9 8 11 To 1 3 13 PRINTABLE BW - Emails-To-Reno-Gov-Addresses-0204-60838-26800-22176-26405-00696-12420 Opt

INDEX OF EMAILS FROM COUGHLIN TO RENO.
GOV ADDRESSES FOR

0204, 22176, 26506, 00696, 26800, 12420:
Date Subject
1/03/13 RE: Please email me recording oI leedy
1/02/13 Please email me recording oI leedy
12/31/12 request Ior Reno Marshal's report
12/21/12 I am writing to request a Iee waiver oI the yearly $300 eIlex charge
12/20/12 motion Ior new trial, notice oI appeal
12/19/12 court reIusing to Iile documents and exhibits missing
12/19/12 RMC certiIying Second Judicial Iilings to SBN exhibit 16 Irom
11/14/12 was never provided to coughlin
12/13/12 The Three E's; wcpd Iailure to provide essential 911 call cd discovery oI 8/13 and 8/17, 2012
12/06/12 your oIIice reIused what I tried to deliver it yesterday
12/06/12 DDA Young retaliatory prosecution oI domestic violence victim
12/06/12 BailiIIs detaining me, violating courthouse sanctuary doctrine, physically restraining me,
12/05/12 your email was unreadable
12/04/12 Iormal written grievance against Skau, Young, Leslie, Dogan, etc. FW: 911 calls missing I
11/28/12 Please get this to these City oI Reno employees
11/23/12 ChieI Marshal Roper and Marshal Harley on setting the record straight in NG12-0435
11/22/12 FW: please indicate some response to my subpoena and discovery requests
11/22/12 video oI RPD Marcia Lopez admitting to misconduct on 1/13/12 supporting inIerence oI retaliation
11/22/12 Judge Howard and Cassandra Jackson want to explain
11/22/12 Washoe Legal Services Paul Elcano and State Bar oI Nevada's Coe Swobe's contacts with my Iamily
11/19/12 LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE TO THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT RMC Ballard
11/14/12 new Discovery Iinally produced by Reno City attorney on 1/12/12 Jaywalking arrest in SCR 105
11/14/12 City Attorney Skau, updated discovery in iPhone case, dispatch recordings, don't seem to
11/11/12 Tribal Police not allowed to arrest Ior misdemeanors FW: Case No. RCR2011-063341
11/09/12 SUBPOENA AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ATTACHED
11/08/12 RE: Case No. RCR2011-063341
11/08/12 RE: ATTN Renee Brown Reno Postmaster reFW: complaint by Reno Nevada Attorney
11/08/12 RE: RCR12-065630
11/08/12 (No Subject)
11/05/12 CLARIFICATION on Change oI Address Ior
11/05/12 FW: please Iile this with the RMC
11/04/12 RE: convicting attorney oI summary criminal contempt during pendency oI Order Ior
11/04/12 FW: convicting attorney oI summary criminal contempt during pendency oI Order Ior
11/04/12 FW: Mr. King's assertion in his 3/16/12 letter
11/03/12 FW: request Ior audio records
11/05/12 FW: please Iile this with the RMC
11/04/12 RE: convicting attorney oI summary criminal contempt during pendency oI Order Ior
11/04/12 FW: convicting attorney oI summary criminal contempt during pendency oI Order Ior
11/04/12 FW: Mr. King's assertion in his 3/16/12 letter
1/4
11/03/12 convicting attorney oI summary criminal contempt during pendency oI Order Ior Competency
11/02/12 RE: please email me the materials produced by ecomm/K. Odom/ dispatch tapes
11/01/12 RE: Coughlin: Petit larceny case
10/12/12 you violated NRS 178.405
10/11/12 RE: Coughlin: RCR11-063341 (Petit Larceny) and RCR12-067980 (Resisting) and
10/11/12 FW: respectIully submitted
10/10/12 Order dissolving protection order Krebs v. Coughlin re Northwind Apartments
10/10/12 I demand my summary eviction hearing, beIore a jury based upon 6 28 12 notice and my Iaxed
10/10/12 LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE CONCERNING ANY RECORDS YOU HAVE MADE
10/01/12 my car was searched incident to a routine traIIic citation by OIIicer Weaver, who threatened to do
9/23/12 LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE UPDATE REGARDING SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 RPD
9/23/12 I NEED ACCESS TO MY PROPERTY TODAY, IMMEDIATELY, OTHERWISE I WILL INCUR
9/22/12 FW: Soldal v. Cook County FW: VeriIied Complaint Ior Illegal Lockout attached
9/22/12 Soldal v. Cook County FW: VeriIied Complaint Ior Illegal Lockout attached
9/21/12 LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE UPDATE REGARDING SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 RPD
9/21/12 LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE
9/21/12 LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE FW: Reno eviction noticed Ior Sparks Justice Court
9/21/12 here is that citation you asked Ior
9/21/12 LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE AND SUBPOENAyour 11 7 11 response to discovery request in rjc
9/13/12 request to meet, conIer, and prepare Ior trial LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE
9/11/12 wrongIul arrests, malicious/retaliatory prosecutions FW: Reno eviction noticed Ior Sparks Justice
9/08/12 please note my new address iI it has not already been noted
8/27/12 11 CR 26405 and appeal in CR12-1262: Notice oI RMC's Iailure to Iile timely Iiled Notice oI Appeal
8/07/12 motion Ior preparation oI transcript at public expense etc
8/07/12 FW: respectIully submitted
8/06/12 global resolution
8/06/12 FW: Reno eviction noticed Ior Sparks Justice Court
8/06/12 request Ior a pre trial motion and bail motion
7/31/12 request Ior consideration oI global resolution
7/25/12 6 26 12 warning to wcso rpd, etc. Reno eviction noticed Ior Sparks Justice Court
7/25/12 Reno eviction noticed Ior Sparks Justice Court
7/25/12 Fwd: Wheeler v cross 344 Ied apps 420
7/25/12 Wheeler v cross 344 Ied apps 420
7/24/12 please provide to Judge Gardner, seeking permission to Iile
7/02/12 FW: Reno eviction noticed Ior Sparks Justice Court
6/28/12 motion Ior new trial
6/27/12 motion Ior new trial, motion Ior reconsideration, motion to alter or amend
6/26/12 Reno eviction noticed Ior Sparks Justice Court
6/22/12 NCAA and Dwayne jakob
6/22/12 Nevada court services attack and attempted break in
6/08/12 respectIully submitted
6/06/12 Cory Goble battery
5/09/12 Mental health court
5/02/12 FW: release oI inIormation to my attorney
4/16/12 please Iile this with the RMC
4/16/12 CHANGE OF ADDRESS ATTORNEY COUGHLIN
4/16/12 CORRECTION CHANGE OF ADDRESS ATTORNEY , ESQ.
4/13/12 changing my address on portal
2/4
4/04/12 FW: Evidence
4/04/12 RE: Evidence
3/29/12 rpd sargent siIre loses Z coughlin's dog Jackson is gone voicemail Irom (775) 762-1595 at 4:27 PM
3/29/12 City oI Reno Marshal Division Harrassment, hanging up phone on me, RMC seizing Reno Attorney's
3/29/12 City oI Reno Marshal Division hanging up phone on me, RMC seizing Reno Attorney's smart phone
3/28/12 please note my new address, SOLACE PROGRAM REQUEST
3/26/12 i was evicted 3 15 12, i need a continuance
3/21/12 traIIic/parking citations
3/08/12 FW: City Clerk's OIIice
3/07/12 Notice oI Appeal and MOtion Ior....
3/03/12 please Iind motion to dismiss attached Ior 11 cr 26405
2/22/12 FW: City Clerk's OIIice
2/15/12 NOTICE OF APPEAL MOTION
2/10/12 Evictions RE: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" AIIidavit oI 11/1/2011
2/08/12 City Clerk's OIIice
2/06/12 WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" AIIidavit oI 11/1/2011
1/30/12 FW: RMC 11 CR 22176 part Iour Exhibit 1 pages 601-701 oI Motion Ior New trail Irom 12 12 2011 ey
1/30/12 FW: Motion Ior New Trial Etc. in RMC 11 CR 22176
1/30/12 FW: Motion Ior New Trial Etc. in RMC 11 CR 22176
1/30/12 audio oI Judge Howard regarding deadline to Iile Notice oI Appeal FW: RMC said I could Iile this
1/26/12 RE: Request Ior Public InIormation
1/16/12 please provide to RPD Internal AIIairs in addition to accepting this request Ior your services
1/10/12 RE: Your Online Police Report T12000223 Has Been Submitted
1/09/12 RE: debt validation documentation request and dispute letter under FDCPA to City oI Reno et al
1/09/12 debt validation documentation request and dispute letter under FDCPA to City oI Reno et al
1/09/12 prooI oI insurance and registration AIIidavit/Declaration and supporting documentation
12/24/11 RE: request Ior audio records
12/21/11 no reply Irom Transcriptionist
12/19/11 I will Iax this to Ms. Roberts and the RMC as well, this is a courtesy copy
12/19/11 FW: emergency
12/19/11 emergency
12/17/11 FW: 121 River Rock
12/16/11 emergency Iilings
12/16/11 FW: RMC 11 CR 22176
12/15/11 RMC 11 CR 22176
12/15/11 rmc 11 cr 22176
12/14/11 RMC issues
12/14/11 RE: Message leIt on 12/13/2011
12/14/11 RE: IFP/ FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION
12/14/11 IFP/ FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION
12/13/11 FW: records request
12/13/11 records request
12/13/11 RMC 11 CR 22176 part Iour Exhibit 1 pages 601-701 oI Motion Ior New trail Irom 12 12 2011 ey
12/12/11 deIamation lawsuit/wrongIul arrest/perjury under color oI state law arrest.
12/12/11 audio oI the November 30th Trial in Judge Howards court
12/12/11 Here is service oI the Motion
3/4
12/12/11 Motion Ior New Trial Etc. in RMC 11 CR 22176
12/12/11 Motion Ior New Trial Etc. in RMC 11 CR 22176
12/12/11 FW: RMC said I could Iile this by email
12/08/11 signed REQUEST FOR RECORDS CD/DVD OF TRIAL AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION
12/08/11 RE: your Iailure to propound discovery
12/08/11 request oI cd oI trial in 11 CR 22176 2I
12/08/11 RE: your Iailure to propound discovery
12/07/11 your Iailure to propound discovery
12/07/11 discovery request;
12/04/11 your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at 6:49 mark
12/04/11 FW: your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at 6:49 mark
12/04/11 your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at 6:49 mark
11/29/11 RE: Attached Image / Subpoena
11/29/11 RE: Attached Image / Subpoena
11/29/11 FW: temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
11/29/11 RE: motion Ior continuance
11/28/11 Reno Municipal Court appointment oI counsel
11/22/11 RE: temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
11/21/11 verint user agreement
11/21/11 temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
11/16/11 NRCP Rule 11 and duty to make reasonably diligent inquiry/exculpatory evidence/prosecutors
11/11/11 motion Ior continuance
10/04/11 records request Ior incident report urgent please
9/09/11 Re: Your Online Police Report T11005956 Has Been Rejected
9/08/11 Re: Your Online Police Report T11005956 Has Been Rejected
9/08/11 Re: Your Online Police Repor
4/4
Close Print
RE:Pleaseemailmerecordingofleedy
From: ZachCoughlin(zachcoughlinhotmail.com)
Sent: Thu1/03/139:07AM
To: DanielWong(wongdreno.gov);RobisonJreno.gov(robisonjreno.gov)
ThankYouChieIDeputyWong,
Muchappreciated. IIatallpossible,couldacopyoItheIilebeemailed? IbeliveitsaverysmallaudioIile,andprobablyin.cdaIormat(whichis
whatmusiccd'saretypicallyin,whichmeansonemust"rip"theIileIromthecdtoaharddrive...thenuploaditasanattachmenttoanemail...andbe
careIulnottomerelydraganddroporcopythe.cdaIile,asthosearen'treally"theIile",theyare1kborsoquasi-Iiles...(conIused?metoo....butwait,don't
youhaveasortoIblog? YoumustbeIairlycomputersavvytodothat...http://www.ehow.com/how_5585651_rip-cda-files.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_8717603_rip-cda-wav.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_6kO-HrUqM )
IunderstandiIitstoobigahassleandappreciateyourprovidedanothercopybyanymethod.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 07:16:00 -0800
> From: wongd@reno.gov
> Subject: RE: Please email me recording of leedy
> To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
> CC: RobisonJ@reno.gov
>
>
> Another copy will be mailed to you today.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:30 PM
> To: wongd@reno.gov
Pleaseemailmerecordingofleedy
requestforRenoMarshal'sreport
> Subject: Please email me recording of leedy
>
> In 12 CT 00696 the CD you provided was scratched
>
> Zach Coughlin 7753388118 PO Box 3961 89505
Sent: Wed1/02/134:29PM
To: wongdreno.gov
In 12 CT 00696 the CD you provided was scratched
Zach Coughlin 7753388118 PO Box 3961 89505
Sent: Mon12/31/124:22PM
To: roperjreno.gov(roperjreno.gov)
DearChieIRoper,
Hello,Sir.
AsIarasIknowyouarenotanemployeeoItheRenoMunicipalCourt.
IamwritingtorequestthatyouprovidemewithacopyoIanyreportsordocumentationinvolvingme(whetheraboutme,receivedIromme,orin
connectionwithanyoIthearrestsmadebyyourMarshal's(includingthe11/30/11summarycivilcontemptarrestin11CR22176beIoreJudgeHoward
inDepartment4,orthe2/27/12summarycontemptarrestin11TR26800beIoreJudgeNashHolmesinDepartment3).
IalsoaskthatyouprovidemewithacopyoIanythingyouhavesenttheStateBaroINevadaaboutme(includingsomemeansoIdeterminingwhatwas
includedinanysuchtransmissions,ie,soIwillknowthediIIerencebetweenwhatyoumaybeprovidingmeinreIerencetomyaboverequest,andthis
morespeciIicrequestregardingmaterialsyou(ortheRMCaIterbeingrequestedIromyou)providedtotheStateBaroINevada.
http://www.washoecounty.us/large_files/agendas/072407/4.pdf
At the above link, from
Here in Nevada we love to have Judges, Sheriff's, District Attorney's, Chief of Police, etc., etc., write letters of recommendation for or endorse candidates for judicial office, for the public defender
positions, etc., etc., no matter how tacky and inappropriate that is, or what appearance of impropriety, bias, or conflcit it may exude:
http://www.washoecounty.us/large_files/agendas/062105/7.pdf
Pleasenotethatwithrespecttoanysubpoenasservedonyou,yourMarshals,etc.,thatNRCP45isnotstrictlyapplied,asitismodiIiedinthecontextoIa
Iormaldisciplinaryhearing,andtheSBN/Panel/Board,waivedallsubpoenaorsubpoenaducestecumwitnessIeesandgrantedmetherighttoissuemy
ownsupoenas(ie,theydonotneedtobeissuedbytheSBNClerkoICourtorbaretheSBNseal). ThereIore,itismypositionthattheMarshalswhomI
hadservedbyanon-partyonorabout12/6/12,andanysubpoenaducestecumserved,mustbecompliedwith,lestoneriskbeingincontempt.
Regardless,IbelieveIamentitledtoatleastonecopyoItheCityoIRenoMarshal'sreportandprobablecausesheetinconnectionwithbothoIthose
contemptarrests.
PleaseALSOCONSIDERTHISANOPENRECORDSLAWREQUESTFORDOCUMENTATION/FREEDOMOFINFORMATIONACT
REQUEST:
http://www.sunshinereview.org/index.php/Nevada_Open_Records_Act
I would greatly appreciate it if you would either email or fax me these materials in addition to any recordings or other media in your control or made by your Marshals (I know Marshals Thompson
and Coppa admitted to recording me in their letter/affidavit to the State Bar of Nevada on or about March 22nd, 2012.
I do not know of you being represented by an attorney. If you are please provide me their contact information, or at least, their name. You may want to consult with an attorney in connection
with this request. I will note again that Marshal Menzel has recently taken to following me around the courthouse, including appearing in the Reno Justice Court filing office when I go there (even
if I had not previously gone to the Reno Municipal Court during such a visit) and up to the District Attorney's Office on the fourth floor of 1 South Sierra St. and back down, staring at me, facing me,
glaring and often making comments about my not having a job. Please note that Marshal Menzel previously worked as a Bailiff at the RJC, and wrote a letter of recommendation for RMC court
appointed defender Lew Taitel, whom is listed as "Staff Attorney" for Nevada Court Services, whom I was suing at the time in November 2011 when Mr. Taitel accepted my case for representation
in the criminal trespass matter before Judge William Gardner in 11 CR 26405 in the RMC. I sued Judge WIlliam Gardner's sister in case 54844 in the Nevada Supreme Court, and she and her
brother, Judge William Gardner, and Judge Nash Holmes filed a grievance against me with the State Bar of Nevada, which has now become a Complaint in NG12-0435 and NG12-0434 seeking to
have me disbarred, which rest largely on an allegation by Judge Nash Holmes that Marshal Harley told her certain things, and Coughlin is entitled to the Marshal Reports related thereto and has
not been provided them.
All sorts of conflicts of interest are detailed at the following link, many involving the actions against me of late and the connections between Judge Nash Holmes, Judge Linda Gardner, Judge
William Gardner, RMC court appointed defender Lewis Taitel (whom never did comply with RMC Rules in putting into writing to reason for his seeking to withdraw as counsel of record in RMC 11
CR 26405), Terri Vaus-Wong, Judge Linda Gardner's former law partner Gayle Kern, Esq. (see RJC rev2012-000374, wherein Judge Schroeder entered a default summary eviction Order against me,
carried out less than 5 hours latter by the Washoe County Sheriff's Office, at gunpoint, without identifying themselves prior to breaking in, similar to WCSO's Deputy Machen's conduct in rcr2012-
067980, and which interferred with Coughlin's representation of his client Keller in the NVB adversary proceeding Cadle Company v. Keller in 10-05104 on 3/15/12, just 5 hours after Coughlin
showed up to the RJC for the summary eviction hearing in rev2012-000374, where the hearing was noticed for 8:30 am, despite the fax header on the Lockout Order to the WCSO and or RJC Filing
Office indicating a time of 8:24 am, and despite Coughlin being accused of a RPC violation that Kern herself her seems to violate in obtaining a default where she clearly knew Coughlin was
contesting the eviction and she saw Coughlin walking into the courtroom as she was walking out of it with her default summary eviction Order being obtained:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/real-estate-services/gayle-kern-esq/gayle-kern-esq-gayle-kern-de-f9bb7.htm ), the Washoe County Sheriff's Office (letter of recommendation for Taitel by
Sheriff Hayley Marshal Mentzel, Department of Alternative Sentencing (where RJC Bailiff's have violated courthouse sanctuary doctrine and rules, in much the same manner RMC Marshal Joel
Harley did on 2/27/12 in attempting to effect personal service upon me of the Order to Show Cause by Judge Flanagan in CV11-03628, the appeal of the summary eviction/"Trial" from my former
home law office, where opposing counsel Richard G. Hill, Esq. hired the Washoe County Sheriff's Office to personally serve me the 2/8/12 Order to Show Cause in 03628 (which I had already been
served by the Eflex system given I was an electronic filer attached to the case, a party, and likely the "attorney of record" therein, which, under Caplow would make Hill's attempt to have me
served at the 2/27/12 11 TR 26800 traffic citation trial stemming from RPD Sargent Tarter retaliating against me by issuing me 3 traffic citations outside of Richard G. Hill's office on 2/15/12, upon
my informing him that RPD Officer Chris Carter, Jr had said to me, upon making a custodial arrest for criminal trespass incident to a complaint signed by Richard G. Hill, Esq., and upon my asking
him if he was "on Richard G. HIll's payroll", Officer Carter said: "yes, Richard G. HIll pays me a lot of money so I arrest who he says to arrest and I do what he ways to do". That seeming
admission seems to be supported by the conduct of the RPD and admissions in the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6I3t7tTlPI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh2xyc-9cg0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcVDVjFK64g Coughlin obtaining admissions from RPD Sargent Monica Lopez regarding the wrongful arrest by she and RPD Officer Chris Carter, Jr. of
Coughlin in RMC 11 CR 26405 on 11/13/12...detailed in Coughlin's 11/2/12 Notice of Errata submitted for filing with the RMC on 11/2/12, though only marked "received", and though mentioned in
Judge William Gardner's 11/13/12 Order denying Coughlin a New Trial, that document was not included by the RMC's Lisa Wagner or RMC Court Administrator Cassandra Jackson (whom writes
emails to the SBN about Coughlin detailing what Coughlin's clothes were like during a visit to the filing office counter (ie, not the "Office of the ClerK") to the State Bar of Nevada, unprompted)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TAFO6Z0OVo
Also, the RPD arrested Couglin, a custodial arrest, for jaywalking on 1/12/12 in RMC 12 CR 00696 incident to the lies by Richard G. Hill, Esq. to officers (wherein Hill alleges Coughlin had already lost
his appeal of the eviction in CV11-03628, despite a decision not being issued in that appeal until 3/30/12, and further where Hill's Witness Statement and allegations in his TPO, granted by RJC
Judge Schroeder in RCP2012-000018, simply are not supported by the videos of the events:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vlEI1fJJWc&list=UUJRiA0LTsRYM4Ol9tWU62mg&index=1
HIll sat on the Central District Citizens' Advisory Board of the City of Reno:
http://www.richardhillaw.com/About_Richard_Hill.htm
I would have been able to point out the conflict of having Lew Taitel, Esq. appointed as my attorney, but RMC Judge William Gardner refused to divulge the names of the possible 5 court
appointed defenders here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_aApRniyk8
http://www.nevcs.com/attorney.html web page for unauthorized practitioners of law in RJC rev2012-001048 (wherein Judge Schroeder signed a summary eviction Order against me despite
the fraudulent Declaration of Service by NCS's Ryan Wray and the defective 6/14/12 5 day Notice Listing Sparks Justice Court as the forum to file a Tenant's Affidavit, and my so filing such a
Tenant's Affidavit on 6/26/12 with the Sparks Justice Court (which the SJC faxed on 6/28/12 at noon, to the Reno Justice Court, and where the RJC and WCSO and Sparks Justice Court were made
aware in advance of the deficiencies in the 5 day Notice (required by law under NRS 40.253, see AB 226):
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/reports/history.cfm?ID=507
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=43084638F32F5F28!5814 7/25/12 filing in 60302 in Nevada Supreme Court detailing NCS's Ryan Wray's malfeasance.
"Subject: Reno eviction noticed for Sparks Justice Court
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 6/26/12 7:58 AM
To: sheriffweb@washoecounty.us; lstuchell@washoecounty.us; kstancil@washoecounty.us;
chansen@washoecounty.us; milllerr@reno.gov
Dear Sparks Justice Court, WCSO, RPD, and Reno Justice Court.
I have received (though not personally served) what appears to be an eviction notice (5 day unlawful detainer?) for rentals located at 1680 Sky Mountain Drive, Reno, 89523, but the notice
indicates that I must file a Tenant's Answer with the Sparks Justice Court.
Am I mistaken in viewing this matter to be outside the jurisdiction of the Sparks Justice Court, and rather, a matter to be handled in Reno Justice Court?
Given Sparks Justice Court is open 5 days a week (closes at noon on Fridays) and Reno Justice Court has 4 judicial days a week, the deadline for filing a special appearance (to contest jurisdiction)
and or a Tenant's Answer of Affidavit is difficult to measure.
I spoke with a Reno Police Department who identified himself as Sargent Miller last week and he indicated theWCSO planned to come effectuate an eviction on this date, June 26, 2012.
I believe that would be premature, as Nevada Landlord Tenant law provides for filing a Tenant's Answer or Affidavit by noon after the fifth full day (judicial days) and Fridays in Sparks Justice
Court are not full days in that sense, and regardless, Sparks Justice Court, I believe, is not the appropriate forum where, as here, the situs is located in Reno (Ward 1-nap?)
Judge Nash Holmes detail what the Reno Marshals alleged regarding Coughlin's actions of 2/27/12, here, in the audio transcript from the continuation of the traffic citation trial for the citations
made outside Richard G. Hill's law office on 11/15/12 (where Coughlin had gone to get his client's files, wallet, state issued driver's license, and keys, which Hill refuse, though RPD Sargent Tarter
"giving Coughlin a break" for not citing him for not having his current driver's license, is mentioned in Judge Nash Holmes 3/12/12 Order...though Judge Holmes ruled irrelevant any inquiry into
why Coughlin did not have his current driver's license with him during that traffic stop).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uQQdukb3D4
Marshal Harley failed to appear at Coughlin's 11/14/12 formal disciplinary hearing before the State Bar of Nevada despite his being served a subpoena by a non-party and the SCR 105(4)
requirements and other rules and procedures applicable to such subpoenas and . It is time for Marshal Harley and the Reno Marshals to release the reports, recordings, and documentation in its
possession or control respecting Coughlin and to set the record straight, and for Marshal Scott Coppa and WCSO Deputy Cheung to speak to the micro sd card, and their conversations in the back
room of the jail's "sally bay" after Marshall Coppa pulled Deputy Cheung aside and whispered into his ear. Further, the Reno Marshal and Marshal Deighton ought indicate why they retrieved
Coughlin's property on 2/28/12 (after it had been booked into Coughlin's personal property at the jail) and why Coughlin's smart phone and micro sd data card were returned to him with the data
wiped on 4/7/12, and why WCSO Deputy Hodge, Trudy Darlington, Debi Cummings, Brandi Berriman, and Patricia Beckman, and others made the contradictory statements they did about the
chain of custody of Coughlin's property.
Finally, DDA Mary Kandaras and those above need to reveal upon what authority or Order, or warrant, the WCDA and or WCSO released Coughlin's personal property to the RMC Marshals, the
RMC, and Judge Nash Holmes.
Additionaly, the RMC and Judge Nash Holmes, Marilyn Tognoni, and Terri Vaus-Wong and any other assistant to Judge Nash Holmes and the Reno City Attorney and Washoe County Public
Defender's Office and WCDA need to reveal the communciation admitted to between Judge Nash Holmes, the RMC, and the Washoe County Public Defender's Office in Judge Nash Holmes' 3/14/12
written grievance against Coughlin, NG12-0434 to the State Bar of Nevada.
Jim Leslie, Biray Dogan, and the Washoe County Public Defener's Office and RMC court appointed Defenders Keith Loomis, Esq. and Henry Sotelo, Esq. need to divulge their rationale for failing to
procure and provide to Coughlin and utilize in his defense the audio transcripts of the hearings in:
7/31/12 RJC rev2012-001048 Northwinds Apartments v. Coughlin (testimony by Northwinds Manager Duane Jakob, while being represented in court before RJC Judge Pearson (whom allowed it) by
an unlicense unauthorized practictioner of law, Nevada Court Servces CEO Jeff Chandler, whom wrote Lew Taitel, Esq. a letter of recommendation in his attempt to become a Reno Justice Court
Justice of the Peace, and whom Judge Pearson himself filed a Judicial Discipline Commission Complaint against (at that 7/31/12 hearing, Judge Pearson went against NRCP 11's dictate, made
applicable via NRS 40.400, against corporations, such as Northwinds Apartments Associate, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington, appearing pro se without an attorney, which is not allowed under NRS
Chapter 40 or 118A, regardless of what Judge Pearson may have ruled, similar to what Judge Sferrazza ruled in allowing Gayle Kern's client, Park Terrace Townhomes HOA to appear without a
licensed attorney on 2/12/12 in RJC rev2012-074408 , leading to the 6/28/12 arrest and summary eviction lockout of Coughlin in rcr2012-067980.
As a courtesy, here is a link to the materials you were previously provided in the attached emails to you from me:
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=43084638F32F5F28!5822
In her testimony on 11/14/12, Judge Nash Holmes said a lot of hearsay...perhaps Marshal Menzel, a former RJC Bailiff who is known to walk away from his post at the RMC and following Coughlin
around the entire building at 1 South Sierra St., has some input as to whom is telling Judge Nash Holmes what and the unfortunate fallout related thereto? Coughlin filed for a Protection Order
against both RJC Bailiff John Reyes (which was transferred to the Sparks Justice Court and summarily denied without any interview of Coughlin, despite Reyes admitting that he said to Coughlin "I
am going to put my foot in your ass" with Coughlin's public defender Joe Goodnight and Jim Leslie, Esq. sitting next to Coughlin). The RJC recently granted Leslie and the Washoe County Public
Defender and Patrick O. King, Esq. and the State Bar of Nevada TPO's against Coughlin where Leslie and King both lied in their applications in alleging Coughlin linked to a "video" of some violent
scene where the link in question is clearly only an audio sound bite from a movie at www.Hark.com.
The exact transcript of that quotation from an Academy Award nominated motion picture is:
"Iain'tnowhitetrashpieceoIs***.I'mbetterthanyouall.Icanoutlearnyou.Icanoutreadyou.Icanoutthinkyou,andIcanoutphilosophizeyou.AndI'mgoingtooutlastyou.Youthinkacouple
oIwhackstomygoodoldboygut'sgonnagetmedown?It'sgoingtotakeahelloIalotmorethanthat,Counselor,toproveyou'rebetterthanme!!"
Thereisnovideoclipatthelink,despitetheliesbyWCPDJimLeslieandStateBaroINevadaBarCounselPatrickO.King. But,iIoneweretotrytokeeptrackoIalltheliesWCPDJimLeslie,
Esq.andStateBaroINevadaBarCounselPatrickO.KingorClerkoICourtLauraPetertell,well,onesimplywouldnothavetimeIoranythingelse. Further,thequotationmentionslearning,
reading,andphilosophizing,hardlythreateningsubjectmatterssupportiveoItheTPOsgrantedbyRJCJudgePearsonagainstCoughlin,inIavoroIWCPDJimLeslieandSBNBarCounselPatrick
KinginRCP2012-000599andRCP2012-000607. RJCJudgeShroederactuallydeniedaTPOapplicationCoughlinIiledagainstLeslie,butIorsomereasonthatapplicationwasnotgivenitsown
distinctcasenumber,butratherlumpedinwiththeoneJudgePearsongrantedWCPDJimLeslie(whoadmitsheIailedtoturnovertoCoughlinthediscoveryoI911callsinRJCrcr2012-065630(a
caseoriginally"randomly"assignedtoJudgeLynch,butIorwhichJudgeCliIton,aIormerWCDAprosecutorIor25yearsworkinginthedomesticviolenceunitwiththesameIormerWCDAandnow
SecondJudicialFamilyCourtJudgeLindaGardner(Coughlinsuedherin54844aIterherApril2009OrderwascitedbyPaulElcanooIWashoeLegalServicesasthebasisIorIiringCoughlinasa
domesticviolenceattorneyIromlegalaid,thoughJudgeLindaGardner'sbrother,RMCJudgeWilliamGardnerreIusedtorecusehimselIIromthecriminaltrespassprosecutionoICoughlininRMC11
CR26405,whichinvolvedRMCcourtappointeddeIenderLewTaitelbeingassignedthecase(atthe11/14/12arraignmentJudgeWilliamGardnerreIusedtoidentiIythepotentialappointeddeIense
attorneystoCoughlin...andthat'stoobad,giventhatRMCcourtappointeddeIensecounselLewTaitel,Esq.wasultimatelyappointedbytheRMCtodeIendCoughlininNovember2011incriminal
trespasscomplaintwhereopposingcounselRichardG.Hill,Esq.signedthecriminalcomplaintincidenttothecustodialarrestoICoughlinon11/13/11atCoughlin'sIormerhomelawoIIiceat121
RiverRockSt.Reno,NV89512(niceandclosetotheCourthouseandlawlibrary,whichisusedbyonlytwolocalattorneys...ZachCoughlin(welltemporarilysuspendedattorneyZachCoughlin,
Esq.),andRichardCornell,Esq.. That'sit. Thosearetheonlytwoyouwilleverseethere,honest. You'llseeKeithLoomis,Esq.downattheSupremeCourt'slibraryinCarsonCityonoccasion.
SpeakingoI,LoomiswasservedaSubpoenaIorthe11/14/12IormaldisciplinaryhearinginNG12-0204,0434,and0435,but,he,likeRMCMarshalJoelHarley,playedhookythatday.
JudgeSIerrazzaallowstheunauthorizedpracticeoIevictionlawbyapropertymanagersimilartowhatJudgePearsonallowedNevadaCourtServicestodoinRJCRev2012-001048.
JudgeLindaGardnerpreviouslyworkedIorGayleKern,Esq. JudgeLindaGardner'sApril2009OrdersanctioningadomesticviolencelegalaidattorneyresultedinhisIiring,andtheIollowing
lawsuits:
Herbrother,RenoMunicipalCourtJudgeWilliamGardner,reIusedtorecusehimselIIromthecriminaltrespassprosecutionoICoughlinincidenttothecustodialarrestathisIormerhomelawoIIicein
RMC11CR26405,which,incidentallyinvolvedLewTaitel,Esq.beingappointedasCoughlin'sdeIensecounseldespiteCoughlinthensuingTaitel'sbusinesspartnersincidenttothatveryeviction,
NevadaCourtServicesandJeIIChandler. Somehow,RMCJudicialAssistnatLisaGardnerdidnotmanagetoIilestamptheNoticeoIAppealCoughlinservedontheCityAttorneyHazlett-Stevens
andsubmittedIorIilingwiththeRMCon6/28/12shortlybeIoreNevadaCourtServices,theWashoeCountySheriII'sOIIiceDeputyMachen,andtheRenoPoliceDepartmentarrestedCoughlinagain
inrcr2012-067980(incidenttothewrongIulevictioninrjcrev2012-001048)on6/28/12,andthenagaininthe7/2/12arrestbytheRPDOIIicerAlanWeaverandSargentDyeinRMC12CR12420
(where,on7/5/12courtappointedRMCdeIenderKeithLoomis,Esq.conspiredagainstCoughlinduringtheunnoticedbailincreasehearingwhere,again,JudgeGardner,raisedCoughlin'sbail10times
theoriginalamount,resultingin20daysinjailIorCoughlin,duringwhicha$40KattorneyIeeawardbyJudgeFlanagnwasissued,incidentto,youguessedit,thatsamesummaryevictionappeal
cv11-03628. JudgeHardywroteLewTaitelaletteroIrecommendationIortheRJCjob...butdeniedseveraloICoughlin'sMotionsIorinIormapauperisstatusin2012,includingsomerelatedtothe
evictionIromCoughlin'sIormerhomelawoIIiceandlawsuitsrelatedthereto.
So,thenthereisthemotherloadoIconIlictsandintrigue...LewTaitel,Esq.'sapplicationandcollectionoIreIerencelettersinhisbidtobecomeaRenoJusticeCourtJusticeoIthePeace,including:
aletterbyCityoIRenoprosecutorPamelaRobert,Esq.,whoseprosecutorialmisconductinRMC11CR22176andtheappealinCR11-2064isnowmemorializedin60838,theaudiooIthe11/30/11
TrialbeIoreRMCJudgeKennethHowardandtheWal-MartinterrogationroomvideothatCityAttorneyRobertspossessedthatprovessheputonperjuredtestimonybyRenoSparksIndianColony
OIIicerKameronCrawIord,incidenttotheTrialwhereJudgeGardnerdeniedCoughlincourtappointedcounselinviolationoItheSixthAmendment,deniedCoughlinacontinuancebaseduponJudge
Howard'smistakenbelieIthatCoughlinhadcausedthecontinuanceoIthe11/14/11Trialdate(inthelast3minutesoIthetranscriptJudgeHowardadmitshiserror,butbelievesheamelioratesitby
removingaIewhoursoIthecommunityservicerequirementheorderCoughlintoperIorm,thenJudgeHowardattemptstomisleadCoughlinastotheappeabilityoIhisNRS22.030civilsummary
contempt3dayimmediateincarcerationoICoughlin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKmLtzgfFxk
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=29004
Taitel'sotherlettersoIreIerenceincludeonesIromRJCJudgeCliIton(IormerlyaWCDAprosecutorIor25yearsworkinglargelyinthedomesticviolencearena,includingatonepointwithJudge
LindaGardner:
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=22746 54844MandamusPetitionIiledbyCoughlinagainstJudgeLindaGardner'sApril2009OrdersanctioningCoughlinand
resultingwrongIulterminationlawsuits:
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=28481 In60317,theappealIromthetrialcourtmatterbeIoreD10JudgeStevenP.Elliott,whomwenttoStanIordUniversityin
thelate1960swithWashoeLegalServicesDirectorPaulElcano,andthePanelChairIorCoughlin'sIormaldisciplinaryhearingon11/14/12,JohnEcheverria. JudgeElliottalsoworkedIorChair
Echeverria'sIather'slawIirm,EcheverriaandOsborne. http://www.washoecourts.com/index.cfm?page=elliott&judge_id=d10
JudgeElliottgraduatedIromStanIordUniversityin1971.HeworkedIorthelawIirmoIEcheverriaandOsborneinRenoandservedasanAssistantCityAttorneyIortheCityoISparks.He
completedtheCourseIorProsecutorssponsoredbytheNationalAssociationoIDistrictAttorneysatNorthwesternUniversity.HewasaIounderoItheWashoeCountyDomesticViolenceTaskForce.
JudgeElliotthasbeenactiveincommunityorganizations.HehasservedasadirectoroItheCommitteetoAidAbusedWomenAdvisoryBoard.HeisapastpresidentoItheRenoAreaStanIordClub.
WDCR Rule2.OrganizationoIthecourt;chieIjudge;courtadministrator.1.Allcivilandcriminalcasesshallberandomlyassigned.
Somehow,JudgeElliotmanagedtobe"randomly"assignedIourstraightcriminalappealswhereinCoughlinisapartyIollowinghisbeing"randomly"assignedCoughlin'swrongIulterminationlawsuit
againstPaulElcano,WashoeLegalServices,andtheCommitteetoAidAbusedWomen(CAAW). ThisincludedtheappealoItheWal-MartpettylarcenyconvictionatissueintheSCR111(6)
PetitionresultinginCoughlin'scurrenttemporarysuspension,in60838,Iromwhichthe6/7/12OrderreIerringthemattertothedisciplinarypanelIoraIormal
TheannouncementthatJudgeElliottwasretiringcameshortlyaIterCoughlin's11/19/12Iilingin61901.
http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/supnews/1756-applications-being-accepted-to-succeed-retiring-washoe-district-judge-steven-elliott
Applications being accepted to succeed Retiring
Washoe District Judge Steven Elliott
Wednesday, 19 December 2012 10:25
1udgeleavingbenchMarch12,2013after16years
CV11-01955 ZACHARYCOUGHLINVS.WASHOELEGALSRVC,ETAL(D10) PlaintiII30-JUN-2011
CR11-2064 ZACHCOUGHLINVS.CITYOFRENO(D10)Appellant23-DEC-2011
http://www.ccwashoe.com/public/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_id=CR11-2064&begin_date=&end_date=
CR12-0376 STATEVSZACHARYBARKERCOUGHLIN(D10)DeIendant28-FEB-2012
CR12-1262 ZACHARYCOUGHLINVS.CITYOFRENO(D10)Appellant25-JUL-2012
R12-2025 ZACHARYCOUGHLINVSSTATE(D10)Appellant06-DEC-2012
InRJCRCR2012-065630,CoughlinIiledaDeclarationinLieuoIanAIIidavitseekingtodisqualiIyJudgeCliItonIromhearingthe"misuseoIemergencyservices"prosecutionoICouglin(whichwas
amendedon7/27/12toa"obstructingapublicoIIicercharge"atthesamerushedhearinginwhichWCPDBirayDogan,Esq.was"relieved"oIallthe"work"hehadbeendoingonCoughlin's
deIense...andDDAYoungwasgrantedanOrderbarringCoughlinIromIaxinghimortheRJCincidenttoaMotionIorsuchrelieIDDAYounghadonlymailedtoDoganthedaybeIore...anddespite
claimingtobeinabig,bighurry,DDACliIton,er,JudgeCliItonmanagedtocontradicthisearlierstatementontherecordthatitwasnotpermissibletoIiletheAmendedComplaintininopencourt
andarraignCoughlinatthattime,whenheallowedDDAYoungtodojustthat. WhichwasconvenientgiventheTrialSettingoIDecember11th,2012insuredthatCoughlinwaspreventedIrom
Iilingpre-trialmotionpriortoDoganbeingremovedasattorneyoIrecord,anduponDoganbeingremoved 14dayspriortoTrial,itwastoolateIorCoughlintoIilepre-trialmotionshimselIgiven
thestatutorydictatethatsuchmotionsbeIiled15dayspriortotrial. AndwhileJudgeCliItoninsistedCoughlinnotreIertoanymattersoutsideoIthatspeciIiccase(RCR2012-065630)heallowed
DDAYoungtobasethelionshareoIhisIactualsupportIorhiscontentionthatCoughlinwasoverburdeninghisIaxmachineonIaxesallegedlysenttohiminadiIIerentcaseentirely,RCR2011-
063341. JudgeCliItonreIusedIollowNevadalawunderNRS53.045,whereJudgeCliItonreIusedtocomplywiththedicatesoINRS1.235upon
NRS 1.230 Grounds for disqualifying judges other than Supreme Court justices.
1. A judge shall not act as such in an action or proceeding when the judge entertains actual bias or prejudice for or against one of the parties to the action.
NRS 1.235 Procedure for disqualifying judges other than Supreme Court justices.
1. Any party to an action or proceeding pending in any court other than the Supreme Court, who seeks to disqualify a judge for actual or implied bias or prejudice must file an
affidavit specifying the facts upon which the disqualification is sought. The affidavit of a party represented by an attorney must be accompanied by a certificate of the attorney of
record that the affidavit is filed in good faith and not interposed for delay. Except as provided in subsections 2 and 3, the affidavit must be filed:
(a) Not less than 20 days before the date set for trial or hearing of the case; or
(b) Not less than 3 days before the date set for the hearing of any pretrial matter.
2. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection and subsection 3, if a case is not assigned to a judge before the time required under subsection 1 for filing the affidavit, the
affidavit must be filed:
(a) Within 10 days after the party or the party's attorney is notified that the case has been assigned to a judge;
(b) Before the hearing of any pretrial matter; or
(c) Before the jury is empaneled, evidence taken or any ruling made in the trial or hearing,
whichever occurs first. If the facts upon which disqualification of the judge is sought are not known to the party before the party is notified of the assignment of the judge or before
any pretrial hearing is held, the affidavit may be filed not later than the commencement of the trial or hearing of the case.
3. If a case is reassigned to a new judge and the time for filing the affidavit under subsection 1 and paragraph (a) of subsection 2 has expired, the parties have 10 days after notice
of the new assignment within which to file the affidavit, and the trial or hearing of the case must be rescheduled for a date after the expiration of the 10-day period unless the
parties stipulate to an earlier date.
4. At the time the affidavit is filed, a copy must be served upon the judge sought to be disqualified. Service must be made by delivering the copy to the judge
personally or by leaving it at the judge's chambers with some person of suitable age and discretion employed therein.
5. The judge against whom an affidavit alleging bias or prejudice is filed shall proceed no further with the matter and shall:
(a) Immediately transfer the case to another department of the court, if there is more than one department of the court in the district, or request the judge of another district court
to preside at the trial or hearing of the matter; or
(b) File a written answer with the clerk of the court within 2 days after the affidavit is filed, admitting or denying any or all of the allegations contained in the affidavit and setting
forth any additional facts which bear on the question of the judge's disqualification. The question of the judge's disqualification must thereupon be heard and determined by another
judge agreed upon by the parties or, if they are unable to agree, by a judge appointed:
(1) By the presiding judge of the judicial district in judicial districts having more than one judge, or if the presiding judge of the judicial district is sought to be disqualified, by the
judge having the greatest number of years of service.
(2) By the Supreme Court in judicial districts having only one judge.
RMC Judge Howard held Coughlin in summary contempt in retaliation for Coughlin's moving for Judge Howard to recuse himself based upon evident impartiality and other rationale
during the 11/30/11 petty larceny trial in 11 CR 22176, wherein Coughlin was denied his Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, denied a continuance, and deprived of his constitutional
right to decide whether or not to testify on his own behalf, and deprived the ability to rebut prejudicial hearsay allowed into evidence by Judge Howard, amongst numerous other due
process deprivations.
Coughlin filed his Motion to disqualify Judge Clifton prior to the start of Trial on December 11th, 2012. Coughlin attempted to have a copy served upon Judge Clifton (out of
respect for Judge Clifton and various doctrines related to judicial immunity from service while on the bench, Coughlin sought to leave the copy at the Judge's chambers, but was not
granted access thereto, so instead Couglin consulted with RJC Chief Bailiff Sexton and the counter clerks at the second floor of the Reno Justice Court and they accepted Coughlin's
Motion to Disqualify Judge Clifton and indicated they would provide it to him soon thereafter, and, in fact, upon the Trial starting over an hour or so later, Judge Clifton not only had
the filign office's copy but the copy Coughlin left with the RJC staff upon Coughlin being denied access to the Judges Chambers. Judge Clifton cited Coughlin's failure to have his
Motion to Disqualify notarize (ie, in an Affidavit form versuse a Declaration made under penalty of perjury in lieu of an Affidavit, as allowable under NRS 53.045, a practice by
Coughlin which the Nevada Supreme has expressly approved in Buckwalter v. Dist. Ct., 126 Nev. ___, ___, 234 P.3d 920, 921 (2010).
"This original writ proceeding asks us to decide whether a medical expert's declaration under penalty of perjury as provided in NRS 53.045 can satisfy the affidavit requirement stated in NRS 41A.071. We agree with the district
court that it can and therefore deny writ relief....The latter provides that [a]ny matter whose existence or truth may be established by an affidavit may be established with the same effect by an unsworn declaration of its
existence or truth signed by the declarant under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form: I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. NRS 53.045. An affidavit is
a written statement sworn to by the declarant before an officer authorized to administer oaths. Black's Law Dictionary 66 (9th ed.2009). A declaration under NRS 53.045 is not sworn, but instead is dated and signed
under penalty of perjury. Petitioners contend that because NRS 41A.071 expressly requires an affidavit, the complaint must be dismissed. We disagree. Statutes must be construed together so as to avoid rendering any portion
of a statute immaterial or superfluous. Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc., 122 Nev. 409, 418, 132 P.3d 1022, 1028 (2006). NRS 41A.071 imposes an affidavit requirement, which NRS 53.045 permits a litigant to meet either
by sworn affidavit or unsworn declaration made under penalty of perjury. See State, Dep't Mtr. Veh. v. Bremer, 113 Nev. 805, 813, 942 P.2d 145, 150 (1997) (concluding that a declaration under NRS 53.045 met the affidavit
requirement of the breathalyzer statute, even though the statute's language required an affidavit). To hold otherwise would make NRS 53.045 meaningless because it would require every statute imposing an affidavit
requirement to state when a declaration may be used instead of an affidavit. Interpreting the two statutes so as to give meaning to both, we conclude that a declaration that complies with NRS 53.045 can fulfill NRS 41A.071's
affidavit requirement." Buckwalter v. Dist. Ct., 126 Nev. ___, ___, 234 P.3d 920, 921 (2010).
NRS 53.045 Useofunsworndeclarationinlieuofaffidavitorothersworndeclaration;exception. AnymatterwhoseexistenceortruthmaybeestablishedbyanaIIidavitorothersworndeclarationmaybeestablishedwiththe
sameeIIectbyanunsworndeclarationoIitsexistenceortruthsignedbythedeclarantunderpenaltyoIperjury,anddated,insubstantiallytheIollowingIorm:
1.IIexecutedinthisState:IdeclareunderpenaltyoIperjurythattheIoregoingistrueandcorrect.
(interesting,becausetheRenoCityAttorneyisIreelygivencontinuances,liketheoneitreceivedinthecriminaltrespassprosecutionoICoughlinwhereRichardG.Hill,Esq.neededtogoonvacation
Iorsixweeks,inthecasewhereRMCdeIendersTaitel,thenPuentes,thenLoomisallreIusedtosubpoenapercipientwitnessesRPDOIIicerCarter(howwasCoughlin'sSixthAmendmentRightto
ConIrontationIulIilledwhereneitherRPDOIIicersshowedup?),norSargentMarciaLopez,norlandlordDr.MatthewJ.Merliss,MD. OpposingcounselHillandBakerbilledtheirneurologistclient
$60,000incidenttotheircounselinghimtoundertakeasummaryevictionagainstacommercialtenantbasedonlyuponaNoCauseEvictionNotice,whichisexpresslyIorbiddenunderNRS40.253
(ie,itwas,toborrowamedicalanalogy,a"wrongsitesurgery"...sohowcouldRMCJudgeGardnerIind"irrelevant"thewitnessbiasincidenttoHillorBaker'stestimonyelictedbyCoughlin
questioningthemontheIinancialarrangementwiththeirclientortheirowndesiretoavoidmalpracticeliability?
Regardless,boththeattorneysIeeawardsagainstCoughlinbyJudgeFlanaganintheappealoItheRJCevictioninrev2011-001708andthecriminaltrespassconvictionagainstCoughlinincident
theretoinRMC11CR26405arebaseduponanEvictionOrderandDecisionoI10/25/11andSummaryEvictionOrderoI10/27/11,bothbyJudgeSIerrazzathatarevoid,stale,orotherwise
inoperativeonanumberoIgrounds,suchas:
1.ThoseOrdersweremadeatatimeinwhichtheRJCandJudgeSIerrazzahadbeendivestedoIjurisdictiontomakeanysuchOrdersgivenCoughlin'sIilingoIaNoticeoIAppealonOctober19th,
2011inRJCRev2011-001708and,intheDistrictCourt:
CV11-03051 ZACHCOUGHLINVS.MATTMERLISSETAL(D1)Petitioner19-OCT-2011
http://www.ccwashoe.com/public/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_id=CV11-03051&begin_date=&end_date=
CV11-03126 ZACHCOUGHLINVS.MATTMERLISS,M.D.etal.PlaintiII26-OCT-2011
CV11-03628 ZACHARYCOUGHLINVS.MATTHEWMERLISS(D7)PlaintiII21-DEC-2011
As a general rule, the timely filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of the jurisdiction to act and vests jurisdiction in the Supreme Court (Mack-Manley v. Manley, 122 Nev. 849) as
to those issues pending on appeal. However, the district court retains jurisdiction over matters that are collateral to and independent from the appealed matters. The court may still entertain
motions and deny them or if inclined to grant may certify such an intent (Foster v. Dingwall citing to Huneycutt v. Huneycutt, 94 Nev. 79). Enforcement actions are not divested.
Rule2. Organizationofthecourt;chiefjudge;courtadministrator.
1.Allcivilandcriminalcasesshallberandomlyassigned.
2.ThedistrictjudgesshallelectIromamongthegeneraljurisdictiondivisionandIamilycourtdivisionjudgesachieIjudgeIoratermoI2years.ThechieIjudgeisthepresidingjudgeasreIerredtoin NRS 3.025 andthechieI
judgereIerredtoin Supreme Court Rule 8.
3.ElectionoIthechieIjudgeshallbebysecretballotattheregularDecembermeetingoIjudges.NominationshalllikewisebemadeandclosedattheNovembermeeting.ThetermoIthechieIjudgeshallcommencetheIirst
MondayoIJanuaryinevenyears.Electionshallbebymajorityvote.ThechieIjudgemayberemovedbymotionmadeatanyregularmeetingandatwo-thirdsvoteoIthejudgesatthenextregularmeeting.
4.ThechieIjudgemaybe,ormayappoint,thepresidingjudgeoIthedivisionoIhisorherjurisdictionandshallappointapresidingjudgeoItheremainingdivision.ThepresidingjudgeorjudgesshallserveatthepleasureoIthe
chieIjudgeandshallperIormsuchdutiesasaredelegatedbythechieIjudge.
5.ThechieIjudgeshallsupervisethecourtadministratorandpresidingjudge(s).ThechieIjudgeshallappointcommitteesoIthecourt.ThechieIjudgeshallpresideoveralljudgesmeetingsandshallspeakIorthecourtonmatters
thereinapprovedbythejudges.ThechieIjudgeshallrepresentthecourtinitsrelationswithotheragenciesoIthegovernment,thebar,thegeneralpublicandthenewsmedia.
6.ThechieIjudgeshallsupervisecaseIlowmanagement,assignoverIlowtrialsandotheroverIlowmattersIromtheotherjudgesandshallassisttheotherjudgeswhorequestassistanceindispositionoItheircaseloadwithinthe
courtbyobtainingseniorjudgesorothersittingjudgesinotherdistrictswithinthestate.ThechieIjudgeshallbethearbitratorinresolvingconIlictsbetweenjudgesoncalendaringandcaseassignmentandproceduralpolicydisputes.ThecaseloadoI
thechieIjudgeshallbereducedby20percent.ThechieIjudgeshallberesponsibleIorcompilationanddistributionoIstatisticsoIthecourt.
7.ThechieIjudgemayassignoneormoredistrictjudgestoacttemporarilyasajudgeorjudgesoItheIamilycourt,iIthecaseloadoItheIamilycourtsorequiresoriIIoranyreasonajudgeoItheIamilycourtisunabletoact.
8.The district court administrator shall be selected by the court and is responsible Ior the administration oI the rules, policies and directives oIthedistrictcourt.Inadditiontothedutiesprescribedbelow,thedistrictcourt
administratorshallbedenominatedtheclerkoIthecourtandshallperIormallthestatutoryandotherdutiesassignedtothatoIIice.SubjecttothedirectionoIthechieIjudgeactingonbehalIoIthedistrictjudges,thedistrictcourtadministratorshall:
(a)Supervisetheassistantcourtadministrator,Iamilydivisionadministrator,jurycommissionerandotheroIIicersandemployeesoIorservingthedistrictcourt,exceptIorthestaIIoIeachjudge;
(b)SupervisetheoIIiceoIthecourtclerkandtheprocessingoIallpleadingsandpapersrelatedtocourtbusinessandthecourtclerks;
(c)DirecttheimplementationandoperationoIacourtinterpreterprogram;
(d)Plan,organizeanddirectthebudgetary,andIiscaloperationsoIthedistrictcourt;
(e)PlanIor,organize, hire,train,andsuperviseallpersonneldeemednecessarybythedistrictcourttoadequatelyconducttheoperationsoIthedistrictcourt,exceptIorthestaIIoIeachjudge;
(I)MonitorasystemoIinternalcontrolswhichincludespayroll,purchasing,accountspayable,accountsreceivable,inIormationsystemsandinventoryalongwithallotherIiscalaspectsoIthedistrictcourt,includingadjudication,
administration,Iamilymediationservices,andjuryservices;
(g)ExpeditemovementoIthecourtcalendarsandcoordinateandmonitorautomatedcasemanagementsystemsincluding,butnotlimitedto,thedevelopmentoIintegrateddataentrysystems;
(h)SupervisepreparationandsubmissionoIreportsandactivitiesoIthecourttostate,regionalandlocalauthoritiesasrequired;
(i)DeterminestatisticstobegatheredIorthestatewideuniIormsystemoIjudicialrecordsandmanagetheIlowoIinIormationthroughandaboutthecourt;
(j)Directresearch,evaluationandmonitoringandproposenewandrevisedpoliciesasnecessarytoimprovecourtoperations;
(k)CoordinatethecalendarsandactivitiesoIjudgesvisitingIromotherjurisdictionsandoIhearingoIIicersormastersassignedIorspeciIicpurposes;
(l)Representthecourtonregional,statewide,judicialandjusticesystemcoordinatingcouncils,conIerences,conventionsandcommitteesasassignedbythechieIjudge;
(m)HandlepublicinIormationandliaisonwithothergovernmentexecutive,legislativeandjudicialagenciesinthecommunityasassignedbythechieIjudge;
(n)PerIormsuchotherIunctionsanddutiesasmaybeassignedbythechieIjudge.
|Asamended;eIIectiveFebruary6,2002.|
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin PO BOX 3961 Reno, NV 89505 tel 775 338 8118 fax 949 667 7403"
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Zach has 50 files to share with you on SkyDrive. To view them, click the links below.
2 27 12 Judge Schroeder status conference clifton order rcr2012-065630 26800 wcpd wcso dogan.pdf
2 28 12 fax from Dogan 065630 re bill davis competency order elliot 0204 rmc nash 4873 Clifton Elliot randomly.pdf
3 2 09 assembly minutes Judge Clifton on DV 065630 0204 01955 two per page shortened.pdf
4 22 07 RMC Marshal Menzel Letter for Taitel 26700 26405 0434 0435 0204 62337.pdf
5 15 07 RJC Judge Schroeder letter of rec for Judge Linda Gardner 54844 rev2012-000374 60302 rev2012-001048 62337.pdf
5 22 07 RMC defender Taitel's application to RJC 0204 26405 54844 26800 00696 62337 063341 1048 12420.pdf
6 26 12 0204 067980 12420 60302 NCS Taitlel RMC Machen Harley email to RJC Stancil and WCSO Stuchell Sheriff's Web and Sparks Justice Court Hansen.pdf
7 25 12 60302 0204 067980 12420 0435 stamped Coughlin's motion for extensio nto file brief and exhibit 60302 000374.pdf
10 17 11 Clifton Order Noticing 10 25 11 Trial Date 26405 1708 60331 61383 0204.pdf
10 19 11 baker letter to clifton emergency inspection with 10 20 11 sferrazza note order have p draft order will isgn it 1708 0204.pdf
10 20 98 STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS 0204 063341 54844 62337.pdf
11 8 11 Motion to Stay and Set Aside eviction order 1708 CV11-03051-2534024 0204 03628 62337.pdf
11 19 12 71 page Notice in 61383 0204 26800 26506 12-36656.pdf
11 27 12 065630 fax cover page post it clifton 11 28 12 don't file this in stays w case file however 1 of 69 pages.pdf
Iamwritingtorequestafeewaiveroftheyearly$300eflexcharge
12 5 12 065630 refiled from 11 27 12 with new addition to ex 1OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND, OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF.pdf
12 6 12 not authorized by Clifton Custodian of Records WCPD 065630.pdf
12 8 11 Order Denyin Motion for Stay Judge Berry Appeal 1708 CV11-03051-2588517 0204 26405 10 19 12 Notice of Appeal 11 8 12 Stay.pdf
12 14 11 0204 26800 email from Chief Marshal Roper roperj@reno.gov regarding Menzel.pdf
0204 mh12-0032 Judge Breen Letter of Recommendation for Judge Linda Gardner 0204 54844 60302 cr12-0376.pdf
2007 resume for Linda Gardner 0204 0435 conflicts elcano echeverria clifton elliott.pdf
Chief Judge Hardy letter for Taitel cr12-2025 Hardy denied all of Coughlin's IFP Applications 26405 0204 62337.pdf
DAS Ingraham 063341 26405 letter Taitel Brown 0204 62337.pdf
DAS Officer Celeste Brown letter for RJC Taitel 063341 26405 0204 26800.pdf
federal court judges Hicks father of wcda chris hicks dismissing rjc judge clifton and rpd from suit while clifton a da 0204 065630 2025.pdf
former WCDA DDA Puentes letter Taitel RMC defenders Gardner HIll trespass 26405 0204 60302 61901 60331 62337 54844.pdf
Gardner, Linda 01.15.10 0204.pdf
Judge Adams letter for Judge Linda Gardner cv11-01986 54844 60302 0204 0435.pdf
Judge Adams letter for Taitel see cv11-01986 and rmc 11 cr 26405 0204 62337.pdf
Judge Hardy's former partner Woodman letter Taitel IFP denied 60302 60317 03126 03051 26405.pdf
Judge Nash Holmes RJC application listing Sarnowski as reference of Judicial Discipline Commission conflict 26800 0204 00696 60302.pdf
LT Judge Clifton (with encl) (10-19-11).pdf
ncs 0204 northern nevada's only eviction agency 26800.pdf
ncs main page with staff attorney link 0204 26405 26800.pdf
Nevada Court Services CEO Jeff Chandler letter for RJC RMC Taitel doesn't mention partnership 0204 26405 03051 03126 03628 62337.pdf
nevada lawyer article on judge linda gardner domestic violence unit wcda clifton 0204 065630 .pdf
NVBAR RJC JUDGE CLIFTON MCGEORGE 1983 065630.pdf
Orth v_ Balaam et al Justia Dockets & Filings clifton hicks rjc 0204.htm
rcr2-12-065630 RJC Judge Clifton 2 27 12 Order for Competency evaluation dogan young nash rmc rjc rpd wcso.pdf
relevant florida judicial discipline case concerning pro se formulaic dv clifton sferrazza howard 063341 0204 065630.pdf
Reno City Attorney Pamela Roberts for Taitel her misconduct in rmc 11 cr 22176 60838 taitel's in 26405 0204 62337 26800 00696 NCS.pdf
Download all

