilling the
RJC's judicial function (rather than telling Coughlin what Judge Sferrazza did during the 10/22/12
hearing in 063341 when he indicated "we have no fund for the payment of witness fees" (funny how
the criminal defendants always get to foot the "we have no fund" bill (oh, the melodramatic sighing
WCDA DDA Zachary Young, Esq., engaged in at Coughlin's even broaching the prospect of an
indigent criminal defendant being entitled to anything like the payment of witness fees (or the waiver
thereof) at public expense), etc., etc.) that RJC Judge Pearson indicated to Coughlin, on the record,
in a CCP court hearing incident to the alleged probation violations by Coughlin in RCR2011-063341,
that such 1/9/13 Order was "costing" the RJC (which clearly had some of the transcripts it had
prepared thereafter done by its own court staff "Cathy W." is Cathy Wood, rather obviously...which is
particularly inappropriate given the conflict of interest inherent to Coughlin's allegation that Wood was
involved in the disappearance of, and cover up of, Coughlins' disc exhibits to his filing in the RJC in
063341 and 065630 of 11/15/12. Regardless, its completely inappropriate for the RJC to have its
uncertified transcribers (which is probably permitted, ie, the use of non-CCRs to do the transcribing)
signing the "oath" required under NRS 4 with only their first name and last initial, such as in the
702 683 8899 Debbie Hines
Zachary Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and Fax: 949 667
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:21:33 -0700
Subject: RE: Reno Municipal Court fraud per NRS 189.030(1), NRS 5.010 NSCT case 60838
Hello Mr. Coughlin,

10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000- 9/16
The State of Nevada Certified Court Reporters Board is in receipt of your email. I left you a phone
message to call me. Please contact me to discuss further.

Thank you very much.

Debbie Uehara
Executive Secretary
State of Nevada Certified Court Reporters Board
5135 Camino Al Norte, Suite 270
North Las Vegas, Nevada 89031
Office: 702-489-8787
Fax: 702-489-8788