Sent: Fri12/21/125:03PM
To: CourtTechwashoecourts.us(courttechwashoecourts.us);Iilingwashoecourts.us(Iilingwashoecourts.us);judge.hardywashoecourts.us(judge.hardywashoecourts.us);
david.hardywashoecourts.us(david.hardywashoecourts.us);joey.hastingswashoecourts.us(joey.hastingswashoecourts.us);inIoabanet.org(inIoabanet.org);
rsweetnvcourts.nv.gov(rsweetnvcourts.nv.gov);trainingnvcourts.nv.gov(trainingnvcourts.nv.gov);staIIattorneynvcourts.nv.gov(staIIattorneynvcourts.nv.gov);
zyoungda.washoecounty.us(zyoungda.washoecounty.us);mkandarasda.washoecounty.us(mkandarasda.washoecounty.us);stuttlewashoecounty.us(stuttlewashoecounty.us);
katy.englehartamericanbar.org(katy.englehartamericanbar.org);bill.pritchardamericanbar.org(bill.pritchardamericanbar.org);)(patrickknvbar.org)(patrickknvbar.org);(
(ncjdinIojudicial.state.nv.us);((renodirectreno.gov);((kadlicjreno.gov);nvscclerknvcourts.nv.gov(nvscclerknvcourts.nv.gov);tlindemannvcourts.nv.gov
(tlindemannvcourts.nv.gov);janetndalclv.org(janetndalclv.org);ndalcndalclv.org(ndalcndalclv.org);dgordonnvcourts.nv.gov(dgordonnvcourts.nv.gov);
cherrymco.clark.nv.us(cherrymco.clark.nv.us);mIeldmannvcourts.nv.gov(mIeldmannvcourts.nv.gov);mcherrynvcourts.nv.gov(mcherrynvcourts.nv.gov)
Dear SecondJudicialDistrictCourt,

IamwritingbasedonexigentcircumstancestorequestaIeewaiver oItheyearly$300EIlexchargeasmyaccountiscurrenlydeactivatedordisabled. Iamnotcopyingthe
StateBaroINevadaorPresidentFlahertyorthePanelMembers(ChairJohnEcheverria,ClarkVellis,KarenPearl,StephenKent,orMichaelJohnsonorBarCounselClarkoI
KingbecuaseImayhavehadaTPOservedagainstmerecently(Iamnotentirelysure,and,giventhecourthousesanctuarydoctrine,IamnotsureitisappropriateIorthesame
RJCBailiIIwhothreatenedto"putmyIootupyourass"toWCPDJimLeslie,Esq.'sdelight,tobeattemptingservemeanythingwhileIamcheckinginwiththeDepartmentoI
AlternativeSentencing,whichJudgeSIerrazzamandatedIdo,andwhich,Iguess,incidentally, allowsIortheStatestosearchmyhome,oIIice,orpersonalleIIects(including
computers,harddrives,etc.andnotsurehowthat"sentence"isnotretaliatorygiventhestandardsentenceis$500orIivedaysinjail,andIhadalreadyserved7...butthe
sentencesurewouldseemtohelptheWCDA'sOIIice,WashoeCounty,theSBN,andothers inIluenceandleveragecertainthingsIromhereIorth)justaboutanyhouroItheday
(despitetheIactthattheconvictionon11/20/12violatedShepv.StateinadditiontoprettymucheveryotherconstitutionalrightscriminaldeIendantshave). Ithinkitis
possibleIwillbemurderedsoonorincarceratedpretexutallyanddeniedanyabilitytoIilelegaldocuments,soIhavetosendthisoutinthismanner,butIwishtoavoidanyex
partecontactallegations. IwishmyIilingsoI11/2/12in11cr26405andthosIsubmittedIorIilingbuthaveonlybeenheldbytheNevadaSupremeClerk'sOIIiceas
"received"butnotIiledin61901willsomedayseethelightoIday,includingthevideossubmitted. IamaIraidImightbeviolatingsomeTPOiIIcopyBar
Counsel/NNDB/Panel,etc.onthis...butwouldnotmindiIitwasIorwardedtothemiInotviolativeoIanyTPO,rules,orlaws. Additionally,IthinkitisinappropriateIor
60317tobedismissed,especiallygiventheimproperlynoticedtestimonyoIWLS'sPaulElcano,JudgeL.Gardner'sbailiII'sattendanceatthe11/14/12
Hearing, RMC "oIIicialtranscriptionist"PamLongoni'sconnectiontothe 11/14/12Iormaldisciplinaryhearing, themultitudewillIullviolationsoImySCR105(2)(c)
rights(includingJudgeBeesley'sparticipationandhavingthe3,000pages inaboxdroppedoIItomyon11/8/12Ioran11/14/12Hearing,wheretheSBNallegesthatcomplies
withtheSCR105(2)(c)dictatethatIbeaIIordedaccesstothosematerials"atleast30days"priortothe11/14/12Hearing,particularywherethatwasco-signedbyPanelChair
EcheverriaandbothEcheverriaandBarCounselandtheChair(atleastaccordingtoKing)haverepeatedlyattemptedtothwartmyattemptstoIilinganythinginthatcase,
alternativelyrequiredmetocallaheadwith15minuteswarningbeIoreappearingtoIileanything,thencallingthepolicewhenIcomplywiththatstrangedictate,then,
apparently, applyingIoraprotectionorderor givingmeatrespassnoticeoIsomesortwheneverIpointouttheirIraudulentconduct,andhoweasilyprovenitis.

IneedthisEIlex accesstodeIendmyselIin theIormaldisciplinaryproceedingsagainstme beIoretheStateBaroINevada,NevadaSupremeCourt,andanythingthatmay
issueinconnectionwithmylicensetopracticepatentlawbeIoretheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOIIice. MyeIlexusernameisZachCoughlin. Itisdisabled.Ilivein
arentedIiIthwheeltrailerthatIrentIor about$75amonthplusincidentals. IgetIoodIromIoodpantries. Ihavenomoneyinmyonebankaccount(aBankoIAmerica
account)anditsbeenthatwayIormonths. IownnorealestateorstocksorhaveanyassetsbeyondsimplehouseholdIurnishings. IamanindependentjackoIall
trades/researchwhoselawlicenseissuspenedcurrentlyinNevadaandIhavenexttonoincomepermonth...tothepointwhereIamembarrassedaboutitanditwouldprobably
beanexaggerationtosayIammakingeven$200amonth. My65yearoldmotheroccasionallyhelpsmeoutIinanciallywithmyrentorsomegasmoney.

AstheholdingsinIn re Ward,654So.2d549(Fla.1995)andIn re Fogan,646So.2d191(Fla.1994)indicate,unsolicitedcontactwiththeadjudicatoryorinvestigativeentity
oIteninvolvesthejudgeinimpermissiblelendingoItheprestigeoIoIIice,whetherintendedornot.ItisthisappearanceoIimproprietyjudgesmuststrivetoavoid.

Ihavenotbeenprovided(thoughIbelievetheyarerequiredto)bythRJCacopyoItheRecordonAppealinCR12-2025. Certainly,DDAYoungandtheWCDAhavebeen
providedaccessviaelIextothe800pageRecordonAppealtherein,yettheRJChasIailedtomailmemycopy. AndtimeisoItheessence. Ihavealreadybeenprejudiced
inthatregardandIbelieveNRS189.030hasbeenviolatedinthattheRJChasIailedtoorderthetranscriptspreparedoIallhearingsinthatmatteryet. PleaseseeCR12-1018
andtherecentIFPandRequestIorTranscriptIIiledinCR12-2025. IneedeIlexaccess,Iurther,IormanyoIthecasesnecessarytodeIendingmyselIintheSBN v.Coughlin
SCR105Complaint,andtodeIendingmyselIagainstthenumerousretaliatoryprosecutionsandmattersrelatedthereto.

IrespectIullyrequestthatIbegivenimmediateEFlexprivilegesandthattheyearlyduestheretobewaived.

Further,IbelieveitwouldbeentirelyinappropriateIorJudgeElliottoremainonthatcase,giventheirregularitiesoIhis"randomly"beingassignedIouroImycriminalmatters,
IailuretodiscloseconIlictorrecusehimselIincv11-01955andothermattersdetailedherein.

AstheholdingsinIn re Ward,654So.2d549(Fla.1995)andIn re Fogan,646So.2d191(Fla.1994)indicate,unsolicitedcontactwiththeadjudicatoryorinvestigativeentity
oIteninvolvesthejudgeinimpermissiblelendingoItheprestigeoIoIIice,whetherintendedornot.ItisthisappearanceoIimproprietyjudgesmuststrivetoavoid.

IhaverecentlybeenIorcedtomakenumeroustripstolawlibrariesIarawaygiventheWashoeCountyLawLibrarie'scontention(disputedbymeatthemeetingoItheBoard
oITrustessoItheWCLawLibrarywhenthenewlawlibrarian'scvwasdetailedyearlierthisyear,whereinJudgesWeller,Walker,andSteinheimmerwerepresent,alongwith
ClerkoICourtOrdunaHastings,whereinthoseJudgesalldeIerredtotheWashoeCountyDistrictAttorney'sOIIiceratherthanaddressmycontentionsthattheWCLLassertsto
thepublicinwritingthatthe"westlawcontract"IorbidscertainthingsthatthecontractsimplydoesnotIorbid,requiringpatronstoexpendgreatamountsoImoneytoprint
materials,resultingincollectionoIrevenuebytheCourtandorLibrary. IhavegreatrespectIortheWCLL,andwouldgivethemhugedonationsiIIhadthemeans,asitsthe
mostimportantroomintheCounty,inmyopinion). IdohavealicensetopracticebeIoretheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOIIicebuthaveneverIiledanythingthere
andhaveinIormallyrepresentedtoUSPTOOEDStaIIAttorneyTomMcBride,Esq. thatIwillnotberepresentinganyonethereIortheIoreseeableIuturegiventheextremely
encumberingnatureoImyrecentlegaltroublesanddeIendingmyselIincidentthereto. IwouldgreatlyappreciatethiswaiveroIthe$48IowepacerandswearunderpenaltyoI
perjurysubjecttoNRS53.045thattheinIormationcontainedhereinistrueandcorrect.

IhavepreviouslyandwillagainherecomplaintinwritingthatJudgeStevenElliotthas"randomly"(inaccordwithourlocalrules)beenassignedfour oImycriminalmattersin
arow(theappealsoItheRMCconvictionin11cr22176IorpettylarcenyoIa"candybarandsomecoughcrops"whichIvehementlydisputeandwhichresultedinmycurrent
sixmonthtemporarysuspensionoImylawlicensein60838(whichtheStateBaroINevadamanagedtogetcrammedintoanunbiIurcatedhearingon11/14/12thatalsoincluded
somethinglike10copiedandpastedallegedviolationsoItheRulesoIProIessionalConduct(nonementioninganydirelectionoImydutiestoclients,otherthanJudgeNash
HolmesallegingIviolatingmyowndutyoIcompetencytomyselI,etc.whereIrepresentedmyselIina"simpletraIIiccitation"trialon2/27/12(heldinviolationoINRS
178.405andNRS5.071whereJudgeNashHolmesknewoIthecompetencyissues,andwhereJudgeNashHolmescontinuestoviolateNRS189.030inreIusingtoprocessmy
NoticeoIAppealoI3/7/12andthosematerialssubmittedthereaIter
37A.L.R.4th1004(Originallypublishedin1985)
AmericanLawReportsALR4thTheALRdatabasesaremadecurrentbytheweeklyadditionoIrelevantnewcases.DisqualiIicationoIjudgeinstateproceedingstopunishcontemptagainstorinvolvinghimselIinopencourtandinhisactual
presence

57A.L.R.545(Originallypublishedin1928)
AmericanLawReportsALRTheALRdatabasesaremadecurrentbytheweeklyadditionoIrelevantnewcases.NecessitythathearingbeallowedbeIoreimpositionoIpunishmentIorcontempt
TheuseoIsummarycriminalcontemptpowerisproperonlyIorchargesoImisconduct,inopencourt,inthepresenceoIthejudge,whichdisturbstheIederalcourt'sbusiness,
wherealloItheessentialelementsoIthemisconductareundertheeyeoIthecourt,areactuallyobservedbythecourt,andwhereimmediatepunishmentisessentialtoprevent
demoralizationoIthecourt'sauthoritybeIorethepublic.18 U.S.C.A. 401;Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule 42(b), 18 U.S.C.A. F.T.C. v. Trudeau, 606 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2010).
JudgeNashHolmessentencedCoughlintoasummary5dayincarcerationIorcontempton2/27/12,signedinanOrderstamped2/28/12in11TR26800that,combinedwithasecondbiteattheapple
OrderoI3/12/12inthatcaseattemptstobothconvictcoughlinoI"themisdemeanor oIcriminalcontempt"inasummaryIashion,wheretheredoesnotseemtobeanynoticeinwritingtoCoughlin
onIthe3/12/12continuationoItheTrialandwhereCoughlinIiledaMotionIorContinuanceoIanyIuturehearingsandNoticeoIAppealon3/7/12thatdivestedJudgeNashHolmesandtheRMCoI
jurisdictiontoevenholdthe3/12/12continuationoItheTrial(andNRS178.405,NRS5.071Iurtherprohibitedsuchaproceeding...anditsreallynotatallclearhowJudgeNashHolmesIeelsitis
properttoIileagrievancewiththeStateBaroINevadaagainstCoughlinon3/14/12onbehalIoIherselIanalltheotherRMCJudges(eventheJudgesProTem)(whichJudgeDilworthvehemently
disputes)includingSecondJudicialJudgeL.Gardner'sbrother,RMCJudgeWilliamGardner(whomreIusedtorecusehimselIIromthecriminaltrespassconvictionTrialagainstCoughlinin11cr
26405,despiteW.GardnerthenhimselIhavingagrievanceagainstCoughlininng12-0434,anddespitehisbeinginvolvedintheIilingoIthegrievanceagainstCoughlininng12-0435,whichconsists
solelyoIhissister's April2009OrdersanctioningCoughlin$1,000(despiteSpringgateIailingtoIollowNRCP11's21daysaIeharborprovisions...sobasicallySpringgateandJudgeLindaGardner
(whose2008campaigncontributions listSpringgateasadonorandJudgePeterBreen,aswell,whomremovedCoughlinIromtheMentalHealthCourtinMH12-0032IorCoughlintakigna
medicationIorADHD/treatementresistentdepressionthatCoughlinwasspeciIicallytoldwasapprovedandnotprobibitedpriortoCoughlinenteringintotheMentalHealthCourtcontract,and
reviewingtheassociatedwrittenmaterialsprovidedbytheMHC,RenoBiondo,est.whomsubsequentlyIraudulentlyassertedCoughlinwasremovedIromtheMHCIornotIollowingprogramrules(the
allegedviolationwasthatCoughlinwastakingamedicationthathehadspeciIicallybeentoldwasnoprohibitedandthathisuseoIwasacceptable. JudgeBreen'slawclerkatonetimewasJudge
LindaGardner,whorecusedherselIIromacasewhereinCoughlinrepresentRobertBellinBellv.Greer,acaseIiledon8/10/11,provingCoughlinwasacommercialtenantpracticinglawatthe121
RiverRockSt.locationIromwhichCoughlinwassummarilyevicted,inviolationoINRS40.253(muchlesswhereCoughlinwasrequiredtodeposita$2,275rentescrowdepositthatviolatedNevada
law,inthatnocorollarytoJCRLV44hadbeenpublishedandapprovedbytheN.S.Ct,incompliancewithNevada'sJCRCP83...)IromhisIormerlawoIIice,andsubsequentlysubjecttoacustodial
arrestandprosecutionIortrespass,signedbyopposingcounselRichardG.Hill(whomliedtotheRPDaboutwhetherhehadbeenattheoIIiceintheweeksprior,inanattempttoavoidtherequirement
undertheRPCthatthelawyer,Hill,withdrawwherethelikelihoodoIhisbecomingawitnessinthecasewasassured,whereHilltoldtheRPDitwashisclientMerlisswho"noticed"thingsinthe
oIIiceintheweekpriortothecriminaltrespassarrest,whichwasIraudulentanyways,asdetailedin61901and11cr22176,especiallythe11/2/12IilinginthatmatterthattheRMCdidnotincludedin
therecordtransmittedon11/29/12incr12-1262(another'random"assignementtoJudgeElliot...whomIailedtodiscloseandrecusehimselIIromCoughlin'swrongIulterminationsuitagainstWashoe
LegalServices(whoadmittedotIiingCoughlinbasedsolelyuponJudgeL.Gardner'sApril2009OrdersanctioningCoughlin(whichwasimpermissiblysummaryinnatureanywaysandIailedtoIollow
the21daysaIeharborinNRCP11requiredunderNRS7.085)incv11-01955evenwhereCoughlinwassuingIorwrongIulterminationasaIormerdomesticviolenceattorneyatWLS,andalsosuing
CommitteetoAidAbusedWomen(CAAW)whereJudgeElliottwasonCAAW'sExecutiveBoard,andstartedtheNevadaDomesticViolenceTaskForce,andwherea25yearWashoeCountyDistrict
AttorneyturnedRJCJudge(DavidCliIton)whowasalongtimedomesticviolenceprosecutor(workingwithnowJudgeLindaGardnerinthedomesticviolenceunitoItheWCDA,togoalongwith
theirbothbeingIromRenoHighSchool'sClassoI1975,andWLS'sDirectorElcanoadmittingthatJudgeLindaGardnerandMasterEdmondsonhasgivenCoughlin"athumb'sup"reviewinFebruary
2009...shortlybeIoreCoughlins'suspensionandIiringIromWLSon4/20/09...thedayaIterCoughlinsubmittedacomplaintinwritingtoWLSandElcanoregardingthehostileworkenvironment
there...whereElcanoandWLSIiredCoughlin"solely"baseduponJudgeGardner'sApril2009OrdersanctioningCoughlinIorhisworkinthe3/12/09and3/17/09divorcetrialinJoshi,DV08-
01168...nevermindthatCoughlinwasencumberedpreparingaNevadaDepartmentoITaxation20pageappealbrieIIorElcanobya3/10/09deadlinetogetElcanoandWLSoutoIthejamwherethe
LeaseAgreementIorthepropertyElcanohadjustmovedWLStorequiredWLS,anon-proIit503(c)topaytheprivatelandlord'spropertytaxes...andwhereWLSmanagementIailedtotimelyrespond
toCoughlin'srequestIorsubpoenaIeesandotherdiscoveryrelatedexpensesandwhereCoughlinemailstohisthenWLSassistantproveshehadculledALRsupportIorthepositionstaken,visavis
Siragusa,thatJudgeGardnerhadhimIiredover....JudgeL.Gardner's2008campaignexpensereportslistsCAAWaswell,inadditiontoWLS'sToddTorvinen,Esq.,whomspeciIicallyapprovedoIthe
positionsCoughlintookinthatJoshidivorceTrialuponCoughlinIollowingElcano'sdirectiontoseekmentoringandguidanceIromTorvinen,whommanagedtogetthelawsuitagainsthimdismissed
in60302and60317baseduponweasley"legibility"argumentsregardingtheserviceoIprocess,whichtheWCSOmessedupin60302whereCoughlinwasanIFP)
Thatundersomecircumstances,evenwhereimmediatesummarycontemptproceedings
wouldbeappropriate,itmightbenecessaryIorthecontemnedtrialjudgetobedisqualiIied
IromsittingthereinwasrecognizedbythecourtinKruegervState(1977,FlaAppD3)351
So2d47,inwhichitappearedthattheappellatecourt'sprimaryemphasiswasonthelackoI
objectiveevidencetosupportthetrialjudge'sIindingthatacontempthadactuallybeencommitted
byaprosecutingattorneywhoseintenttoappealapriorrulinghadbeencharacterized
bythetrialjudgeasnotonlyIrivolousbut"absurd,"andwhorepliedtothischaracterization
merelybystatingthatthejudgewasentitledtohisopinion
JudgeBerry'sOrderinCR12-1018seemstoestablishthattheRMChadadutytoorderthetranscriptspreparedin11cr22176("randomly"assignedtoJudgeElliotin
Department10incr11-2064,wherehedismissedmyappealbaseduponnotcitingtoatranscriptthatIattemptedtohavepreparedbythe"RMCOIIicialtranscriptionistandthe
onlypersontheRMCwillreleaseyouraudiotranscriptstoandwhomcanprepareatranscriptIoryou,PamLongoni"...Ms.LongonireIusedtopreparemytranscriptandhungup
onmetwiceinDecember2011. FurtherRMCJudgeHowardseemstohaveviolatedNRS.

So,thetranscripts Iromtheconvictionsin RMC11CR22176shouldhavebeenorderedpreparedbyRMC JudgeKennethHoward,andhisIailureto prejudicedCoughlin
intheappeal("randomly"assignedtoJudgeElliottinCr11-2064,dismissedbyhimcitingtoacivil statueaboutdownpaymentsontranscripts),andin11 TR26800(whichthe
RMCandJudgeNashHolmescontinuetoviolateNRS189.030inIailingtoprocessCoughlin'snoticeoIappealoI3/7/12etc.Ior. Additionally,JudgeElliottwas
"randomly" assignedCoughlin'sappealoIthecriminaltrespassconvictionthatRMCJudgeW.GardnerIailedtorecusehimselIIromin11cr26405,incr12-1262,and
dismissedthatcasewhere,despite CoughlinshowingprooIoI timelyreceiptoIhisNoticeoIAppealincompliancewithNRS189.010by boththeCityAttorneyandthe
RMC,properlysubmittedIorIilignbyCoughlin,RMCassistantLisaWagnerismumaboutwhythatNoticeoIAppealwasnotIiledinbytheRMC,asisJudge
W. Gardner...FurtherRMCDonnaBallardiscertiIyingOrdersIromtheSecondJudicialDistrictCourtIorSBNBarCounselPatrickKingthatshehasnorighttocertiIy.
Further,Kingis IraudulentlyallegingtohavecertiIiedcopies oIanadmittingasexhibitsinthe11/14/12hearingagainstCoughlinintheSBNng12-0204oIJudgeFlanagan's
6/28/12Order awardingagainsthisIormerco-workeratHale Lane,Coughlin(FlanaganreIusedtorecusehimselIdespiteobviousconIlictssetoutbyCoughlinincv11-
03628)a preposterous$42,050inattorney'sIees, against a pro se tenant, whom Flanagan apparently ruled a commercial tenant anyway whose rent was les sthan $1,000, though denied the NRS 118A.385 stay
afforded such litigants.

SBN King similarly fraudulently asserted the April 2009 Order by Judge L. Gardner in dvb08-01168 was certified where he had it admitted as an exhibit (ordered admitted by Panel Chair John Echeverria, who Judge Steven
Elliott worked for Echeverria's father's law firm, Echeverria and Osborne, and where Chair Echeverria, Judge Elliott, and WLS's Paul Elcano all went to Stanford University in the late 1960s together, something none of them
disclosed until Coughlin pointed it out...and Elcano, Echeverria, Norman Beesley and other Judges went to Reno High School together in 1962...along with other former co-workers of Coughlin from Hale Lane (Peek,
Dennisson, Judge Charles McGee, Judge Salcedo, whom Judge Sferrazza mentioned needing to meet with on the record in another retaliatory prosecution against Coughlin in RJC rcr2011-063341, which, again, Judge Elliott
was "randomly" assigned on 12/6/12, allegedly, in cr12-2025 (which Coughlin has not been provided a copy of the 800 page record on appeal, which seems to involved Judge Sferrazza, in conjunction with the fraudulent
conduct of public defendner Jim Leslie, "disenfecting" the record of Coughlin's 2/15/12 Pre-Trial Motions and Coughlin 8/29/12 Memorandum of Law, etc. (Leslie has no ability to "refuse to join in on" such, especially where
Leslie was not even attorney of record untilsometime in August 2011 and where Coughlin filed a Notice of Appearance to represent himself while he was still a license attorney and to subsitute out the WCPD's office or to
at least downgrade their involvement to co-counsel in February 2012.)

Additionally, Coughlin has not received any such "Amended Notice of Appeal" in cr12-1262, despite receiving an email indicating one was filed from Eflex...Coughlin's elfex is currently disabled for non-payment, and
Coughlin hereby request his eflex charges be waived in light of his indigency and the misconduct and irregularities mentioned above and previously by Coughlin.

Coughlin attempted to proved the testimony by RMC Judge Nash Holmes regarding the order of the bathroom break and Holme's other patently false and or incorrect statements in her testimony on 11/14/12 at the formal
disciplinary hearing...however Judge Elliott's former Stanford Classmate (whose father's law firm he worked for), Chair Echeverria (who admits to be "boyhood chums" with fellow wine business owner WLS's Elcano, upon
Coughlin prompting them to divulge further conflicts), Chair John Echeverria refused to allow into evidence the audio transcript Coughlin bought from the RMC (well, Coughlin had to have his mother, Very Special Arts
Nevada's Mary Barker sneak down to the RMC and buy it becuase Coughlin's previous three or four attempts to buy it himself were met with obstuctionist tactics by the RMC) for $35, where Bar Counsel King claimed it
wasn't "certified" and the lack of a written transcript made it "worthless" and "devoid of context" (surely the tape could have shown that the sua sponte interrogation by Judge Nash Holmes regarding her questioning
Coughlin if he was "recording" or had a "recording device" occured AFTER the one and only restroom break in theat 2/27/12 11 tr 26800 "simple traffic trial" and NRS 22.030(3) requirement for an Affidavit for any factual
allegations to support a summary contempt order for any conduct occuring in the "immediate presence" of the Judge would have been useful, as then RMC Marshal Harley could have maybe gotten his story straight (or
Judge Nash Holmes could have had some more "help" with her "memory" about what Harley "told" her to support Judge Holmes "finding" that Coughlin "probably lied" about such matters in her 2/28/12 Order, and that
Coughlin "lied" and therefore "violated the Rules of Professional Conduct" in her "second bite at the apple" Order of 3/12/12 (which violated NRCP 59(a) in that such a sua sponte altering or amending of what was a "civil
contempt" Order must be within 10 days of its entry...where Judge Nash Holmes cites to plenary civil contempt statutes in her ORders (NRS 22.010 and NRS 22.100, curiously avoiding the summary civil contempt statute
setting out the Affidavit requirment that Judge Holmes, the RMC, and Marshal Harley benefitted from avoiding, found in NRS 22.030(3)...

Also, less than 48 hours after Richard G. Hill, Esq. had the RPD arrest Coughlin for jaywalking in RMC 12 CR 00696 (curiously "transferred" to Judge Nash Holmes by Judge W. Gardner on 2/27/12, from RMC Dept. 1), the
RPD again arrested Coughlin on 1/14/12 for "misuse of 911"...but that would be politically awkward for RJC Judge Clifton to convict Coughlin of in rjc rcr2012-065630, plus, so much better leverage for the SBN (whom
received emails from RJC Judicial Secretrary Lori Townsend containing Coughlin's 2/21/12 filign in that matter and where Townsend offered to send Coughlin's 2/15/12 filing in rcr2011-063341 to the SBN, unprompted...and
the RJC and SBN are refusing to prove that such transmission by the RJC were not unprompted. Further RMC Judge Kenneth Howard and RMC Administrator Cassandra Jackson have sent unprompted correspondence to
the SBN seeking to have an effect on Coughlin's formal disciplinary hearing, which is judicial misconduct.

Summary convictions for contempt, during criminal trial, that are unwarranted by the facts will not be invulnerable to appellate review. Codispoti v Pennsylvania, 418 US 506, 41 L Ed 2d 912, 94 S Ct 2687, conformed to
(Pa) 328 A2d 484.
Denying misdemeanant contemnor an appeal and bail pending appeal, right to which all other misdemeanants were absolutely entitled under California law, violated equal protection clause. Bell v Hongisto (DC Cal) 346
F Supp 1392.
Criminal contempt judgments are immediately appealable because they result from a separate and independent proceeding to vindicate the authority of the court and are not a part of the original cause. 28 U.S.C.A.
1291. Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

33 A.L.R.3d 448
Appealability of contempt adjudication or conviction
Exercise by trial judge of his summary power to punish for contempt of court committed in his presence is subject to review on appeal. Re Lafferty, 28 Mich App 654, 185 NW2d 189.

RMC Judge Howard attempted to mislead Coughlin as to his right to appeal and seek review of the NRS 22.030 civil summary contempt Order he rendered against Coughlin at the conclusion of the 11/30/12 Wal-Mart
candy bar petty larceny trial in 11 cr 22176 (and now Chair Echeverria is trying to call that one "criminal contempt" too...seeking to utilize Bar Counsel King's oft repeated, Claiborne ignoring claim, that SCR 111(5) makes and
such "conviction" provide "conclusive proof of guilt" and thereby vitiating and Claiborne duty upon Bar Counsel of the Panel to ascertain whether a fundamental lapse of due process occurred (or whether such a "conviction"
was void for lack of jurisdiction or not actually a crime anyways under Schaefer...

Further WCDA's Office David Watts-Vial may not seek to Quash Coughlin's subpoenas served upon Clerk of Court Hastings where Watts-Vial's relation works as a Administrative Assistant to Judge Egan Walker.

In re Eriksson,36So.3d588(Fla.2010)(judgepubliclyreprimandedIorrevokingbondIordeIendantwhosoughtrecusal,therebypunishingdeIendantIorexercisinglegitimate
legalright,andIoremployingundulyrigidprocessindealingwithselI-representedlitigants,soastoimpedetheirabilitytoobtainrelieIandprotectiontheysoughtIromcourt).

http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/courted/bin/judicialethicsbenchguide.pdf
6.WhatContactwithInvestigativeorAdjudicatoryBodiesIsPermitted?
Thecaselawandcommitteeopinionsadvisethatajudgemaynotinitiatecontactwithaninvestigatoryoradjudicatorybodydeterminingrights,duties,privileges,orimmunities
oIapersonrequestingthatthejudgecontactthebodyonhisorherbehalI. Opinion75-6(impropertowritecharacterletterIorattorneywhoisprincipalindisbarment
proceeding);Opinion75-18(impropertowritelettertobargrievancecommitteeorsupremecourtindisciplinaryproceedingortofederaljudgeincriminalsentencing
withoutofficialrequest); Opinion82-15(impropertowritelettervoluntarilytoBoardoIBarExaminers); Opinion89-15(impermissibletoappearbeIorejudicialnominating
commissiontointroducecandidateorexpressopinionaboutwhoisbestqualiIiedtoserveasjudge...SeeJudgeSIerrazza'sletterin2007onthisandJudgeLindaGardner's
submittingnumerouslettersoIrecommendationIromlocaljudges:
http://www.washoecounty.us/large_files/agendas/071007/35.pdf page101-104);
JudgeLindaGardnerrecusedherselIIromBellv.GreeradmittingtoapersonalbiasagainstCoughlin (maybestemmingIromtheMandamusPetitionCoughlinIilein54844
agaisnt her,whichWLS'sElcanoclaimedtobeunawareoIinhis improperlynotice11/14/12testimonyat CoughlinIormaldisciplinaryhearing. Panel ChairEcheverria
didnot careaboutSCR105(2)(c)'srequirementthatsuchaDesignation oIWitnessesandSummary oIEvidencebeprovidedCoughlin"atleast"30dayspriortothe
11/14/12hearingwhereBarCounselKing(despiteno"newlydiscovered"evidencejustiyingsuch, noargumentby KinginsupportoIsuchastance,and havebeenawareoI
allthateitherJudgeBeelseyorWLS'sElcano(whombothwenttoMcGeorgeSchooloILawin1977withanotherwitnessthatday,RMC'sJudgeDorothyNashHolmes,though
noneoI divulgedthat...JudgeBeesleyalsoworkedwithWLS'sKarenSaboatBeesleyPeck,andattendedat2008WestFourthSt.BistroWLSIundraisingdinner, RMCJudge
Howard isa1980graduateoIMcGeorge,asisPanelmemberStephenKent,Esq.,andCoughlin"courtappointeddeIender"KeithLoomisintheRMC,whoreceivedmultiple
ORdersgrantinghisWithdraw,isa1982McGeorgegraduateandwhomIraudulentlyreIusedtoassertthe claimoIrightdeIensetothecriminaltrespasschargesetout tohim
in11cr26405,evenwhereHilladmitstohavingsentwritingschargingthesame$900permonththatwaschargedIor"Iulluseandoccupancy"andwhereWashoeCounty
SheriII's OIIicerLizStuchelladmittedinher2/5/12emailtoCoughlinthatthe11/7/12AIIidavitoIServicebyDeputyMachenwasIalseinthatnopersonalservicewaseIIect,
therbymakingHillandtheWCSOthe trespasses,alongwithCaseyD.Baker,Esq.,especiallywherethe"within24hoursoIreceipt"languageoINRs40.253(5)madeboththe
10/25/11and10/27/11Ordersinrev2011-001708voidandorstale,especiallywhereWCSORoxySilvabrazenlybragsaboutthe stompingontenant'srightsinopenviolation
oIsuchlawwheretheWCSOknowsitistoolateandanysuchLockoutORderisstale. Oh,thenthereisthelocksmithIromthe11/1/11lockoutat CoughlinIormerlaw
oIIiceadmittingthatthelockoutwaseIIectedoutsidethe"within24hours"requiredinNRS40.253(nottomentionSIerrazza'sOrderIailstoincludethatrequired
language...whichinnowayamountedtoa"trespasswarning"anyways).
In re Frank, 753So.2d1228(Fla.2000)(retiredappellatejudgepubliclyreprimandedIoractionswhileonbench,includingmakingIalseormisleadingstatementsunderoath
concerninghisinvolvementindivorcelitigationoIhisdaughter;notrecusinghimselIIromappealsbasedonhisIriendshipwithattorneyinthoseappeals;improperlyinterIering
withBargrievanceproceedingoIthatattorney;threateningtohaveson-in-lawarrestedorcommittedtopsychiatricIacilityduringdivorceproceedingsinvolvinghisother
motionfornewtrial,noticeofappeal
daughter).
ThenthereisthematteroIRJCCliItonon2/27/12,"somehow"knowingthatJudgeElliottwouldbe"randomly"assignedthecasecreatedbyJudgeCliIton's2/27/12OrderIor
CompetencyEvaluation(thegrossmisdemeanoroI"misuseoIemergencyservices(911)"casercr2011-065630necessitatedtheopeningoIaDistrictCourtcase,CR12-0376),
whereJudgeCliItonspeciIicallylists"JudgeElliott"inthat2/27/12Orderandalsolist'stheevaluatorCouglinwasrequiredtoutilizedIortheevaluation("Lake'sCrossingBill
Davis,Ph.D....whojustsohappenedtoIileandsignaIraudulentlieIilledletterinthatcr12-0376caseon4/18/12resultinginCoughlinbeingincarceratedIromApril19thto
April26th,2012,thoughJudgeElliotthasIailedtoputthe"why"oIitinwritinginansortoIOrder...andwhereDDAYoungviolatedNRS178.405inmovingIorCoughlinto
"beremandedintocustody"(asiIaskingaquestionaboutone'sHIPAArightsortellingBillDavis,Ph.D.thatCoughlinwouldneedto"checkhisrecords"inresponsetoone
questionjustiIiedsucharemandingintocustodyorwastantamountto"Iollowingalllaws"...whichDDAYoungclearlydoesnotIollowalllawshimselIgivenhishoriIicattempts
tocoerceIromCoughlin,inconjunctionwithRJCJudgeSIerrazzaand"standbycounsel"WCPDJimLeslie,Coughlin'sFiIthAmendmentrightsonNovember19thand20th,
2012inrcr2011-063341...seeIrom4:05pmto4:55pmon11/19/12(atwhichtimeRJCBailiIIJohnReyesattemptedtoextortIromCoughlinpermissiontoIortheRJCtokeep
(andprobablysearchandorcopyunderDiaz)Coughlin'slaptopsandothertrialmaterialsovernightwhileCoughlinwasincustody,atatimewhenCoughlinwashandcuIIedand
incustodyawaitingtransporttotheWashoeCountyJailincidenttoJudgeSIerrazzaIindingCoughlinincontemptIor"makingarguementwhiletestiIying")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NsOLy2Unek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4c7hyhI1RI Witness"standbycounsel"WCPDJimLeslietryingtoaidincoercingIromCoughlinhisFiIthAmendmentandother
rights(evenmorethanLeslieishearddoingontherecordduringthe8/27,8/29/,and9/5/12Trialdatesin063341)atthe9:05ammark
Thenthereis....thisbyRJCJudgeCliItonandWCDADDAZacharyNormanYoung,Esq.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPYCmDZTSXo

/s/signedelectronicallyZachCoughlin
ZachCoughlin

lawlicensetemporarilysuspendedinNevada
NVBarNo:9473
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Sent: Thu12/20/124:32PM
To: dilworthreno.gov(dilworthreno.gov);ormaasareno.gov(ormaasareno.gov)
1attachment
12201212420(104.9KB)
Dear Judge Dilworth,
I am indigent and am requesting this be submitted for filign given some matters preventing me from going to the courthouse and time being of the essence.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
courtrefusingtofiledocumentsandexhibitsmissing
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Sent: Wed12/19/121:14PM
To: (patrickknvbar.org)(patrickknvbar.org);(jeeloreno.com)(jeeloreno.com);(davidcnvbar.org)(davidcnvbar.org);(eiIert.ntaatt.net)(eiIert.ntaatt.net);(cvellisbhIs.com)
(cvellisbhIs.com);(miketahoelawyer.com)(miketahoelawyer.com);(IIlahertydlpId.com)(IIlahertydlpId.com);(skentskentlaw.com)(skentskentlaw.com);
(nevtelassnsbcglobal.net)(nevtelassnsbcglobal.net);(ncjdinIojudicial.state.nv.us)(ncjdinIojudicial.state.nv.us);(dballardreno.gov)(dballardreno.gov);(ballarddreno.gov)
(ballarddreno.gov);(jacksoncreno.gov)(jacksoncreno.gov);(renodirectreno.gov)(renodirectreno.gov);(kadlicjreno.gov)(kadlicjreno.gov);(joey.hastingswashoecourts.us)
(joey.hastingswashoecourts.us);(judge.hardywashoecourts.us)(judge.hardywashoecourts.us);(rsweetnvcourts.nv.gov)(rsweetnvcourts.nv.gov);(trainingnvcourts.nv.gov)
(trainingnvcourts.nv.gov);(staIIattorneynvcourts.nv.gov)(staIIattorneynvcourts.nv.gov);(zyoungda.washoecounty.us)(zyoungda.washoecounty.us);(jlesliewashoecounty.us)
(jlesliewashoecounty.us);(bdoganwashoecounty.us)(bdoganwashoecounty.us);(mkandarasda.washoecounty.us)(mkandarasda.washoecounty.us);(stuttlewashoecounty.us)
(stuttlewashoecounty.us);(inIoabanet.org)(inIoabanet.org);(katy.englehartamericanbar.org)(katy.englehartamericanbar.org);(bill.pritchardamericanbar.org)
(bill.pritchardamericanbar.org)
3attachments
121212rcr2011-063341noticeoIrjcreIusingdeIendantaccesstoIilesince111912andreIusingtoIileindocuments0204.pdI(1388.6KB),20121219113934rcr2011-063341robbin
bakercathywood.jpg(1565.6KB),121912docketincr12-2025IromsIerrazza'ssheppviolating2011-063341conviction0204.pdI(254.1KB)
To Whom it May Concern,
Before I get done away with, I just wanted to try to access justice a little bit more. Been having some real issues with Court's just refusing to file things (the RJC refusing to file the 12/26/11 Notice of Appeal in rjc rev2011-001708 cited in Judge
Flanagan's Order denying my appeal (or he cited my failure to file such a NOA in CV11-03628 as allowing him not to consider matters stemming from Judge Sferrazza's 12/21/11 order "resolving" (no, I did not "agree" to the Order, I made that
very clear on the record...).
Then there is the RJC failing to file my 3/16/12 Notice of Appeal in rjc rev2012-000374, in the other summary eviction by Galye Kern, ESq. (Judge Linda Gardner's former law partner, and I sued Judge Linda Gardner in 54844, and her Order in
dv08-01168 was cited by Washoe Legal Services Elcano as the sole reason for my firing, which led to 60302, and that April 2009 ORder now "mysteriously" became a grievance ng12-0435, which Bar Counsel has fraudulently attempted to assert he
got from "the clerk of court", but which lacks a certification from Clerk of Court Hastings (Bar Counsel King likes dealing with the Reno Municipal Court whenever possible, going so far as to have it certify documents that it lacks authority to certify,
then claiming the audio transcripts from the RMC are "not certified...worthless...lacking context..." when Coughlin tries to offer them to the Panel on 11/14/12 in SBN. V. Coughlin (ng12-0204, 0434, and 0435...which somehow is supposed to
address 60838 despite the "conviction" in 60838 not being addressed at all, which is considering the Court's 6/7/12 ORder and SCR 111(7) mandate that the matter "is referred to the disciplinary panel for the sole purpose of determining the
punishment " for the the conviction the subject of the SCR 111(6) petition in 60838 (ie, not for what the SBN and NNDB/Panel did, which is try to tranmogrify RMC Judge Nash Holmes various Order in a "simple traffic citation trial" into some SCR
111(5) "conclusive proof of a conviction" of a bunch of alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct that Judge Nash Holmes copied and pasted into her second bite at the apple 3/12/12 Order in rmc 11 tr 26800...then there is judge
schroeder ruling that gayle kern doesn't even have to respond to coughlin's recent filings pointing out that she mailed the notice of entry of order to an address coughlin had told her was no good anymore in her may 2012 mailing....then
there is the rjc issuing an eviction order violative of nrs 40.253(5) on 6/28/12, depsite coughlin's filing a tenant's affidavit with the sparks justice court on 6/26/12, which was the forum listed on the notice in which the tenant must file...and
coughlin's writying and callign the wcso, rjc, sparks justice court, etc., etc. and giving them a heads up on the situation...no matter, Judge schroeder signed the eviction order and the wcso office arrested coughlin w here he didn't immediately
open his door and where the wcso refused to identify themselves, and where the lockout order was obtained by an unlicensed "eviction consulting service process firm", Nevada Court services in rjc rev2012-001048, which begat the criminal
prosecution fo coughlin in rcr2012-067980 for "resisting or obstructing a public officer" or "false statement to a public officer....the rjc and the wcda's office criminal and civil division and the wcso goin' together like bread and meat.
Then there is Judge Clifton's "disenfecting" the record from anything I am trying to preserve in rjc rcr2012-065630. Most recently he put a post-it note "Order" telling Robbin Baker and Cathy Wood to finally file in my 11/28/12 filing in that
matter but to file stampe it the day after the trial started...so file stampe it 12/12/12...which makes it far less operative.. I had permission to fax file as of 11/28/12, and given Judge Clifton removed public defender Dogan as counsel of record
substituting in me as a pro se...I was entitled to file that document (I believe it was an Motion for Reconsideration of Order allowing wCDA to Amend Complaint (they didn't want to try a "misuse of 911" charge against this former domestic
violence attorney, where Judge Clifton and Judge Gardner worked together in the domestic violence unit at the Washoe County District Attorney's Office and where Coughlinw as granted two protections orders against domestic violence against
the very peopel he called 911 about, but for which reno pd sargent paul sifre decided to order coughlin arrest for the second time in 2 days (the first arrest, on 1/12/12 was a custodial arrest for jaywalking...and in the interim the same officer
coughlin filed a written complaint against with the rpd on 1/8/12 pulled coughlin over on 1/13/12 with 5 other officers and harrassed him late at night....).
Plus, the wcpd refused to give coughlin the 8/13 and 8/17/12 cd's of discovery containing the 911 calls in question. DDA Young refused to provide Coughlin a copy and Judge Clifton claimed his hands were tied to allow Coughlin access to such
discovery (though he was sure to "help" the DA out by turning the 11/27/12 hearing into an arraignment, despite earlier stating on the record that it was not permissible to do so and how the hearing was for a very limited purpose of hearing
argument on the motion to amend the complaint (which was amended to a scr 111(6) "serious offense" because a conviction there woudl help bar counsel get rid of coughlin, and help the wcda's office out a lot more than a "misue of 911"
charge...the amended charge was "obstructing a public officer"...which is specificaly mnetioned in the scr 111(6) serious offense rule....though Judge Clifton kept a straight face when indicating to Coughlin "I don't see how "misuse of 911" is less
worse for you than "obstructing a public officer" under a SCR 111(6) analysis...I really don't. " Yeah. uh....sure.
Then there is Judge Clifton refusing to file in many other filing by Coughlin in rcr2012-065630.
Then, Coughlin as of 12/19/12, still has not received the record on appeal in cr12-2025 (one of 4 criminal matters involving Couglin that have been "randomly" assigned to Judge Steven Elliot, who worked at Panel Chair Echeverria's father's law
firm, sat on CAAW's board and presided over Coughlin's wrongful termination suit against CAAW and Washoe Legal SErvices, did not disclose the conflict, failed to recuse self, etc...and who went to Stanford in the later 1960s with Elcano (director
of WLS) and Panel Chair Echeverria...Oh, and Judge Gardner's campgain contributions include some from WLS's Torvingen, expense to CAAW, her brother refused recuse self from criminal trespass prosectuion of coughlin in 11 cr 26405...oh, jeez,
its exhausting detailing all this over and over....more copy and pasting necessary..
RMCcertifyingSecond1udicialfilingstoSBNexhibit16from11/14/12wasneverprovidedtocoughlin
then judge linda gardner's brother, rmc jduge william gardner failed to file coughlin's timely notice of appeal of the 6/18/12 conviction of trespass in 11 cr 26405...for cr12-1262...then the rmc failed to order the transcript prepared in the walmart
candy bar case in 11 cr 22176, which became cr11-2064, rmc holds Pam Longoni out as only one who can get the audio to do the transcript, and Longoni refuses to prepare the transcript, even where coughlin offerred to pay for it under protest
(because nrs 4.14(a) applies to civil cases, not criminal appeals by indigents....(rmc Judge HOward refused Coughlin court appointed counsel, even though he failed to rule that jail time was absolutely not a possibility, violation aigersinger...and
refused even one continuance, though they are freely given to richard g. hill/reno city attorney...or stipped to by lew taitel, coughlin's then rmc court appointed defender who is the "staff attoreny" for Nevada Court Services, whom Coughlin as
suing at the time...so, no on the conflicts check by Taitel...
Now Judge Clifton and Judge Sferrazza and RJC Administrator STeve Tuttle (with the help of clerk's Robbin Baker and Cathy Wood) have forbidden Coughlin from fax filing, only allow him 15 minutes a day to be at the counter to review a file (no
matter how much of that 15 minutes is eaten up with "delays"...), etc., etc. lots of special unpublished "house rules" applicable only to Coughlin...kind of like the impermissible rent escrow deposit judge sferrazza order in 10/13/11 in rev2011-
001708 in violation of jcrcp 83 in that the rjc has not published and had approved by the n. s. ct. a corollary to jcrlv 44...though Judge Clifton managed to find "moot" Coughlin's Motion to Set aside that forced rent escrow deposit in light of the
fact that Coughlin did deposit that $2,276 dollars....not exactly moot...kind of like Judge Clifton saying "your here!" when Coughlin contested the improper notice by public defender leslie of the 12/18/12 hearing in rcr2012-067980 that Judge
Clifton curiously presided over despite it being a Judge PEarson case and Judge PEarson being at work that day...the whole jcrrt rule about cases being randomly assigned doesn't seem all that hard and fast...like when Jduge Clifton was assigned
the Coughlin v. Park Terrace illegal lockout case, but rjc bailiff sexton came in and moved Jduge SFerrazza onto the matter minutes before the hearing, whereupon Judge Clifton had "traffic matters" to rule on....
then there is the rmc and judge nash holmes refusing to file in and comply with the dictates of nrs 189.030 in 11 tr 26800 where coughlin appealed the contempt order of 2/27/12 and 2/28/12....and the whole business of the rmc and its
marshall being given coughlin's smart phone and micro sd card after it was book into coughlin's personal property at the jail on 2/27/12, when the rmc marshals came to the jail on 2/28/12...and apparently..without a court order or warrant, were
allowed to take possession of those items and take them back to the rmc....and they were returned to coughlin 37 days later, via a 3/30/12 order by judge nash holmes releasing them to coughlin (curious considering coughlin's 3/30/12 filign in
Judge Beelsey's case in the nvb cadle company v keller 10--05104 exposed that whole confiscating coughlin's property in a manner in no way a search incident to arrest....) and where Judge Beelsey, Judge Nash Holmes, and Washoe Legal SErvices
Elcano all went to McGeorge School of law in 1977....and all three testified at coughlin's 11/14/12 formal disciplinary hearing before the panel and sbn....hhmmmmmn....
and the recent cr12-1262 appeal of the denial of coughlin's motion for new trial did not include the cd/dvds coughlin attached to his 10/24/12 filign and his 11/2/12 filing (and the 11/2/12 filign was not included in what the rmc transmitted to
the district court on 11/29/12? funny..... lots of attached cd/dvds turnin' up missin' or "weren't never there" despite Robbin Baker admitting they were in the rjc in rcr2011-063341 and rcr2012-065630 in the jduge sferrazza and judge clifton
cases...and in Clifton's 065630 City Attorney Bony's letter about the subpoenas in 2011-063341 and the envelope addresssed to judge sferrazza is in the file in Clifton's 065630 case? and Judge Clifton admits that, on the record in 065630 he
"looked at the submission on subpoenas" in the judge sferrazza cases...funny, Judge SFerrazza said there was no cd/dvd's attached to any of Coughlin's pre-trial filings.....and judge sferazza signed the 11/16/12 orders on those "submissions on
subpoenas"...so why would Judge clifton be lookin at them and why are cd/dvd's disappearing?
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Sent: Wed12/19/122:22AM
To: patrickknvbar.org(patrickknvbar.org);jeeloreno.com(jeeloreno.com);davidcnvbar.org(davidcnvbar.org);eiIert.ntaatt.net(eiIert.ntaatt.net);cvellisbhIs.com
(cvellisbhIs.com);miketahoelawyer.com(miketahoelawyer.com);IIlahertydlpId.com(IIlahertydlpId.com);skentskentlaw.com(skentskentlaw.com);nevtelassnsbcglobal.net
(nevtelassnsbcglobal.net);ncjdinIojudicial.state.nv.us(ncjdinIojudicial.state.nv.us);dballardreno.gov(dballardreno.gov);ballarddreno.gov(ballarddreno.gov);
jacksoncreno.gov(jacksoncreno.gov);renodirectreno.gov(renodirectreno.gov);kadlicjreno.gov(kadlicjreno.gov);joey.hastingswashoecourts.us
(joey.hastingswashoecourts.us);judge.hardywashoecourts.us(judge.hardywashoecourts.us);rsweetnvcourts.nv.gov(rsweetnvcourts.nv.gov);trainingnvcourts.nv.gov
(trainingnvcourts.nv.gov);staIIattorneynvcourts.nv.gov(staIIattorneynvcourts.nv.gov)
DearAdministrativeOIIiceoItheCourts,
IapologizeIortherushednatureoIthis,however,theSBN,RMCandRJChavebeenputtingmethroughthepacesoIlateandIneverknowwhenthey
willIinishthejobonme,soIwanttosendthiswhileIcan...
andChairEcheverriaandorSBNBarCounselKinghaveadutyoIcandorandcan'tsneakitintotheIileasan"exhibit16"whereCoughlinwasnot
providedacopyatthehearingon11/14/12,especiallywherethe4exhibitsthatwereincludedwiththatIiling(exhibit16 EMERGENCYEXI'ARTE
MOTIONTODISMISS.VACATE.resetorpostpone,etc...)
checkouttheexhibitpageonpage32oItheattachment....noticehownoneoItheexhibitswereincludedinwhatwasgiventotheclerkandcourtreporter
purportingtobea"ruleoIcompleteness"suIIicientcopyoIthatIilingpresentedasExhibit16? Youguysliedenoughalready(yougavemepermission
toIilebyIax,thendidn'tIileinmyIaxedIilings...youwaivedsubpoenaandsubpoenaducestecumIees,thenliedandsaidyoudidn'tsuIIicienttoprevent
meIrombeingabletocallwitness(andyouknowthatattachedkeithloomis,esq.subpoenawasproblematicIoryou...nowonderPatKingdisposedoIthe
grievanceagainstLoomissoquick...andthenyouliedwhenyousaidyoudidn'tgivemepermissiontoissuemyownsubpoenas(ie,yousaidIwouldnot
berequiredtohavethem"issuedbythecourt"orembossedorbaringasealoranyoIthat,butthatIcouldissuemyownsubpoenas"inthemanneran
attorneycould"despitemycurrenttemporarysuspension. Youguysarelyingovertime....howmanyoIthePanelareinonit? Vellis? Howabout
you? ItsanicereputationyouhaveVellis...wouldbeashametoseeitgetallassociatedwiththisdespicablemiscarriageoIjustice. NotsureMike
JohnsonwantstheSupremeCourtknowinghewastextingonhisiPhonethewholehearing,ortwitteringorwhatever,becausehedeIinatelywasn'tpaying
attentionorlookingproIessional. AndasIorhidingmycd/dvd'sattachedasexhibitstoIilingsIromtheJusticesoItheNevadaSupremeCourt,Panel
MemberStephenKent(McGeorgeClassoI1980,interestingthat"ChairmanSusich"chosethePanel...sure...Pat....Elcano,Beesley(bothoIwhose
testimonywasnotnoticeduntilacoupledaysbeIorethehearingdespitenothingaboutitbeingnewlydiscoveredtobarcounsel...andwhyhasn'tthe
BeesleylettereverbeenproducedtoCoughlin? AndElcanoisnota"practicingattorney"...checkhisSCR79pageonwww.nvbar.org....inactivestatus,
hasbeenIorquitesometime...that'swhy"wouldn'thebeawIullyrusty"commentsweremadewhenhisnamewasIloatedIortheECRdeal...
Also,lookatthecertiIicationbyDonnaBallard. SheisnotauthorizedtomakecertiIicationsIordocumentsIromtheSecondJudicialDistrictCourt.
LookcloselyatthelanguageonhercertiIcations. Hercourtdoesnotmaintainthe"originals"incv11-03628,norincr11-2064,norincr12-1262.
ThatisIraudbybothsheandBarCounselKingIorpurportingthosedocumentstobecertiIied. Further,itsIraudulentIorKingto(orhaveRichard
G.Hill,Esq.doit)readaquote IromapassageoIRichardG.Hill,Esq.'sassociate,CaseyBaker,Esq.'sMotionIorAttorney'sIeesandpurportittobe
somethingordered byJudgeFlanagan. JustbecauseJudgeFlanaganquotestosomethinginoneoIhisOrder'sdoesnotmeanheendorsesisasa
conclusionoIlaworIindingoIIactorevenapartoIhisOrder. HehasquotedtothingsIwrotebeIore. HecommentedonsomethingIwrotebeing
"poignant"indismissingon3/27/12Hill'sSecond MotionIorOrderToShowCauseonceCoughlindestroyedHill'switness,contractorPhilStewarton
crossexaminationatboththe3/23/12hearing(closelyIollowingbybarcounselilladvisedandcrypticemailabout"theclerkoIcourtinDepartment3"
writingtheSBNaboutCoughlin'sclothingchoiceorsomehighschoolgibberishorother. IdemandtheRMCandBallardimmediatelyretractthose
"certiIications".
PleaseconsiderthisasmyresumeIorthestaIIattorneypositionwiththeAdministrativeOIIiceoItheCourtsandreviewmyIilingswiththeNevada
SupremeCourt.
NotsureitsappropriateorPanelChairEcheverriatobestickinghistongueoutatmethroughoutthehearingandgrinningdemonicallylikesome"Boss
Hog"...Also,kindoIIunnytoapplytheCourt'sscr111(7)citationinits6/7/12Orderaboutthe"solepurposeoIdeterminingthepunishment'tothe
hearing...butnotjusttothewalmartcandybarpettylarcenyconviction,butinstead,toamultitudeoIRPCviolationstheSBNandorRMCJudgeNash
HolmescopiedandpastedintoanOrder. ChairEcheverriaadmittedduringthe"hearing"on11/14/12thatheandthePanelandSBNwerejustskippin'
pastthewholebeingaccusedoIsomethingandhavingatrialonitandgoingstraighttothesentencingphase...despitenoneoItheRPCviolationsbeing
"proven"(andJudgeNashHolmes,testiIyingbytelephoneoverCoughlin'sobjection,wassuretopointoutshe"wasn'ttryingtousurptheIunctionoIa
Iormalhearingpanel"inher3/12/12Order,uponwhichBarCounselistryingawIulhardtotackonanSCR111(5)"convictionisconclusiveprooIoI
guilt"easydayatwork....butSCR111isIor"criminalconvictions",PatKing...nexttimeyouIeedJudgesproposedIindingsandcriminallawviolation
orders,getthestatueright,Pat. ThatOrderIroma"simpletraIIiccitationmatter",IromwhichJudgeNashHolmesthrewintheSchaeIer"clearand
convicingevidence"standardbarcounselpromptedhertoinsert,inherattempttotransmogriIythe3/12/12resumptionoIthetraIIiccitationtrialinrmc
11tr26800intonotonlyasecondbitattheappleconsideringshealreadyissuedanorderon2/28/12(whichwasattachedtotheIilinginJudgeBeesley's
NVBcourtintheadversaryproceeding10-05104CadleCompanyvKeller...whichhadtoalarmJudgeBeesleytoseehis1977classmateatMcGeorge,
JudgeNashHolmesandWashoeLegalServicesPaulElcanohavingsuchtroublewithCoughlin(nottomentionJudgeBeesley'sIormerpartnerat
TheThreeE's;wcpdfailuretoprovideessential911callcddiscoveryof8/13and8/17,2012toCoughlininrcr2012-065630
BeesleyPeck,KarenSabo,Esq.wasbeingsuedbyCoughlinincidenttoheractionsatWLSsetIorthinthewrongIulterminationlawsuitonappealwith
theCourtin60302...maybeiIBarCounselhadmanagedtonoticeCoughlinonJudgeBeesley'stestimonymorethan2daypriortothehearing,andnotin
violationoISCR105(2)(c),someoIthismesscouldhavebeenavoided...Butanotherthingisclear...therewasno"misdemeanoroIcriminalcontempt
convictionsoICoughlin...ever....thatwouldrequireacitationtoNRS199.340...whichisnotsummaryinnatureanyways....NRS22.030(JudgeHoward
citedtotherightstatuteatleast),andNRS22.010(theoneJudgeNashHolmesattemptedtocharacterizeasa"misdemeanoroIcriminalcontempt"along
withNRS22.100,injustiIyinghersummary5dayincarcerationoIaproseattorneyinatraIIiccitationtrialsecondsaIterhetestiIiedthatRPDSargent
Tarter"liedwhenhesaidthat..."...andboom....contemptcitation,5daysinjail,nostay...prejudicetoCoughlin'sclient'sbedamned...andtheSBNand
JudgeNashHolmesaregoigntotrytomakehayoutoIaninIormapauperisapplicationindicatingCoughlinemployedasa"jackoIalltrades"Iiled
after atrialin11tr26800whereinCoughlin'sbeinganattorneywasdiscussedextensively? AndBarCounselwantstoobjecttoCoughlinentering
intoevidenceorusingIorimpeachmentboththeaudiotranscripttheRMCsoldhimandthediscoIthesamehearingtheRMCpurportedlygavetoBar
Counsel,thenBarCounselgavetotheScreeningPanel,thengavetoCoughlin? YetDonnaBallardgetstocertiIyOrdersbyJudgeFlanaganandJudge
Elliot(whoworkedatChairEcheverria'sIather'slawIirm,andwhowenttoStanIordIromRenoalongwithChairEcheverriaandWashoeLegal
Services'sPaulElcanointhelater1960'stogether....andEcheverriaandElcanowenttoRenoHighSchooltogetherin1962,andwereIorcedtoadmitthey
were"boyhoodchums"....nomentionoIthewinebusinessthoughatthehearingortheBasqueBoard,ortheOrlichandGardnerconnectionwithElcano
andCoughlin'scontentionthatElcanoadmittedtoCoughlininFebruary2009thatJudgeLindaGardnerhadapprovedoICoughlin'sworkatthattime
aIterElcanoquerriedherandElcanocitinghavingdoneJudgeGardner"abigIavoralongtimeago"asabasisIorestablishinghisstrongrapportwith
JudgeGardner,and,apparently,herveracityorsomethingorother.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
0204 Coughlin Disciplinary Hearing File cut up with notations revised.pdf.pdf
12 10 12 065630 final motion recuse conflict continuance with exhibits and cover pages.pdf
Download all

Sent: Thu12/13/129:34AM
To: jlesliewashoecounty.us(jlesliewashoecounty.us);jboslerwashoecounty.us(jboslerwashoecounty.us);bdoganwashoecounty.us(bdoganwashoecounty.us);
jgoodnightwashoecounty.us(jgoodnightwashoecounty.us);cIortierwashoecounty.us(cIortierwashoecounty.us);stuttlewashoecounty.us(stuttlewashoecounty.us);
mkandarasda.washoecounty.us(mkandarasda.washoecounty.us);zyoungda.washoecounty.us(zyoungda.washoecounty.us);skaucreno.gov(skaucreno.gov);wongdreno.gov
(wongdreno.gov);kadlicjreno.gov(kadlicjreno.gov);complaintsnvbar.org(complaintsnvbar.org);cvellisbhIs.com(cvellisbhIs.com);jeeloreno.com(jeeloreno.com);
patrickknvbar.org(patrickknvbar.org);davidcnvbar.org(davidcnvbar.org);rosecnvbar.org(rosecnvbar.org);laurapnvbar.org(laurapnvbar.org);skentskentlaw.com
(skentskentlaw.com);miketahoelawyer.com(miketahoelawyer.com);eiIert.ntaatt.net(eiIert.ntaatt.net);nevtelassnsbcglobal.net(nevtelassnsbcglobal.net);IIlahertydlpId.com
(IIlahertydlpId.com);IIlahertydyerlawrence.com(IIlahertydyerlawrence.com)
28attachments
12712declarationoIzachcoughlin0204.pdI(81.2KB),2612emailIromFortierregardingDogan065630.pdI(30.3KB),101112emailIwmisueoI911case065630Iortieretal.htm
(347.1KB),transparentnevadaVeronicaLopezMarciaLopez2640522176006960656300204.pdI(104.2KB),11212rpdpolicereport12cr00696siIreleedylooknashyoung
kandarasbradshaw0204065630redactedocrd.pdI(3.2MB),BeckettRI201104040204065630.pdI(117.7KB),BeckettandTannerexamplesspecialtreatementIorprosecutorandtanner
pettytheItinvolves16K0204BarCounselReportJune2011.pdI(284.4KB),11221226405MotionIorContinuancebecauseHillonvacationHazlettDeclaration0204065630.pdI
(407.6KB),12612notauthorizedbyCliItonCustodianoIRecordsWCPD065630.pdI(1791.3KB),coughlinnsctdocketsearchasoI127120204065630.pdI(48.6KB),82011
unredacteddispatchlogs063341backIromtiII.jpg.pdI(229.0KB),9712063341OrderForCompetencyEvaluation020406563012420.pdI(1573.5KB),121911063341
GOODNIGHT'SREQUESTFORDISCOVERY0204065630.pdI(2.4MB),nsctdocket54844coughlinvdistctjoshi0116802042640561901.pdI(33.5KB),112712065630Iaxcover
pagepostitcliIton112812don'tIilethisinstayswcaseIilehowever1oI69pages.pdI(265.7KB),1261226405NoticeoIDeIiciencyoIRecordonAppealandFilingoIJudicial
DisciplineCommissionComplaint0204-Copy.pdI(777.9KB),12612stamped065630emergencyMotionIorMistrialandContinuanceGivenstate'sIailuretimelyprovidediscovery
exculpatory-Copy.pdI(765.2KB),12412AIIidavitoIServiceRJCBailiIIJohnReyeslacksalacknumber,lacksanotary065630063341067980hasnoOrderattachedtoitor
incorporatedbyreIerence.pdI(492.2KB),paes1to17IromIirstIaxjudicialdisciplinecommissioncomplaints0204gardnerelliothowardnashholmessIerrazzacliItonIinal-2-2.pdI
(596.6KB),Paul-D-Elcano-Jr--1070555-astanIord0204elliotecheverria.pdI(67.3KB),01955docketcoughlinelliotgardnerelcano.pdI(152.4KB),cr12-0376coughlinjudgesteven
elliot0204docketccwashoe.pdI(23.9KB),cr11-2064docketcoughlinvcityoIrenojudgeelliotcityattorneyroberts0204.pdI(42.7KB),paulelcanosuingrutherIormchiropracticeand
drrossandnichols020460317.pdI(18.7KB),231222176608380204robertsGmail-courtesycopyoIaudiooItrailexhibit1toSupplementtoOppositiontoMotiontoDismiss.pdI
(16.8KB),111012063341nrs174.345sbupoenaonDuraldeRosaAlaksaandothersrrrcertiIied1045skau0204.pdI(10.5KB),1126125bigrecentemails6030260317GarinWLS
Gardner02046033161383063341etc.pdI(645.8KB),54844COUGHLINVS.DIST.CT.andLindaGardner0204043526405.pdI(5.1MB)
TheTrialyesterdayinRCR2012-065630IeaturedextendeddiscussionsregardingtheIailureoItheWCPD,Dogan,andLeslie,toturnoverdiscovery
propoundedbyDDAYoungintheIormoIcd'sIeaturing911callsDDAYoungprovidedtotheWCPDon8/13/12and8/17/12...Andtheheavyhitters
werethere,too(ElliotSattler).....despitenumerouswrittenrequestsIromCoughlinthattheWCPDdoso,andmultipletripstotheWCPDpersonallyby
Coughlintopicksuchmaterialsup,anddespitemoreIlipIloppingontheirstorybyLeslieandDoganregardingwhethertheyevergaveCoughlinsome
packageoImaterialsresponsivetoCoughlin'srequestIorhis"Iile"...But,JimLeslieisstuckwiththe7/27/12datehementionsinhisemail,thenheis
stuckwithwhathisrecentemailwhereinhepurportstohavethereindigitallytransmittedCoughlinhis"Iile",whichobviouslydoesnotincludethecd'soI
911calls(theone'sDDAYoungtookupanenormousamountoIcourttimeplaying,overandover(well,Youngonlyplayedoverandovertheparticular
callsheIeltwerestrongestIorhiscaseandmostprejudicial,claimingsome"cuttingroomIloormishap"IorthereoccurrenceoIcertaincalls,arguingthat
sucha"happyaccident"justiIiedplayingthemagainandagain,ateverincreasingvolumes,etc.,etc.). Apparently,IamheretosubsidizeYoung'sbaby
making,justlikeIwaswithMs.Gorman,asacontinuanceoIprejudiciallengthoIaIIordedtotheStatewherenonewasIorthcomingtoCoughlin,despite
LeslieandDogan'sobstructionisttantrums,onesoIaqualitythatwould. IrememberwhenmyliIeIeaturedhappymomentslikethebirthoItwins...but
thatwasbeIoreyourleviathanlegalsystemwreckedshoponmyexistence. What, sir, shall be my compensation? Do you mind if I put my arm
around....http://tinyurl.com/bgmlfdr
This is a formal grievance against Dogan, Leslie, Bosler, Young...etc.
If Svengali/Diann Ross Diva Jim Leslie is going to micromanage Dogan and Goodnight's cases, and gag order them, he better be sure not to screw up the cases requiring a mistrial by failing to provide the client the cd's of
911 calls DDA Young gave the wcpd on 8/13 and 8/17/12 in rjc rev2011-065630, and clearly, any packet from 7/27/12 wouldn't have them (not to even get into the flip flopping contradictory accounts by Leslie and Dogan
as to who gave Coughlin the packet, or who didn't or blah blah blah)...and certainly Leslie email below only contained a 57 page pdf...way to close to the 12/11/12 trial date, and containing materials Coughlin had never
been given before....so much easier, Jimmy Sleazy to email the client a "digital transmittal" proving what you gave and when"....but, no, that would make it so hard to fudge the accounts of what was contained therein, or
who handed what to whom, or who failed to pick up this or that, or Dogan's slippery nonsense:
"From: Jleslie@washoecounty.us
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
CC: BDogan@washoecounty.us
Subject: 911 Case
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:09:08 +0000
Mr.Coughlin:
Attachedarethediscoverymaterialsintheabove-reIerencedcasethatyouhadrequestedandwehadmadeanadditionalcopyoIIoryouinresponsetoyourrequest. PleasenotethattheJuly27,
2012,coverletterwasIoryourpickupandyouneverpickeditup. NotealsothattheJuly27,2012,packetenclosesacopyoItheApril17,2012,handdeliverytransmittaloItheverysame
documentswhichyoureceived.
SincewehavebeenremovedIromthe911case,weareclosingourIile. TheattachedmaterialsweresittingatourIrontdesk. SinceyouIailedtoretrievethem,weprovidetheattachedcourtesy