From: Zach Coughlin []
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:53 AM
To: Reporting
Subject: Reno Municipal Court fraud per NRS 189.030(1), NRS 5.010 NSCT case 60838
Please accept this Complaint against Pam Longoni and the Reno Municipal Court.
The RJC and RMC continue to defy the 1/4/08 ADKT 0411 Indigent Defense Order where such
ordered:Determination of Indigency: WHEREAS, any defendant charged with a public offense
who is indigent may request the appointment of counsel by showing that he is without means to
employ an attorney and suffers a financial disability;2 and
WHEREAS, the methods utilized in Nevada's courts and public defender offices to determine
who is eligible for defense services at public expense vary widely;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that effective immediately, the standard for determining indigency
shall be: A person will be deemed 'indigent' who is unable, without substantial hardship to himself or
his dependents, to obtain competent, qualified legal counsel on his or her own. 'Substantial
hardship' is presumptively determined to include all defendants who receive public assistance,
such as Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, Disability Insurance,
reside in public housing, or earn less than 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Guideline. A
defendant is presumed to have a substantial hardship if he or she is currently serving a sentence in
a correctional institution or housed in a mental health facility.
Defendants not falling below the presumptive threshold will be subjected to a more
rigorous screening process to determine if their particular circumstances, including
seriousness of charges being faced, monthly expenses, and local private counsel rates,
would result in a substantial hardship were they to seek to retain private counsel.
Of course, RMC Judge Howards 10/27/11 denial of court appointed counsel then practicing
solo attorney Coughlin (whose 10/26/11 Application for Court Appointed Counsel indicates:
Coughlin's 10/26/11 Application for Court Appointed Defender swears, under penalty of
perjury I hereby swear under penalty of perjury that all of the Information on this form is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that failure to accurately answer these question
may disqualify me from obtaining a legal defender. I further understand that any false statement or
10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000 10/16
omission may constitute contempt of court. Dated this 26th day of October /s/ Zach Coughlin" : I
declare that I am an indigent person without financial means to employ an attorney and that all of the
facts, figures, answers, and statements contained in this application are true and correct. 1 Do you
receive any form of public assistance such as food stamps or public housing? trying to get
some..trying to4. What is the total weekly family income for everyone living in your household?
approx. $200.00. 5. Are there other reasons why you feel you would suffer substantial hardship if
you were required to seek and retain private counsel? I am indigent and received an IFP in eviction
case. I was ordered evicted on 10/26/11. I asked Judge Gardner for the names of the possible
appointed attorneys to check their qualifications and he refused to divulge. Pre arraignment hearing
video frightening, says almost never good idea to represent yourself.
The 2011 Federal Poverty Guideline for a family of 1 was $10,800, and Coughlins sworn
affidavit indicating that his yearly income was approximately $9,800 was obviously less than the
200% of the Federal Poverty Guideline sufficient to invoke the 1/4/08 Indigent Defense Orders
PRESUMPTIVE THRESHOLD STANDARD to qualify as indigent. The SCR 111(6) serious
offense carried a possibility of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Any possibility of incarceration,
under Argersingerrequires the appointment of counsel for an indigent criminal defendant.
Regardless, the 1/4/08 Indigent Defense Order prohibits the judge presiding over the matter from
ruling on the application for court appointed counsel, yet Howard did anyways.
Additionally, Coughlins 10/27/11 Motion for New Trial Date is the functional equivalent of a
supplement to his 10/26/11 Application for Court Appointed Defender, where such indicates I was
ordered evicted yester day. Hard to prepare for trial, request for production wer denied, delayed by
RSIC, City of Reno, etc. , Thanksgiving, IFP granted in eviction case Judge Howard (sic) wouldnt
divulge attorneys name for prospective appointed attorneys. Judge Howards video sounded
frightening concerning pro se status.
Incident to Coughlin's 10/26/11 Application for Court Appointed Defender
2064 ) (NOTE: RMC Judge Howards (
Files-Dockets-Etc-22176-2064-60838-Ju ) Order refusing to correct the excision by the RMC in the
12/23/11 ROA it filed from 11 CR 22176 in the 2JDC in CR11-2604 is telling, where the second page
of Coughlins 10/26/11 Application for Court Appointed Defender contains and Order denying
Coughlin such legal defender that is different than the 10/27/11 Order Howard also
22176-CR11-2064-2617055-Appeal-From-Municipal-s-Court-Smaller Notice at page 20 of the ROA
only page 1 of 2 of Coughlins 10/26/11 Application for Court Appointed Defender is
60838-2064-s Note the difference between the 10/26/11 and 10/27/11 Orders by Howard where
Denied, non-jailable offense is written in the 10/26/11 Order while the 10/27/11 Order indicates:
This Court does hereby DENY said appointment for the reason that if convicted of this charge, the
standard sentence carries no jail time. Regardless, Coughlin submitted on 12/14/12 a Motion to
Proceed Informa Pauperis:
Coughlin-Indicated-He-Was-an-Attorney-T Judge Howard responded with more fraudulent judicial
Transcript-Costs running a nice lil routine with 2JDC Judge
of-Howard-22176-60838-SBN-King-0204-Ex-1-at-11-14-12-RMC-Ballard-Certifiying-From-2JDC ),
the RMC's Judge Kenneth Ray Howard violated ADKT 411's Indigent Defense Order of 1/4/08 where
he was both the judge presiding over 11 CR 22176 (now on appeal in CR11-2064) and he himself
10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000 11/16
entered a 10/27/11 Order denying Coughlin his Sixth Amendment Right to counsel (Howard's
10/27/11 "ORDER DENYING LEGAL DEFENDER" reads: "An Application for appointment of a Legal
Defender having been filed with this Court, and having been reviewed by this Court, therefore; This
Court does hereby DENY said appointment for the reason that if convicted of this charge, the
standard sentence carries no jail time. It is so ORDERED. DATED this 27th day October, 2011 /s/
Kenneth R. Howard, Judge"
Defender-RMC-Judge-Howard-11-Cr-22176-60838-Despite-Aigersinger-Mandatory-Authority-Ocr )
Judge-Howard-Violates-NRS-189-030-Indigent-Defense-Order-NRS-22-030-3-60838-2064 ) and in
so doing failed to comply with the following from the RMC's 4/29/08 Plan for Indigent Defense:
"DETERMINATION OF INDIGENCE The court advises all defendants charged with public
offenses of their constitutional rights at arraignment, including the right to counsel. The defendant is
then required to fill out and submit an application as soon as possible before the trial date. The
application is reviewed by an employee in the office of the Court Clerk who is (or will be) trained to
apply the federal poverty guidelines properly, and from that review determine whether or not the
defendant is indigent. That employee will also determine if a conviction for the charged offense
exposes the defendant to a possible jail sentence. If both questions are answered in the affirmative,
counsel is appointed to represent that person at no cost. (Some applicants who qualify for cour
tappointed counsel have some disposable income over and above monthly expenses. If so, those
applicants will be assessed a flat fee to reimburse the court partially for the cost of representation.)
Once an application has been approved, the court notifies the defendant by sending an order
containing the attorney's name and phone number and instructing the defendant to contact the
attorney to discuss the case and to prepare a defense. REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATIVE OR
EXPERT WITNESS FEES When a contract attorney determines that a case requires further
investigation and/or expert witness, the attorney informs the trial judge. The judge hearing the case
sends that request to the Administrative Judge for determination of the request. The Administrative
Judge reviews the request, authorizes the expenditure of funds, then sends the case back to the trial
judge. If the Administrative Judge is the trial judge, the request for fees is sent to another judge for
determination. Respectfully submitted /s/ Paul S. Hickman Administrative Judge Reno Municipal
Court" (
Court-Indigent-Defense-Plan-RMC-60838-22176-2064-08-33179 )
Commission-Plan-08-33182 )