copybeIoreIinalclosureoIourIile.
NoresponsetothistransmittalisrequiredIromyou.
JamesB.Leslie,Esq."
So,whileDoganstateson7/27/12in65630"YourHonor,IhaveneverevenspokenwithJudgeDorothyNashHolmes"...hecoylyIailstoindicatewhether
hespokewithanyonewiththeRMC,MarilynTognoni,included,orwhyhis2/28/12IaxtoCoughlinwassoinsistentthatitwas"Lake'sCrossing'sBill
Davis,Ph.D."whomustconductthe"CompetencyEvaluation",orhowitwasJudgeCliIton's2/27/12OrderIorCompetencyEvaluationcouldhave
possiblyknownandincludedJudgeElliottasthe"randomlyassignedjudge"tothatCompetencyCaseinCR12-0376(JudgeElliottonCommitteetoAid
AbusedWomen'sBoard,(CAAW)...JudgeElliottpresidingoverCoughlin'swrongIulterminationlawsuitagainstWCDA'sOIIiceECRPartner,Washoe
LegalServices,itsExecutiveDirectorPaulElcano,andCAAW,inCV11-01955...JudgeElliottIailstodiscloseconIlictorrecusehimselI,JudgeElliott
managesto"randomly"beassignedCoughlin'stwocriminalappealsIromRMCconvictions(theWal-Mart"candybar"pettylarcenyleadingtoa6
months,soIar,temporarysuspensionoICoughlin'slawlicensein11cr22176intheRMC,thencr11-2064intheappealJudgeElliottcannedbasedupon
a civil statuterequiringadownpaymentIorthepreparationoItranscriptsandElliott'scontentionthatheneednotaddressthemeritsoICoughlin'sappeal
giventhelackoIawrittentranscript(CoughlinpaidIortheaudiocd,anditsnotevenclearthattheRMCisacourtoIrecordanyways,andtheRMC
distributestodeIendantsinstructionssheetsandenIorces"houserules"regardingthepreparationoItranscriptsthatrequireoneutilizingtheservicesoI
RMC"oIIicialtranscriptionistPamLongoni(whomhunguponCoughlintwice,andreIusedtopreparethetranscriptin11cr22176/cr11-2064,Iailedto
returnemails/Iaxes,etc.)"andwheretheRMCreIusedtoevengiveCoughlintheaudiorecordingIorsometime,insistingCoughlincouldmerelyhaveit
madeavailabletoLongoni....Oh,Coughlindidn'tgetnocontinuanceIromJudgeHowardinthat11cr22176(evenwherehewaswrongIullyevictedin
Rev2011-001708(nowonappealin60331and61383)on11/1/11,thenwrongIullyarrestedon11/13/12in11cr26405(nowIeaturein61901,62104,
54844,60302,60317,etc..)andincarceratedbetween11/13/12and11/15/12,nocontinuanceIorthe11/30/12Trialin11cr22176,despiteanagreement
inwritingwithCityAttorneyPamelaRoberts(whomputonperjuredtestimonybythreewitnesseswhereshepossessavideoandotherevidence
conclusivelyprovingthatCoughlindidprovidehisdriver'slicensetoRSICOIIicerCrawIord...andwhereRobert'sprosecutedbasedonanarrestIora
misdemeanorbytribaloIIicerswhereNRS178.1255barssuchanarrest,andwhereWal-Mart'sThomasFrontinoandRobertsherselIadmitnocitizen's
arrestwaseIIectuated....so,aboutthatRPC3.8violation...). Thenthereistheappealincr12-1262thatJudgeElliott,again, was"randomly"assigned
IromtheconvictionbyRMCJudgeWilliamGardnerin11cr26405baseduponthecriminaltrespasscomplaintsignedbyRichardG.Hill,Esq.(opposing
counselinthesummaryevictionIromCoughlin'sIormerhomelawoIIiceinrjcrev2011-001708,presidedoverbyJudgeSIerrazza,thoughHillandhis
associateCaseyD.Baker,Esq.Iax,onOctober17th,2011toJudgeCliIton(whowasnotChieIJudgeatthetime,oranything)anEmergencyExParte
MotionIorInspectionoICoughlin'sLawOIIice,andwhereinhisOctober19th,2011Orderinthatmatter001708,JudgeCliItonruledas"moot"
Coughlin'11/17/12MotiontoSetAsidethe11/13/12OrderIollowingSummaryEvictionProceedingbyJudgeSIerrazzasettingthematterIor"Trial"on
10/25/12,ontheconditionthatCoughlindepositarentescrowoI$2,275withtheRJC(thoughJudgeSIerrazzaadmittedlaterontherecordon11/7/12
thattheRJCJudgeshadameetingwhereintheyallhadtoagreethatCoughlinwasabsolutelycorrectthattheRJCwasviolatingNevadalawinhavingan
unpublished"houserule"corollarytoJCRLV44requiringsuchrentescrowdepositsinlandlordtenantsmatterhereJCRCP83hadnotbeenIollowedin
thattheRJChadnotpublishedandhadapprovedbytheN.S.Ct.anysuchdeviationIromthestatutoryremediessetIorthinNRS40and118A. Judge
ElliottmanagedtotorpedothatappealoIthecriminaltrespassconvictionstemmingIromthecriminalcomplaintandcustodialarrestatCoughlin'sIormer
homelawoIIicebyco-signingRMCJudicialAssistantLisaWagner'sandtheRMC'snonsenseaboutnothavingreceivedCoughlin'sNoticeoIAppeal
timelyunderNRS189.010. TheprooIoIdeliveryIaxconIirmationindicatesotherwise,Lisa. Andregardless.theconvenientlytimedarrestoI
Coughlinon6/28/12,andthetollingnatureoICoughlin's6/26/12MotionIorNewTrialinthatmatter,andthekited,dated7/10/12jailhouseNoticeoI
AppealbyCoughlin,andthecuriouslyIailuretograntCoughlintiertimeintheinterimwhileJudgeGardnermanageedtopushthroughhis7/11/12Order
DenyingCoughlin'sMotionIorNewTrial,isallthemorereasontoapplyconsternationtoJudgeElliott'sworkontheappealonCR12-01262.. Then
thereisJudgeLindaGardnerbeingJudgePeterBreen,MD'slawclerk,andBreenkickingCoughlinoutoItheMentalHealthCourtbaseduponSharon
Dollarhid,ReneBiondo,andBreenandtheMHC'sownbreachoIcontract(iItheyprovideprogrammaterials,acceptance,andacontractthatlistcertain
medicationsasdisallowed,howisittheycanclaimnon-complianceor"Iailuretoabide"bytherulesIortakingamedicationnotlistedtherein? Don't
askWCPDJoeGoodnightorJenniIerRains...theyknowwhatsidetheirbreadisbutteredon....MH12-0032...soDDAYoungtriestojamthroughatrialin
063341onMay7th,2012,despitethemandatorystayinNRS178.405andthethenstillpendingOrderIorCompetencyEvaluationinrjc2012-065630
IromtheclandestinestatusconIerenceDoganandYoungneverquiteseemtoreIutehappeningon2/27/12...Oh,andJudgeCliIton,thenDADorothyNash
Holmes,andJudgeLindaGardnerwereallco-workersonceuponatime,workingcloselywiththenSparksCityAttorney/prosecutorStevenElliott,whom
workedIorthelawIirmoItheIatheroIthePanelChairIorCoughlin's11/14/12SBNv.CoughlinIormalDisciplinaryHearinginNG12-0204,0434,0435
(thelasttwobeinggrievancesagainstCoughlinIiled,inpart,byRMCJudgeWilliamGardner,priortoGardnerIailingtorecusehimselIIromthecriminal
trespasscaseagainstCoughlinbeIorehimin11CR26405...evenwhereJudgeGardner'ssister JudgeLindaGardner'sApril2009Ordersanctioning
CoughlinwascitedbyWLS'sElcanoasthesolebasisIorIiringCoughlin,andwhereCoughlinIiledaMandamusPetitionin54844challengingthose
sanctions,andwhereng12-0435wasoneoIthreegrievancesIormingthe8/23/12SCR105ComplaintagainstCoughlin(strangely...theWal-Mar"candy
bar"pettylarcenyconvictionandtheIormalhearingIorthe"solepurpose"oIdeterminingCoughlin'spunishmentIorsuchrequiredbySCR111(8)andthe
Court's6/7/12OrdergotparticularlyshortshriItinthe8/23/12triplegrievancenumberedSCR105ComplaintbyBarCounselPat"PattyIce"King,a/k/a
PatSalieri,whomwantsnopartoIexplaininghisstatementstoCoughlinduringthe3/26/12appearanceattheSBNbyCoughlin,IorthesolepurposeoI
takingKinguponhisoIIertoletCoughlinreviewthematerialssubmittedalongwiththegrievances(thereinKingclaimedtohavereceivedgrievances
againstCoughlinIromthreediIIerentJudges....though,by3/26/12,itcouldn'thavebeenBeesley,asCoughlinonlyIiledtheexhibitsdetailingJudgeNash
HolmesandtheWCSOandWCDAimpermissiblyconIiscatingCoughlin'ssmartphonewithoutawarrantorcourtorderandwellaItertheendoIthe
periodtodoasearchincidenttoarrest(thearrestwas2/27/12IorsomepasticheoIsummaryplenarycivilcriminalcontemptsstatutsthatJudgeNash
Holmeswhippedup...thoughsheavoidNRS22.030anddeIinitelytherewasn'tnoaIIidavitsignin'byol'RMCMarshalHarleyIorallegedconductina
restroomorrestroomstall,whichassuredlywasnot"underthewatchIuleyeoIthecourt"or"intheimmediatepresence"oIthecourt....somucheasierIor
BarCounseltoIeedJudgeNashHolmesthe"clearandconvicingevidence"standardIromSchaeIer requiredtoproveanethicalviolation,havehere
copyandpastesomeRPC'sintoasecondbiteattheappleandmorethan10dayslater(civilstatute,NRS22.010,NRCPandJCRCP59allowsuasponte
amendingwithin10days,no12days...2/27/12 to3/12/12....voidOrderoI3/12/12byJudgeNashHolmes,so,sorryPattyIce,nicetry,noSCR111(5)
"anOrderorconvictionisconclusiveprooIoIguiltandIdon'trecognizeClaiborne asbindingauthoritybecauseitmakesmyjobharder...."....
ThankYouJimIorcontinuingtoprevaricateinwriting,yourrecentemailcombinedwithsome,uh,othermaterialsthathavebeenculled,willsurelybe
helpIulinexposingyouIortheIraudthatyouare. AndBirayDogantoo...Oh,bytheway,that11/7/12IaxconIirmationpageorprooIoIIaxing?
Howisthatcomingalong,becauseIneedtoseeitIromyou. MyrecordsshowabsolutelynoreceiptoIanyIaxoIthatsort,notonthatday,notonany
day...whichmeanstheballisinyourcourttoshowhowDogan'srepresentationstoJudgeSIerrazzaon11/19/12incourtwerenotdisplayingalackoI
candortothetribunalandHowLeslieTibbals'certiIicateonservicethereinisnotIraud.
Oh,attachedisGoodnight's121911RequestIorDiscovery,whichincludes:
"REQUESTFORDISCOVERY
COMESNOW,theDeIendant,ZACHARYBARKERCOUGHLIN,byandthroughhisattorneyoIrecord,JosephW.Goodnight,DeputyPublic
DeIender,andherebyrequeststheIollowingdiscoverypursuanttoNRS174.235toNRS174.295,inclusive.1.Inspectandreceivecopiesorphotograph
anywrittenorrecordedstatementsorconIessionsmadebytheDeIendantoranywitness,orcopiesthereoI,withinthepossession,custodyorcontroloIthe
State,theexistenceoIwhichisknownorbytheexerciseoIduediligencemaybecomeknowntotheprosecutor.NRS174.235(1)(a).Thisrequestincludes
anyvideoandaudiorecordings,includingthosepreservedonpocketrecordingdevices,9-1-1emergencycalls,andanydispatchlogs,writtenorrecorded,
generatedinconnectionwiththiscase."
Jim,thenthereisyouchimingin,inyourroleas"standbycounsel",attemptingtoaidtheCourtandDDAYoungincoercingIrommemyFiIth
Amendmentrightsatthe9:06ammarkonthetranscriptIrom11/20/12("YourHonor,I'llremindtheCourtthatIamheretojumpininmyroleasstandby
counselanytimetheCourt'sIeelsheisdragginghisIeet....HeiswastingCountyassets!"...veryAtticusFinch,Jim).
So,thenthereisJim's10/3/12subpoenatoEcomm/KelleyWood...andgivenhewascounseloIrecorduntil10/22/12,yetcompletelyIailedtoturnover
anything(responsiveornot)inrelationtothatsubpoena,andtheIactthattheentireSuppressionMotionturnedon"whatinIormationtheRPDreceived
Iromdispatch",andtheIactthattheaudiooIthe"radiotraIIic"betweentheRPDandDispatchonthatnight(oratleasttheportionsoIitIhavebeenable
toextractIromthepowersthatbe)reveal,one,noreportoIapossibleIightwasreceivedbyRPD(theywereonthescenebythetimethe11:27:11pmtext
wassenttothedisplaysintheirvehicles,andtheoneaudible"radiotraIIic"recordingcontainsnomentionoIanythingbeyond"checkIorpossiblelarceny
oIacellphonethatjustoccurred,suspectstillonthescene,alsoreportsoIaloudverbaldisturbance...". ThenthereisJimandGoodnightcompletely
whiIIingonthedetainingargument,inadditiontothewhole"assumingwewinonthepatdown,makesuretoopposethenotationthattherewassuIIicient
probablecauseIoranarrestandsearchincidentthereto....",nottomentionthatitwasCoughlin(whoseIilingsJimmanaged tocheerIullyannounce"The
PublicDeIender'sOIIiceisnotjoininginonthoseIugitivedocuments...",despitethe2/21/12FilingsbyGoodnightthatdojustthat....)thatpointedoutthe
wholeNRS171.360basisIorthrowingoutthesearch(whichJimmanagedtonotcitetoorquoteIrominhisclosingargumentastheSuppression
Hearing...whereJimdidmanagetoaskCoryGoblequestionsoncrossthatweredesignedtodonothingmorethanestablishacitizen'sarrestsuIIicientto
rebuttheNRS171.360basisIorthrowingoutthearrestandIruitsculledthereIrom...).
Oh,thenthereisyouroIIiceblackingoutthenumbersoIthecallersonthedispatchlogsandreIusingtoturnoverevenaredactedversionoIthealleged
victim'scallrecordsIorthetimeinquestion,therebycompletelyobstructingthedeIendant'sabilitytoimpeachthevariousliestestiIiedtobyallthe
witnesses. And"Coach"DDAYoungcantellyouallabouthis40minutescoachingsessionsvisiblethroughtheplexiglassintheJusticeCourtlobby
withZarate,Goble,Lichty,andTempleton,andtheirconstantparroting(alongwithRPDDuralde)oI"prosecutorbuzzwords"("willIullywithheld",
"reportIromdispatchoIapossibleIight","mytrainingandexperience","detained","Idon'trememberwhomadethecall","Ican'trememberwhichone
oImyIriendsitwaswhowaswithme",etc.,etc.) Also,theWCPDpracticeoIblackingoutlocationsandaddressessuremakesitdiIIiculttoestablish
inconsistenciesbetweentestimonyandthereports/WitnessStatementsorotherwiseutilizethemIorimpeachmentpurposes.
So,nowtoday,wegetthisJimLeslieemailwithallit'srevisionisthistory...whichonlycontradictsthepositionLeslieandDoganhavetakenthat
Coughlinalreadypickedupthis7/27/12packet(atIirstDoganclaimedtohavepersonallyhandedittoCoughlin,thenchangedhisstory2minuteslater
andsaidhesawLesliepersonallyhandittoCoughlin....andDoganassertstotheCourtatthe11/27/12Hearinginrcr2012-065630thathehasnever
spokenwithJudgeDorothyNashHolmes(seematerialsregardingclandestinestatusconIerenceoI2/27/12andsubsequentIalloutwithJudgeNash
HolmesoI2/27/12acouplehoursaIterDogansecuredhis2/27/121:31pmOrderIorCompetenyEvaluationin065630IromJudgeCliIton).
TheSBNv.CoughlinComplaintoI8/23/12speciIicallymentionsthearrestoI1/14/12thattheis065630caseisbasedon,inadditiontothe063341
iPhonearrest,andRJCJudicialSecretaryLoriTownsendsentCoughlin's2/21/12in065630totheSBN,andoIIeredtosendCoughlin's2/15/12Iilingin
063341totheSBN...andJudgeNashHolme's3/12/12Orderin11TR26800mentionsCoughlinquoting"rocklyrics"inaIilingasabasisIorher
transmogriIyinga"simpletraIIiccitation"toa"Iormaldisciplinaryhearingonanethicsviolation"whereinshequotestheSchaeIerstandardIoranethical
violationthatBarCounselhadIedherearlierintheday...andthatwindowbetweenthe1:00pmnoticedstarttimeoIthetraIIiccitationtrialin11tr26800
andthe3:30pmeventualstarttimeincludesthe1:25pmcourthousesanctuarydoctrineviolatingserviceuponCoughlin(byRMCMarshalJoelHarley,on
behalIoIWCSODeputyMachen,hiredbyRichardG.Hill,Esq.,atwhoseoIIiceCoughlinwasretaliatedagainstbyRPDSargentTarterwiththethree
traIIiccitationsshortlyaIterCoughlinreportedtoTartertheadmissionsregardingbriberybyRichardG.Hill,Esq.byRPDOIIicerChrisCarter,Jr....and
MarshalHarleywasservingtheOrdertoShowCauseIorthe3/23/12HearingintheappealoIthesummaryevictionIromCoughlin'sIormerlawoIIice
(whereRPDCartermadethetrespassarrestnowdetailedinN.S.Ct.case61901),onbehalIoIDeputyMachen,intheconIerenceroomwithinthe
CourtroomBoItheRMC,despiteCoughlin,aneIiler,havingalreadybeenservedit). However,theonlyIilingbyCoughlinthatcouldbesaidtoquote
"rocklyrics"isthe2/21/12IilinginDogan'scase065630(theonewhereDoganhadappearedasattorneyoIrecordthenIailedtoshowupIorahearingon
2/13/12,thenretaliatedagainstCoughlinIorCoughlin's2/21/12Iilingin065630bymovingIoraCompetencyEvaluationandbasicallydoingabsolutely
nothingonthecaseIorthenext9monthsbesidesrapingIromCoughlinhismedicalprivacyrightsalongwithJudgeStevenElliotandDDAZachYoung
atthe4/19/12hearinginCR12-0376(oneoI3criminalappealsJudgeElliotwas"randomly"assignedinwhichCoughlinisaparty...togoalongwiththe
wrongIulterminationsuitbyCoughlinthatJudgeElliotpresidedoverinCV11-01955whereinCoughlinsuedCAAWandWLS,despiteJudgeElliot
sittingonCAAW'sBoard,andwhereJudgeElliot,thePanelChairatCoughlin'sIormaldisciplinaryhearingoI11/14/12,andWashoeLegalService'sPaul
ElcanoallwenttoStanIordtogether,andwhereJudgeElliotworkedIorPanelChairJohnEcheverria'sIather'slawIirm,EcheverriaandOsborne). Then
thereisLindaGardnerbeingJudgeBreen'slawclerk,andJudgeBreenremovingCoughlinIromMentalHealthCourtinMH12-0032,wheretheMHC's
ReneBiondoandSharonDollarhideliedaboutwhatmedicationswerelistedasacceptedornotinthematerialsprovidedbyGoodnightandortheMHC
alongwiththecontractenteredintowithCoughlin,whomwasacceptedintotheMHC. ThenthereisWCPDJoeGoodnightandJenniIerRainsreIusal
toIileanythingdirectedtowardsenIorcingtheMHC'scontractwithCoughlin,whereintheybothdemonstratedtheyknowwhatsidetheirbreadisbuttered
onandindicated"therejustisn'tabasisIorseekingreconsiderationoIJudgeBreen'sOrder". JudgePeterBreen,MD.
Funny how Dogan did not state to Judge Clifton that he never spoke with anyone else at the Reno Municipal Court about
Coughlin....including Marilyn Tognoni...but, rather Dogan just indicated he never spoke with Judge Nash Holmes, in his best innocent little
boy voice that he cops when he isn't busy tittering away with Jim Leslie in the spectator area during the 11/19 and 11/20 Trial in 063341
(where he failed to apprise Judge Sferrazza of the fraud attendant to his earlier attestations regarding proof of service (by fax no less) of his
11/7/12 Motion to Quash Coughlin's Subpoena....
Also, its a bit strange how Dogan and the WCPD redact or black out the names of the RPD Officers and Dispatch Operators beginning on
page 16 of the 56 page file Jim Leslie finally emailed me today titled "Coughlin Discovery 911 Case", which, as is their wont, he and Dogan
have continued to change their stories about whether they had or had not provided to me already until the last possible minute before
trial, whereupon, with a Trial date of December 11th, 2012 in rcr2012-065630, Jim Leslie finally emails me a 56 page pdf purporting it to be
my "file". One wonders where any audio recordings, dispatch recordings, 911 call recordings or other media are any why Leslie and
Dogan did not provide them. Coughlin appeared at the WCPD's Office today and asked for the hard copy of his file, yet was told by front
desk receptionist "Paula" (of course, no last name provided) that she "spoke with an associate" and they told her that Jim Leslie had already
provided Coughlin his file and that he, therefore, would not be given the hard copy. "Paula" eventually seemed to have to admit that the
misleading use of the term "associate" actually did not connote her having spoken with an attorney about the matter...but rather Linda
Gray, whom has been curiously silent as to the apparent misconduct attendant to her admitting that she did not mail out any written notice
to Coughlin of the August 6th, 2012 "combo-hearing" in rcr2012-067980 or rcr2012-065630 (Leslie glossed over that fact by sending
Coughlin a note about how he "saved the day" with his "advocacy"...skipping past the part about how the client, Coughlin, was not noticed
on the hearing in any matter, much less in writing....Leslie later refused to indicate with any specificity whatsoever how he "knew" Coughlin
had been noticed on the 8/6/12 hearing in writing...and RJC Judges are only too willing to "believe" Jim Leslie, Esq. when he explains away
vaguely such things...
Mr. Leslie, the thing is, I have a Trial in this case rcr2012-065630. You have continued in your way (similar to how you approached the
rcr2011-063341 case where Joe Goodnight, Esq. was counsel of record until you had him removed on 7/16/12, the morning of Trial...after
Mr. Goodnight and I have completed a video conference final trial preparation at 4:30 pm on Friday, July 13th, 2012 while I was in custody
(pursuant to an arrest on July 3rd, 2012, ordered by RPD Sargent Kim Bradshaw, she of the 1/12/12 custodial jaywalking arrest along with
RPD Sargent Paul Sifre)....Things fall through the cracks, Mr. Leslie, when you place a gag order on the associates you claim to supervise,
then stubbornly, petulantly, and retaliatorily refuse to work the cases you have snatched back from your associates....Similarly, WCPD
Fortier's email to me of February 6th, 2012 may have contributed to Mr. Dogan's confusion in failing to attend the Hearing on Feburary
13th, 2012, which begat my filing of February 21st, 2012, which begat Mr. Dogan's procurring the February 27th, 2012 Order for
Competency Evaluation, which begat the 5 day summary incarceration for summary/plenary/criminal/civil/transmogrified disciplinary
hearing on an ethics violation/what is jurisdiction? Order by RMC Judge Nash Holmes on 2/27/12 at 4:40 pm...which begat NG12-0434, and
probably 0435 (the SBN v. Coughlin SCR 105 Complaint of 8/23/12).
However, Mr. Dogan, you are not off the hook just because Jim Leslie places a gag order on you. Mr. Leslie sent this email today with a 56
page pdf file purporting to be my "file". I, as now a former client, have rights to "my file". I have requested my file in writing from your
office on numerous occasions, and given your removal as counsel of record on 11/22/12 (amazingly Mr. Dogan probably managed to say
200 words on a case that he had been counsel of record on for nearly a year, and had not managed to file a single document in that case,
RCR2012-065630, and had managed to get upset that a client would take issue with his missing the 2/13/12 Hearing, even though WCPD
Fortier's 2/6/12 email makes clear, the matter was assigned to Mr. Dogan at that point, and he had already sat down and discussed the case
with Coughlin for over one hour on or about February 8th, 2012, where Coughlin went to check in with Mary Watson, whom was then
represented by WCPD Branzell, who dragged Watson over to the Sparks Justice Court Bailiff and demanded they breathalyze her client.
They did, she was taken into custody.
So, after sitting down with Dogan for at least an hour and discussing various things, some including matters related to the case he was then
attorney of record on RCR2012-065630, the February 13th, 2012 court date (Dogan and Coughlin have conflicting views as to what was
agreed upon and the applications of NRS 178.388).
NRS 178.388 provides that the defendant must be present at arraignment, trial, and sentencing and provides that the defendant may waive his appearance when certain conditions are met.
Its kind of odd how Judge Clifton (whose attached bio indicates he has deep and longstanding ties to the domestic violence industry
infrastructure) knew instantaneous to signing the Order for Competency Evaluation of 2/27/12 at 1:31 pm that the matter would be
randomly assigned to District Court Judge Steven Elliot (also a lifelong prosecutor with deep and longstanding ties to the domestic
violence industrial complex, and a member of the Committee to Aid Abused Women's (CAAW, one of the named defendants in the
wrongful termination lawsuit Coughlin brought and over which Judge Steven Elliot presided in CV11-01955, where he failed to point out his
per se conflict of interest to plaintiff Coughlin at any time, and where he ultimately pulled out just about every wrinkle in the insufficiency of
service and or process and or service of process (a movie showing a non party over 18 years of age serving a senior paralegal at Washoe
Legal Services, whose Executive Director Paul Elcano went to Stanford with Judge Elliot and the Panel Chair of Coughlin's 11/14/12 Formal
Disciplinary Hearing before the State Bar of Nevada, John Echeverria in the late 1960s...and Judge Elliot worked at John Echeverria's father's
law firm, Echeverria and Osborne Board of Directors, in addition to being a former ass
In CV11-01955, Coughlin sued his former employer Washoe Legal Services, whose Executive Director Paul Elcano went to Stanford in the
late 1960s with Judge Steven Elliot and John Echeverria, the Panel Chair of Coughlin's 11/14/12 Formal Disciplinary Hearing before the State
Bar of Nevada..and Judge Elliot worked at John Echeverria's father's law firm, Echeverria and Osborne, and Judge Elliot served on the Board
for CAAW, and was a prosecutor as the Sparks City Attorney.
Also, Mr. Leslie, while the 56 page pdf you finally sent me (gosh, was it that hard to click "attach", load a 2 mb pdf file and hit "send" on an
email to me? No debatin', no arguing about whether Leslie and Dogan left the package at the desk, whether Dogan already gave it to
Coughlin, or whether Dogan then changed his story and said Leslie gave it to Coughlin, whether Coughlin already picked it up, no claims by
Jessica the Receptionist of anyone kickin' furniture...nothing like that, just a digitally verifiable means of ascertaining what you transmitted
and when...was that so hard? Heck, Jim, you could probably just email those ECOMM recordings too...and if attachment size is an issue,
sign up for a www.outlook.com (the new HoTMaiL, allowing up to 300 mb attachments via the SkyDrive functionality, and up to 100 mb
attachments via plan email, and over 25 free gb of storage on the Skydrive, etc., etc...). But its Leslie finally sent the 56 page "client's file"
on or about 12/7/12, yet he failed to include the insipid Motion of 11/26/12 by DDA Young (wherein, just after Judge Clifton finishes telling
Coughlin at the 11/27/12 Hearing that Coughlin is not allowed to even think about the other two RJC shotgunnin' style splatter paint
prosecutions by DDA Young, as "they are just not relevant to this proceeding"...and anytime Coughlin would point out specific basis for
undertaking a recusal or conflict analysis vis a vis either Judge Clifton, the RJC, DDA Young, the WCPD, or the WCDA, Judge Clifton would
say "your're losing me...your're losing me..." as if Coughlin was speaking in tongues all the sudden...
So, while Coughlin is reportedly not even allowed to email DDA Young about cases not even before Judge Clifton, or something like
that...DDA Young is able to get an unnoticed, ex parte, emergency Motion to Prho
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
From: Jleslie@washoecounty.us
CC: BDogan@washoecounty.us
Subject: 911 Case
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:09:08 +0000
Mr.Coughlin:
Attachedarethediscoverymaterialsintheabove-reIerencedcasethatyouhadrequestedandwehadmadeanadditionalcopyoIIoryouinresponsetoyourrequest. PleasenotethattheJuly27,
2012,coverletterwasIoryourpickupandyouneverpickeditup. NotealsothattheJuly27,2012,packetenclosesacopyoItheApril17,2012,handdeliverytransmittaloItheverysame
documentswhichyoureceived.
SincewehavebeenremovedIromthe911case,weareclosingourIile. TheattachedmaterialsweresittingatourIrontdesk. SinceyouIailedtoretrievethem,weprovidetheattachedcourtesy

copybeIoreIinalclosureoIourIile.
NoresponsetothistransmittalisrequiredIromyou.
JamesB.Leslie,Esq.
ChieIDeputyPublicDeIender
WashoeCountyPublicDeIendersOIIice
Close
350SouthCenterStreet
FiIthFloor
Reno,NV89509
1-800-762-8031
DirectDial:775-337-4828
Fax:775-337-4856
Email:jleslie@washoecounty.us

The contents of this communication and all accompanying documents and attachments contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, are legally privileged, and are intended for use and review only by the party sending same and the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, use or taking any action reliant on said contents are CONFIDENTIAL and strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at 775-337-4800 to arrange return of the original transmittal. Thank you.
--Forwarded Message Attachment--

Print
FW: misue of 911 case
From:Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 10/11/12 2:34 PM
To: jrains@washoecounty.us; cfortier@washoecounty.us; jgoodnight@washoecounty.us; ltibbals@washoeconty.us; lgray@washoecounty.us
5 attachments
011412 RJC RCR2012-065630 RCR2011-063341 RCR2012-067980 Reno Police Department Sargent Paul Sifre arrests Reno Attorney for misuse of 911 second arrest in 2 days by Sifre of Attorney.3gp
(11.8 MB) , Mental Health Court mh-0032 contract coughlin rcr2012-065630 rcr2011-065630 5 5 2012.pdf (596.5 KB) , email to bdogan@washoecounty.us 4 11 2012 had the Sifre arrest video.htm
(262.5 KB) , PAUL SIFRE TransparentNevada 185k per year.htm (3.3 KB) , rcr2012-065630 4 19 12 letter from dogan with Complaint and discovery attached and Order for Competency evaluation
from 2 27 12 sifre schaur pthoa misue 911.pdf (3.6 MB)
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: bdogan@washoecounty.us; jbosler@washoecounty.us; jleslie@washoecounty.us
Subject: misue of 911 case
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:20:22 -0700
Mr.Dogan,

Oh,lookatthat,thereistheMHCcontractwithCoughlinthatIailstoexcludethemedicationCoughlinwastakingandwhichtheMHCandBiondocitedastheirrationaleIor
expellingCoughlin,libellinghim,inIact. NotthatoldJenniIerRainswasgoingtoadvocateanythingaboutthat? IhavenoideawhatthepurposeoIevenhavingan
attorneythereis? AndJudgeElliotwasreallythrownIoraloopwhenBiraymentioneda"socialworker"onstaIIattheWCPD,inthattranscriptoItheApril27th,2011
HearingthatIIinallygotsmyhandson.

IamcurioustohearyorutheoryoIthecase(whetherthechargeberesistingorobstructingarrestorwhateveritwasYoungsoughttoamendtheComplaintto(somethingmore
inlinewitha'"eriouscrime"visavisaSCR111(6)analysis,oriIthechargeremaisnmisueoIemergencyservices. Pleaseprovidemewithanynovellegalresearchyou
culledIorthiscase. Additionally,yoruwerealreadyprovidedthesevideos,butheretheyareagain,videosoIbotharrestsmadeororderedbySargentSiIre(whogets$185K
ayearandaboutourage,Biray)withina36hourperiodoIeachother,withaninterveningpulloverbyOIIicerDuraldeand5otherRPDpersonnellateatnightaIterCoughlin
bondedoutonthecustodialarrestIorjaywalkingonJanuary12th,2012.
Biray,somepeoplemightsaythatDDAYounghasusedyou,theWCDAOIIicehasusedyou,theRMCandJudgeNashHolmeshaveusedyou,andperhpaseventhatMr.
BoslerandMr.Leslieareusingyou. Maybeyoulikeit. Maybeyoulikebeingused. Maybeyoulikebeingpushedaround. Maybeyouloveit. Maybethatis
whatyouaregoodat.
Biray,pleasetellmehowtrueanyoItheIollowingstrikesyouasbeing:
SCR 111(6): "Definition of serious crime. The term serious crime means (1) a felony and (2) any crime less
than a felony a necessary element of which is, as determined by the statutory or common-law definition of the crime,
improper conduct as an attorney, interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation,
fraud, willful failure to file an income tax return, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft, or an
attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a serious crime.
Coughlin's WCPD, Biray Dogan, Esq. and DDA Young, in the RJC prosecution for "misuse of emergency services" (911
calls), when considering their lack of candor to the tribunal, fairness to opposing counsel (given Coughlin filed a
Notice of Appearance and has the right to represent himself, and is an attorney), DDAYoung's repeated instances of
violating NRS with respect to all matters being stayed upon an Order for Competency Evaluation being entered against
a party, such a Coughlin, and the failure of Dogan to alert Coughlin to, or provide any copy of (depsite Coughlin's
repeated written demands) the July 31st, 2012 Motion to Amend Complaint (that, upon Judge Sferrazza querrying DDA
Young as to whether the DA even needed seek an Order allowing it to so amend such a Complaint, responded that the DA
did not, but that he was just seeking one "for purposes of keeping the record 'clean'", whatever in the world that
means. When viewed with Dogan, Young and Leslie's attempts to shuffle Coughlin on through the MSC process (DDA Young
indicated, to Judge Sferrazza, on the record, while attempting to check of the MSC box minutes before the Start of
the August 29th, 2012 iPhone petty larceny Trial, that he anticipated the MSC "only taking a couple minutes, at most"
and felt it was Coughlin's "obstructionist" and "difficult" attitude of "non-compliance" that was preventing him from
effecting his stated goal. DDA Young clearly subscribes to the RPD Ron Rosa/Nick Duralde school of "How's that
runnin' for ya" style retaliation, intimidation, and misconduct.
Most troubling about Dogan and DDA Young's apparent conspiracy to get an Order for Competency Evaluation against
Coughlin during their clandestine MSC of 2/27/12 (which, again, Coughlin was noticed, in writing, had been continued
out to March 29th, 2012), including impermissible communications to the RMC and Judge Nash Holmes (who arguably
violated NRS by continuing on with the traffic Trial just minutes after being made aware of the 2/27/12 Order for
Competency Evaluation in the RJC by Dogan and, perhaps, by DDA Young as well, is Dogan's failure to inform Coughlin
of DDA Young's RPC 3.8 violating Motion to Amend Criminal Complaint, wherein DDA Young seeks to alter the charge to
one that would invoke a mandatory SCR 111 Petition in light of SCR 111(6)'s definition of a "serious crime" and the
"statutory or common law definition" of the crime for which DDA Young, though lacking "probable cause" sufficient to
satisfy his RPC 3.8 duty, sought to have so amended to an "obstructing or resisting a public officer" charge, which
of course fits squarely in the "serious crime" definition set forth in SCR 111(6). So, no, Judge Sferrazza, Coughlin
was not "over-lawyering it" on August 29th, 2012 during the "only take a minute at most" MSC Dogan and DDA Young (and
Leslie) sought to slip past Judge Sferrazza right before the big iPhone petty larceny trial that may well decide
whether Coughlin can ever practice law again (including as a patent attorney before the USPTO). Coughlin, on the
record, risked going to jail when he indicated that what Dogan has just said with respect to whether Coughlin
objected to the State's so amending the Complaint was not what Coughlin had indicated to his counsel, in RCR2012-
065630 from a gross misdemeanor "misuse of 911" charge to a misdemeanor "obstructing and resisting a public officer
charge". Coughlin responded to Judge Sferrazza's incredulity at his objecting to amending to a lesser charge
(Coughlin indicated doing so, however counter-intuitive, "may somehow inure" to his benefit), then Judge Sferrazza
indicated Coughlin "definitely" was "over-lawyering it"...but then Peter J. went Peter J., likely sensing an attempt
to pull the wool over one's eyes, and because "game recognize game, real recognize real"...Judge Sferrazza decided to
not countenance Dogan and Young attempts to lead the RJC and Coughlin blindly (and in a MSC that "should only last a
minute or two at most" per DDA Young) through their tired, tacky, hackneyed, sordid little plan. There is a reason
Judge Sferrazza is often mentioned as the best of all the fine RJC Judges by long time local attorneys. Dogan and
Young, despite being well aware of the September 5th, 2012 Order for Competency Evaluation still have failed to
vacate the Motion Hearing set for October 2nd, 2012 in that regard.
Maybe old Zach Young gonna give his buddy Biray Dogan a job picking up his dry cleaning or somethin' when Dogan's get
disbarred on account of the primrose path he got led on down by ol' nice ol' Zach Young, whom is the "nice" and
"fair" one compared to Halstead and...remember saying that B-Town? He nicin' you into bar grievances and sticky
wickets a plenty.
Loading video preview from YouTube
There was a problem connecting to YouTube. This video may not exist or it may only play on YouTube. Try going to their website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to_UOFIccLw
Dear Mr. Bosler,
Mr. Dogan's malpractice and violations of the RPD are bad enough. Your compounding them with your mincing, nonsensical interpretation of Dogan's tacky commentary on my suit and tie ("so, are you workin'
construction these days?") is something much worse. As was supervisor Jim Leslie's painful attempts at humor prior to a hearing wherein he attempted to mitigate risk from behind the bar, from gallery, after
admittedly muzzling Joe Goodnight, who I respected at one time. Mr. Goodnight, please do not speak with Biray Dogan about my case ever, at all. I am formally requesting under FOIA and the Nevada Open
Records law copies of all emails and other correspondence between anyone with the WCPD and anyone with the WCDA. Mr. Dogan, your commentary regarding Ms. Halstead was especially troubling. I am
formally forbidding anyone with the WCPD from speaking with anyone with the Reno Municipal Court or otherwise sharing any documentation, any copies of micro sd card data that was seized from an attorney in open
court under a search incident to arrest following a pretexutal summary contempt arrest (which came just moments after the Judge began a sua sponte interrogation of the attorney in an apparent attempt to protect
Reno City Attorney Ormaas and RMC Marshal Harley from their own misconduct and intentional failure to document admissions of bribery by the RPD's Officer Chris Carter involving Richard G. Hill, Esq. incident to a
pathetic criminal trespass arrest in the context of a civil eviction proceeding, especially where Hill admits on film and in writing that he was seeking to charge the same $900 "fair rental value" of the tenant, that was
attendant to full use and occupancy, in violation of the prohibition of such unlawful rent distraints under NRS 118A.520 and in a perverted interpretation of NRS 118A.460.
RJC Court Administrator Steve Tuttle assures me that he will get to the bottom of these retaliatory competency evaluation requests and the complete and utter lack of documentation in these files setting forth any
reasonable basis for so seeking such and evaluation, and the apparent dishonesty attendant to filings which indicate that a hearing and motion exist in that regard where no such hearing or motion was ever
conducted. Further, Mr. Goodnight, the file int he RJC for the matter you are attached to indicates that I need to be arraigned on the second charged. That has not been done. Please have the Trial date vacated,
and file a Motion to Dismiss based upon the right to a speedy trial found in the Sixth Amendment. Further, Mr. Dogan and Mr. Goodnight constantly quote me the "basis in fact and law" language in NRCP Rule 11
when explaining their complete failure and refusal to do anything I ask be done in my case (subpoena officer's personnel file, file a motion in limine, etc., etc.) then turn right around and indicate that NRCP Rule 11 is
inapplicable in a criminal setting when explaining their refusal to move for sanctions or file any sort of motion or grievance against DDA Zach Young, Esq., and the WCDA's office for continuing to prosecute this pathetic
gross misdemeanor "misuse of 911" charge against a victim of domestic violence (according to Master Edmondson in FV12-00188 and FV12-00187 and NRS 33.018) even where the DA has been provided a video of the
arresting RPD Sargent Sifre admitting he was engaging in classic "blame the victim" police work wherein Sifre admits, on film, that he is making the arrest because the victim keeps putting their self into situations where
they are victimized. Further troubling is that RPD Sargent Zach Thew had directed the victim to make such a call, though Sifre curtly and dismissively rebuked such involvement by Sargent Thew. About six weeks
later, Sargent Sifre then subsequently went on to detain Coughlin for over an hour (after Sifre had, in his own word, screwed up and let out Coughlin's dog during a subsequent and legitimate "misuse of 911" violation
by someone other than Coughlin, who could articulate no basis whatsoever for their apparent "fear" sufficient to support at least two 911 calls within a couple hours.
The wrongful arrest for which a gross misdemeanor charge is still being Nifonged by DDA Zach Young and for which DPD Biray Dogan has sought a retaliatory competency evaluation after Coughlin reported and
criticized Dogan's failure to appear for a court date:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU3t_kRR0RA
The jaywalking arrest of Coughlin for which Hill was awarded a Protection Order by the RJC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBu9zflGALE
Further, DPD Goodnight. You have failed to provide me with the recent motion work in RJC RCR 2012-063341, including the disclosure of witnesses. Amazingly, you have disclosed a "Colton Templeton" while
refusing to disclose Nicole Watson or Lucy Byington, two individuals who were there when the unidentified man threatened to "throw this phone in the river if somebody doesn't claim it right now". This "Lawyer
Kevorkian" approach needs to cease, Mr. Goodnight.
The Arrest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PR7q4OI5b0
Nicole Watson admitting that she heard the man saying he would throw this phone in the river if somebody doesn't claim it right now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to_UOFIccLw
Biray Dogan is not very fond of individuals recording events and conversations, however, without the above recordings, it is a very different landscape here.
Further, your WCPD office has repeatedly refused to indicate, in writing, why an SB89 form and or "motion" for Order for Competency Evaluation was sought, after a "hearing" for BOTH of the competency evaluations
I have been ordered to undergo. Mr. Hylin admitted to me that no "hearing" was held, however, the record at the RJC filing office indicates "upon motion of Defendants counsel and after a hearing on the matter an
Order for Competency Evaluation....". There was no hearing. There was no motion. There was a retaliatory motive. There is an impermissible quid pro quo between Lake's Crossing and the WCPD, and an illegal
tying arrangement with Lake's Crossing, which subjects those forced to have evaluations done there to impermissible searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment and which filed with the RJC lie riddled note
attempting to describe my first trip down to Lake's Crossing. I wish to have other evaluators perform these evaluations and want to be reimbursed for the cost of doing so. Please let me know, in writing, how much
your office pays Lake's Crossing (Judge Sferrazza sent the bill back to you after the last evaluation, or at least made statements in court that he would do so, given how weak Goodnight and Hylin's rationale was for
seeking such an evaluation in the first place, in pathetic combination with Goodnight immediate request to be allowed out of the case at the status conference hearing following the evaluation. Judge Sferrazza pointed
out to Goodnight how very intellectually dishonest it was for he and the WCPD to alternately force me to have such and evaluation conducted, only to immediately seek to withdraw, then to divulge client confidences in
open court over the remonstrances of the client.
Lorrain Pelosi, from Lake's Crossing indicates that "we have a contract with the Public Defender" and, therefore, I am only able to utilize a non-Lake's Crossing evaluator if I have a "private attorney". Further, she
indicates that I will not be provided reimbursement for using a non-Lake's Crossing evaluator if I utilize the services of the WCPD.
Further, there are reports that Mr. Dogan and someone else from the WCPD called Department 3 of the RMC and made impermissible communications in violation of the duty of confidentiality attendant to the
attorney-client relationship. This is not the first report of such a violation, Mr. Bosler, and the practice of having WCPD's drag their clients to Bailiff's to have blood alcohol level breath tests forced upon them based
upon "hunches" and the DPD's "duty to the court" is rather suspect.
Lastly, RJC Bailiff John Reyes, whom has previously menacingly indicated to Coughlin that he would "put my foot up your ass" (at a time during which Bailiff Reyes was attempting to prevent Coughlin from standing
near the second floor filing counter in the RJC to hear what Coughlin's Deputy Public Defender Goodnight and Goodnight's supervisor were purporting to the RJC counter staff). Bailiff Reyes now obsessively positions
himself all over the RMC And RJC Courthouse to insure he will encounter Coughlin as each and every court appearance Coughlin has, whereupon Reyes will offer a menancing glare that he alternates with a shingle
eating smile and cutesy commentary. Bailiff Reyes will then follow Coughlin around from the RJC's civil filing office to its criminal filing office, hounding Coughlin and insisting that Coughlin leave. While Richard G.
Hill, Esq. was extremely successful in getting a protection order from Judge Schroeder of the RJC, in a scant 40 minutes from the time he filed it no less (and that application contained perjury by Hill that was
subsequently unveiled at the hearing on Hill's Motion for Order to Show Cause before Judge Flanagan on 3/23/12), Coughlin was not so successful in getting a Protection Order against Bailiff Reyes. While Hill's
protection order application contained only unsupported hearsay, and some nonsense about climbing on a truck (which was thoroughly discredited at the 3/23/12 Hearing in D7), Coughlin's TPO application against
Bailiff Reyes actually set forth a threat of sexual assault, yet Coughlin did not even get a hearing on the matter and now Bailiff Reyes has amped up his misbehavior. This, in combination with RJC civil office counter
clerk Christine Erickson brazen refusal to file various exigent Motion's and Notices of Appeal and other landlord tenant based filings submitted by Coughlin, despite Coughlin providing the RJC with support for his
contention that such refusals are clearly in violation of established Nevada law and contribute to substantial losses to Coughlin personally and professionaly. Most ironic of all, Bailiff Reyes, recently, explained to RJC
Court Administrator Tuttle in Coughlin's presence at the RJC civil division filing office that Reyes "does not think it is appropriate" for Coughlin to have any communications with RJC civil division filing office staff of
anything other than the most brief and sterile nature. Apparently Bailiff Reyes finds telling Coughlin, under color of law, and for no legitimate reason, that he will "put my foot up your ass", while, curiously Bailiff
Reyes somehow finds Coughlin's sayign "hello" and "how was your weekend" to filing office staff to be "inappropriate".
Further, Richard G. HIll, Esq. threatened Coughlin at the 12/20/11 Hearing on Coughlin's Motion to Release Personal Property (where Coughlin as charged the outrageous sum of $30 per day "storage" and forced to pay
a lien for the contents of his former law office after Richard G. Hill, Esq.'s negligence cause it to be burglarized on December 12, 2011, something for which Hill now seeks to have Coughlin pay for in his ridiculous
Memorandum of Costs on appeal in D7 in CV11-03628) when Hill exclaimed to Coughlin, in front of Bailiff Reyes and Chief Bailiff Sexton (whom has also made threatening commentary to Coughlin on multiple occasions
seeking to prevent Coughlin from filing documents with the RJC incident to exigent eviction matters) that Hill, too, "would like to stick something up Coughlin's ass". Hill said this in a loud voice approximately 20
feet from Coughlin, with Bailiff Reyes and Chief Bailiff Sexton standing near Hill, all three gentlemen sharing a good laugh, during a recess, but while in the courtroom, in RJC Rev201-001708's 12/20/11 Hearing. Judge
Sferrazza was informed of this on the record. Please place a copy of this formal complaint in both Deputy Reyes and Chief Deputy Sexton's employment and personnel files.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.,PO BOX 60952, RENO, NV, 89506,tel:7753388118,Iax:9496677402;ZachCoughlinhotmail.com NevadaBarNo:9473
There was a problem connecting to YouTube. This video may not exist or it may only play on YouTube. Try going to their website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PR7q4OI5b0
There was a problem connecting to YouTube. This video may not exist or it may only play on YouTube. Try going to their website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to_UOFIccLw
Dear Mr. Bosler,
Mr. Dogan's malpractice and violations of the RPD are bad enough. Your compounding them with your mincing, nonsensical interpretation of Dogan's tacky commentary on my suit and tie ("so, are you workin'
construction these days?") is something much worse. As was supervisor Jim Leslie's painful attempts at humor prior to a hearing wherein he attempted to mitigate risk from behind the bar, from gallery, after
admittedly muzzling Joe Goodnight, who I respected at one time. Mr. Goodnight, please do not speak with Biray Dogan about my case ever, at all. I am formally requesting under FOIA and the Nevada Open
Records law copies of all emails and other correspondence between anyone with the WCPD and anyone with the WCDA. Mr. Dogan, your commentary regarding Ms. Halstead was especially troubling. I am
formally forbidding anyone with the WCPD from speaking with anyone with the Reno Municipal Court or otherwise sharing any documentation, any copies of micro sd card data that was seized from an attorney in open
court under a search incident to arrest following a pretexutal summary contempt arrest (which came just moments after the Judge began a sua sponte interrogation of the attorney in an apparent attempt to protect
Reno City Attorney Ormaas and RMC Marshal Harley from their own misconduct and intentional failure to document admissions of bribery by the RPD's Officer Chris Carter involving Richard G. Hill, Esq. incident to a
pathetic criminal trespass arrest in the context of a civil eviction proceeding, especially where Hill admits on film and in writing that he was seeking to charge the same $900 "fair rental value" of the tenant, that was
attendant to full use and occupancy, in violation of the prohibition of such unlawful rent distraints under NRS 118A.520 and in a perverted interpretation of NRS 118A.460.
RJC Court Administrator Steve Tuttle assures me that he will get to the bottom of these retaliatory competency evaluation requests and the complete and utter lack of documentation in these files setting forth any
reasonable basis for so seeking such and evaluation, and the apparent dishonesty attendant to filings which indicate that a hearing and motion exist in that regard where no such hearing or motion was ever
conducted. Further, Mr. Goodnight, the file int he RJC for the matter you are attached to indicates that I need to be arraigned on the second charged. That has not been done. Please have the Trial date vacated,
and file a Motion to Dismiss based upon the right to a speedy trial found in the Sixth Amendment. Further, Mr. Dogan and Mr. Goodnight constantly quote me the "basis in fact and law" language in NRCP Rule 11
when explaining their complete failure and refusal to do anything I ask be done in my case (subpoena officer's personnel file, file a motion in limine, etc., etc.) then turn right around and indicate that NRCP Rule 11 is
inapplicable in a criminal setting when explaining their refusal to move for sanctions or file any sort of motion or grievance against DDA Zach Young, Esq., and the WCDA's office for continuing to prosecute this pathetic
gross misdemeanor "misuse of 911" charge against a victim of domestic violence (according to Master Edmondson in FV12-00188 and FV12-00187 and NRS 33.018) even where the DA has been provided a video of the
arresting RPD Sargent Sifre admitting he was engaging in classic "blame the victim" police work wherein Sifre admits, on film, that he is making the arrest because the victim keeps putting their self into situations where
they are victimized. Further troubling is that RPD Sargent Zach Thew had directed the victim to make such a call, though Sifre curtly and dismissively rebuked such involvement by Sargent Thew. About six weeks
later, Sargent Sifre then subsequently went on to detain Coughlin for over an hour (after Sifre had, in his own word, screwed up and let out Coughlin's dog during a subsequent and legitimate "misuse of 911" violation
by someone other than Coughlin, who could articulate no basis whatsoever for their apparent "fear" sufficient to support at least two 911 calls within a couple hours.
The wrongful arrest for which a gross misdemeanor charge is still being Nifonged by DDA Zach Young and for which DPD Biray Dogan has sought a retaliatory competency evaluation after Coughlin reported and
criticized Dogan's failure to appear for a court date:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU3t_kRR0RA
The jaywalking arrest of Coughlin for which Hill was awarded a Protection Order by the RJC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBu9zflGALE
Further, DPD Goodnight. You have failed to provide me with the recent motion work in RJC RCR 2012-063341, including the disclosure of witnesses. Amazingly, you have disclosed a "Colton Templeton" while
refusing to disclose Nicole Watson or Lucy Byington, two individuals who were there when the unidentified man threatened to "throw this phone in the river if somebody doesn't claim it right now". This "Lawyer
Kevorkian" approach needs to cease, Mr. Goodnight.
The Arrest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PR7q4OI5b0
Nicole Watson admitting that she heard the man saying he would throw this phone in the river if somebody doesn't claim it right now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to_UOFIccLw
Biray Dogan is not very fond of individuals recording events and conversations, however, without the above recordings, it is a very different landscape here.
Further, your WCPD office has repeatedly refused to indicate, in writing, why an SB89 form and or "motion" for Order for Competency Evaluation was sought, after a "hearing" for BOTH of the competency evaluations
I have been ordered to undergo. Mr. Hylin admitted to me that no "hearing" was held, however, the record at the RJC filing office indicates "upon motion of Defendants counsel and after a hearing on the matter an
Order for Competency Evaluation....". There was no hearing. There was no motion. There was a retaliatory motive. There is an impermissible quid pro quo between Lake's Crossing and the WCPD, and an illegal
tying arrangement with Lake's Crossing, which subjects those forced to have evaluations done there to impermissible searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment and which filed with the RJC lie riddled note
attempting to describe my first trip down to Lake's Crossing. I wish to have other evaluators perform these evaluations and want to be reimbursed for the cost of doing so. Please let me know, in writing, how much
your office pays Lake's Crossing (Judge Sferrazza sent the bill back to you after the last evaluation, or at least made statements in court that he would do so, given how weak Goodnight and Hylin's rationale was for
seeking such an evaluation in the first place, in pathetic combination with Goodnight immediate request to be allowed out of the case at the status conference hearing following the evaluation. Judge Sferrazza pointed
out to Goodnight how very intellectually dishonest it was for he and the WCPD to alternately force me to have such and evaluation conducted, only to immediately seek to withdraw, then to divulge client confidences in
open court over the remonstrances of the client.
Lorrain Pelosi, from Lake's Crossing indicates that "we have a contract with the Public Defender" and, therefore, I am only able to utilize a non-Lake's Crossing evaluator if I have a "private attorney". Further, she
indicates that I will not be provided reimbursement for using a non-Lake's Crossing evaluator if I utilize the services of the WCPD.
Further, there are reports that Mr. Dogan and someone else from the WCPD called Department 3 of the RMC and made impermissible communications in violation of the duty of confidentiality attendant to the
attorney-client relationship. This is not the first report of such a violation, Mr. Bosler, and the practice of having WCPD's drag their clients to Bailiff's to have blood alcohol level breath tests forced upon them based
upon "hunches" and the DPD's "duty to the court" is rather suspect.
Lastly, RJC Bailiff John Reyes, whom has previously menacingly indicated to Coughlin that he would "put my foot up your ass" (at a time during which Bailiff Reyes was attempting to prevent Coughlin from standing
near the second floor filing counter in the RJC to hear what Coughlin's Deputy Public Defender Goodnight and Goodnight's supervisor were purporting to the RJC counter staff). Bailiff Reyes now obsessively positions
himself all over the RMC And RJC Courthouse to insure he will encounter Coughlin as each and every court appearance Coughlin has, whereupon Reyes will offer a menancing glare that he alternates with a shingle
eating smile and cutesy commentary. Bailiff Reyes will then follow Coughlin around from the RJC's civil filing office to its criminal filing office, hounding Coughlin and insisting that Coughlin leave. While Richard G.
Hill, Esq. was extremely successful in getting a protection order from Judge Schroeder of the RJC, in a scant 40 minutes from the time he filed it no less (and that application contained perjury by Hill that was
subsequently unveiled at the hearing on Hill's Motion for Order to Show Cause before Judge Flanagan on 3/23/12), Coughlin was not so successful in getting a Protection Order against Bailiff Reyes. While Hill's
protection order application contained only unsupported hearsay, and some nonsense about climbing on a truck (which was thoroughly discredited at the 3/23/12 Hearing in D7), Coughlin's TPO application against
Bailiff Reyes actually set forth a threat of sexual assault, yet Coughlin did not even get a hearing on the matter and now Bailiff Reyes has amped up his misbehavior. This, in combination with RJC civil office counter
clerk Christine Erickson brazen refusal to file various exigent Motion's and Notices of Appeal and other landlord tenant based filings submitted by Coughlin, despite Coughlin providing the RJC with support for his
contention that such refusals are clearly in violation of established Nevada law and contribute to substantial losses to Coughlin personally and professionaly. Most ironic of all, Bailiff Reyes, recently, explained to RJC
Court Administrator Tuttle in Coughlin's presence at the RJC civil division filing office that Reyes "does not think it is appropriate" for Coughlin to have any communications with RJC civil division filing office staff of
anything other than the most brief and sterile nature. Apparently Bailiff Reyes finds telling Coughlin, under color of law, and for no legitimate reason, that he will "put my foot up your ass", while, curiously Bailiff
Reyes somehow finds Coughlin's sayign "hello" and "how was your weekend" to filing office staff to be "inappropriate".
Further, Richard G. HIll, Esq. threatened Coughlin at the 12/20/11 Hearing on Coughlin's Motion to Release Personal Property (where Coughlin as charged the outrageous sum of $30 per day "storage" and forced to pay
a lien for the contents of his former law office after Richard G. Hill, Esq.'s negligence cause it to be burglarized on December 12, 2011, something for which Hill now seeks to have Coughlin pay for in his ridiculous
Memorandum of Costs on appeal in D7 in CV11-03628) when Hill exclaimed to Coughlin, in front of Bailiff Reyes and Chief Bailiff Sexton (whom has also made threatening commentary to Coughlin on multiple occasions
seeking to prevent Coughlin from filing documents with the RJC incident to exigent eviction matters) that Hill, too, "would like to stick something up Coughlin's ass". Hill said this in a loud voice approximately 20
feet from Coughlin, with Bailiff Reyes and Chief Bailiff Sexton standing near Hill, all three gentlemen sharing a good laugh, during a recess, but while in the courtroom, in RJC Rev201-001708's 12/20/11 Hearing. Judge
Sferrazza was informed of this on the record. Please place a copy of this formal complaint in both Deputy Reyes and Chief Deputy Sexton's employment and personnel files.
Sincerely,
yourofficerefusedwhatItriedtodeliverityesterday
DDAYoungretaliatoryprosecutionofdomesticviolencevictim
Position
Reno
Year 2011
Base Pay $94,927.67
Overtime and
Callback Collected
$11,088.45
Other Pay $19,378.03
Total Pay $125,394.15
Benefits Accumulated $60,068.55
Total Pay & Benefits $185,462.70
State Government: Salaries, CAFRS, Main Contracts Page, State Financial Documents
Education: CCSD Warrants, NSHE Budgets
Politicians: 2012 Transparency Survey, Congressional Disbursements
Connect: Facebook, Twitter
About Us: Contact Us, FAQ, Disclaimer
TransparentNevada is provided by the Nevada Policy Research Institute as a public service.
Sent: Thu12/06/121:26PM
To: zyoungda.washoecounty.us(zyoungda.washoecounty.us);ramossreno.gov(ramossreno.gov)
plusiambeinghassledbycourthousesecurity,whichimpliesthatyour"noIaxing"exparteOrder(whichistillhavenotbeensuppliedacopyoIthe
MotiontheretodespiteexpresswrittenrequeststothewCPdandtheRJCIilingoIIice)wasmeanttocreatejustsuchasituation. I am forced to copy you on the
file stamped 12 5 12 filing given these circumstances.
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Zach has a file to share with you on SkyDrive. To view it, click the link below.
12 5 12 065630 refiled from 11 27 12 with new addition to ex 1OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND, OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF.pdf

Sent: Thu12/06/121:05PM
To: ramossreno.gov(ramossreno.gov);zyoungda.washoecounty.us(zyoungda.washoecounty.us)
I need help. DDA Young is support the "blame the victim" approach of the RPD, which conveniently enables their Soldal v. Cook County misconduct as well...
Bailiffsdetainingme,violatingcourthousesanctuarydoctrine,physicallyrestrainingme,andpreventingaccesstofilingoffice
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
fv12-00187 allaback tpo application minutes and order and ronjones@nvenergy.com emails.pdf
SAM_0204 RPD SIFRE MISUSE OF 911 ARREST 1 14 12 JACKSON MISSING DOG_00009.mp4
SAM_0190_mpeg4 rpd hill sifre jaywalking 11 cr 26405 11 tr 26800 rmc.mp4
RPD 12-974 065630.WMA
rcr2012-065630 4 19 12 letter from dogan with Complaint and discovery attached and Order for Competency evaluation rpd sifre thew dogan weaver wcso rmc from 2 27 12 sifre schaur pthoa m.pdf
Download all

Sent: Thu12/06/1212:39PM
To: stuttlewashoecounty.us(stuttlewashoecounty.us);roperjreno.gov(roperjreno.gov)
DearMr.TuttleandChieIRoper,
ThisMonday,BailiIIReyesphysicallypushedmeinmyabdomenwithhisrightarmintheDASoIIice,andpurportedtobedetainingmeIorthepurpose
oIviolatingcourthousesanctuarydoctrine(asBailiIIPlamondondidonNovember3,2011inRev2011-001708inpurportingtobeservinganOrderby
you,thoughitbarednothingmorethanarubberstampingoIyourname...regardless,itdoesn'tmatchupwiththeDecember17th,and18th,unsworn
statementsbyJocelynJonasandKarenStancilandJonas'sunnoticed"testimonyonDecember20th,2011respectingmyalleged"reIusaltoallowtheRJC
toset"thehearingthatIshowedupIorandcheckedinwithChieIBailiIISextononNovember22nd,2011inREv2011-001708.)
Regardless,thisisaIormalComplaintagainstBailiIIReyeswhocontinuestoharassmeconstantly,underyournegligenthiring,trainingand
supervision. BailiIIAnthonyEnlgishdeniedmeaccesstotheIilingoIIiceonTuesdayoIthisweekaswellwhenIpresentedpriortothedoorclosingor
locking,thenheindictedhewasgoingintotheIilingoIIicetoseekclariIicationastothelegitimacyoIhisdoingso(theweekpriorhemadeathreatening
statementtomeabouthowI"certainlyhaveawayabout(you)"inanindicationthatIhadbeenupsettingvariousRJCJudgesandStaIIinmyattemptsto
deIendmyselIagainsttheretaliatoryprosecutionsandlandlordtenantsmattersIamapartytointheRJCandRMC. PleaseplaceacopyoIthis
ComplaintinbothoItheiremploymentIiles. Yesterday,Iorthesecondtimethisweek,RMCMarshalMenzelIollowedmeovertotheRJCFiling
OIIiceandthenupanddownIromtheWCDA'sOIIice. TheCourthouseSecurityworkedwhoisabrunetteIemale (onapproximatelyJuly17th,2011
shethreatenedmeintheDistrictCourt,tellingme"youbetterwatchyourstep"inrelationtomyattemptingtoaccesstheIilingoIIice).
CourthousesecurityandtheRJCBailiIIshaveanobvioussystemoIsignallinginplacethatseekstohaveaBailiIIclosetheRJCFIlingoIIicedoorprior
to5pmshouldIenterthebuildingcloseintimethereto. ThiscreatesandappearanceoIimpropriety.
PleaseplaceacopyoIthisIormalwrittencomplaintinallIouroItheseindividual'spersonnelIiles.
youremailwasunreadable
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Sent: Wed12/05/124:05PM
To: Dilworthreno.gov(dilworthreno.gov);ncjdinIojudicial.state.nv.us(ncjdinIojudicial.state.nv.us)
Dear Judge Dilworth,
I could not read your email of 3:38 pm. It seems you sent it shortly after this though:
From: Voxox (noreply@voxox.com) This sender is in your safe list.
Sent: Wed 12/05/12 3:24 PM
Hi zachcoughlin,
Your Fax was successfully sent to 3d2eb020-3ed4-44c2-a744-504ffb688076general693298 ( 17756873607).
Your Fax was delivered @ 11:24:52 PM on 2012-12-05.
xoxo,
The Voxox Team
This message was intended for zachcoughlin@hotmail.com. Want to control which emails you receive from Voxox? Get Voxox: http://download.voxox.com and adjust your Notifications in the Settings/Preferences
window. Voxox by TelCentris, Inc. is located at 10180 Telesis Ct., San Diego, CA 92109.
And the contents of what was sent in that, and the proximity of your response, well..
But if your email was sent at 3:38 pm, and my fax was sent marked "successfully sent" by me at 3:24 pm, and add to that the following:
"
Submission of multiple Judicial Discipline Commission Complaints
Sent: Wed 12/05/12 3:33 PM
To: ncjdinfo@judicial.state.nv.us (ncjdinfo@judicial.state.nv.us)
Dear Commission,
Please see attached. I think "page 16" (the nvbar.org contact page for Panel Chair
Echeverria with my comments) may be missing my comments on the "first fax" version I
actually faxed to the Commission. Out of respect for the Commission, and due to my
indigency and the terrible raping I have sustained this year at the hands of a rogue
collective of Judges, I cannot afford to print or mail the 1,000 attachment or the
cd/dvds/digital media linked to in my complaints, and I am hesistant to burden the
Commission's fax machine without herein first provide warning of an impending fax of
substantial length and opportunity for the Commission to assent to acceptance of service
thereof electronically, by email and links to my Skydrive's and the video that someone
has posted on youtube.com
Respectfully Submitted,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Tel T ll T lll Teeeeeel lll TTTeeeeeeeeeeel el l Te TTTeeeeeee Te Te Te Teeeeeeeelll TTeeelll TTTeeeeeeeeell el l TTTTeeeeeeeeeell el Teeeeeeel Teee Teee Teee Tee
first fax judicial discipline commission complaints...
Zac ZZaaaaaaaaaa ZZaaaaaaaaaaccc ZZaaaaaac ZZZZaaaaaaaaaac acc ZZZZaaaaaaaaacc ZZZZaaaaaaac ZZa Za Zaaaaaaaaacc
judicial discipline commission complaints ...
"...
Well, it just kind of has a certain appearance to it...When viewed in the context of the
RMC and RJC recently claiming to have lost or not received multiple cd/dvd attachments
to filings by myself, and the RMC's failure in 11 cr 26405, to include such materials or the
11/2/12 filing in RMC 11 CR 26405 into what was transmitted on to the District Court on
11/30/12 or so....
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
formalwrittengrievanceagainstSkau,Young,Leslie,Dogan,etc.FW:911callsmissingfromwhatwasproducedbyCity
AttorneySkau
.
Sent: Tue12/04/122:07PM
To: HomerJreno.gov(homerjreno.gov);skaucreno.gov(skaucreno.gov);zyoungda.washoecounty.us(zyoungda.washoecounty.us);complaintsnvbar.org(complaintsnvbar.org);
patrickknvbar.org(patrickknvbar.org);davidcnvbar.org(davidcnvbar.org);jeeloreno.com(jeeloreno.com);skentskentlaw.com(skentskentlaw.com);cvellisbhIs.com
(cvellisbhIs.com);miketahoelawyer.com(miketahoelawyer.com);eiIert.ntaatt.net(eiIert.ntaatt.net);nevtelassnsbcglobal.net(nevtelassnsbcglobal.net);rosecnvbar.org
(rosecnvbar.org);laurapnvbar.org(laurapnvbar.org);philpnvbar.org(philpnvbar.org);glennmnvbar.org(glennmnvbar.org);IIlahertydlpId.com(IIlahertydlpId.com);
IIlahertydyerlawrence.com(IIlahertydyerlawrence.com);tsusichnvdetr.org(tsusichnvdetr.org);schornsbynvdetr.org(schornsbynvdetr.org);bdoganwashoecounty.us
(bdoganwashoecounty.us);jlesliewashoecounty.us(jlesliewashoecounty.us)
12attachments
CR11-2064-2676094(OppositiontoMotiontoDismissCR11-2064-2676094.pdI).pdI(167.7KB),11712subpoenas063341gricelaalvarezandhassettprooIoIserviceorwaivers.pdI
(10.4MB),CR11-2064MOTIONFOREXTENSIONOFTIME(MtnIorExtensionoITime).pdI(132.1KB),CR11-2064-2655401(MtntoDismiss...).pdI(117.4KB),CR11-2064-
2676094(Exhibit2).pdI(133.6KB),CR11-2064-2676094(Exhibit3).pdI(48.0KB),111912coughlin4.wmv(298.2KB),111912coughlin6.wmv(3.6MB),112712112912and12312
emailstopsIerrazzawashoecounty.usandzyoungda.washoecountys.usinresponsetoOrdertosubmitmaterialsregardingLeslie'sineIIectiveassistance0633410204.htm(245.1KB),
11812Homeremailand11912Skauemail0633410204.htm(121.3KB),671260838OrdertemporarilysuspendedCoughlin'slawlicensescr111020412-17976.pdI(198.3KB),121
30noticethatlaurapetersaIIidavitoI10912iswhopperchocked0204withindextoexhibitsneedsattachment.pdI(327.9KB)
DearOIIiceoIBarCounsel,
ThisisaIormalgrievanceagainstCityAttorneySkau,PublicDeIenderJimLeslieandBirayDogan,andDDAZachYoung.
AportionoIarecentemailIromCityAttorneySkaureads:
"Fwd:FW:CaseNo.RCR2011-063341
From: CreightonC.Skau (skaucreno.gov)
Sent: Fri11/09/1211:45AM
To: zachcoughlinhotmail.com
Cc: JeannieHomer(HomerJreno.gov)
1attachment
photo|1|.JPG (181.2KB)
DearMr.Coughlin,
Pleasebeadvisedthat1udgeSferazaauthorizedserviceuponyoubyemailinanOrder. Accordingly,
authorizedservicehasalreadybeeneffected.
SinceyouclaimyoucannotopenthepdIattachmentstomysecretary'slastemail,IoIIeralternatives:
1. SetIorthbelowisthelanguageoIJudgeSIeraza'sOrderandthelanguageoItheCity'sMotion.
UnIortunately,Icannotreplicatetheattachments. However,theyconsistedmostlyoI documentsyoupurportedlyserved,so
youshouldbeIamiliarwiththem. Also,IamprovidingalternativemeansIoryoutoobtainthedocuments,asset
Iorth hereaIter.
2. TheCourtprovideduswithanaddresswhichyouprovidedtotheCourt. Thataddressis 1471E.9th
St.,
Reno,NV89512. RenoCarsonMessangerServiceattemptedtoserveyouatthataddressyestarday,butyouwereapparently
notthere. Today,RenoCarsonMessangerServiceagainattemptedtoserveyouthereataround11:00a.m. Theycalledmy
oIIiceandweredirectedtoleavetheJudgesOrderandtheCity'smotionattheIrontoIthataddress. Theyhaveprovidedme
withaphotographoIthepacketleItattheIrontdoor. (Attached). Accordingly,youcanobtaintheseitemsatthat
address.
3. YoumayalsocallourOIIiceat334-2050andrequestacopyIromMs.Homer,whichyoumaypick
up atourOIIice,thirdIlooroICityHall.
Pleasebeadvisedthat1udgeSferazaauthorizedserviceuponyoubyemailinanOrder. Accordingly,authorizedservicehasalreadybeeneffected.
1. SetIorthbelowisthelanguageoIJudgeSIeraza'sOrderandthelanguageoItheCity'sMotion. UnIortunately,Icannotreplicatetheattachments. However,theyconsisted
mostlyoI documentsyoupurportedlyserved,soyoushouldbeIamiliarwiththem. Also,IamprovidingalternativemeansIoryoutoobtainthedocuments,assetIorth hereaIter.
2. TheCourtprovideduswithanaddresswhichyouprovidedtotheCourt. Thataddressis 1471E.9thSt.,
Reno,NV89512. RenoCarsonMessangerServiceattemptedtoserveyouatthataddressyestarday,butyouwereapparentlynotthere. Today,RenoCarsonMessangerServiceagainattemptedto
serveyouthereataround11:00a.m. TheycalledmyoIIiceandweredirectedtoleavetheJudgesOrderandtheCity'smotionattheIrontoIthataddress. Theyhaveprovidedmewithaphotograph
oIthepacketleItattheIrontdoor. (Attached). Accordingly,youcanobtaintheseitemsatthataddress.
3. YoumayalsocallourOIIiceat334-2050andrequestacopyIromMs.Homer,whichyoumaypickup atourOIIice,thirdIlooroICityHall...."
But,alistentoaroundthe9:25ammarkontheaudiotranscriptIormtheRJCJavsrecordingoI the11/8/12hearinginrcr2011-063341revealsMr.SkauIraudulentlyprocurredCouglin'sattendanceat
the11/13/12Hearing(andconsidering11/12/12wasaholiday,SkauwouldhavebeenpreventedIromeIIectingcontstructiveservicepriortothe11/13/12hearingdateset...Thisprejudicednotonly
Coughlin'sIormaldisciplinaryhearingbutalsothepettylarcenytrialoI11/19and11/20andisastraightscumbagmovebyCreigSkau.
JudgeSIerrazzagrantedCoughlinawaiveroIwitnessIeesIorsubpoenasandsubpoenaducestecumsatthe48minutemarkoIthesecondwmvIileIromtheJAVSaudiotranswcriptoIthe 10/22/12
HearinginRCR2012-063341.
Regardless,CityAttorneySkaunotonlydoesn'tknowwhoJeremyBosler,Esq.is,buthecitestoaJCRCP45tochallengeasubpoenainacriminalmisdemeanorcaseandheIailstoinIormthecourt
oIthewaiveroIservicesignedbyanindividualwhoindicatedshehadauthoritytodoso,GricelaAlvarez(whom,somehow,JudgeSIerrazzawasapparentlyawareoIandhadopinionson....curiously).
SpeakingoIscumbagmoves,there'sisJimLesliejumpinginatthe9:06ammarkonthe11/20/12javsrecording112012coughlin1Iorrcr2011-063341(really,everythingJimLesliedidinthiscaseor
anyotherin"representing"CoughlinishalloIIamesleazy) "IcanjumpinasstandbycounseliIyouIeelsheisdragginghisIeet,yourhonor...He'swastingcountyassets."...Really,Jim,thisisa
grievanceagainstyouIorseekingtocoerceawaiveroICoughlin'sIiIthamendmentrightsincidenttoyourreIusaltoutilizeanyoItheexculpatorymediaCoughlinprovidedyouateithertheSupression
HearingortheTrial..andagreivanceagainstDDAYoungIorsimilarlycoercingawaiveroICoughlin'sFiIthAmendmentrights(youreallyneedtolistenttothelastIileIor11/19andtheIirstIor11/20
togetanideaoIthehystericsDDAYoungengagesin,gettingCoughlintakenintocustody,whereintheRJCBailiIIsaskediItheycouldkeepCoughlin'slaptopsovernight...butthereissomereallybad
audioontherewithJudgeSIerrazzaandDDAYounggettingcompletelycoercivewithrespecttoawaiveroICoughlin'sFiIthAmendmentrightsand"youcan'tputonanythingelseoranyevidence,
YOUNEEDTOTESTIFY!"andYoung"youHonor,itwasmyunderstandingthatyouletmr.CoughlinoutoIcustodyontheconditionthathetestiIy! IIhewon'tdoitTAKEHIMBACKINTO
CUSTODY!"
addtothegrievanceagainstyoungtheIraudulenttestimonyandargumentheputonwhereheknowsorshouldhaveknowthattherpdduraldedidnotreceiveanyreportsIromdispatchoI"apossible
Iight"whereDuraldehadleIthisvehicleandthetextscreenthereinpriortothe11:27:11pmtextIromdispatch,andthereIore,suchallegationsoIareportIromdispatchoI"apossibleIight"didnot
bareonDuralde'sprobablecause/reasonablesuspicionanalysis. IurtheryoungputonperuredtestimonybyZarateabouthowZarate"personallyeyewitnessedCoughlinreceivingthephone"when
YoungwasprovideavideowhereinZarateadmitsheonlyinIerredthat. Oh,andCoughlinherebyswearsheneverreceivedanysuch11/7/12motion,IaxedorotherwiseIromDoganorhisassitant
TibbalsoranyonewiththeWCPD.
AndthenthereisJimLeslieIailingtomakeahearsayobjectionwhenDDAYoungasksOIIicerDuraldewhatsomeunnamedbystanderstoldhimuponarriving...yet,everybitoIvideoevidenceandor
testimonythatCoughlinsoughttohaveLeslieintroduceregardingNicoleWatsonadmittingtohearing"themanwiththesixpack"threatentothrowtheiPhone"intheriveriIsomeonedoesn'tclaimit
rightnow"wascontinuallyexcludedas"hearsay"....
ArecentemailtoJudgeSIerrazzaandDDAYoung(whichJudgeSIerrazzaorderedCoughlintosendhim):
DearJudgeSIerrazzaandDDAYoung,
ThiscorrespondenceisIurtherinlinewithJudgeSIerrazza'spreviousinstructiontometosendhimemailsaIterthetrialdirectedtomyissueswithMr.
Leslie'srepresentation(IamtootiredtoIullysetthoseissuesoutatthispoint,butIwilltosomeextenthereinatleast,andIamcopyingDDAYoungon
thisjustbecauseitseemsliketherightthingtodo).
SHEPPv.STATE,484P.2d563(1971):"Count3chargedSheppwithhavingreceivedpropertystolenbyhimduringthecommissionoItheburglarychargedinCount2.Sinceathiefcannotreceive
fromhimselfthefruitsofhislarceny,thejurymustbeinstructedthatitcouldconvictofeitherburglaryorreceiving,484P.2d565]butnotofboth
PerhapsoneoImybiggestcomplaintsabouttheineIIectiveassistanceoIcounselbyMr.Leslie(andtoamuch,muchlesserextentthatoIMr.Goodnight)relatestoLeslie'sIailuretoutilizeanyoIthe
workIdidtoprepthiscase. Forinstance,LesliewhiIIed(perhapsintentionallyso)ontheextenttowhichRPDOIIicerDuraldeandRosacouldnothavereceivedthedispatchtextoI11:27:11pm
reportingGoble'ssinceprovenIraudulent"someonejustsockedaminor"911calltoEcomm/Dispatch...so,OIIicerDuraldeandDDAYoungarestuckwithanythingtheOIIicercould"hear"onthe
Dispatchrecordings(andthoseprovidedbyCityAttorneySkauprovideabasisIormistrialwherethecdlacksGoble'ssecond911callandCoughlin's911callandissuspiciouslydevoidoIanythingIor
the6minutesinwhichthedetainingandarrestoccurs(andIurther,DDAYoungandtheStatewereservedarequestIordiscoverybyGoodnightinNovemberandsubpoenawhichrequiredproduction
oIthose"dispatchlogsorrecordings...."YetDDAIailedto.Thenheputontestimonandmadeargumentthatthis"reportIromdispatchoIapossibleIight"wasthemainjustiIicationIorthepatdown
andsearchincidenttoarrestandledtoajustiIicationIornotexcludinganything"discernedincidenttothepatdown"...theonlyproblemisisthatDuraldeandRosaalreadyaremarkedasonthescene
by11:26:00pm,andthereIorecouldnothavereadthetextscreensintheirvehiclestorecievedthetextonly11:27:11pmdispatchentryabout"someonejustsockedaminor".Further,theextentto
whichCoughlin's911callisnotreportedaccuratelyatallIurtherunderscorestheunIairnessoIdeprivingCoughlintherighttocrossexamineDuraldeandthedispatchers.
AreviewoItheEcommcdprovidedbyRenoCityAttorneySkau,inwhatIbelievewashisresponsetoJudgeSIerrazzaorderinghimtoproducein
responsetomysubpoenaducestecumtoKelleyOdomandECOMM(EmergencyDispatchServices)revealswhatIbelievemaybemisconduct. Two
oIthe911callsaremissing. ThereisnoaudiooIanyRPD-ECOMM/Dispatchcommunicationsbetweenthe11:28:17pmmarkandthe11:36:27pm
mark...whichisdisturbing,consideringtheRPDandEcommdidnotknowIwasIilming/recordingthearrest. HadInotcapturedarecordingoIthe
arrest,howlittlewouldhavethedispatchlogs,witnesstestimony,andEcommrecordingsrevealed...anyhowmanythingsrevealedbythearrestrecording
contradictwhatOIIicerDuraldeputinhisSupplementalDeclarationandNarrativeandthetwowitnessstatements? Further,whereZaratedoesnot
allegetohaveseenthephonelightuptoDuraldeorinhisWitnessStatement,comeTrialtime,Zarate,on8/29/12doestestiIytoseeingthephonelightup
inCoughlin'spocket...butwait...yeah,that'sit...hesawitlightupIromallthewayacrosstheskatepark...butwait...comeNovember19th,2012hechanges
hisstoryanddecideshesawitlightupIrom"2to3IeetawayIromCoughlin"....ThereamovieIloatingaroundsomewhereouttherethatdoesatimeline
oIallthesecalls,allthesevideos,superimposesthedispatchlogsonthetextwithquotationsandcitationstosworntestimonybythesewitnesses...etc.
AndoneproblemIorDDAYoungandDuraldeisIoundintheState's2/21/12Opposition,onpage5,whereinYoungwrites: "Intheinstantcase,the
pat-downsearchoItheDeIendantwasproperunderthetotalityoIthecircumstances. Priortoarriving,OIIicerDuraldelearnedthatthesceneinvolveda
louddisturbancewithpossibleIight,therebyimmediatelyraisingtheconcernoIweaponsandthesaIetyoIallthosepresent." And,oIcourse,OIIicer
DuralderespondedsplendidlytoCoachYoung's,er,DDAYoung'strainingregimeandsangthe"possibleIight...reportIromdispatchoIapossibleIight"
tuneallthelivelongday...whichwasthebasisIorthereasonablesuspicionIorthepat-down(andJudgeSIerrazzadidchangehisSuppressionMotion
RulingattheTrialsomewhat...alteringittomakelessobvioustheextenttowhichYoungwasrepeatedlyallowedtoenterhearsayintotherecord,bothin
theSuppressionMotionHearingandatTrial,whereasCoughinnevercouldgetthatdarnNicoleWatsonadmittingtohearingthe"manwithasixpack
threatentothrowtheiPhoneintotheriver"captureonvideoandaudiorecordingsintotherecord...despiteDuraldetestiIyingtoamultitudeoIdouble
hearsay(andnotevencaptureonarecordingsocloseintimetothearrestandattheverysamelocation,involvingthemajorityoItheplayersinthearrest
itselI...).
Itwasinthesame11/30/11emailIromWCPDGoodnighttoCoughlinthatincludedtheNarrativebyOIIicerDuralde(whichhas,intheIooteroIthe4pagedocument,aIooterindicatinga"printedon"
dateoI11/28/11
Zarate'stestimonyrespectingthescantstatementsheactuallymadetoOIIicerDuralderevealtheextenttowhichOIIicerDuraldepaintsontowitnessstatementmorespeciIic,particularizedIactsin
supportoItheobjectiveshehas,whichhere,weremotivatebyaretaliatoryintentandthe"thrill"oI"busting"andattorneywhomdaredtoansweroneoItheoIIicer'squestionsbyaskingaquestion
seekingclariIicationastoCoughlin'sconstitutionalrights....whichclearlyisnotapermissiblebasistosupportaIindingoIeither"reasonablesuspicion"toconducta"weaponscheckpatdown"(the
OIIicer'sdidnotreceivethetextIromdispatchreportingGoble'ssecond911callwhereinheIraudulentlyallegedthat"someonejustsockedaminor"(reIerringtotheinstancewherethen18yearold
AustinLichty(whoiscapturedonthevideooIthemoments(Iilenamed: VID_20110820_232423 austin lichty templeton goble zarate chan rpd iphone assaulting and battery Coughlin jusrt prior to
RPD rcr.3gp 46 seconds in length) lying in asserting that "I'm 17...I'm a minor!", so, contrary to DDA Young's assertion in his 2/21/12 Opposition to Goodnights 2/14/12 Motion to Suppress, both
Goble, Lichty, and Zarate all have motivations apparent which preclude them from being deemed "reliable citizen witnesses" and Officer Duralde indeed did have, and admitted to in his testimony
at trial to being aware of, the "gross inconsistencies" Goodnight pointed out between the hearsay and double hearsay Duralde testified to at trial after "refreshing his recollection" upon a review of
either his "Supplemental Declaration" (an attachment to the probable cause sheet, DDA Young would allege) and or his "Narrative". Which begs the question....how was it not misconduct by the
State and prejudicial to the point of declaring a mistrial or at least not, as Judge Pearson did in a curious recorded hearing on
But here is the biggest problem for the RPD and the State...the screen lock that Goble and Templeton testified to (the password for the phone)...and when Goble alleges Duralde gave him back the
phone...and the call into the iPhone at 11:33 pm from Officer Duralde's phone...and the call from the iPhone b
PerhapstheworstthingIortheStateandtheRPDhereisthattwohostilewitnesses(inadditiontoCoughlin'svariousstatementsrelatedthereto,duringhis
testimonyandonthemediaadmittedintoevidence) testiIiedthatRPDOIIicerDuraldecommittedmisconductbylyingaboutthepurportedorderor
pointintimeinrelationtothearrestandsearchoICoughlinandDuralde'sIirstcomingintopossessionoItheiPhone. GobletestiIiedthatDuralde
removedthephoneIromCoughlin'spocketandthatDuraldehadthephonewithhimwhenheIirstpresentedtoGobletoaskquestionrelatedtothephone
andtoveriIyownershipoIthephone(whichwouldincludegatheringthephonenumberIortheiPhone,whichnecessarilywouldmeanthatDuralde's
allegationoIonlysearchingCoughlinaIterperIormingsomecalltotheiPhoneandhearsayingitvibrate(eventhoughmultiplewitness(Templeton,
Zarate,Goble,LichtytestiIiedthattheyheardnosuchbuzzingorvibratingoIthephone,hostilewitnessesall) GobletestiIiedthatDuraldealreadyhad
theiPhonepriortoGobleconIerringwithDuraldeorotherwisegivingDuraldeanyphonenumbertocallinanattempttoveriIythephonerevealingan
incomingcallLEDdisplayscreelightupalert(Goble'sstatementsthatthephonewould"lightup"andthathe,asDuraldequoteshimintheNarrative,
"couldnothearthephone
Ihave30daysIromthedateoIconvictiontoreportaconvictiontotheStateBaroINevadaandtheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOIIice(USPTO)
Iorthesetwoconvictions"possessingorreceivingstolenproperty"and"pettylarceny"underSCR111(6)and37CFR11.25(3).
InotethatWCPDJimLeslie,whilestillattorneyoIrecordIormeonthiscasesRCR2011-063341,hadserved(seeattached)asubpoenaonECOMMand
KelleyOdomon10/03/12. GiventhatMr.Lesliewasnotrelievedasmycounseluntilattheearliest10/22/12(soJudgeSIerrazza'scontentionthat
Coughlin"hashadIorevertogethisdeIensereadyinthiscase"andthat"nocontinuancewillbegrantedonaccountoItheIormaldisciplinaryhearing
beIoretheStateBaroINevada"beingscheduledjust5dayspriortothe11/19/12resumptionoItrialinrcr2011-063341(anddespiteJudgeSIerrazza
indicatedsomecanonpreventinghimIromtestiIyingattheIormaldisciplinaryproceeding...thatdidn'tstop063341beingspeciIicallypledintheSBN
NG12-0204SCR105ComplaintinSBNv.Coughlin,aswasJudgeCliIton'scaseinRCR2012-065630...andthatdidn'tstopRJCJudicialSecretaryLori
TownsendIromsendingintotheSBNCoughlin's2/12/12IilinginthatJudgeCliItoncasercr2012-065630andoIIeringtosendintotheSBNCoughlin's
2/15/12Iilingin063341). AddtothattheIactthatCoughlinneverreceivedIromLeslieGoble'scallrecordsuntilLeslieIinallyreleasedthemoOctober
30th,2012...anditreallyisnotaccuratetosayCoughlinhad"Iorever"topreparehiscase. CoughlinhadtopulltogetheradeIenseinhisIormal
disciplinaryhearingbeIoretheSBNdespitetheSBNgippinghimoutoIeveryaspectoISCR105(2)(c)(ie,not30daysnoticeoIthehearingon11/14/12
aIterserviceoItheComplaintandDesignationoIWitnessesandSummaryoIEvidenceisaIIectedpursuanttoSCR109andSCR105(4)...Butthepointis,
iItheRJCandbothoIyouwanttobeassociatewitha SchaeIIer style Mirch-ing,thenthismaybeyourchance. Butyouwon'tbeabletosayyou
didn'thaveplentyoIopportunitiestoputthisthingaside,becausethereareamultitude.
ItismyunderstandingisthatECOMMandKelleyOdomhad15daystorespondtotheSubpoenaducestecum....Mr.Leslie'sIailuretoturnoveranything
tomeinthe"handoIItransmittal"heinsistedupon(despiteadigitaltransmissionbeingrequiredpertheOrderoIJudgeSIerrazza,Ibelieve)requires
someexplanation.
SotorequiringexplanationistheIactthatthecdprovidedbyRenoCityAttorneySkauinanapparentgoodIaithattempttocomplywithJudgeSIerrazza
orderinghimtocomplywiththesubpoenaducestecumandorturnoveranyrelevantdispatchrecordingspertinenttothearrestandeventssurrounditoI
8/20/11leadingtorcr2011-063341,doesnotcontainthesecond911callmadebyGoble(usingAustinLichty'scellularphone,7752338593,which
GobleisseenintheattachedstillIramepictureculledIromavideoCoughlintookoIthemomentspriortothearrivaloItheRPD,beinghandedbythe
"manwiththegaugedears"LichtyreIerredtoas"Peanut"despiteLichty,Goble,Zarate,andTempletontestiIyingthattheydonotknowthatmananddid
notknowhimpriortothatnightatall....CoughlinrespectIullydemandedoItheRPDOIIicers,atthetimeoIhisarrest,thattheygathertheidentiIyoIthe
"manwiththegaugedears",however,OIIicerDuraldeetalreIusedto(claimingCoughlin'sallegationsoItheirhavingattackedhimandattemptingto
stealhisbikeandordog,reachintohispockets,andpushhimupagainstoncomingtraIIicontheCenterStreetbridgewere"unsubstantiated").Oddly,in
theattachedstillIrame,itisquiteclearthat"Peanut"isseenhandingGoblethephonebelongingtoAustinLichtythatGobleutilizedtomakehistwo911
callsthatevening,theIirst(iItheIilenametimestampingontheECOMMrecordingsisaccurate...)takingplacebeginningat11:22:52pm(thoughthe
ECOMMtextlogsrevealanE911entryoI11:23:36pm(itsunknownwhethertheexacttimea911callcomesinisdesignatedonthe"CallsIorService
InquiryResponse"Coughlinwasprovidedrecently). TheECommtextlogsrevealsasecondE911entryIorthe7752338593number(belongingto
AustinLichty,butpassedtoGobleby"Peanut"withthegaugedears...yeah,thesearetheguystakingmylawlicenseawayIrommeIoratleast5years,iI
notIorever....andDDAYoung...oversomealleged"skatersetshisiPhonedownontheconcreteinthemiddleoItheicerinkplazadowntownon8/20/11
at11:20 pmishinReno,"manwithasixpackoIbeer"picksitup,oIIersitup,receivingnoresponsethreatensto"throwitintheriveriIsomeone
doesn'tclaimitimmediately"whereuponGoble'sIriendNateZarateapparently(accordingtoRPDDuralde'sNarrativeoIunknownorigindate")told
GoblehesawCoughlinpickitupoIItheground(asDuralderecountshearingIromGobleinhisNarrative)
containthe911callbyCoughlin
So,intheIilenamed"PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-28-11PMSourceID17063341duraldei'llbeoutonhim"onecanhearOIIicerDuralde
indicatinghewill"beoutonhimontheCenterStreetbridge"aIterhehasleIthissquadcareandisshortlytoappearinthevideoCoughlinIilmedoIthearrest,title:
Then, Officer Rosa is proven to be on the bridge and not in his squad car reading texts from dispatch n the following time stamped file: "PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-26-30 PM Source_ID = 12 RPD Rosa saying charles 396
on the other end"
Further, Officer Duralde's arrival on the scene is notated in the dispatch log at the
Its not at all clear why Goodnight only apparently received then forwarded to his client on November 30th, 2011 the "Original Supplemental" containing Officer Duralde's Narrative, that is still of indeterminate date of origin (there are a number of "date of
printing" variations...).
That I know of, there were three 911 calls (two by Goble, one by Coughlin, in that order):
1. 082011 112252pm to 112530pm 911 by Goble dispatch Weese log larc of phone susps os left on post lighting up in sups pock RP screaming at susp
2. 082011 112620pm to 112740pm 911 by Goble dispatch Montgomery logs rp call back re someone just socked a minor, waive that cop down 10 10 with open line
3. 082011 112645pm to 112752pm 911by Coughlin Dispatch Weese logs call from phone with open line yelling re stealing phone people cheering cops are here then call disconnects
And Coughlin filmed three videos that night of the arrest that are relevant, two just prior to the RPD arriving (and actually, while Rosa and Duralde were already on the scene and out of their vehicles after teh 11:26:00 pm mark as indicated by the Ecomm
recordings and dispatch logs...
1. VID_20110820_232413 your all on tape now goble and friends.3gp 8 seconds long
2. VID_20110820_232423 austin lichty templeton goble zarate chan rpd iphone assaulting and battery Coughlin jusrt prior to RPD rcr.3gp 46 seconds
3. VID_20110820_232801 officer duralde and rosa 8 20 11 arrest.3gp 5 minutes 52 seconds long
And the AT&T call records for the iPhone reveal only four calls occurred in or out during the relevant time frame:
Goble'sAT&Trecords:
4408/20/1111:21P0:2117753786673177552794400:0017755279440
4508/20/1111:26P0:2117753786673177552794400:0017755279440
4608/20/1111:33P0:1217752303726177552794400:0017755279440
4708/20/1111:36P0:0117755279440177523037260:0017752303726
GoblemessedupatTrialon11/19/12andletslipthat"andthat'swhenTannercalledthephone..." Previoustothat,DDAYounghadsuccessIullykepteverysinglewitnessIromspeciIically
identiIyingwhomadewhatcallandwhenandwheretoanyextentwhatsoever. Nobodycouldremembernuthin'. But,GobleisaselIinvolvedtwit,whosnapshisIingers"Oh,that'sColton"8Ieet
IromJudgeSIerrazzaandswaggersoutoIthecourtroom. AndLesliereIusedtoseekadmissionoIthemisconductoIaprosecutionwitness....Goble,batteryingCoughlinwithalitcigarette,that
Coughlincaptureontape,onJune5th,2012...andemailDAGammich,DDAYoung,andsomeothersaboutat11:38pmon6/7/12...andhadhislawlicensesuspendedin60838Iourhourslaterbya3
JusticePanel(includingJusticeHardesty,whomrecusedhimselIIromCoughlin'swrongIulterminationsuitagainstWashoeLegalServices...andyoumightnotlikemeIorthatsuit,butiIyoulookatthe
circumstancesoImyIiringtherein(IwashurryingtoIinishanon-proIitgetsstuckwiththebuilding'sprivatelandlord'spropertytaxesappealdueon3/10/12IorPaulElcano,andhadaTrialbeIore
JudgeLindaGardnerinadivorcecaseon3/12/12...andtheattachedmaterialsdodemonstratethatIdidplentyoIresearchbeIorehand...Ijusthadsomeissuesprintingitoutandbringingitwithme(my
legalassistantcouldn'tIigurethatout...WLStook6weekstocutacheckIorsubpoenaIees....theusual)...
Somehow at the Hearing on the Suppression Motion DDA Young was able to get into evidence exclusively hearsay testimony (often unattributed to anyone in particular) to support his win on the "sufficient probable cause to support a search incident to arrest"
despite NRS 171.136 forbidding such an arrest (where Duralde obviously overcharged the alleged crime as a "felony grand larceny"...even making smug commentary about the "certain benefits of charging this as a felony" and saying "oooh, that's a felony", both
matters that Leslie insisted refraining from getting into while he was attorney of record, and further, despite Coughlin complying with NRS 174.345 (even splurging on the return receipt requested to go along with the certified mail for Duralde) Coughlin was
denied the right to cross examine the arresting officer...which is too bad considering his Narrative alternately claims that Goble told him they
DDAYoung'scomplaintfailstoallegedsomeoneotherthanCoughlinstoletheproperty,whichitmust,tosupportthereceivingorpossessingstolenpropertycharge.
COUNT II. POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY, a violation of NRS 205.275, a misdemeanor, in the manner following, to wit:
That the said defendant on or about the 20th day of August, 2011, at Reno Township, within the County of Washoe, State of Nevada, did willfully and unlawfully possess or withhold stolen goods having a value less than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00), to
wit: an iPhone, at or near 1 North Center Street, Reno, Washoe County, Nevada, such property being owned by CORY GOBLE, for his own gain or to prevent the true owner from again possessing said property, knowing that the property was obtained by means
of larceny or under such circumstances as should have caused a reasonable man to know that such goods were so obtained.
POLKv.STATE,749S.W.2d813(1988):"Aspreviouslystated,theStatemustpleadandprovethatthepropertywasstolenbyanother."
Itis:checkoutWestheadnotesunderReceivingStolenPropertyat324k7(3):Kirby,19S.Ct.574.Mustallegethegoodwerereceivedfromsomeoneotherthanthedefendant:Gaddis,424U.S.
544,Allen,96NE2d446,Polk,749SW2d813.
Gaddis,424U.S.544,96S.Ct.1023,47L.Ed.2d222(1976):"ApersonconvictedoIviolating18U.S.C.2113(a),(b),and(d)cannotalsobeconvictedoIreceivingorpossessingtherobbery
proceedsinviolationoI2113(c).HeIlin,supra,358U.S.,at419-420,79S.Ct.451.Pp.547-548."
"(2)theStateIailedtoprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthattheautomobilehadbeenstolenbyapersonotherthanplaintiIIinerror,a...ThenextassignmentoIerroristhattheStateIailedtoprove
beyondallreasonabledoubtthattheautomobileinquestionwasstolenbysomepersonotherthanplaintiffinerror.Tosustainaconvictionofreceivingstolenpropertytheproofmustshow(1)
thatthepropertyhas,infact,beenstolenbyapersonotherthantheonechargedwithreceivingit;(2)thattheonechargedwithreceivingithasactuallyreceivedthepropertystolenoraidedin
concealingit;(3)thatthereceiverknewthepropertywasstolenatthetimehereceiveditand(4)thathereceivedthepropertyIorhisowngainortopreventtheownerIrompossessingit.(Peoplev.
Piszczek,404Ill.465.)ProoIoItheseessentialelementsconstitutingthecrimeoIreceivingstolenpropertymaybemadebycircumstantialevidence.Peoplev.Ferris,385Ill.186."PEOPLEv.ALLEN.
407Ill.596(1950).96N.E.2d446.
PEOPLEv.DICKERSON.21Ill.App.3d977(1974).316N.E.2d519:"ItisjurisdictionalthatiIacriminalconvictionistobeupheld,
|21Ill.App.3d980|
theindictmentmustchargeacrime(Peoplev.Edge,406Ill.490,494-495(1950);Peoplev.Harris,394Ill.325,327(1946)),andmustcontainthenatureandelementsoItheoIIenseinorderthatthe
deIendantmayIullyprepareadeIenseandbeaIIordedtheconstitutionallyintendedprotectionagainstdoublejeopardy.(Peoplev.GriIIin,36Ill.2d430,432-433(1967).)Intheinstantcase,the
indictment,drawnupontheconclusionalpremisethatthepropertywasstolen,Iailstoallegethatitwasstolenbyapersonotherthantheonechargedwithreceivingsuchpropertyand,bythisomission,
createsthepresumptionthatthepossessorstolethepropertyhimselI.SinceonepersoncannotbeboththethieIandthereceiveroIstolenpropertynorreceivestolenpropertyIromhimselI,theIactthat
thepropertyreceivedwasstolenbyanotherwasanessentialelementtobeallegedandproved.(Peoplev.Ensor,310Ill.483,484-485(1923);Peoplev.Dalke,336Ill.446,448-449(1929);Peoplev.
Harris,394Ill.325,329-330(1946);Peoplev.Devore,402Ill.339,341-342(1949);Peoplev.Malone,1Ill.App.3d860,863-864(1971).)Lackingthiselement,theindictmentIailedtochargethe
oIIenseoIreceivingstolenpropertyundersection16-1(d).AconvictionunderanindictmentwhichdoesnotchargeanoIIenseisvoid.Peoplev.Edge,406Ill.490(1950).
Thejudgmentis,thereIore,reversed....
IIeelthatthemajorityhasmisconstruedtheeIIicacyoIsection16-1(d)inarrivingataconclusionnoturgedbythedeIendant.TheomissionoIthewords"stolenbyanother"intheindictmentdoesnot
createthepresumptionthatdeIendanthadhimselIstolenthepropertyIromtheowner.TheuseoIthewords"***knowinglyobtaincontroloIstolenproperty***undersuchcircumstancesthat
wouldreasonablyinducehimtobelievethatthepropertywasstolen***"(emphasisadded)intheindictmentclearlyimpliesthatwhendeIendantobtainedcontroloIthepropertyinquestion(inany
mannerwhatsoever),thepropertyhadalreadybeenstolenbyanother.ThatistheplainandordinarymeaningoItheindictment.
IbelievethemajoritymaybeconIusingwhatcanandcannotbereasonablyimpliedIromevidenceintroducedattrialwithwhatmaybeimpliedIromtheclearphrasingoItheindictment.Attrialitis
not
|21Ill.App.3d981|enoughIortheprosecutiontomerelyshowthatthepropertyinquestionwasstolenpropertyandthatthedeIendantwasinpossessionoIthatpropertyinordertoprovetheoIIense
oItheItunder16-1(d)(theIormeroIIenseoIreceivingstolenproperty).(Peoplev.Baxa(1972),50Ill.2d111,277N.E.2d876.)ThedeIendant'sunexplainedpossessionoIstolenpropertysoonaItera
theItisevidencethatthedeIendantstolethepropertyhimselIbutisnotevidenceoIdeIendant'sreceivingstolenpropertyknowingittohavebeenstolen.(SeePeoplev.Malone(1971),1Ill.App.3d
860,275N.E.2d236,andthecasescitedtherein.)However,thephraseologyoItheindictmenthereinpermitsareaderoItheindictmenttoIind,evenaIteronlyacursoryreading,thenecessaryelements
oItheoIIense,i.e.,thatthepropertywasalreadystolenbyanotherwhenthedeIendantreceivedit.
WhileitmaybetruethattheadditionoIthewords"stolenbyanother"wouldmaketheindictmentmoreexplicit,theadditionoIthesewordswouldonlybegrammaticallyredundantandmere
surplusagelegally.
Theindictment,thereIore,wassuIIicienttochargethedeIendantwithanoIIenseunder16-1(d)(1).
AIterathoroughexaminationoItherecord,IdonotbelievethattheevidenceproducedattrialwassuIIicienttoIindthedeIendantguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt.ForthisreasonI,too,would
reversethedeIendant'sconviction."
AppellantcorrectlyarguesthatthestandardoIprovingvalue,Iorconviction,isthesamein"receiving"casesasin"larceny"and"theIt"cases.HeerroneouslyurgesthatthestateIailedtomeetthat
standardunderourholdinginClevelandv.State,85Nev.635,461P.2d408(1969),wherewesaid"|t|hetruecriterionIorthevalueoIpropertytakenistheIairmarketvalueoIthepropertyatthetime
andplaceitwasstoleniItherebesuchastandardmarket."85Nev.at637,461P.2dat409.BAINv.SHERIFF,CLARKCOUNTY504P.2d695(1972).
SHEPPv.STATE,484P.2d563(1971):"Count3chargedSheppwithhavingreceivedpropertystolenbyhimduringthecommissionoItheburglarychargedinCount2.Sinceathiefcannotreceive
fromhimselfthefruitsofhislarceny,thejurymustbeinstructedthatitcouldconvictofeitherburglaryorreceiving,484P.2d565]butnotofboth.Peoplev.Taylor,4Cal.App.2d214,40
P.2d870(Cal.1935);Peoplev.Morales,263Cal.App.2d211,69Cal.Rptr.553(1968);Milanovichv.UnitedStates,365U.S.551,81S.Ct.728,5L.Ed.2d773(1961);Thomasv.UnitedStates,
418F.2d567(5Cir.1969);Bakerv.UnitedStates,357F.2d11(5Cir.1966).Suchaninstructionwasrequestedbutthecourtdeclinedtogiveit.Thiswaserror,andlateracknowledgedbythecourt
tobesuchwhenitsetasidethereceivingconvictionandorderedanewtrialonthatcharge.TheappellateissueiswhetherthatmanneroIhandlingtheerroreIIectivelycuredit.Theerrorwasnotcured
bythesettingasideoIthereceivingconvictionsincethereisnowayoIknowingwhetheraproperlyinstructedjurywouldhaveIoundthedeIendantguiltyoIburglary,Count2,orreceiving,Count3.
Milanovichv.UnitedStates,supra.Bothconvictionsshouldhavebeensetasideandanewtrialordered"
Statev.Pansey,61Nev.333,128P.2d464(1942):".ReceivingStolenGoods.Criminalintentisanessentialelementofthecrimeofreceivingstolengoods..17.CriminalLaw.Inprosecutionfor
receivingstolengoods,whereinstructiongivenbycourtfollowedlanguageofstatutewithreferencetoaccused'sintentiontopreventthe61Nev.330,Page336]ownerfromagainpossessing
property,defendantwasnotentitledtoinstructionwhichtoldjurythatgoodsmusthavebeenreceivedwithfraudulentintentofdeprivingowneroftheimmediatepossessionthereoI.Comp.
Laws,sec.10335."
BERNIERv.SHERIFF,CLARKCOUNTY569P.2d406(1977)SupremeCourtoINevad:"AttheconclusionoIapreliminaryexamination,HennyBernierwasorderedtostandtrialIorpossessionoI
stolenproperty,aviolationoINRS205.275.1BernierthenpetitionedIorawritoIhabeascorpuscontendingtheevidenceadducedbytheprosecutionwasinsuIIicienttoestablishprobablecausethat
shehadcommittedthechargedoIIense.ThedistrictcourtconsideredanddeniedherpetitionandBernierherereassertsthesamecontention.
Bernierdoesnotdenyhavingpossessedtheproperty;rather,shearguestheprooIdidnotshowthatsheknewthepropertywasstolenandthatsuchknowledgecannotbeinIerredIrommerepossession.
WeagreethatmerepossessionisinsuIIicienttoestablishtherequisiteknowledge..."
"UnderNevadalaw,LanecouldnotbeconvictedoIbothrobberyandreceivingstolenproperty.ThiscourtreversedaconvictionIorpossessingstolenpropertyonthegroundthatthelegislaturedid
notintendtocompoundthepunishmentIorlarcenyorrobberybypermittingaconvictionIorreceiptorpossessionoIthestolenpropertyagainstthepersonwhotooktheproperty.Pointv.State,
102Nev.143,146-48,717P.2d38,40-41(1986);Lanev.State,110Nev.1156,881P.2d1358(1994).
Statev.Pray,30Nev.206,94P.218(1908):ItislongstandingauthoritythatIoracharge
oIpossessionoIstolenpropertytostand,theremustbeashowingoIalltheelements,and
thatiIevenoneelementismissing,thechargecannotbemaintained.Statev.Pray,30Nev.
206,94P.218(1908).PossessionoIstolenpropertydoesnotinitselIproveguiltoItheoIIense.Staabv.State,90Nev.347,526P.2d338,341(1974).Instead,theburdenoIprooIoIallthreeelementsrestswith
the
attorneychargedwith"summarycriminalcontempt"onereporteddecisionever,InReKunstler.606NYS2d607.
Can'tjoininsameproceedingadisbarmentandcontemptproceeding:Dickersonv.State179SW324.
JudgeNashHolmescontinuestoreIusetoallowCouglintoappealthe"summarycriminalcontempt"Order,eventhough,giventheincarcerationwasserved,itisaIinallyappealableorder,seeGilman
275V.Comm474,657SE2d474.