Further, Howard failed to comply with NRS 189.030, and seems to have Interim Court
Administrator Cassandra Jackson do the dirty work of swerving around that required by NRS
APPEAL I, CASSANDRA JACKSON, Interim Court Administrator of the Reno Municipal Court, do
hereby certity that the attached documents include full, true and correct copies of all papers relating
to Case Number llCR22176, including a Certified Copy of Docket. Further, said documents have
been transmitted to and filed with the clerk of the Washoe County District Court. Dated this 22nd
day of December, 2011. /s/ Cassandra Jackson, Interim Court Administrator
Whereas RMC Judge Howard merely signs and dates the Certified Docket he skips out on
providing the notice he is required to provide under NRS 189.030(1) (which, was probably for the
best considering he (and he was Administrative Judge at the time in 2011 for the RMC) failed to
order the transcript he is required to transmit to the district court, and required to inform Coughlin of
10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000 12/16
so transmitting).
NRS 189.030 Transmission of transcript, other papers, sound recording and copy of
docket to district court.
1. The justice shall, within 10 days after the notice of appeal is filed, transmit to the clerk
of the district court the transcript of the case, all other papers relating to the case and a certified
copy of the docket.
2. The justice shall give notice to the appellant or the appellants attorney that the
transcript and all other papers relating to the case have been filed with the clerk of the district
Basically, Elliott and Howard cut corners (but only out of the due process pie, never out of their pork

Howards 12/15/11 Order denying Coughlin appellate counsel as well as publication of the
transcript at public expense laughably takes issue with Coughlins citation to NRS 12.015 in his
12/14/12 Motion to Proceed Informa Pauperis, as a civil statute yet, Howards own 11/30/11 Order
Punishing Summary Contempt in the same case cites to NRS 22.030, part of the same Civil
Practice Title in NRS in which NRS 12.015 resides.
NRS 12.015 Actions involving indigent persons. EXCERPT 3. If the person is required to
have proceedings reported or recorded, or if the court determines that the reporting, recording or
transcription of proceedings would be helpful to the adjudication or appellate review of the case, the
court shall order that the reporting, recording or transcription be performed at the expense of the
county in which the action is pending but at a reduced rate as set by the county.
Interestingly, the 11/30/11 ADKT 410 Standards of Operation and Best Practices Manual for
Making the Court Record (which are not law; if the legislature wants to alter NRS 189.030(1) to
make 2JDC Judge Elliotts 3/15/12 Order in CR11-2064 (NSCT 60838) remixing of NRS 4.410(2)
something other than the fraudulent judicial dumpster fire that it is, then they can do thatbut the
thuggish manipulations and pressures of municipal courts like that the City of Reno unleashes on
people upon CCRs and the wishful thinking in those Best Practices as to payment by the parties
ordering such (funny, Judges usually make the ordersplus, there is no contingency in NRS
189.030(1), and the only contingency in NRS 4.410(2) relates to the beginning of the preparation of
such transcripts in a civil case)provide that:
Standards of Operation
A. It is primarily the responsibility of every judicial officer or person so designated to make
certain that the court reporter, court recorder, or transcriber timely prepares and files transcripts
pursuant to Nevada statutes NRS 189.010 to 189.030, NRS 172.225, NRS 171.198 (6), JCRCP Rule
80, and Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure (NRAP).
B. Court reporters, court recorders, and transcribers shall notify the court when they
encounter poor-quality recordings. The court shall establish procedures to ensure these reports are
investigated and any problems are remedied. 21
C. If a concordance indexing key words in the transcript is requested by the court or counsel,
the court reporter, court recorder, or transcriptionists shall not charge more than the current
10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000 13/16
statutory per-page rate as outlined in NRS 3.370.
D. Compensation for the production of transcripts is set forth in NRS 3.370,(fn 22) NRS
4.410, and Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure (NRAP).
(fn22 The Commission recommends adding paragraph 8 to NRS 3.370. The new language
would read, "The court is entitled to compensation from the parties as outlined in subsection 1(d)
and for reimbursement for any transcripts prepared pursuant to 1(c), 1(e)(2) and l(f)(2) if the court
provides the reporting, recording and/or transcribing services rather than utilizing an outside person
who is entitled to be compensated under this statute.")
Zachary Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and Fax: 949 667
Subject: Transcript Order/Request
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 01:38:34 -0700
Dear Ms. Longoni,
I need those transcripts right away, including:
11/30/11 entire trial in 11 CR 22176, as well as the 10/11/11 arraignment therein
2/28/12 and 3/12/12 trial dates in 11 TR 26800.
12/3/12 trial in 12 CR 12420
4/8/12 and 5/8/12 proceedings in 11 CR 26405.
Please consider your liability under NRAP and NRS 189.030(1).
NRS 1.020 Courts of record. The following courts are courts of record: 1. The Supreme Court; 2.
The district courts; 3. The Justice courts; and 4. The municipal courts: (a) In any case in which a jury
trial is required; or (b) If so designated pursuant to NRS 5.010.