BiIurcatedisciplinarymatters:InrePorep(Nev.1941)111P.2d533.InreKaemmer,178SW2d474Terrellv.Miss.Bar635So2d1377.MattoIBriggs502NE2d879InReHines482A.2378.
triem929P.2d634Smith85P.524InreFinsh27A.3d401InreCharacter,950NE2177Toledov.Cook88NE2d973('07)Cohn,151SW3d477('04)InreCrandell,754NW2501InreCobb,
838NE2d1197InREGinsber690NW2d539NorthCarolinaBarv.Rogers,596SE2d337Snyder792A.2d515joinder/prejudicetoCoughlin,259P.2d7,InReRichardson692A.2d427Appeala
WhetherGoblehad"ownership"iniphonematter920P.2d112
Sheely102p.2d96
Participationinlarcenyasprecludingreceivingstolenpropertycharge,29alr5th59(1995).
26405and03628trespasscase:
unused,untimelyevictionwarrantneedstobereissued,Green,344SE2d507,
Woods19NYS2d683
Regan425NYS2d725
Iorio,410NYS2d195
RussellvKalian,414A.2d462:expiredwarrantIorevictionnogood
LeesevHorne,47P.2d316
Burhams, 89 P.3d 629
BetweentheIollowingtwotimestampedrecordingsIinallyprovidedbyCityAttorneySkau(WCPDJimLeslieistoobusywhistlingduringtrailatCoughlin'spointingouthowhecautionedtheyouths
priortothearrivaloIthepeacetostaypeaceIulinCoughlin'sreIerencesthethenrecentmurderoIStephenGalejustblocksawayapproximatelytwomonthspriortothe8/20/11arrest,incidenttothe
theItoIapurse,andLelisepreIerstospendhistimechimingin,unprompted,ontheregard,arrogantlyenough,thathecanassistthecourtiIitIeelsCoughlinis"draggin'hisIeet"incidenttothe
inappropriatplacementbyJudgeSIerrazzaoILeslieas"stanbycounsel"whichreallyamountedtonomorethanyetanothercoercivepracticeputinplacebyJudgeSIerrazzatoIurtherhisstatedgoaloI
avengingthecriticismsCoughlinlevieduponhimincidenttoJudgeSIerrazza'sincrediblyquestionableon-the-Ilypandering/remixingoIhisOrderoI10/13/11(iICoughlin,ashe,inIactdid,deposita
"rentescrow"oI$2,275,SIerrazzaruledandnoticedinwritingthatCoughlinwouldgeta"Trial"ontheunlawIuldetaineraction...untilrichman'sopposingcounselCaseyBaker,Esq.coachedJudge
SIerrazzaontherecordthat"theuseoItheterm"Trial"wasunIortunate,YourHonor..."whereuponJudgeSIerrazza.YouaretohisconstituencybyremixingispreviousorderregardlessoItheextent
towhichCoughlinwasnotnoticedtheretowithrespecttothatwhichwouldbeinvolvedontheOctober25,2011trialtheyareandwhereonlythoseaspectsoIasummaryproceedingthatinyeartothe
landlordsbeneIitwereadheredtowhereisalloItheproceduralanddiscoveryprotectionsattendanttoaplenaryunlawIuldetainertrialandtheabilitytobringcounterclaimsweremattersCoughlinwas
precludedIromaccessingbyjudgeSIerrazza.JustRosinisinterestingapproachtolandlordtenantmatterscontinuedonwithrespecttothemannerinwhichservicewasaIIectedonNovember3in
violationthecourthousesanctuarydoctrinebyDeputyPlamondonintheRenojusticecourtcivildivisionIilingoIIicenoless(andthatisthesamebailiIIPlamondonmanagedtotaketheIilings
CoughlinsubmittedonlineNovember15outoIthecriminaldivisionIilingoIIiceoItheRenojusticecourtwhereRobbinBakeritMr.Coughlinlettheminherpositionwellpriortothe5PMclosingoI
thatIilingoIIiceandwithDVDsattachedtothoseIilingsCoughlinswearsunderpenaltyoIperjurythatMs.Bakeradmittedthistohim
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-28-17 PM Source_ID = 18.mp3
SECONDARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-36-19 PM Source_ID = 5.mp3
InRCR2011-063341,Coughlin'sthenWCPDJoeGoodnight,Esq(whowasremovedIromrepresentingCoughlinbyJimLeslieandJeremyBoslertheWashoeCountypublicdeIenderapplyinggoodnicelypeers
decidingthatthenightwasdoingtoomuchtoassistCoughlinindeIendinghimselIandorotherwisezealouslyadvocatingoncallPatgoodnightinCoughlinhadatrialprepstrategysessionwhileCoughlinwasin
custodyonJulyFriday,July13atapproximately430manandyougoodnightreiteratingtheextenttowhichhewouldbeappearingonCoughlin'stohavetotrythecaseattrialonJuly16,2012Mondaymorning
at9AManditwasonlyuponCoughlinarrivingandbeingbroughttothecourtincustodyseededJeremyBoslerwassuddenlyIillinginIorGoodnightwithandindicationGoodnight'sDecember19,2011Iile
stampdiscoveryrequestsserveduponthestayanddistrictattorneyZachyoungreadsatpage1therein:"REQUESTFORDISCOVERYCOMESNOW,theDeIendant,ZACHARYBARKERCOUGHLIN,byand
throughhisattorneyoIrecord,JosephW.Goodnight,DeputyPublicDeIender,andherebyrequeststheIollowingdiscoverypursuanttoNRS174.235toNRS174.295,inclusive.1.Inspectandreceivecopiesor
photographanywrittenorrecordedstatementsorconIessionsmadebytheDeIendantoranywitness,orcopiesthereoI,withinthepossession,custodyorcontroloItheState,theexistenceoIwhichisknownorby
theexerciseoIduediligencemaybecomeknowntotheprosecutor.NRS174.235(1)(a).Thisrequestincludesanyvideoandaudiorecordings,includingthosepreservedonpocketrecordingdevices,9-1-1
emergencycalls,andanydispatchlogs,writtenorrecorded,generatedinconnectionwiththiscase."ItistellingtheextenttowhichontherecordatthatJuly16trialdateWashoeCountypublicdeIender
JeremyBoslerindicatedthatJimLesliewouldimmediatelyberoundingyouareplacementroleprettysuddenlydisappearingGoodnight.AndthatLesliewouldbepreparedtotrythecasebyFridayandthatthe
courtcouldstepmatterIortrialonFridayitiswitness.PerhapswhatMr.BoslermeantwasthatJimLesliewould,bythatFriday,havecompletedallthetrialprepJimLesliewouldbedoingonthiscasebyFriday,
andthatthatwouldbethecasewhetherornotthatevincedanysortoIconcernIorhisclient,abilitytozealouslyadvocateonhisclientbehalIorwillingnesstodoso,orindicationthatJimLeslieIeltthatthe
judgesoItheRenoJusticeCourtwouldholdhimtoastandardoIcareatalltendingtoindicatethatMr.Lesliehasanyskininthisgamewhatsoever.
ClearlythereisabasesIormistrialherewereJimLeslie'sentirecontributiontotherepresentationoIMr.CoughlinisdrippingineverywaywithmisconductandmalpracticeandapparentlywillingdisregardIorthe
rulesoIproIessionalconductanintentionalmaniIestationoILeslie'sdesiretosecureaconvictiontheWashoeCountyDistrictAttorney'sOIIiceandthereinsecureaddedboysIromlocallawenIorcementDistrict
Attorney'sOIIiceandperhapstheRenojusticecourtitselI.FurtherRenoMunicipalCourtjudgeNashHolmes'sadmonitionastocommunicationswiththeWashoeCountypublicdeIendersoIIiceinconnectionwith
February27,2012clandestinestatusconIerencebetweenBirayDoganandZachYoungwhichneitherDogannorYounghaseverreIutedwhethertheytheyhavebeenswornpriortheretoornotanespeciallywhere
Dogan'scoworkerdownthehallcivildivisiondeputyDist.Atty.MaryhasbeeninvolvedthroughouttheconIiscationwithoutasearchwarrantorcourtorderoIanykind(oratleastoneeverservedonCoughlinin
anymanner)oICoughlinsmartphoneandmicroSDcardincidentJudyimpermissiblesummarycontemptIindingbyjudgeNashHolmesjusttwohoursaItertheclandestinestatusconIerencebetweenDoganyoung
onFebruary27,2012inRMCcase11TR26800IorwhichDoganandYoungstipulatedtoacontinuancein06RGC065630inlightoItheschedulingconIlictbetweenthattraIIiccitationtrialintheRenoMuni
courtwhichstemmedIromCoughlin'sbeingretaliatedagainstviceRPDSargentTarterinconnectionwithCoughlintellingTarteroneoIthetop30highest-paidcityoIRenoemployeesoIandadmissiontotaking
bribesIromRichardHillbyRPDoIIicerChrisCarterJuniorincidenttoCarterplacingCoughlininhandcuIIspursuanttoacustodialarrestbaseduponacriminalcomplaintIortrespassIindbyRichardHillon
November13,2011.ThatcriminaltrespassconvictionhasnowbecomethesubjectoIaNevadaSupremeCourtcasein61901whereinCoughlindetailedthevideotapeadmissionbyRPDSargentMarciaLopezoI
themisconductbyherselIoIIicerChrisCarter,Jr.RichardG.Hill,Esq.andhislandlordclient,andasummaryevictionmatterthatjudgeSIerrazzapresidedoverwhereinjudgeSIerrazzapurportedlycontrolledthe
civildivisionoItheRenojusticecourttotheextentthatCoughlin'snoticeoIappealonDecember26submittedIorIilingDecember26,2011wasnotIilestampedbythecivildivisionstaIIoItheRenojustice
court.ThisimproprietyisIurtherproblematicwhereCoughlinhadservedupontheRenojusticecourt'scustodianoIrecordsandshecivilclerkKarenStancil(whomRichardHillreIerencesinhisJanuary12,2012
letterhergrievanceagainstCoughlintotheStateBaroINevada(seeHill'sJanuary14,2012grievanceagainstCoughlintotheStateBaroINevada,whichultimatelybecameoneoIthethreegrievancesdepicted
numericallyinthecaptionoItheSBNv.ZacharyBarkerCoughlinSCR105ComplaintIiledbytheStateBarstampedAugust23,2012(inadditiontotheNG120434grievancebyjudgeNashHolmesincident
totheFebruary27,2012trialin11TR26800heldinviolationoINRS178.405bywayoINRS5.071(RJCandRMCunderonerooI,JudgeNashHolmesadmitstostrategysessionstodiscreditCoughlinbeing
heldwithotherRMCjudgesincludingthenAdministrativJudgeWilliamGardner,whoreIusedtorecusehimselIIromthecriminaltrespassmatterincidenttothecriminalcomplaintsignedbyRichardHillat
Coughlin'sIormerlawoIIiceuponCoughlinbeingsubjecttoacustodialarrestbyoIIicerChrisCarteronNovember13,2011,resultinginacriminaltrespassconvictionoICoughlinin11CR26405whereitRPD
SargentMarciaLopezultimatelyhadtoadmitonvideotapetoCoughlinthatneithershenorHillmeritlessorherpartneroIIicerCarterissuedcaughtCoughlinatrespasswarningpriortoeIIectuatingacustodial
arrestonthatdayinwhereLopezalsoadmitsnoneoIthoseindividualsoranyonepresentthatdayidentiIiedthemselvesaslawenIorcementpriortolandlordmeritlesskickingdownthedoortoacrawlspaceabout
5IeethighunderneaththeIormerhomelawoIIicewhereinCoughlinwasIoundatatimewhenCoughlinstillhadnotreceivebackIromtheRenojusticecourttheimpermissible$2275rentescrowdepositjudge
SIerrazzaorderedinviolationoINevadalawconsideringjudgeSIerrazza'sadmissionthattheRenojusticecourtjudgesheldameetingwhereintheyadmittedthatCoughlinwascorrectandhisassertionthatthe
RenojusticecourthadnothencorollarytoLasVegasjusticecourtrule44thatmaysupportthesecretquotehouserulesbeenIactinthecivildivisionoItheRenojusticecourtwhereintenantswereinsummary
evictionmattersweresubjecttoIorcedrentescrowdepositinviolationoIjusticecourtrulescivilprocedure83andthattheRenojusticecourthadneitherpublishednorhadapprovedbytheNevadaSupremeCourt
anysortoIcorollarytojusticecourtruleLasVegasrule44(JCRLV44).FurtherthatcriminaltrespassconvictionandthewrongIularrestconnectedtheretooccurredevenwheretheWashoeCountySheriII'soIIice
deputyMachenIiledaIalseaIIidavitonNovember7,2011allegingtohavepersonallyservedCoughlinwithboththeOctober25EvictionDecisionandOrderandtheOctober27thFindingsoIFact,ConclusionoI
Law,andOrderoISummaryEviction(whichCaseyD.Baker,Esq.liedabouthistestimonyatthecriminaltrespassTrialoICoughlinIromwhichJudgeWilliamGardnerreIusedtorecusehimselIdespitetheIact
thathissisterjudgeLindaGardnerislistedasthegrievant(andhimgoestoPatKing'sawkwardassertionsthatthe"ClerkoICourt"sentbarcounselPatrickO.King,Esq.JudgeLindaGardner'sApril2009order
sanctioningCoughlinincidenttoadivorcematterwhereandhewasrepresentingavictimoIdomesticviolenceonbehalIoIourWashoelegalservices(aratherinterestingapproachbyIormerprosecutorjudge
LindaGardnerincomparisontotheextremelylighttouchdemonstratedbyjudgeSIerrazzaandjudgeCliItonoItheRenojusticecourtincidenttodeputydistrictattorneyYoung'srepeatedmalIeasancemisconduct
violationsstayspendingcompetencyorevaluationsIailuretoturnoverexculpatorymaterialsIailuretopropounddiscoveryIailuretorespondreasonablediscoveryrequestsdemonstrationaretaliatoryanimusin
conjunctionwithscattershotthree,countthemthreeprosecutionsoICoughlinthisyearIorchargeswhichyoungeitheramendedtoinadvanceimplicatingSupremeCourtRule(SCR)111(6)(in065630young
amendedthecriminalcomplaintIromamisuseoI911chargetodoachargemoredeleterioustoCoughlin'sproIessionallicenseasalawyerand/orpatentagentbyamendingthechargenearlyayearaIterthe
January14,2012arrestinthemattertoachargethatyoungbrainstormedtheabilitytoleverageagainstCoughlinuponCoughlinandagoodIaitheIIorttoachieveaplea-bargainandresolvewhatisamessycase
thecityoIRenoPoliceDepartmentandemergencydispatchservicesandagaintheRenojusticecourtincidenttotheevictionandRJC2012-000375runtherentalatwhichthedomesticviolenceresultedin
Coughlin'scallstoemergencyservicesor911standlocatedat1422E.9thSt.(thereinimplicatingthethree,countthemthreeextremelysuspectrollingthisyearbyjudgeSchroederoItheRenojusticecourtagainst
Coughlinintheextremelyquicklike40min.IromIilingquickissuanceoIuptemporaryprotectionordertoRichardGHillonJanuary12,2012inconnectionwithHill'sIraudulentabuseoIprocessandIalse
statementstopoliceoIIicersaIIectingthearrestcustodialarrestoICoughlinonJanuary12,2012willjaywalking(HillliedtoRPDoIIicerHollingsworthinallegingthatCoughlinhadalreadylosthisappealoI
summaryevictionmatterin1708BarberwhichjudgeSIerrazzapresidedandwhichwasthenonappealbeIorejudgeFlanagan(whomsubsequentlyhadCoughlinwithanoutrageous$42,000attorneyIeeaward
againstProperappellantCoughlinintheappealoIthesummaryevictionorderissuedbyJudgeSIerrazzaand1708onMarch30,2012incidenttoandmotionIorattorneysIeesIiledbyCaseyDBakeroIHill's
oIIiceonApril19,2012whichjusthappenedtocoincidewiththesamedaythatdeputyDist.Atty.youngIastballheviolatedthestayrequiredbyNRS178.405andgettingjudgeElliot(whom"randomly"was
assignedtoCoughlinappealoIthepettylarcenyconvictionoIacandybarandsomecoughdropsIromWalmartin11CR22176(thesolebasisIorCoughlin'scurrenttemporarysuspensionoIhislawlicense
incidenttobarcounsel'sSCR111(6)Petitionin60838)stemmingIromanarrestonSeptember9,2011thatwasviolativeoINevadalawwheretribalpoliceoIIicersaIIectedacustodialarrestIoramisdemeanor
(muchlessonenotallegedtohaveoccurredintheirpresence)inviolationoItheexpressdictateagainstdoingsoIoundinNRS171.1255shouldespeciallywhereWalmartssolewitnesstestiIyingatthepetty
larcenytrial,wouldbedentistThomasFrontino,whomtestiIiedonbehalIoIthe2ndSt.Wal-MartatwhichCoughlinwassubjecttoacustodialarrestIormisdemeanorpettylarceny"acandybarandsomecough
dropsinconnectionwithCoughlin'sselectingheardjustseeing$83worthoIgroceriesallegedlyconsumingacandybarandorsomecoughdropswhiledoingso...DespitetheIactthatthatWalmartallegestohave
hadabsolutelynovideoIootagesupportiveoIitsallegationsevenwhereitsinteriorisabsolutelydottedwith"pupilstyle"willsurveillancecamerasandwhereFrenchyouadmitthathissupervisorshadpreviously
indicatedtohandadesiretoretaliateagainstCoughlininconnectionwithCoughlin'squestioningsomeoIWalmartspoliciesandwhereJohnEllisoItheW.7thSt.,Walmartinanyasyetunknownlossprevention
associatespeciIicallyandexpresslythreateningabuseoIprocessagainstCoughlinonJuly7,2012incidenttoCoughlinpointingouttheextenttowhichWalmartsassistantstoremanagersandcustomerservice
managersmanyoIwhomhavehadthatpositionIoroveradecaderoutinelyclaimdonotrememberthereturnpolicyorrestatedinamannerthatdepartsubstantiallyIromthepolicywhichWalmartholdsouttothe
publiconitswebsiteWalmart.comandwhichonthatwebsitespeciIicallymakesapplicabletoin-storepurchasesthatreturnpolicyasstatedatWalmart.comnomatterwhattheconvenientIorgettingin
misrememberingoIWalmartsmanagersmayindicatethepolicyactuallyis.Wal-Mart'sFrontinoadmittedneiherhenoranyonewithWal-MartonSeptember9th,2011aIIectedacitizen"sarrestoICoughlinonthat
dateinconnectionwiththeallegedpettylarcenybyCoughlinoIacandybarandsomecoughdropswhichconvenientlyIortheRenoPoliceDepartmentjustdaysaIterCoughlinIiledawrittencomplaintdetailing
thepolicemisconductbyRenoPoliceDepartmentoIIicerGrohlandRossaincidenttothearrestoICoughlinthewrongIularrestoICoughlinonAugust20,2011in063341ajusticecourtcriminalpettylarcenyand
receivingstolenpropertychargeagainstCoughlin(despitetheIactthatthemajorityviewpointthroughoutAmericanjurisprudencethatonecannotbechargedwithbothpettylarcenyandreceivingstolenpropertyoI
thesameitemparticularlywherethereceivingoItheitemisallegedtohavebeenIromoneselIaIteronehadlarcenyistheitemlendinganinIerencethatJoeSIerrazzaseekingtosinkhisjurisdictionalhucksters
deeplyintoCoughlin'slightaspossibletoaIIecttheleverageoverCoughlintomitigatetheliabilityRenojusticecourtmayIaceinconnectionwithitsnumeroussinceisviolatingaboutlawrespectingthemannerin
whichevictionsarecarriedoutandorthemisconductoIlocallawenIorcementandprosecutorsincarryingoutretaliatoryarrestandprosecutionoICoughlinwherethejudiciaryinWashoeCountyisoIIcriticizes
beingoverlyinIluencedbytheDistrictAttorney'sOIIice.ThatWalmartpettylarcenyconvictionstemmedIromatrialbeIoreRenoMunicipalCourtjudgeKennethHoward(a1981graduateMcGeorgeschooloI
lawwhomCoughlin'stwiceIormerRenoMunicipalCourtappointedpublicdeIenderKeithLoomis(notintheWal-Martcase,asjudgeKennethHowarddeniedCoughlinacourtappointeddeIendertheredespite
hisexpressIailuretorulethatjailtimewasnotapossibilityinhispretrialorderandwheremandatoryauthorityexistsrequiringthathethenappointCoughlincourtappointedcounselparticularlywhereCoughlin
establishedhisindigency.JudgeHoward'smalIeasanceinconnectionwiththatconvictionoICoughlinextendsIurthertheextentthatheearlyoninthatNovember30trialonitin2011reviewsCoughlinIorcausing
theNovember14trialsettingtohavebeencontinuedonlytoina3min.add-onattheconclusionoIthehearingwhicharetrialwhichjudgeHowarddownsuchamatteroIpublicconcernthatheFivecityoIReno
employeesatthecourthouseuntilnineo'clockatnighttogetitdonethatinIactjudgeHowardadmittedhewaswrongwithrespecttothecauseoIthecontinuanceoIthe14th2012trialthatwasnotCoughlinIault
thatallandwheretheRenoMunicipalCourthadpreviouslygrantedacontinuancetothecityoIRenoprosecutor'sintheverycriminaltrespassprosecutionoICoughlinstemmingIromRichardGHillEsquire's
criminaltrespasscomplaint(connectedtothesummaryevictionmatteroverwhichjudgeSIerrazzapresided)wheretheRenoMunicipalCourtIreelygrantedRichardGaretheproductthecityoIRenoprosecutor'sa
continuanceinlightoIRichardGHill'sneedtotakeasix-weekvacationbeginningearlyNovember2011anditwasthatsamesix-weekvacationbyRichardGHillthatHillallegesenabledhimtocommanderthe
RenojusticecourtjudgeSIerrazzatodenyingCoughlinahearingonhismotiontocontestpersonalpropertylienintheevictionmatter1708requiredbylawwithin10daysoICoughlinIilinghismotiontocontest
personalpropertylienonNovember17,2011evenwhereisextremelysuspectthatthejusticecourtisnowallegingCoughlinreIusedtopermiteitherJoslynJohnisorKarenStanciltosetthehearingonNovember
17asJaniceadmittedwhenjudgeSIerrazzacalledherisoIhisownwitnessattheDecember20,2012hearingthatwasIinallyset(asRichardHill'se-mailwhereinhethreatenedCoughlinthathewouldbeableto
controlthejusticecourtinhisdesiredtopreventsuchahearingbeensetuntilhereturnedIromhissix-weekvacationinlateDecember2011....ItincidenttothatsamehearingonCoughlin'smotiontocontest
personalpropertylienjudgeSIerrazzaorderedKarenStancilandJoslynJohnisoItheIilingoIIiceoItheRenojusticecourttoIileinunswornstatementspurportingtoprovethatCoughlinsomehowIailedtoallow
thejusticecourttosettinghearingonhismotiontocontestpersonalpropertylienhoweverthatdoesn'texplaintheextenttowhichbailiIIPlamondonwasabletoapparentlywithoutCoughlin'spermissionserve
CoughlinaviolationoIthecourthousecenturyDr.andanoticeoIitNovember7,2011hearinginthatsameevictionmatteruponCoughlinatatimewhenCoughlinwasseekingaxisjusticecourtIilingoIIiceIor
somethingunrelatedtobailiIIPlamondon'sdesiretoaIIectserviceoIsomenoticeoIthehearinguponCoughlin.
KeithLoomis,Esq.,RMC,courtappointeddeIendner,admitstohavingbeencloseIriendswithinlawschoolandtothisdayLoomishimselIin1982graduateMcGeorgeschoollawalongwithwashCountyDist.
Atty.RichardGammick,bothoIwhomwereoneyearaheadoIRenojusticecourtjudgeCliItonwhomrecentlygranted2004graduateMcGeorgeschooloIlawdeputydistrictattorneyZachyounginordertaking
awaytheabilitytoIilebyIaxIromCoughlinaprivilegethatisaccordedanyothercriminaldeIendantsintheRenojusticecourtdespitetheIactthatthatorderwasgrantedattheNovember27,2012hearingat
whichCoughlin'sthenattorneypublicdeIenderBirayDoganwasrelievedascounselandwhereatthathearingDoganhimselIadmittedthathehadnotreceivedthemotionyoungallegedwhoIiledonNovember
26,2012seekingsuchanorderIromjudgeCliItonbarringCoughlin'sabilitytoIaxIileorsendyoungitaIaxoIanysortapparentlyorperhapsTomdespitetheIactthatCoughlinhadmerelycomplywithjudge
CliIton'srequestthatheprovidejudgeCliItonsomethingsupportiveoICoughlin'scontentionthatBirayDoganhadutterlyIailedherbytheadvocacyzealousarenotoIanysortwhatsoeverincidenttohisquote
representationoICoughlin"in065630).
(again,judgeSIerrazzaasaIormaltribaljudgeanddirectoroIIndianlegalservicesandCoughlin'sIormerclientPeteEastman,recentlyadmittedtoCoughlinbothoItheStateBaroINevadacommunicatedheand
hiswiIeIalseassertionsrespectinganon-existentorderagainstCoughlinbyNevadaBankruptcyCourtJudgeBeesley(theStateBaroINevadalistedashavingaspecializationincreditorsrightsatwww.nvbar.org)
(IormerlawpracticepartnerswithanindividualIromWashoeLegalServiceswhomCoughlinissuingin60302,KarenSabo,Esq.,IormerlyoIBeesleyPeck,LTDandwhomtrashedCoughlin'sworkbeIorehim
andinNevadaBankruptcyCourtatCoughlin'sNovember14,2012IormaldisciplinaryhearingtowhichjudgeBeesley'stestiIyingwasnotnoticedtoCoughlinprevioustothehearingandinviolationoISupreme
Courtrule109aviolationmadealltheworseinlightoItheIactitbarcounselPatKinghadknownoIanyinvolvementoIjudgeBeesleyinanymattersrelativetotheultimateSupremeCourtrule105complaint
againstCoughlinIoroversixmonthsatleastandsoinnowaycanbesaidtojuststuIIIhislast-minutesupplementingjudgeBeesleyandmilquetoastattemptstoprovideCoughlinSsupplementaldesignationoI
witnessandsummaryoIevidenceandregardtobothjudgeBeesley'stestimonyatthehearingandWashoelegalservicesExecutiveDirectorPaulTESTIMONYatthehearing(bothoIthosegentlemenattended
McGeorgeschooloIlawin1977alongwithRenoMunicipalCourtjudgeDorothyNashHolmesandbothoIthemoIIeredstrongopinionsdisapprovingoICoughlin'scompetencyasanattorneyatthehearing
despitetheIactthatneitheroIthemcouldprovideanythinginthewayoIspeciIicitywithregardtowhatissuestheywouldtakewithanyoItheworktheyreviewedoICoughlin'sorjudgeBeesley'scaseIilingsin
judgebeIorejudgeBeesley'sdepartmentintheNVB.)inearlyMay2012inviolationSupremeCourtRule121'sconIidentialitydictates,itisinterestingtonotethejudgeBeesleytestbybothCoughlinIormal
disciplinaryhearinghimonbehalIoIrecentlyasoINovember8,2012reinstatedattorneyStephenR/HarrisEsquirewhomadmittedtomisappropriatingsome$755,000Iromhisclientsandusingitonhookersand
luxurydesignergoods.ApparentlycreditorsrightsspecialistbankruptcyjudgeBeesleyseescompetencyinMr.Harrisandcouldoverlookthe$755,000Iormyclientwhereitbe$14worthoIcandybarsandcough
dropsIromCoughlinandCoughlin'sMarch30,2012IilinginCadleCo.v.Keller(anadversaryproceedingintheNVBwhereinCoughlinhadahearingonMarch15,2012at2:30pminrepresentingMr.Keller
thatwasaIIectedbytheIraudulentlyprocuredorderIorsummaryevictionintheRenojusticecourtRJCRev2011-000374thatmorningobtainedbyGailKernEsquireBrownjudgeSchroederoItheRenojustice
courtwhereintheaudiorecordIromthatproceedingindicatesaRenojusticecourtclerkimploringjudgeSchroedertohurriedlymovethecasesummaryevictioncaseagainstCoughlinthroughdespiteJudge
SchroederadmittedlyhavinghadadiIIerentorderoIhearingthecasesplannedIorthatmorningdocketanddespitetheIactthattheIaxheaderonthesummaryevictionorderthatwashurriedlymovedthrough
indicatesatimestampingoIa8:24amIorahearingthatwasnoticedat8:30amon3/15/12,andwheretheWashoeCountySheriII'soIIicedeputiesCannizzaroenteredandbrokeintoCoughlin'srentalsometime
shortlyaIter1PMthatsameday,3/15/12,withoutannouncingthemselvesaslawenIorcementandwheretheyenteredwiththeirgunsand/orpagersdrawninandimmediatelyplacedCoughlininhandcuIIsandtold
himhewasdetainedincontrasttothetypicalprocedurescarriedoutbytheSheriII'soIIiceincidenttoevictionsinWashoeCounty.Incidenttothatsummaryeviction(wherethedocket,atleast,morereviewis
necessary,indicatesthatKernandWesternNevadaManagement'sSueKingswitcheduptheirbasisIoranevictionallthesuddenintheir3/15/12IilingoIaLandlord'sAIIidavitthatsuddenlychangedthebasisIor
seekinganevictiontooneIornon-paymentoIrent(seeminglyinresponsetoCoughlinPreHearingBrieIpointingoutthediIIicultiestheywouldIaceunderGlazerinpursuingaNoCause,particularlyagainst
Coughlin,whomatthatpointwas,again,arguablyacommercialtenant,especiallywheretheParkTerraceHOAhadexpresslyapprovedthearrangementwithtwoindividualswhomwerearguablysublessorsto
Coughlin).inthethirdgrievanceagainstCoughlinIormingSCR105complaintIorwhichaIormaldisciplinaryhearing,thegrievanceIiledbyJudgeDorothyNashHomesinNG12-0402.
JudgeBeesleyandJudgeNashHolmesattendedMcGeorgeSchooloILawtogetherin1977.Perhaps,theIilingthatJudgeBeesleywasreIerringtowhenhethrewCoughlinunderthebusatCoughlin's11/14/12
Iormaldisciplinaryhearing(withoneoIthethreegrievancenumberslistedintheComplaint,whichtheSBNandPanelwillclaimalsoIulIilledtheHearingrequiredby60838IortheWal-Martcandybar
convictionthatresultedinthecurrentnow5monthlongsuspensionoICoughlin'slicensetopracticelawinNevada)isthematterwherein,onMarch30th,2011CoughlinIiledtheIollowing:
Filed:3/30/2012,inNVBAdversaryProceedingCadleCompanyv.Keller10-05104
Entered:3/30/2012BrieI
DocketText:BrieIinOppositiontoNoticeoIDeIaultandPraecipe/IntenttotakeDeIaultwithCertiIicateoIServiceFiledbyZACHCOUGHLINonbehalIoISAMANTHAL.HALL,
ROBERTKELLER(Relateddocument(s)49NoticeoIEntryoIDeIaultIiledbyPlaintiIICADLECO.)(Attachments:#(1)AIIidavitAIIidavitoICounselCoughlinIorKellerinSupportoI
Opposition#(2)ExhibitExhibit1RegardingWCSOEvictionProcedures#(3)ExhibitRenoMunicipalCourtMarshalsandJudgeNashHolmesseizeattorneyssmartphone#(4)ExhibitEmail
toWCSOHaleyregardingexcusableneglectprejudicetoKeller'scase#(5)32612FaxtoRMC#(6)Exhibit22420IaxtormcregardingdeIiciencyinrecordonappeal#(7)Exhibit11TR
26800NOTICEOFAPPEALANDMOTIONS3712WITHEXHIBIT1ATTACHED)(COUGHLIN,ZACH)
InsubmittingthatsomewhatinIlammatory3/30/12Iiling(whichcuriouslyseemedtoimmediatelyresultinJudgeNashHolmesenteringanOrderoIthesamedatein11TR26800wherebysheOrderCoughlin's
propertyreleasedtohim,thoughDDAMaryKandarasdraggedherIeetuntilApril7th,2012beIoreIinally"allowing"theWashoeCountyJailtoreleasetoCoughlinthepropertythatitalternatelyadmittedto
havingreleasedtotheCityoIRenoMarshalson2/28/12,deniedhavingthemicrosdcard,deniedthemicrosdeverbeingbookedintoproperty,allegedtohavegivenJudgeSIerrazza'sIormertribalcourtBailiII
andIormerCoughlinclientPeterEastmanon2/29/12whenEastmanappearedatthejailatCoughlin'srequesttogetCoughlin'skeyssoEastmancouldarrangeIorCoughlin'sdogJacksonPawlucktobeIedand
caredIorduringCoughlin'ssummary5dayincarceration).
Coughlinputhisclient'sinterestaheadoIhisown(whereCoughlinwouldarguablybebetteroIIlettingthe2/27/12JudgeNashHolmessmartphone,cellphone,andmicrosdcardconIiscatingwithoutawarrant/5
daysummarycontemptjailsentenceIortestiIyingthatanRPDSargentliedinconnectionwithhistestimonyabouttheRichardG.Hill,Esq.retaliatoryissuanceoIthreetraIIiccitationsoutsideHill'slawoIIice,
whereRPDSargentJohnTartertoldCoughlintoleaveaIterCoughlinpresenteduponbeingreleasedIromjailincidenttoathree-daystaystemmingIromHill'sline2RenoPoliceDepartmentoIIicersand
managingcaughttogetCoughlinsubjecttocustodialtrespassingarrest(detailedatlengthin61901)andHillreIusingtogiveCoughlinhisdriverslicenselawaccuserclientsIilesandCoughlinreportingtoSargent
JohnTarteratthattimethatthreedayspriortothatRenoPoliceDepartmentoIIicerChrisCarterJuniorhadadmittedtoCoughlininresponsetoCoughlinqueryinghimashetoowasonRichardHill'spayrollthat
RPDOIIicerChrisCarter,JradmittedtoCoughlin:"Yes,RichardHillpaysmealotoImoneysoIarrestwhohesaystoarrestandIdowhathesaystodo..."andwherebothoIIicerCarterandSargentMarcia
LopezreIusedtoundertakeanydiligentinquiryresponsetoCoughlin'simploringthemtoqueryHillastowhetherhehadjustsentCoughlinaBillIortheIullrentalvalueoIthe121RiverrockpropertyIorthe
monthoINovemberthatwascommiseratewiththesame$900thatCoughlinwaspreviouslychargedIortheIulluseanoccupancyoIthepremises.ThelacklusterIailuretoqueryHillwithanydiligencebyboth
oIIicerCarterandSargentLopezisreminiscentoIwhatRenoMunicipalCourtCourtappointeddeIenderKeithLoomisEsquirein1982graduateMcGeorgeschooloIlawtoldCoughlinatanApril10,2012trial
dateinthatcriminaltrespassmatterwhereinRenoMunicipalCourtjudgeWilliamGardnerreIusedtorecusehimselIIromhearingthatcaseagainstCoughlindespitetheIactthatatthattimehehadIileda
grievancewiththeStateBaroINevadaagainstCoughlinbywayoItheNG120434grievancethathisIellowRMCjudgeDorothyNashHolmesIiled
JudgeBeesleyIormerlypartneredwithnowWashoeLegalServiceschildadvocacydirectorKarenSabo,Esq.,whomCoughlinisorwassuingin60302.IncidenttoJudgeNashHolmesconIiscatingCoughlin's
smartphoneandmicrosdcard,andregularcellphoneon2/28/12,when,outsideanypermissibleinterpretationoIasearchincidenttoarrestgivenCoughlinpropertyhadbeenbookedintohispersonalpropertyat
theWashoeCountyjailon2/27/12(uponJudgeNashHolmessummarilysentencingCoughlinto5daysinjailIorcontempt,despitecitingtoanonsummarycivilcontemptstatuteinNRS22.010andNRS22.100,
butcharacterizingherOrderasIindingCoughlinguiltyoIthe"misdemeanoroIcriminalcontempt"(despitenotinvokingNRS199.340,Nevada'scriminalcontemptstatute,whichisnotsummaryinnature,and
thereIorerequiresmoredueprocess,anddespiteJudgeNashHolmesrelyinguponunswornhearsaybyherMarshalJoelHarley(anditsnotclearHarleyevensaidwhatHolme'sallegedhedidinrenderingher
"secondbitattheapple"oI3/12/12incomparisiontoher2/28/12OrderFindingDeIendantinContemptandImposingSanctions...InNevada,aSummaryContemptOrderunderNRS22.030(whichiscivilin
nature)IorconductnotcommittedintheimmediatepresenceoItheCourt(suchastheallegedconductinvolvingarestroomanddisassemblingasmartphoneorrecordingdeviceandhidingsomecomponentpart
thereoIintherestroomthatJudgeNashHolmesmurkily,hazily,andvaguelytestiIiedtoduringCoughlin's11/14/12Iormaldisciplinaryhearing,andwhichsheincludedintheOrdersherenderedinthattraIIic
citationcasestemmingIromCoughlinbeingtoldtoleaveHill'slawoIIiceuponappearingtheirdemandinghiskeys,wallets,driver'slicense,andclient'sIilesshortlyaIterbeingreleasedIroma3daycustodial
arreststayinjailincidenttoHill'scriminaltrespassComplaintagainstCoughlinatCoughlin'sIormerhomelawoIIice(inRJC2011-001708,theevictionmatterpresidedoverbyJudgeSIerrazza).LiketheOrder
JudgeLindaGardnerclaimedtheparties"agreed"toincidenttoaTemporaryProtectionHearinginSantiagov.VaxevanisFV11-03383(seeattachedinExhibit1),JudgeSIerrazzaattemptedtocharacterizethe
Orderheenteredon12/21/12IollowingaverycontentioussixhourhearingonCoughlin'sNovember17th,2011IiledstampedMotiontoContestPersonalPropertyLienasan"OrderResolvingTenant'sMotionto
ContestPersonalPropertyLien"despiteCoughlinclearlyindicating,ontherecordatthathearingthathewascertainlynot"agreeing"toanything,norwashewaivinghisrighttoappealanyOrderJudgeSIerrazza
mayenterorrenderincidenttothatHearing...whichwasconductedinaniscoerciveatmospherewhereinRichardHillwaspermittedtojokealongwithRenojusticecourtbailiIIsradiusinchieIbailiIISextonasto
theIactthathetoquotewouldliketosticksomethingsupCoughlin'sass"inreIerencetomultipleincidentswhereRenojusticecourtbailiIIshadeitherasbailiIIarrestedtoldCoughlinthathewouldputhisIoot
oICoughlin'sassormadecommentaryaschieISextondidtoCoughlinrespectingSexton'sindicationoICoughlinontwodiIIerentoccasionstheweekoIThanksgiving2011thatCoughlinindicatedthattheIiling
oIIiceand/ornotattempttoIiledocumentssoclosetothe5PMclosingtimeoItheIilingoIIice.(seeattachedinExhibit1).
andhimhimhimhimandhimInIact,inHill'sJanuary14th,2012grievancetotheSBN,Hillwrites,inaccurately:
"4.WerepresentDr.MatthewMerIiss,aphysicianIromChico,CaliIornia.Dr.Merlissownsthepropertyat121RiverRockStreet,Reno,Nevada.BeginninginMarch2010,thepropertywas
leasedtoMr.Coughlinandhisthen-girlIriend.TheleaseexpiredinFebruary2011.ThegirlIriendleItthecommunityinapproximatelyMay2011.Dr.Merlisscontactedusinapproximately
August2011toassistinevictingMr.Coughlin.CoughlinhadnotpaidrentorutilitiessinceMay.HecontendedthattherewerehabitabilityissueswiththepropertythatjustiIiedhiswithholding
rent.AlloIhisclahnsweredecidedadverselytohispositionattheevictionhearing.JusticeoIthePeacePeterSIerazzaorderedCoughlinevictedIromthepremiseseIIectiveNovember1,2011.
Onthatdate,theWashoeCountySheriffsDepartmentperformedtheirnormalevictionprocedure:lockswerechangedandtheevictionnoticewaspostedonthefrontdoor.We
videotapedthehomeanditscontentsatthattime.UponinspectionoverthenextIewdays,itbecameapparentthat"somebody"wasbreakingintothehomeonaregularbasis.OnSunday,
November13,2011,Dr.Merlisscametotown,andImethimatthehomeonRiverRockStreet.Aswewalkedthroughthehome,itwasobviousthat"
One,itisnottrueIorHilltowrite"TheleaseexpiredinFebruary2011."TheStandardRentalAgreementutilizedbythepartiesprovidedthattheLeasereneweduponitstermsautomaticallyinaccordancewiththe
NRS118Aholdovertenantprovision.Further,itisnotaccurateIorHilltowrite"CoughlinhadnotpaidrentorutilitiessinceMay."One,thelandlordassentedtoanarrangementwithCoughlin'sIormerco-tenant,
MelissaUlloa,wherebyheagreedtoallowMs.UlloatomakeinstallmentpaymentstomakeupIortheIactthatshetookCoughlin's$450contributiontothe$900IoreachoIthemonthsoIMay2011andJune
2011andonlysentthelandlordMerliss$550IorMay2011andnothingIorJune2011.CoughlinprovidedMs.Ulloawith$450IoreachoIthosemonths,andthereIore,incombinationwithDr.Merliss'sassentto
Ulloa'srepaymentplan(whicharguablysavedMs. Ulloa from a grand larceny charge of a variety to which the two petty larceny charges Coughlin faced shortly after Ms. Ulloa's secretly absconding with Coughlin's rental
contributions (which Coughlin was only made aware, and the concomitant rent due, upon an August 11th, 2011 email from the landlord Merliss). Merliss admitted to assenting to the repayment plan with Ms. Ulloa on the
record in 1708 before Judge Sferrazza. Further, Merliss (though, originally, not Hill or Baker in their demands and eviction notices, in violation of NRCP 11) admitted, under oath, that he had expressly, in writing, assented to
an agreement with Coughlin for a rent deduction of $350 going forward in exchange for Coughlin "dealing with the weeds". Coughlin did "deal with the weeds" (see the attached artificial turf installation Coughlin had
installed in an enterprising approach which the landlord's landscaper for the other property Merliss owned next door and his quasi real estate broker property manager Darlene Sharpe quickly grew unhappy with, given it
was cutting in to the "$2,000" that Dr. Merliss eventually claimed, under oath, at the 10/25/12 eviction "Trial" that he wound up paying Green Action Lawn Service to "deal with the weeds" at Coughlin's former home law
office. "Dealing with the weeds", to Green Action Lawn Service, included tearing up Coughlin's artificial turf installation leaving Street causing Coughlin's law office substantial losses lost profits time away from work and
expenses associated with immediately mitigating the criminal conduct of green action lawn service where they not only tore up the artificial turf installation even though they knew it was there prior to submitting their bid
for services to landlord Merliss, who apparently did not realize or remember that he had also assented to a $350 rent deduction with Coughlin on or about May 24th 2011 in exchange for Coughlin quote dealing with the
weeds. Green action lawn service sought close the artificial turf installation Coughlin put into place of his former law office the week prior to their tearing it up and leaving industry when they were doing the weeds at the
property Merliss owns next-door at 252 Mill St.
Hill's grievance of 1/14/12 to the SBN goes on to allege:
"SomeonehadbeenintheresinceIhadlastbeeninseveraldaysbeIore.Dr.Merlissdiscoveredthatthebasementdoorwasbarricaded(notlocked)Iromtheinside.TheRenoPolice
Departmentwassummoned.Theytriedtocoaxwhoeverwasinthebasementout,withoutsuccess.AIterDr.Merlisshadtokickthedoordown,it"wasdiscoveredthatMr.Coughlin
hadbrokeninandwasinthebasement.HewasarrestedandispresentlyIacingcriminaltrespasschargesinRenoMunicipalCourt.Seecaseno.11CR2640521.HeisalsoIacinga
contemptmotioninIrontoIJudgeSIerrazzaintheevictioncase.SIerazzahasstayedthatmatterpendingtheresolutionoIthecriminaltrial.ThatwasscheduledIorJanuary10,2012,
butwascontinuedattherequestoIMr.Coughlin'snewattorney.
5.TheevictionorderisnowonappealtotheSecondJudicialDistrictCourt.SeecaseCVl1-o3628,pendinginDepartment7.AspartoItheevictionprocess,alienwasassertedagainst
thepersonalpropertythatCoughlinleItbehindatthehome.OnNovember16,2011,CoughlinIiledamotiontocontestthelandlord'slienintheRenoJusticeCourt.Thecourttriedto
promptlysetahearing,butCoughlinreIusedtocooperateinsettingthematter,andthecourttookitoIIcalendar.Coughlinthenreinitiatedthatprocessandahearingwasheldin
December,atwhichtimethecourtheardevidenceoICoughlin'slackoIcooperationinsettingtheNovemberhearing.YoumayalsowanttocontactReno1usticeCourtstaff,andin
particular,chiefclerkKarenStancil,aboutMr.Coughlin'sabusivetreatmentoIherandherstaII.AIterthehearing,thecourtissuedanOrdergrantingCoughlinatwo-daytime
windowtoremovehispersonalproperty.TheIirstdaywasThursday,December22,2011.AIterCoughlinwasallowedintothehomethatIirstday,hesentoutane-mailtotheeIIect
thatbecausehehadappealedJudgeSIerazza'sorder,hewasentitledtoastayoIproceedingsandwastoresumeinthehome.Asaresult,hedidverylittletoremoveanyoIhis
personalpropertythatday.OnFriday,December23,2011,aIterhelearned,again,thathisstayhadbeendenied,Coughlinassembledasmallcrewandtheywereabletoremovea
substantialamountoIhispersonalproperty.(YouneedtounderstandthatMr.Coughlinisahoarder.WehavethephotosandvideosiIyouwouldliketoseethem.)However,Mr.
CoughlindidnotgetalloIhispropertyout.Forexample,Icounted13carseatsthathehadsomehowmanagedtogetdownintothebasement.
HavingIailedtoremovealloIhisbelongings,Mr.CoughlinthenmovedbeIoreJudgeFlanaganIoratemporaryrestrainingordertopreventthedisposaloIhisabandonedpropertyin
accordancewithJudgeSIerazza'sorder.AttachedisMr.Coughlin'smotion,myoffice'sopposition,andMr.Coughlin'sreply.ThesedocumentsdemonstrateMr.Coughlin's
completeandutterincompetenceasanattorney.
OnJanuary11,2012,JudgeFlanagandeniedMr.Coughlin'srequestIoratemporaryrestrainingorder.OnJanuary12,2011,thecontractorhiredtocleanthehousecommencedwork.
Mr.CoughlinIlaggedthecontractordownintraIIicwhenhe(thecontractor)wasonhiswaytothedumpwiththeabandonedpropertyIromthehouse.Coughlincalledthepolice,who
arrivedatthetransIerstation.CoughlinwasIalselyassertingthatthecontractorhadtriedtorunhin1over.Healsotoldthepolice"
TheECOMMrecordings(atleastwhatSkaudecidedtodivulge,Iinally)canbedescribedthusly:
PHONECALLStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-22-52PMSourceID50CoryGoble'sIirst911callIromAustinLichty's7753786673.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-24-29PMSourceID43Duraldesaying153enroute.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-24-34PMSourceID46Rosasaying396enroute.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-25-06PMSourceID13reportingpartyadvisedtheyarenowatIirstandcenter.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-25-22PMSourceID21probablyDuraldesaying153.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-26-30PMSourceID12RPDRosasayingcharles396ontheotherend.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-26-34PMSourceID14unintellibleshortstatementsoundslikeguiltnexus.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-27-25PMSourceID41probablyDuraldesayingRenoC153twentythree.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-27-29PMSourceID43probablyadispatchersayingc153.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-28-11PMSourceID17DuraldesayingRenoC153I'llbeoutonhimontheCenterSt.Bridge.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-28-17PMSourceID18ProbablyadispatchersayingCharles153.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSunday,August21,201112-08-40AMSourceID17DispatcherindicatingRenoC153wagonavailableIoramale.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSunday,August21,201112-08-51AMSourceID26someoneotherthanDuraldesoundslikemakethatalevelbclearthatinabout5
minutes.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSunday,August21,201112-19-51AMSourceID42probablyDuraldesayingRenoC153tomainstationbreak151unintelligible.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSunday,August21,201112-21-02AMSourceID28oddbysomebodyc153seemstosplitinmiddleyetstilloneIile.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSunday,August21,201112-38-03AMSourceID22DuraldesayingRenoc153rtIreturning.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSunday,August21,201112-38-10AMSourceID27Duralde'swiIeDispatchJessicaDuraldec153104breakunion9toreno.wav
SECONDARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-36-19PMSourceID5RosasayingCharles396.wav
Close
SECONDARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-36-31PMSourceID19Rosasaying29whitemale.wav
SECONDARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-37-23PMSourceID24mansayingcomeandsplitthatupthenIemaledispatchersayinggoahead
withthat.wav
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402

Print
in compliance with Judge Sferrazza Order of 9/5/12 FW: Zach Coughlin has shared a folder with you
Sent: Tue 11/27/12 8:26 AM
To: psferrazza@washoecounty.us (psferrazza@washoecounty.us); zyoung@da.washoecounty.us (zyoung@da.washoecounty.us)
re:rcr2011-063341
Dear Judge Sferrazza and DDA Young,
I am sending this in compliance with Judge Sferrazza's indication that I should send him materials after the trial the bare on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim and or the coerced waiver
of my Fifth Amendment rights, especially incident to the representation by WCPD Jim Leslie. Please note the email of 11/5/2012 from Court Administrator Mr. Tuttle and the inadvertent
faxing of numerous filings to the wrong fax number by myself.
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=43084638F32F5F28!5141&authkey=!APibWiVXTMSWkw0
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
View photos Download all
in compliance with
Judge Sferrazza
Order of 9/5/12
You are invited to view Zach's album. This album has 43 files.
11 19 12 063341 MOTION FOR MISTRIAL OR CONTINAUCNE.pdf
4 11 12 063341 RJC Townsend correspondence with SBN 0204 motion for new trial basis.pdf
11 21 12 notice of non service 063341 needs ex 1.pdf
11 21 12 Notice of Irregularities 063341 with ex 1 started revised.pdf
11 30 11 063341 Coughlin_Discovery Received_11.30.11 rotated.pdf
11 16 12 skau grievance materials combined 0204 063341.pdf
11 8 12 and 119 12 emails 063341 handed by skau at 11 13 12 hearing.pdf
11 13 12 063341 submission of materials and motion for order dmv and cell records or subpoena.pdf
11 12 12 just 80 pages revised cr11-063341 PRE TRIAL MOTION only pages 1 to 80 just text of motion no exhibits.pdf
2 15 12 rcr11-063341 PRE TRIAL MOTION WITH BATE STAMPED EXHIBITS compressed pdffactpro more nuance.pdf
final Motion for Mistrial and Memorandum of Law State v Coughlin rcr2011-063341 - Copy.pdf
pre trial brief state of nevada v coughlin rcr2011-063341 8 29 12 leslie wcpd rpd rjc iphone ocrd and tagged jbig2 lossy.pdf
2 14 12 SBN KING LETTER WITH HILL GRIEVANCE ATTACHED RCR2011-063341 RPD RMC 11 CR 00696 WCSO SUSICH ME.pdf
pre trial brief state of nevada v coughlin rcr2011-063341.pdf
rcr11-063341 notice of appearance coughin file 3 3 2012.pdf
rcr11-063341 affidavit in support of motion to file pre-trail motions late bw - Copy.pdf
11 27 12 complete with ex 1 063341 notice of developments.pdf
11 26 12 0204 Notice of Hill and Baker Malfeasance for Motion for New Disciplinary Hearing or Trial 063341 1708 60331 61383.pdf
6 25 12 Order for Sanctiosn 03628 0204 Flanagan $40K in attorneys fees summary eviction appeal.pdf
10 17 11 email and attached Emergency Motion to Stay, Set Aside, Vacate Eviction Hearing Order to Baker 1708 0204.pdf
FW: Zach Coughlin
From: stuttle@washoecounty.us
CC: CWood@washoecounty.us; RBaker@washoecounty.us
Subject: RE: Zach Coughlin has shared a folder with you
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 18:39:02 +0000
Mr. Coughlin:

Reno Justice Court has no record of your attempted filing on 10/18/12. If you choose to pursue this filing action, you will need to bring the documents in because we do not accept filings via email. Any
documents filed with the court will be retained by the court and we will not make copies for you, the DA or PD. Providing the appropriate parties copies of your filing is your responsibility, not the court. You
may also bring in your confirmation of transmission from the 10/18/12 filing attempt and we will retain that receipt as part of the court record. Steve

Steve Tuttle
CourtAdministrator
RenoJusticeCourt

From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 9:39 PM
To: Tuttle, Steve
Subject: Zach Coughlin has shared a folder with you
Dear Mr. Tuttle,

I perused the file in RCR2011-063341 and noticed that the document I submitted for filing on or about 10 18 12 was not file stamped or even in the file, though I have confirmation of receipt of transmission. Can you
please indicate why it is not appearing in the file and find attached another copy of the exhibit 1 thereto.
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=43084638F32F5F28!3600
102611coughlin2 CRC 11-063341 Motion Competency Hearing DPD Goodnight and DDA Darcy Spencer.wmv
102611coughlin1 CRC 11-063341 Motion Competency Hearing DPD Goodnight and DDA Darcy Spencer.wmv
101211coughlin CRC 11-063341 Competency Evaluation Hearing that got continued.wmv
090512coughlin2 rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso duralde.wmv
082712 coughlin2 plea bargain hearing rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso.wmv
082712coughlin3 plea bargain hearing rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso.wmv
071612coughlin rcr2011-063341 rjc .wmv
082712 coughlin1 plea bargain hearing rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso.wmv
082912 coughlin2 RJC RCR2011-063341 iPhone Trial Leslie Young Bosler rpd rmc wcso Duralde Goble Zarate testimony - Copy.wmv
082912 coughlin1 RJC RCR2011-063341 iPhone Trial Leslie Young Bosler rpd rmc wcso Duralde Goble Zarate testimony.wmv
082912coughlin3 RJC RCR2011-063341 iPhone Trial Leslie Young Bosler rpd rmc wcso Duralde Goble Zarate testimony.wmv
090512coughlin1 rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso duralde - Copy.wmv
082912 coughlin2 RJC RCR2011-063341 iPhone Trial Leslie Young Bosler rpd rmc wcso Duralde Goble Zarate testimony.wmv
090512coughlin5 rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso duralde 1.wmv
090512coughlin3 rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso duralde 1.wmv

Share your files with
IN COMPLIANE WITH JUDGE SFERRAZZA ORDER REGARDING EMAIL HIM AT CLOSE OF TRIAL AND IN CASE ANYTHING GOES
MISSING AGAIN
Sent: Thu 11/29/12 4:57 PM
To:
stuttle@washoecounty.us (stuttle@washoecounty.us); zyoung@da.washoecounty.us (zyoung@da.washoecounty.us); psferrazza@washoecounty.us (psferrazza@washoecounty.us); rjcweb@washoecounty.us
(rjcweb@washoecounty.us)
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
11 29 12 063341 MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL FINAL WITH 217 MENTION.pdf
EX1 063341 FINAL.pdf
data-2012-11-24-17-43-52 063341 11 19 12 lichty admits phone did not vibrate.wav
data-2012-11-24-17-44-12.wav
data-2012-11-24-18-40-33.wav
data-2012-11-24-18-40-47.wav
data-2012-11-24-18-43-05.wav
data-2012-11-24-18-45-14.wav
data-2012-11-24-18-49-41.wav
data-2012-11-24-18-49-41(1).wav
data-2012-11-24-18-53-39.wav
data-2012-11-24-18-53-39(1).wav
data-2012-11-24-19-00-18.wav
data-2012-11-24-19-00-18(1).wav
data-2012-11-24-19-21-24.wav
data-2012-11-24-19-21-24(1).wav
data-2012-11-24-19-26-17.wav
data-2012-11-24-19-31-25.wav
data-2012-11-24-19-37-26.wav
data-2012-11-24-19-40-46.wav
Download all