Sec. 2.16.080. Recording; payment of fees.
(a) The fees for transcripts, processing an appeal, and copies must be paid by the party
10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000 14/16
ordering them in accordance with the municipal court procedures.
(b) In a civil case the preparation of the transcript need not commence until the fees have been
(c) In a civil case, upon a finding of a party's indigency by the court, such fees shall be waived
or paid by the court.
(Ord. No. 4199, 1, 3-24-92)
Sec. 2.16.090. Transmission of transcript, other papers, recording
and copy of docket to district court.
(a) The court shall transmit to the clerk of the district court the recording and/or transcript of
the case, all other papers relating to the case and a certified copy of his or her docket in
accordance with the Nevada Revised Statutes, District Court Rules, and the Washoe
County District Court Rules.
(b) The judge shall give notice to the appellant or his or her attorney and to the other party
that the
recording and/or transcript, all other papers relating to the case, and a certified copy of
the docket have been filed with the clerk of the district court.
(Ord. No. 4199, 1, 3-24-92)
So, Reno Municipal Code Sec 2.16.080 becomes pretty important, huh? Sec. 2.16.080. Recording;
payment of fees.
(a) The fees for transcripts, processing an appeal, and copies must be paid by the party
ordering them in accordance with the municipal court procedures.
This is true, especially considering that the RMC provided Coughlin in obstructing his attempts to get
the transcript made and even to obtain a copy of the audio from this alleged court of record a
handout on RMC letterhead that reads: RENO MUNICIPAL COURT
If you wish to order a transcript of your proceedings in the Reno Municipal Court, you
may do so by contacting Pam Longoni at (775) 530-5251.
The following information is provided to assist you in placing an order for a transcript:
I. Orders will require the date of the court appearance, type of proceeding, (trial,
10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000 15/16
arraignment, etc.), department number in which the proceeding was held, and also
include the appropriate deposit as indicated below. Payment may be made by check or
money order. No transcript will be prepared until the required deposit is received.

3. Deposits. Deposits required are as follows: $75.00 for arraignment/sentencing; a

minimum deposit of$200.00 for any trial transcript; and a minimum deposit of$500.00
for very lengthy trials (those lasting more than three hours). NO TRANSCRIPT IS
5. Questions. Pan Longoni will be happy to answer any questions you may have
regarding the above information.
P.O. BOX~cn,l, Nevada 89505 (715) 3342290, Fax (775) 3343824
for very lengthy trials (those lasting more than three hours). NO TRANSCRIPT IS
5. Questions. Pan Longoni will be happy to answer any questions you may have
regarding the above information.
P.O. BOX~cn,l, Nevada 89505 (715) 3342290, Fax (775) 3343824
Zachary Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and Fax: 949 667
Subject: where to pay and how much
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:44:37 -0800
Dear Ms. Longoni,
I have left you several messages. I wish to pay whatever it is I have to pay to get this appeal
transcript going and to preserve all my rights to review of the decision in RMC 11 cr 22176. Further,
I would like a copy of the audio from the hearing as soon as possible. Please provide specific
detailed instructions as to how to pay and how much and anything else I need to do.


10/15/13 Outlook Print Message,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000 16/16
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473