911 calls missing from what was produced by City Attorney Skau
Sent: Mon 12/03/12 2:53 AM
To: psferrazza@washoecounty.us (psferrazza@washoecounty.us); zyoung@da.washoecounty.us (zyoung@da.washoecounty.us)
DearJudgeSIerrazzaandDDAYoung,
ThiscorrespondenceisIurtherinlinewithJudgeSIerrazza'spreviousinstructiontometosendhimemailsaIterthetrialdirectedtomyissueswithMr.
Leslie'srepresentation(IamtootiredtoIullysetthoseissuesoutatthispoint,butIwilltosomeextenthereinatleast,andIamcopyingDDAYoung
onthisjustbecauseitseemsliketherightthingtodo).
SHEPP v. STATE, 484 P.2d 563 (1971): "Count 3 charged Shepp with having received property stolen by himduring the commission oI the burglary charged in Count 2.Since a thief cannot
receivefromhimselfthefruitsofhislarceny,thejurymustbeinstructedthatitcouldconvictofeitherburglaryorreceiving,484P.2d565]butnotofboth
PerhapsoneoImybiggestcomplaintsabouttheineIIectiveassistanceoIcounselbyMr.Leslie(andtoamuch,muchlesserextentthatoIMr.Goodnight)relatestoLeslie'sIailuretoutilizeanyoI
theworkIdidtoprepthiscase. Forinstance,LesliewhiIIed(perhapsintentionallyso)ontheextenttowhichRPDOIIicerDuraldeandRosacouldnothavereceivedthedispatchtextoI
11:27:11pmreportingGoble'ssinceprovenIraudulent"someonejustsockedaminor"911calltoEcomm/Dispatch...so,OIIicerDuraldeandDDAYoungarestuckwithanythingtheOIIicercould
"hear"ontheDispatchrecordings(andthoseprovidedbyCityAttorneySkauprovideabasisIormistrialwherethecdlacksGoble'ssecond911callandCoughlin's911callandissuspiciously
devoidoIanythingIorthe6minutesinwhichthedetainingandarrestoccurs(andIurther,DDAYoungandtheStatewereservedarequestIordiscoverybyGoodnightinNovemberandsubpoena
whichrequiredproductionoIthose"dispatchlogsorrecordings...."YetDDAIailedto.Thenheputontestimonandmadeargumentthatthis"reportIromdispatchoIapossibleIight"wasthemain
justiIicationIorthepatdownandsearchincidenttoarrestandledtoajustiIicationIornotexcludinganything"discernedincidenttothepatdown"...theonlyproblemisisthatDuraldeandRosa
alreadyaremarkedasonthesceneby11:26:00pm,andthereIorecouldnothavereadthetextscreensintheirvehiclestorecievedthetextonly11:27:11pmdispatchentryabout"someonejust
sockedaminor".Further,theextenttowhichCoughlin's911callisnotreportedaccuratelyatallIurtherunderscorestheunIairnessoIdeprivingCoughlintherighttocrossexamineDuraldeandthe
dispatchers.
AreviewoItheEcommcdprovidedbyRenoCityAttorneySkau,inwhatIbelievewashisresponsetoJudgeSIerrazzaorderinghimtoproducein
responsetomysubpoenaducestecumtoKelleyOdomandECOMM(EmergencyDispatchServices)revealswhatIbelievemaybemisconduct.
TwooIthe911callsaremissing. ThereisnoaudiooIanyRPD-ECOMM/Dispatchcommunicationsbetweenthe11:28:17pmmarkandthe
11:36:27pmmark...whichisdisturbing,consideringtheRPDandEcommdidnotknowIwasIilming/recordingthearrest. HadInotcaptureda
recordingoIthearrest,howlittlewouldhavethedispatchlogs,witnesstestimony,andEcommrecordingsrevealed...anyhowmanythingsrevealedby
thearrestrecordingcontradictwhatOIIicerDuraldeputinhisSupplementalDeclarationandNarrativeandthetwowitnessstatements? Further,
whereZaratedoesnotallegetohaveseenthephonelightuptoDuraldeorinhisWitnessStatement,comeTrialtime,Zarate,on8/29/12doestestiIyto
seeingthephonelightupinCoughlin'spocket...butwait...yeah,that'sit...hesawitlightupIromallthewayacrosstheskatepark...butwait...come
November19th,2012hechangeshisstoryanddecideshesawitlightupIrom"2to3IeetawayIromCoughlin"....ThereamovieIloatingaround
somewhereouttherethatdoesatimelineoIallthesecalls,allthesevideos,superimposesthedispatchlogsonthetextwithquotationsandcitationsto
sworntestimonybythesewitnesses...etc. AndoneproblemIorDDAYoungandDuraldeisIoundintheState's2/21/12Opposition,onpage5,
whereinYoungwrites: "Intheinstantcase,thepat-downsearchoItheDeIendantwasproperunderthetotalityoIthecircumstances. Priorto
arriving,OIIicerDuraldelearnedthatthesceneinvolvedalouddisturbancewithpossibleIight,therebyimmediatelyraisingtheconcernoIweapons
andthesaIetyoIallthosepresent." And,oIcourse,OIIicerDuralderespondedsplendidlytoCoachYoung's,er,DDAYoung'strainingregimeand
sangthe"possibleIight...reportIromdispatchoIapossibleIight"tuneallthelivelongday...whichwasthebasisIorthereasonablesuspicionIorthe
pat-down(andJudgeSIerrazzadidchangehisSuppressionMotionRulingattheTrialsomewhat...alteringittomakelessobvioustheextenttowhich
Youngwasrepeatedlyallowedtoenterhearsayintotherecord,bothintheSuppressionMotionHearingandatTrial,whereasCoughinnevercouldget
thatdarnNicoleWatsonadmittingtohearingthe"manwithasixpackthreatentothrowtheiPhoneintotheriver"captureonvideoandaudio
recordingsintotherecord...despiteDuraldetestiIyingtoamultitudeoIdoublehearsay(andnotevencaptureonarecordingsocloseintimetothe
arrestandattheverysamelocation,involvingthemajorityoItheplayersinthearrestitselI...).
Itwasinthesame11/30/11emailIromWCPDGoodnighttoCoughlinthatincludedtheNarrativebyOIIicerDuralde(whichhas,intheIooteroIthe4pagedocument,aIooterindicatinga"printed
on"dateoI11/28/11
Zarate'stestimonyrespectingthescantstatementsheactuallymadetoOIIicerDuralderevealtheextenttowhichOIIicerDuraldepaintsontowitnessstatementmorespeciIic,particularizedIactsin
supportoItheobjectiveshehas,whichhere,weremotivatebyaretaliatoryintentandthe"thrill"oI"busting"andattorneywhomdaredtoansweroneoItheoIIicer'squestionsbyaskingaquestion
seekingclariIicationastoCoughlin'sconstitutionalrights....whichclearlyisnotapermissiblebasistosupportaIindingoIeither"reasonablesuspicion"toconducta"weaponscheckpatdown"(the
OIIicer'sdidnotreceivethetextIromdispatchreportingGoble'ssecond911callwhereinheIraudulentlyallegedthat"someonejustsockedaminor"(reIerringtotheinstancewherethen18year
oldAustinLichty(whoiscapturedonthevideooIthemoments(Iilenamed: VID_20110820_232423 austin lichty templeton goble zarate chan rpd iphone assaulting and battery Coughlin jusrt
prior to RPD rcr.3gp 46 seconds in length) lying in asserting that "I'm 17...I'm a minor!", so, contrary to DDA Young's assertion in his 2/21/12 Opposition to Goodnights 2/14/12 Motion to
Suppress, both Goble, Lichty, and Zarate all have motivations apparent which preclude them from being deemed "reliable citizen witnesses" and Officer Duralde indeed did have, and admitted
to in his testimony at trial to being aware of, the "gross inconsistencies" Goodnight pointed out between the hearsay and double hearsay Duralde testified to at trial after "refreshing his
recollection" upon a review of either his "Supplemental Declaration" (an attachment to the probable cause sheet, DDA Young would allege) and or his "Narrative". Which begs the
question....how was it not misconduct by the State and prejudicial to the point of declaring a mistrial or at least not, as Judge Pearson did in a curious recorded hearing on
But here is the biggest problem for the RPD and the State...the screen lock that Goble and Templeton testified to (the password for the phone)...and when Goble alleges Duralde gave him back
the phone...and the call into the iPhone at 11:33 pm from Officer Duralde's phone...and the call from the iPhone b
PerhapstheworstthingIortheStateandtheRPDhereisthattwohostilewitnesses(inadditiontoCoughlin'svariousstatementsrelatedthereto,during
histestimonyandonthemediaadmittedintoevidence) testiIiedthatRPDOIIicerDuraldecommittedmisconductbylyingaboutthepurportedorder
orpointintimeinrelationtothearrestandsearchoICoughlinandDuralde'sIirstcomingintopossessionoItheiPhone. GobletestiIiedthatDuralde
removedthephoneIromCoughlin'spocketandthatDuraldehadthephonewithhimwhenheIirstpresentedtoGobletoaskquestionrelatedtothe
phoneandtoveriIyownershipoIthephone(whichwouldincludegatheringthephonenumberIortheiPhone,whichnecessarilywouldmeanthat
Duralde'sallegationoIonlysearchingCoughlinaIterperIormingsomecalltotheiPhoneandhearsayingitvibrate(eventhoughmultiplewitness
(Templeton,Zarate,Goble,LichtytestiIiedthattheyheardnosuchbuzzingorvibratingoIthephone,hostilewitnessesall) GobletestiIiedthat
DuraldealreadyhadtheiPhonepriortoGobleconIerringwithDuraldeorotherwisegivingDuraldeanyphonenumbertocallinanattempttoveriIy
thephonerevealinganincomingcallLEDdisplayscreelightupalert(Goble'sstatementsthatthephonewould"lightup"andthathe,asDuralde
quoteshimintheNarrative,"couldnothearthephone
Ihave30daysIromthedateoIconvictiontoreportaconvictiontotheStateBaroINevadaandtheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOIIice
(USPTO)Iorthesetwoconvictions"possessingorreceivingstolenproperty"and"pettylarceny"underSCR111(6)and37CFR11.25(3).
InotethatWCPDJimLeslie,whilestillattorneyoIrecordIormeonthiscasesRCR2011-063341,hadserved(seeattached)asubpoenaonECOMM
andKelleyOdomon10/03/12. GiventhatMr.Lesliewasnotrelievedasmycounseluntilattheearliest10/22/12(soJudgeSIerrazza'scontention
thatCoughlin"hashadIorevertogethisdeIensereadyinthiscase"andthat"nocontinuancewillbegrantedonaccountoItheIormaldisciplinary
hearingbeIoretheStateBaroINevada"beingscheduledjust5dayspriortothe11/19/12resumptionoItrialinrcr2011-063341(anddespiteJudge
SIerrazzaindicatedsomecanonpreventinghimIromtestiIyingattheIormaldisciplinaryproceeding...thatdidn'tstop063341beingspeciIicallypledin
theSBNNG12-0204SCR105ComplaintinSBNv.Coughlin,aswasJudgeCliIton'scaseinRCR2012-065630...andthatdidn'tstopRJCJudicial
SecretaryLoriTownsendIromsendingintotheSBNCoughlin's2/12/12IilinginthatJudgeCliItoncasercr2012-065630andoIIeringtosendintothe
SBNCoughlin's2/15/12Iilingin063341). AddtothattheIactthatCoughlinneverreceivedIromLeslieGoble'scallrecordsuntilLeslieIinally
releasedthemoOctober30th,2012...anditreallyisnotaccuratetosayCoughlinhad"Iorever"topreparehiscase. Coughlinhadtopulltogethera
deIenseinhisIormaldisciplinaryhearingbeIoretheSBNdespitetheSBNgippinghimoutoIeveryaspectoISCR105(2)(c)(ie,not30daysnoticeoI
thehearingon11/14/12aIterserviceoItheComplaintandDesignationoIWitnessesandSummaryoIEvidenceisaIIectedpursuanttoSCR109and
SCR105(4)...Butthepointis,iItheRJCandbothoIyouwanttobeassociatewitha SchaeIIer style Mirch-ing,thenthismaybeyourchance.
Butyouwon'tbeabletosayyoudidn'thaveplentyoIopportunitiestoputthisthingaside,becausethereareamultitude.
ItismyunderstandingisthatECOMMandKelleyOdomhad15daystorespondtotheSubpoenaducestecum....Mr.Leslie'sIailuretoturnover
anythingtomeinthe"handoIItransmittal"heinsistedupon(despiteadigitaltransmissionbeingrequiredpertheOrderoIJudgeSIerrazza,Ibelieve)
requiressomeexplanation.
SotorequiringexplanationistheIactthatthecdprovidedbyRenoCityAttorneySkauinanapparentgoodIaithattempttocomplywithJudge
SIerrazzaorderinghimtocomplywiththesubpoenaducestecumandorturnoveranyrelevantdispatchrecordingspertinenttothearrestandevents
surrounditoI8/20/11leadingtorcr2011-063341,doesnotcontainthesecond911callmadebyGoble(usingAustinLichty'scellularphone,775233
8593,whichGobleisseenintheattachedstillIramepictureculledIromavideoCoughlintookoIthemomentspriortothearrivaloItheRPD,being
handedbythe"manwiththegaugedears"LichtyreIerredtoas"Peanut"despiteLichty,Goble,Zarate,andTempletontestiIyingthattheydonotknow
thatmananddidnotknowhimpriortothatnightatall....CoughlinrespectIullydemandedoItheRPDOIIicers,atthetimeoIhisarrest,thatthey
gathertheidentiIyoIthe"manwiththegaugedears",however,OIIicerDuraldeetalreIusedto(claimingCoughlin'sallegationsoItheirhaving
attackedhimandattemptingtostealhisbikeandordog,reachintohispockets,andpushhimupagainstoncomingtraIIicontheCenterStreetbridge
were"unsubstantiated").Oddly,intheattachedstillIrame,itisquiteclearthat"Peanut"isseenhandingGoblethephonebelongingtoAustinLichty
thatGobleutilizedtomakehistwo911callsthatevening,theIirst(iItheIilenametimestampingontheECOMMrecordingsisaccurate...)taking
placebeginningat11:22:52pm(thoughtheECOMMtextlogsrevealanE911entryoI11:23:36pm(itsunknownwhethertheexacttimea911call
comesinisdesignatedonthe"CallsIorServiceInquiryResponse"Coughlinwasprovidedrecently). TheECommtextlogsrevealsasecondE911
entryIorthe7752338593number(belongingtoAustinLichty,butpassedtoGobleby"Peanut"withthegaugedears...yeah,thesearetheguystaking
mylawlicenseawayIrommeIoratleast5years,iInotIorever....andDDAYoung...oversomealleged"skatersetshisiPhonedownontheconcretein
themiddleoItheicerinkplazadowntownon8/20/11at11:20 pmishinReno,"manwithasixpackoIbeer"picksitup,oIIersitup,receivingno
responsethreatensto"throwitintheriveriIsomeonedoesn'tclaimitimmediately"whereuponGoble'sIriendNateZarateapparently(accordingto
RPDDuralde'sNarrativeoIunknownorigindate")toldGoblehesawCoughlinpickitupoIItheground(asDuralderecountshearingIromGoblein
hisNarrative)
containthe911callbyCoughlin
So,intheIilenamed"PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-28-11PMSourceID17063341duraldei'llbeoutonhim"onecanhearOIIicerDuralde
indicatinghewill"beoutonhimontheCenterStreetbridge"aIterhehasleIthissquadcareandisshortlytoappearinthevideoCoughlinIilmedoIthearrest,title:
Then, Officer Rosa is proven to be on the bridge and not in his squad car reading texts from dispatch n the following time stamped file: "PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-26-30 PM Source_ID = 12 RPD Rosa saying
charles 396 on the other end"
Further, Officer Duralde's arrival on the scene is notated in the dispatch log at the
Its not at all clear why Goodnight only apparently received then forwarded to his client on November 30th, 2011 the "Original Supplemental" containing Officer Duralde's Narrative, that is still of indeterminate date of origin (there are a number of "date of
printing" variations...).
That I know of, there were three 911 calls (two by Goble, one by Coughlin, in that order):
1. 082011 112252pm to 112530pm 911 by Goble dispatch Weese log larc of phone susps os left on post lighting up in sups pock RP screaming at susp
2. 082011 112620pm to 112740pm 911 by Goble dispatch Montgomery logs rp call back re someone just socked a minor, waive that cop down 10 10 with open line
3. 082011 112645pm to 112752pm 911by Coughlin Dispatch Weese logs call from phone with open line yelling re stealing phone people cheering cops are here then call disconnects
And Coughlin filmed three videos that night of the arrest that are relevant, two just prior to the RPD arriving (and actually, while Rosa and Duralde were already on the scene and out of their vehicles after teh 11:26:00 pm mark as indicated by the
Ecomm recordings and dispatch logs...
1. VID_20110820_232413 your all on tape now goble and friends.3gp 8 seconds long
2. VID_20110820_232423 austin lichty templeton goble zarate chan rpd iphone assaulting and battery Coughlin jusrt prior to RPD rcr.3gp 46 seconds
3. VID_20110820_232801 officer duralde and rosa 8 20 11 arrest.3gp 5 minutes 52 seconds long
And the AT&T call records for the iPhone reveal only four calls occurred in or out during the relevant time frame:
Goble'sAT&Trecords:
4408/20/1111:21P0:2117753786673177552794400:0017755279440
4508/20/1111:26P0:2117753786673177552794400:0017755279440
4608/20/1111:33P0:1217752303726177552794400:0017755279440
4708/20/1111:36P0:0117755279440177523037260:0017752303726
GoblemessedupatTrialon11/19/12andletslipthat"andthat'swhenTannercalledthephone..." Previoustothat,DDAYounghadsuccessIullykepteverysinglewitnessIromspeciIically
identiIyingwhomadewhatcallandwhenandwheretoanyextentwhatsoever. Nobodycouldremembernuthin'. But,GobleisaselIinvolvedtwit,whosnapshisIingers"Oh,that'sColton"8
IeetIromJudgeSIerrazzaandswaggersoutoIthecourtroom. AndLesliereIusedtoseekadmissionoIthemisconductoIaprosecutionwitness....Goble,batteryingCoughlinwithalitcigarette,
thatCoughlincaptureontape,onJune5th,2012...andemailDAGammich,DDAYoung,andsomeothersaboutat11:38pmon6/7/12...andhadhislawlicensesuspendedin60838Iourhourslater
bya3JusticePanel(includingJusticeHardesty,whomrecusedhimselIIromCoughlin'swrongIulterminationsuitagainstWashoeLegalServices...andyoumightnotlikemeIorthatsuit,butiIyou
lookatthecircumstancesoImyIiringtherein(IwashurryingtoIinishanon-proIitgetsstuckwiththebuilding'sprivatelandlord'spropertytaxesappealdueon3/10/12IorPaulElcano,andhada
TrialbeIoreJudgeLindaGardnerinadivorcecaseon3/12/12...andtheattachedmaterialsdodemonstratethatIdidplentyoIresearchbeIorehand...Ijusthadsomeissuesprintingitoutand
bringingitwithme(mylegalassistantcouldn'tIigurethatout...WLStook6weekstocutacheckIorsubpoenaIees....theusual)...
Somehow at the Hearing on the Suppression Motion DDA Young was able to get into evidence exclusively hearsay testimony (often unattributed to anyone in particular) to support his win on the "sufficient probable cause to support a search incident to
arrest" despite NRS 171.136 forbidding such an arrest (where Duralde obviously overcharged the alleged crime as a "felony grand larceny"...even making smug commentary about the "certain benefits of charging this as a felony" and saying "oooh, that's a
felony", both matters that Leslie insisted refraining from getting into while he was attorney of record, and further, despite Coughlin complying with NRS 174.345 (even splurging on the return receipt requested to go along with the certified mail for Duralde)
Coughlin was denied the right to cross examine the arresting officer...which is too bad considering his Narrative alternately claims that Goble told him they
DDAYoung'scomplaintfailstoallegedsomeoneotherthanCoughlinstoletheproperty,whichitmust,tosupportthereceivingorpossessingstolenpropertycharge.
COUNT II. POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY, a violation of NRS 205.275, a misdemeanor, in the manner following, to wit:
That the said defendant on or about the 20th day of August, 2011, at Reno Township, within the County of Washoe, State of Nevada, did willfully and unlawfully possess or withhold stolen goods having a value less than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00),
to wit: an iPhone, at or near 1 North Center Street, Reno, Washoe County, Nevada, such property being owned by CORY GOBLE, for his own gain or to prevent the true owner from again possessing said property, knowing that the property was obtained by
means of larceny or under such circumstances as should have caused a reasonable man to know that such goods were so obtained.
POLKv.STATE,749S.W.2d813(1988):"Aspreviouslystated,theStatemustpleadandprovethatthepropertywasstolenbyanother."
Itis:checkoutWestheadnotesunderReceivingStolenPropertyat324k7(3):Kirby,19S.Ct.574.Mustallegethegoodwerereceivedfromsomeoneotherthanthedefendant:Gaddis,424
U.S.544,Allen,96NE2d446,Polk,749SW2d813.
Gaddis,424U.S.544,96S.Ct.1023,47L.Ed.2d222(1976):"ApersonconvictedoIviolating18U.S.C.2113(a),(b),and(d)cannotalsobeconvictedoIreceivingorpossessingthe
robberyproceedsinviolationoI2113(c).HeIlin,supra,358U.S.,at419-420,79S.Ct.451.Pp.547-548."
"(2)theStateIailedtoprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthattheautomobilehadbeenstolenbyapersonotherthanplaintiIIinerror,a...ThenextassignmentoIerroristhattheStateIailedtoprove
beyondallreasonabledoubtthattheautomobileinquestionwasstolenbysomepersonotherthanplaintiffinerror.Tosustainaconvictionofreceivingstolenpropertytheproofmustshow
(1)thatthepropertyhas,infact,beenstolenbyapersonotherthantheonechargedwithreceivingit;(2)thattheonechargedwithreceivingithasactuallyreceivedthepropertystolenor
aidedinconcealingit;(3)thatthereceiverknewthepropertywasstolenatthetimehereceiveditand(4)thathereceivedthepropertyIorhisowngainortopreventtheownerIrompossessingit.
(Peoplev.Piszczek,404Ill.465.)ProoIoItheseessentialelementsconstitutingthecrimeoIreceivingstolenpropertymaybemadebycircumstantialevidence.Peoplev.Ferris,385Ill.186."
PEOPLEv.ALLEN.407Ill.596(1950).96N.E.2d446.
PEOPLEv.DICKERSON.21Ill.App.3d977(1974).316N.E.2d519:"ItisjurisdictionalthatiIacriminalconvictionistobeupheld,
|21Ill.App.3d980|
theindictmentmustchargeacrime(Peoplev.Edge,406Ill.490,494-495(1950);Peoplev.Harris,394Ill.325,327(1946)),andmustcontainthenatureandelementsoItheoIIenseinorderthat
thedeIendantmayIullyprepareadeIenseandbeaIIordedtheconstitutionallyintendedprotectionagainstdoublejeopardy.(Peoplev.GriIIin,36Ill.2d430,432-433(1967).)Intheinstantcase,the
indictment,drawnupontheconclusionalpremisethatthepropertywasstolen,Iailstoallegethatitwasstolenbyapersonotherthantheonechargedwithreceivingsuchpropertyand,bythis
omission,createsthepresumptionthatthepossessorstolethepropertyhimselI.SinceonepersoncannotbeboththethieIandthereceiveroIstolenpropertynorreceivestolenpropertyIrom
himselI,theIactthatthepropertyreceivedwasstolenbyanotherwasanessentialelementtobeallegedandproved.(Peoplev.Ensor,310Ill.483,484-485(1923);Peoplev.Dalke,336Ill.446,
448-449(1929);Peoplev.Harris,394Ill.325,329-330(1946);Peoplev.Devore,402Ill.339,341-342(1949);Peoplev.Malone,1Ill.App.3d860,863-864(1971).)Lackingthiselement,the
indictmentIailedtochargetheoIIenseoIreceivingstolenpropertyundersection16-1(d).AconvictionunderanindictmentwhichdoesnotchargeanoIIenseisvoid.Peoplev.Edge,406Ill.490
(1950).
Thejudgmentis,thereIore,reversed....
IIeelthatthemajorityhasmisconstruedtheeIIicacyoIsection16-1(d)inarrivingataconclusionnoturgedbythedeIendant.TheomissionoIthewords"stolenbyanother"intheindictmentdoes
notcreatethepresumptionthatdeIendanthadhimselIstolenthepropertyIromtheowner.TheuseoIthewords"***knowinglyobtaincontroloIstolenproperty***undersuchcircumstances
thatwouldreasonablyinducehimtobelievethatthepropertywasstolen***"(emphasisadded)intheindictmentclearlyimpliesthatwhendeIendantobtainedcontroloIthepropertyinquestion
(inanymannerwhatsoever),thepropertyhadalreadybeenstolenbyanother.ThatistheplainandordinarymeaningoItheindictment.
IbelievethemajoritymaybeconIusingwhatcanandcannotbereasonablyimpliedIromevidenceintroducedattrialwithwhatmaybeimpliedIromtheclearphrasingoItheindictment.Attrialit
isnot
|21Ill.App.3d981|enoughIortheprosecutiontomerelyshowthatthepropertyinquestionwasstolenpropertyandthatthedeIendantwasinpossessionoIthatpropertyinordertoprovethe
oIIenseoItheItunder16-1(d)(theIormeroIIenseoIreceivingstolenproperty).(Peoplev.Baxa(1972),50Ill.2d111,277N.E.2d876.)ThedeIendant'sunexplainedpossessionoIstolenproperty
soonaIteratheItisevidencethatthedeIendantstolethepropertyhimselIbutisnotevidenceoIdeIendant'sreceivingstolenpropertyknowingittohavebeenstolen.(SeePeoplev.Malone(1971),
1Ill.App.3d860,275N.E.2d236,andthecasescitedtherein.)However,thephraseologyoItheindictmenthereinpermitsareaderoItheindictmenttoIind,evenaIteronlyacursoryreading,the
necessaryelementsoItheoIIense,i.e.,thatthepropertywasalreadystolenbyanotherwhenthedeIendantreceivedit.
WhileitmaybetruethattheadditionoIthewords"stolenbyanother"wouldmaketheindictmentmoreexplicit,theadditionoIthesewordswouldonlybegrammaticallyredundantandmere
surplusagelegally.
Theindictment,thereIore,wassuIIicienttochargethedeIendantwithanoIIenseunder16-1(d)(1).
AIterathoroughexaminationoItherecord,IdonotbelievethattheevidenceproducedattrialwassuIIicienttoIindthedeIendantguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt.ForthisreasonI,too,would
reversethedeIendant'sconviction."
AppellantcorrectlyarguesthatthestandardoIprovingvalue,Iorconviction,isthesamein"receiving"casesasin"larceny"and"theIt"cases.HeerroneouslyurgesthatthestateIailedtomeetthat
standardunderourholdinginClevelandv.State,85Nev.635,461P.2d408(1969),wherewesaid"|t|hetruecriterionIorthevalueoIpropertytakenistheIairmarketvalueoIthepropertyatthe
timeandplaceitwasstoleniItherebesuchastandardmarket."85Nev.at637,461P.2dat409.BAINv.SHERIFF,CLARKCOUNTY504P.2d695(1972).
SHEPPv.STATE,484P.2d563(1971):"Count3chargedSheppwithhavingreceivedpropertystolenbyhimduringthecommissionoItheburglarychargedinCount2.Sinceathiefcannot
receivefromhimselfthefruitsofhislarceny,thejurymustbeinstructedthatitcouldconvictofeitherburglaryorreceiving,484P.2d565]butnotofboth.Peoplev.Taylor,4
Cal.App.2d214,40P.2d870(Cal.1935);Peoplev.Morales,263Cal.App.2d211,69Cal.Rptr.553(1968);Milanovichv.UnitedStates,365U.S.551,81S.Ct.728,5L.Ed.2d773(1961);
Thomasv.UnitedStates,418F.2d567(5Cir.1969);Bakerv.UnitedStates,357F.2d11(5Cir.1966).Suchaninstructionwasrequestedbutthecourtdeclinedtogiveit.Thiswaserror,and
lateracknowledgedbythecourttobesuchwhenitsetasidethereceivingconvictionandorderedanewtrialonthatcharge.TheappellateissueiswhetherthatmanneroIhandlingtheerror
eIIectivelycuredit.TheerrorwasnotcuredbythesettingasideoIthereceivingconvictionsincethereisnowayoIknowingwhetheraproperlyinstructedjurywouldhaveIoundthedeIendant
guiltyoIburglary,Count2,orreceiving,Count3.Milanovichv.UnitedStates,supra.Bothconvictionsshouldhavebeensetasideandanewtrialordered"
Statev.Pansey,61Nev.333,128P.2d464(1942):".ReceivingStolenGoods.Criminalintentisanessentialelementofthecrimeofreceivingstolengoods..17.CriminalLaw.Inprosecution
forreceivingstolengoods,whereinstructiongivenbycourtfollowedlanguageofstatutewithreferencetoaccused'sintentiontopreventthe61Nev.330,Page336]ownerfromagain
possessingproperty,defendantwasnotentitledtoinstructionwhichtoldjurythatgoodsmusthavebeenreceivedwithfraudulentintentofdeprivingowneroftheimmediatepossession
thereoI.Comp.Laws,sec.10335."
BERNIERv.SHERIFF,CLARKCOUNTY569P.2d406(1977)SupremeCourtoINevad:"AttheconclusionoIapreliminaryexamination,HennyBernierwasorderedtostandtrialIor
possessionoIstolenproperty,aviolationoINRS205.275.1BernierthenpetitionedIorawritoIhabeascorpuscontendingtheevidenceadducedbytheprosecutionwasinsuIIicienttoestablish
probablecausethatshehadcommittedthechargedoIIense.ThedistrictcourtconsideredanddeniedherpetitionandBernierherereassertsthesamecontention.
Bernierdoesnotdenyhavingpossessedtheproperty;rather,shearguestheprooIdidnotshowthatsheknewthepropertywasstolenandthatsuchknowledgecannotbeinIerredIrommere
possession.
WeagreethatmerepossessionisinsuIIicienttoestablishtherequisiteknowledge..."
"UnderNevadalaw,LanecouldnotbeconvictedoIbothrobberyandreceivingstolenproperty.ThiscourtreversedaconvictionIorpossessingstolenpropertyonthegroundthatthe
legislaturedidnotintendtocompoundthepunishmentIorlarcenyorrobberybypermittingaconvictionIorreceiptorpossessionoIthestolenpropertyagainstthepersonwhotooktheproperty.
Pointv.State,102Nev.143,146-48,717P.2d38,40-41(1986);Lanev.State,110Nev.1156,881P.2d1358(1994).
Statev.Pray,30Nev.206,94P.218(1908):ItislongstandingauthoritythatIoracharge
oIpossessionoIstolenpropertytostand,theremustbeashowingoIalltheelements,and
thatiIevenoneelementismissing,thechargecannotbemaintained.Statev.Pray,30Nev.
206,94P.218(1908).PossessionoIstolenpropertydoesnotinitselIproveguiltoItheoIIense.Staabv.State,90Nev.347,526P.2d338,341(1974).Instead,theburdenoIprooIoIallthreeelementsrests
withthe
attorneychargedwith"summarycriminalcontempt"onereporteddecisionever,InReKunstler.606NYS2d607.
Can'tjoininsameproceedingadisbarmentandcontemptproceeding:Dickersonv.State179SW324.
JudgeNashHolmescontinuestoreIusetoallowCouglintoappealthe"summarycriminalcontempt"Order,eventhough,giventheincarcerationwasserved,itisaIinallyappealableorder,see
Gilman275V.Comm474,657SE2d474.
BiIurcatedisciplinarymatters:InrePorep(Nev.1941)111P.2d533.InreKaemmer,178SW2d474Terrellv.Miss.Bar635So2d1377.MattoIBriggs502NE2d879InReHines482A.2
378.triem929P.2d634Smith85P.524InreFinsh27A.3d401InreCharacter,950NE2177Toledov.Cook88NE2d973('07)Cohn,151SW3d477('04)InreCrandell,754NW2501Inre
Cobb,838NE2d1197InREGinsber690NW2d539NorthCarolinaBarv.Rogers,596SE2d337Snyder792A.2d515joinder/prejudicetoCoughlin,259P.2d7,InReRichardson692A.2d
427Appeala
WhetherGoblehad"ownership"iniphonematter920P.2d112
Sheely102p.2d96
Participationinlarcenyasprecludingreceivingstolenpropertycharge,29alr5th59(1995).
26405and03628trespasscase:
unused,untimelyevictionwarrantneedstobereissued,Green,344SE2d507,
Woods19NYS2d683
Regan425NYS2d725
Iorio,410NYS2d195
RussellvKalian,414A.2d462:expiredwarrantIorevictionnogood
LeesevHorne,47P.2d316
Burhams, 89 P.3d 629
BetweentheIollowingtwotimestampedrecordingsIinallyprovidedbyCityAttorneySkau(WCPDJimLeslieistoobusywhistlingduringtrailatCoughlin'spointingouthowhecautionedthe
youthspriortothearrivaloIthepeacetostaypeaceIulinCoughlin'sreIerencesthethenrecentmurderoIStephenGalejustblocksawayapproximatelytwomonthspriortothe8/20/11arrest,
incidenttothetheItoIapurse,andLelisepreIerstospendhistimechimingin,unprompted,ontheregard,arrogantlyenough,thathecanassistthecourtiIitIeelsCoughlinis"draggin'hisIeet"
incidenttotheinappropriatplacementbyJudgeSIerrazzaoILeslieas"stanbycounsel"whichreallyamountedtonomorethanyetanothercoercivepracticeputinplacebyJudgeSIerrazzato
IurtherhisstatedgoaloIavengingthecriticismsCoughlinlevieduponhimincidenttoJudgeSIerrazza'sincrediblyquestionableon-the-Ilypandering/remixingoIhisOrderoI10/13/11(iICoughlin,
ashe,inIactdid,deposita"rentescrow"oI$2,275,SIerrazzaruledandnoticedinwritingthatCoughlinwouldgeta"Trial"ontheunlawIuldetaineraction...untilrichman'sopposingcounsel
CaseyBaker,Esq.coachedJudgeSIerrazzaontherecordthat"theuseoItheterm"Trial"wasunIortunate,YourHonor..."whereuponJudgeSIerrazza.Youaretohisconstituencybyremixingis
previousorderregardlessoItheextenttowhichCoughlinwasnotnoticedtheretowithrespecttothatwhichwouldbeinvolvedontheOctober25,2011trialtheyareandwhereonlythoseaspects
oIasummaryproceedingthatinyeartothelandlordsbeneIitwereadheredtowhereisalloItheproceduralanddiscoveryprotectionsattendanttoaplenaryunlawIuldetainertrialandtheabilityto
bringcounterclaimsweremattersCoughlinwasprecludedIromaccessingbyjudgeSIerrazza.JustRosinisinterestingapproachtolandlordtenantmatterscontinuedonwithrespecttothemanner
inwhichservicewasaIIectedonNovember3inviolationthecourthousesanctuarydoctrinebyDeputyPlamondonintheRenojusticecourtcivildivisionIilingoIIicenoless(andthatisthesame
bailiIIPlamondonmanagedtotaketheIilingsCoughlinsubmittedonlineNovember15outoIthecriminaldivisionIilingoIIiceoItheRenojusticecourtwhereRobbinBakeritMr.Coughlinlet
theminherpositionwellpriortothe5PMclosingoIthatIilingoIIiceandwithDVDsattachedtothoseIilingsCoughlinswearsunderpenaltyoIperjurythatMs.Bakeradmittedthistohim
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-28-17 PM Source_ID = 18.mp3
SECONDARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-36-19 PM Source_ID = 5.mp3
InRCR2011-063341,Coughlin'sthenWCPDJoeGoodnight,Esq(whowasremovedIromrepresentingCoughlinbyJimLeslieandJeremyBoslertheWashoeCountypublicdeIenderapplyinggoodnicely
peersdecidingthatthenightwasdoingtoomuchtoassistCoughlinindeIendinghimselIandorotherwisezealouslyadvocatingoncallPatgoodnightinCoughlinhadatrialprepstrategysessionwhile
CoughlinwasincustodyonJulyFriday,July13atapproximately430manandyougoodnightreiteratingtheextenttowhichhewouldbeappearingonCoughlin'stohavetotrythecaseattrialonJuly16,
2012Mondaymorningat9AManditwasonlyuponCoughlinarrivingandbeingbroughttothecourtincustodyseededJeremyBoslerwassuddenlyIillinginIorGoodnightwithandindicationGoodnight's
December19,2011IilestampdiscoveryrequestsserveduponthestayanddistrictattorneyZachyoungreadsatpage1therein:"REQUESTFORDISCOVERYCOMESNOW,theDeIendant,ZACHARY
BARKERCOUGHLIN,byandthroughhisattorneyoIrecord,JosephW.Goodnight,DeputyPublicDeIender,andherebyrequeststheIollowingdiscoverypursuanttoNRS174.235toNRS174.295,
inclusive.1.InspectandreceivecopiesorphotographanywrittenorrecordedstatementsorconIessionsmadebytheDeIendantoranywitness,orcopiesthereoI,withinthepossession,custodyorcontroloI
theState,theexistenceoIwhichisknownorbytheexerciseoIduediligencemaybecomeknowntotheprosecutor.NRS174.235(1)(a).Thisrequestincludesanyvideoandaudiorecordings,including
thosepreservedonpocketrecordingdevices,9-1-1emergencycalls,andanydispatchlogs,writtenorrecorded,generatedinconnectionwiththiscase."Itistellingtheextenttowhichontherecordat
thatJuly16trialdateWashoeCountypublicdeIenderJeremyBoslerindicatedthatJimLesliewouldimmediatelyberoundingyouareplacementroleprettysuddenlydisappearingGoodnight.AndthatLeslie
wouldbepreparedtotrythecasebyFridayandthatthecourtcouldstepmatterIortrialonFridayitiswitness.PerhapswhatMr.BoslermeantwasthatJimLesliewould,bythatFriday,havecompletedall
thetrialprepJimLesliewouldbedoingonthiscasebyFriday,andthatthatwouldbethecasewhetherornotthatevincedanysortoIconcernIorhisclient,abilitytozealouslyadvocateonhisclientbehalI
orwillingnesstodoso,orindicationthatJimLeslieIeltthatthejudgesoItheRenoJusticeCourtwouldholdhimtoastandardoIcareatalltendingtoindicatethatMr.Lesliehasanyskininthisgame
whatsoever.
ClearlythereisabasesIormistrialherewereJimLeslie'sentirecontributiontotherepresentationoIMr.Coughlinisdrippingineverywaywithmisconductandmalpracticeandapparentlywillingdisregard
IortherulesoIproIessionalconductanintentionalmaniIestationoILeslie'sdesiretosecureaconvictiontheWashoeCountyDistrictAttorney'sOIIiceandthereinsecureaddedboysIromlocallaw
enIorcementDistrictAttorney'sOIIiceandperhapstheRenojusticecourtitselI.FurtherRenoMunicipalCourtjudgeNashHolmes'sadmonitionastocommunicationswiththeWashoeCountypublicdeIenders
oIIiceinconnectionwithFebruary27,2012clandestinestatusconIerencebetweenBirayDoganandZachYoungwhichneitherDogannorYounghaseverreIutedwhethertheytheyhavebeenswornprior
theretoornotanespeciallywhereDogan'scoworkerdownthehallcivildivisiondeputyDist.Atty.MaryhasbeeninvolvedthroughouttheconIiscationwithoutasearchwarrantorcourtorderoIanykind(or
atleastoneeverservedonCoughlininanymanner)oICoughlinsmartphoneandmicroSDcardincidentJudyimpermissiblesummarycontemptIindingbyjudgeNashHolmesjusttwohoursaIterthe
clandestinestatusconIerencebetweenDoganyoungonFebruary27,2012inRMCcase11TR26800IorwhichDoganandYoungstipulatedtoacontinuancein06RGC065630inlightoIthescheduling
conIlictbetweenthattraIIiccitationtrialintheRenoMunicourtwhichstemmedIromCoughlin'sbeingretaliatedagainstviceRPDSargentTarterinconnectionwithCoughlintellingTarteroneoIthetop30
highest-paidcityoIRenoemployeesoIandadmissiontotakingbribesIromRichardHillbyRPDoIIicerChrisCarterJuniorincidenttoCarterplacingCoughlininhandcuIIspursuanttoacustodialarrest
baseduponacriminalcomplaintIortrespassIindbyRichardHillonNovember13,2011.ThatcriminaltrespassconvictionhasnowbecomethesubjectoIaNevadaSupremeCourtcasein61901wherein
CoughlindetailedthevideotapeadmissionbyRPDSargentMarciaLopezoIthemisconductbyherselIoIIicerChrisCarter,Jr.RichardG.Hill,Esq.andhislandlordclient,andasummaryevictionmatterthat
judgeSIerrazzapresidedoverwhereinjudgeSIerrazzapurportedlycontrolledthecivildivisionoItheRenojusticecourttotheextentthatCoughlin'snoticeoIappealonDecember26submittedIorIiling
December26,2011wasnotIilestampedbythecivildivisionstaIIoItheRenojusticecourt.ThisimproprietyisIurtherproblematicwhereCoughlinhadservedupontheRenojusticecourt'scustodianoI
recordsandshecivilclerkKarenStancil(whomRichardHillreIerencesinhisJanuary12,2012letterhergrievanceagainstCoughlintotheStateBaroINevada(seeHill'sJanuary14,2012grievanceagainst
CoughlintotheStateBaroINevada,whichultimatelybecameoneoIthethreegrievancesdepictednumericallyinthecaptionoItheSBNv.ZacharyBarkerCoughlinSCR105ComplaintIiledbytheState
BarstampedAugust23,2012(inadditiontotheNG120434grievancebyjudgeNashHolmesincidenttotheFebruary27,2012trialin11TR26800heldinviolationoINRS178.405bywayoINRS
5.071(RJCandRMCunderonerooI,JudgeNashHolmesadmitstostrategysessionstodiscreditCoughlinbeingheldwithotherRMCjudgesincludingthenAdministrativJudgeWilliamGardner,whoreIused
torecusehimselIIromthecriminaltrespassmatterincidenttothecriminalcomplaintsignedbyRichardHillatCoughlin'sIormerlawoIIiceuponCoughlinbeingsubjecttoacustodialarrestbyoIIicerChris
CarteronNovember13,2011,resultinginacriminaltrespassconvictionoICoughlinin11CR26405whereitRPDSargentMarciaLopezultimatelyhadtoadmitonvideotapetoCoughlinthatneithershenor
HillmeritlessorherpartneroIIicerCarterissuedcaughtCoughlinatrespasswarningpriortoeIIectuatingacustodialarrestonthatdayinwhereLopezalsoadmitsnoneoIthoseindividualsoranyonepresent
thatdayidentiIiedthemselvesaslawenIorcementpriortolandlordmeritlesskickingdownthedoortoacrawlspaceabout5IeethighunderneaththeIormerhomelawoIIicewhereinCoughlinwasIoundata
timewhenCoughlinstillhadnotreceivebackIromtheRenojusticecourttheimpermissible$2275rentescrowdepositjudgeSIerrazzaorderedinviolationoINevadalawconsideringjudgeSIerrazza's
admissionthattheRenojusticecourtjudgesheldameetingwhereintheyadmittedthatCoughlinwascorrectandhisassertionthattheRenojusticecourthadnothencorollarytoLasVegasjusticecourtrule44
thatmaysupportthesecretquotehouserulesbeenIactinthecivildivisionoItheRenojusticecourtwhereintenantswereinsummaryevictionmattersweresubjecttoIorcedrentescrowdepositinviolationoI
justicecourtrulescivilprocedure83andthattheRenojusticecourthadneitherpublishednorhadapprovedbytheNevadaSupremeCourtanysortoIcorollarytojusticecourtruleLasVegasrule44(JCRLV
44).FurtherthatcriminaltrespassconvictionandthewrongIularrestconnectedtheretooccurredevenwheretheWashoeCountySheriII'soIIicedeputyMachenIiledaIalseaIIidavitonNovember7,2011
allegingtohavepersonallyservedCoughlinwithboththeOctober25EvictionDecisionandOrderandtheOctober27thFindingsoIFact,ConclusionoILaw,andOrderoISummaryEviction(whichCaseyD.
Baker,Esq.liedabouthistestimonyatthecriminaltrespassTrialoICoughlinIromwhichJudgeWilliamGardnerreIusedtorecusehimselIdespitetheIactthathissisterjudgeLindaGardnerislistedasthe
grievant(andhimgoestoPatKing'sawkwardassertionsthatthe"ClerkoICourt"sentbarcounselPatrickO.King,Esq.JudgeLindaGardner'sApril2009ordersanctioningCoughlinincidenttoadivorce
matterwhereandhewasrepresentingavictimoIdomesticviolenceonbehalIoIourWashoelegalservices(aratherinterestingapproachbyIormerprosecutorjudgeLindaGardnerincomparisontothe
extremelylighttouchdemonstratedbyjudgeSIerrazzaandjudgeCliItonoItheRenojusticecourtincidenttodeputydistrictattorneyYoung'srepeatedmalIeasancemisconductviolationsstayspending
competencyorevaluationsIailuretoturnoverexculpatorymaterialsIailuretopropounddiscoveryIailuretorespondreasonablediscoveryrequestsdemonstrationaretaliatoryanimusinconjunctionwith
scattershotthree,countthemthreeprosecutionsoICoughlinthisyearIorchargeswhichyoungeitheramendedtoinadvanceimplicatingSupremeCourtRule(SCR)111(6)(in065630youngamendedthe
criminalcomplaintIromamisuseoI911chargetodoachargemoredeleterioustoCoughlin'sproIessionallicenseasalawyerand/orpatentagentbyamendingthechargenearlyayearaItertheJanuary14,
2012arrestinthemattertoachargethatyoungbrainstormedtheabilitytoleverageagainstCoughlinuponCoughlinandagoodIaitheIIorttoachieveaplea-bargainandresolvewhatisamessycasethecity
oIRenoPoliceDepartmentandemergencydispatchservicesandagaintheRenojusticecourtincidenttotheevictionandRJC2012-000375runtherentalatwhichthedomesticviolenceresultedinCoughlin's
callstoemergencyservicesor911standlocatedat1422E.9thSt.(thereinimplicatingthethree,countthemthreeextremelysuspectrollingthisyearbyjudgeSchroederoItheRenojusticecourtagainst
Coughlinintheextremelyquicklike40min.IromIilingquickissuanceoIuptemporaryprotectionordertoRichardGHillonJanuary12,2012inconnectionwithHill'sIraudulentabuseoIprocessandIalse
statementstopoliceoIIicersaIIectingthearrestcustodialarrestoICoughlinonJanuary12,2012willjaywalking(HillliedtoRPDoIIicerHollingsworthinallegingthatCoughlinhadalreadylosthisappealoI
summaryevictionmatterin1708BarberwhichjudgeSIerrazzapresidedandwhichwasthenonappealbeIorejudgeFlanagan(whomsubsequentlyhadCoughlinwithanoutrageous$42,000attorneyIeeaward
againstProperappellantCoughlinintheappealoIthesummaryevictionorderissuedbyJudgeSIerrazzaand1708onMarch30,2012incidenttoandmotionIorattorneysIeesIiledbyCaseyDBakeroIHill's
oIIiceonApril19,2012whichjusthappenedtocoincidewiththesamedaythatdeputyDist.Atty.youngIastballheviolatedthestayrequiredbyNRS178.405andgettingjudgeElliot(whom"randomly"was
assignedtoCoughlinappealoIthepettylarcenyconvictionoIacandybarandsomecoughdropsIromWalmartin11CR22176(thesolebasisIorCoughlin'scurrenttemporarysuspensionoIhislawlicense
incidenttobarcounsel'sSCR111(6)Petitionin60838)stemmingIromanarrestonSeptember9,2011thatwasviolativeoINevadalawwheretribalpoliceoIIicersaIIectedacustodialarrestIora
misdemeanor(muchlessonenotallegedtohaveoccurredintheirpresence)inviolationoItheexpressdictateagainstdoingsoIoundinNRS171.1255shouldespeciallywhereWalmartssolewitnesstestiIying
atthepettylarcenytrial,wouldbedentistThomasFrontino,whomtestiIiedonbehalIoIthe2ndSt.Wal-MartatwhichCoughlinwassubjecttoacustodialarrestIormisdemeanorpettylarceny"acandybar
andsomecoughdropsinconnectionwithCoughlin'sselectingheardjustseeing$83worthoIgroceriesallegedlyconsumingacandybarandorsomecoughdropswhiledoingso...DespitetheIactthatthat
WalmartallegestohavehadabsolutelynovideoIootagesupportiveoIitsallegationsevenwhereitsinteriorisabsolutelydottedwith"pupilstyle"willsurveillancecamerasandwhereFrenchyouadmitthat
hissupervisorshadpreviouslyindicatedtohandadesiretoretaliateagainstCoughlininconnectionwithCoughlin'squestioningsomeoIWalmartspoliciesandwhereJohnEllisoItheW.7thSt.,Walmartin
anyasyetunknownlosspreventionassociatespeciIicallyandexpresslythreateningabuseoIprocessagainstCoughlinonJuly7,2012incidenttoCoughlinpointingouttheextenttowhichWalmartsassistant
storemanagersandcustomerservicemanagersmanyoIwhomhavehadthatpositionIoroveradecaderoutinelyclaimdonotrememberthereturnpolicyorrestatedinamannerthatdepartsubstantiallyIrom
thepolicywhichWalmartholdsouttothepubliconitswebsiteWalmart.comandwhichonthatwebsitespeciIicallymakesapplicabletoin-storepurchasesthatreturnpolicyasstatedatWalmart.comno
matterwhattheconvenientIorgettinginmisrememberingoIWalmartsmanagersmayindicatethepolicyactuallyis.Wal-Mart'sFrontinoadmittedneiherhenoranyonewithWal-MartonSeptember9th,2011
aIIectedacitizen"sarrestoICoughlinonthatdateinconnectionwiththeallegedpettylarcenybyCoughlinoIacandybarandsomecoughdropswhichconvenientlyIortheRenoPoliceDepartmentjustdays
aIterCoughlinIiledawrittencomplaintdetailingthepolicemisconductbyRenoPoliceDepartmentoIIicerGrohlandRossaincidenttothearrestoICoughlinthewrongIularrestoICoughlinonAugust20,
2011in063341ajusticecourtcriminalpettylarcenyandreceivingstolenpropertychargeagainstCoughlin(despitetheIactthatthemajorityviewpointthroughoutAmericanjurisprudencethatonecannotbe
chargedwithbothpettylarcenyandreceivingstolenpropertyoIthesameitemparticularlywherethereceivingoItheitemisallegedtohavebeenIromoneselIaIteronehadlarcenyistheitemlendingan
inIerencethatJoeSIerrazzaseekingtosinkhisjurisdictionalhuckstersdeeplyintoCoughlin'slightaspossibletoaIIecttheleverageoverCoughlintomitigatetheliabilityRenojusticecourtmayIacein
connectionwithitsnumeroussinceisviolatingaboutlawrespectingthemannerinwhichevictionsarecarriedoutandorthemisconductoIlocallawenIorcementandprosecutorsincarryingoutretaliatory
arrestandprosecutionoICoughlinwherethejudiciaryinWashoeCountyisoIIcriticizesbeingoverlyinIluencedbytheDistrictAttorney'sOIIice.ThatWalmartpettylarcenyconvictionstemmedIromatrial
beIoreRenoMunicipalCourtjudgeKennethHoward(a1981graduateMcGeorgeschooloIlawwhomCoughlin'stwiceIormerRenoMunicipalCourtappointedpublicdeIenderKeithLoomis(notintheWal-
Martcase,asjudgeKennethHowarddeniedCoughlinacourtappointeddeIendertheredespitehisexpressIailuretorulethatjailtimewasnotapossibilityinhispretrialorderandwheremandatoryauthority
existsrequiringthathethenappointCoughlincourtappointedcounselparticularlywhereCoughlinestablishedhisindigency.JudgeHoward'smalIeasanceinconnectionwiththatconvictionoICoughlin
extendsIurthertheextentthatheearlyoninthatNovember30trialonitin2011reviewsCoughlinIorcausingtheNovember14trialsettingtohavebeencontinuedonlytoina3min.add-onattheconclusion
oIthehearingwhicharetrialwhichjudgeHowarddownsuchamatteroIpublicconcernthatheFivecityoIRenoemployeesatthecourthouseuntilnineo'clockatnighttogetitdonethatinIactjudge
HowardadmittedhewaswrongwithrespecttothecauseoIthecontinuanceoIthe14th2012trialthatwasnotCoughlinIaultthatallandwheretheRenoMunicipalCourthadpreviouslygranteda
continuancetothecityoIRenoprosecutor'sintheverycriminaltrespassprosecutionoICoughlinstemmingIromRichardGHillEsquire'scriminaltrespasscomplaint(connectedtothesummaryeviction
matteroverwhichjudgeSIerrazzapresided)wheretheRenoMunicipalCourtIreelygrantedRichardGaretheproductthecityoIRenoprosecutor'sacontinuanceinlightoIRichardGHill'sneedtotakeasix-
weekvacationbeginningearlyNovember2011anditwasthatsamesix-weekvacationbyRichardGHillthatHillallegesenabledhimtocommandertheRenojusticecourtjudgeSIerrazzatodenying
Coughlinahearingonhismotiontocontestpersonalpropertylienintheevictionmatter1708requiredbylawwithin10daysoICoughlinIilinghismotiontocontestpersonalpropertylienonNovember17,
2011evenwhereisextremelysuspectthatthejusticecourtisnowallegingCoughlinreIusedtopermiteitherJoslynJohnisorKarenStanciltosetthehearingonNovember17asJaniceadmittedwhenjudge
SIerrazzacalledherisoIhisownwitnessattheDecember20,2012hearingthatwasIinallyset(asRichardHill'se-mailwhereinhethreatenedCoughlinthathewouldbeabletocontrolthejusticecourtinhis
desiredtopreventsuchahearingbeensetuntilhereturnedIromhissix-weekvacationinlateDecember2011....ItincidenttothatsamehearingonCoughlin'smotiontocontestpersonalpropertylienjudge
SIerrazzaorderedKarenStancilandJoslynJohnisoItheIilingoIIiceoItheRenojusticecourttoIileinunswornstatementspurportingtoprovethatCoughlinsomehowIailedtoallowthejusticecourtto
settinghearingonhismotiontocontestpersonalpropertylienhoweverthatdoesn'texplaintheextenttowhichbailiIIPlamondonwasabletoapparentlywithoutCoughlin'spermissionserveCoughlina
violationoIthecourthousecenturyDr.andanoticeoIitNovember7,2011hearinginthatsameevictionmatteruponCoughlinatatimewhenCoughlinwasseekingaxisjusticecourtIilingoIIiceIor
somethingunrelatedtobailiIIPlamondon'sdesiretoaIIectserviceoIsomenoticeoIthehearinguponCoughlin.
KeithLoomis,Esq.,RMC,courtappointeddeIendner,admitstohavingbeencloseIriendswithinlawschoolandtothisdayLoomishimselIin1982graduateMcGeorgeschoollawalongwithwashCounty
Dist.Atty.RichardGammick,bothoIwhomwereoneyearaheadoIRenojusticecourtjudgeCliItonwhomrecentlygranted2004graduateMcGeorgeschooloIlawdeputydistrictattorneyZachyoungin
ordertakingawaytheabilitytoIilebyIaxIromCoughlinaprivilegethatisaccordedanyothercriminaldeIendantsintheRenojusticecourtdespitetheIactthatthatorderwasgrantedattheNovember27,
2012hearingatwhichCoughlin'sthenattorneypublicdeIenderBirayDoganwasrelievedascounselandwhereatthathearingDoganhimselIadmittedthathehadnotreceivedthemotionyoungallegedwho
IiledonNovember26,2012seekingsuchanorderIromjudgeCliItonbarringCoughlin'sabilitytoIaxIileorsendyoungitaIaxoIanysortapparentlyorperhapsTomdespitetheIactthatCoughlinhad
merelycomplywithjudgeCliIton'srequestthatheprovidejudgeCliItonsomethingsupportiveoICoughlin'scontentionthatBirayDoganhadutterlyIailedherbytheadvocacyzealousarenotoIanysort
whatsoeverincidenttohisquoterepresentationoICoughlin"in065630).
(again,judgeSIerrazzaasaIormaltribaljudgeanddirectoroIIndianlegalservicesandCoughlin'sIormerclientPeteEastman,recentlyadmittedtoCoughlinbothoItheStateBaroINevadacommunicatedhe
andhiswiIeIalseassertionsrespectinganon-existentorderagainstCoughlinbyNevadaBankruptcyCourtJudgeBeesley(theStateBaroINevadalistedashavingaspecializationincreditorsrightsat
www.nvbar.org)(IormerlawpracticepartnerswithanindividualIromWashoeLegalServiceswhomCoughlinissuingin60302,KarenSabo,Esq.,IormerlyoIBeesleyPeck,LTDandwhomtrashed
Coughlin'sworkbeIorehimandinNevadaBankruptcyCourtatCoughlin'sNovember14,2012IormaldisciplinaryhearingtowhichjudgeBeesley'stestiIyingwasnotnoticedtoCoughlinprevioustothe
hearingandinviolationoISupremeCourtrule109aviolationmadealltheworseinlightoItheIactitbarcounselPatKinghadknownoIanyinvolvementoIjudgeBeesleyinanymattersrelativetothe
ultimateSupremeCourtrule105complaintagainstCoughlinIoroversixmonthsatleastandsoinnowaycanbesaidtojuststuIIIhislast-minutesupplementingjudgeBeesleyandmilquetoastattemptsto
provideCoughlinSsupplementaldesignationoIwitnessandsummaryoIevidenceandregardtobothjudgeBeesley'stestimonyatthehearingandWashoelegalservicesExecutiveDirectorPaulTESTIMONY
atthehearing(bothoIthosegentlemenattendedMcGeorgeschooloIlawin1977alongwithRenoMunicipalCourtjudgeDorothyNashHolmesandbothoIthemoIIeredstrongopinionsdisapprovingoI
Coughlin'scompetencyasanattorneyatthehearingdespitetheIactthatneitheroIthemcouldprovideanythinginthewayoIspeciIicitywithregardtowhatissuestheywouldtakewithanyoItheworkthey
reviewedoICoughlin'sorjudgeBeesley'scaseIilingsinjudgebeIorejudgeBeesley'sdepartmentintheNVB.)inearlyMay2012inviolationSupremeCourtRule121'sconIidentialitydictates,itisinteresting
tonotethejudgeBeesleytestbybothCoughlinIormaldisciplinaryhearinghimonbehalIoIrecentlyasoINovember8,2012reinstatedattorneyStephenR/HarrisEsquirewhomadmittedtomisappropriating
some$755,000Iromhisclientsandusingitonhookersandluxurydesignergoods.ApparentlycreditorsrightsspecialistbankruptcyjudgeBeesleyseescompetencyinMr.Harrisandcouldoverlookthe
$755,000Iormyclientwhereitbe$14worthoIcandybarsandcoughdropsIromCoughlinandCoughlin'sMarch30,2012IilinginCadleCo.v.Keller(anadversaryproceedingintheNVBwherein
CoughlinhadahearingonMarch15,2012at2:30pminrepresentingMr.KellerthatwasaIIectedbytheIraudulentlyprocuredorderIorsummaryevictionintheRenojusticecourtRJCRev2011-000374that
morningobtainedbyGailKernEsquireBrownjudgeSchroederoItheRenojusticecourtwhereintheaudiorecordIromthatproceedingindicatesaRenojusticecourtclerkimploringjudgeSchroederto
hurriedlymovethecasesummaryevictioncaseagainstCoughlinthroughdespiteJudgeSchroederadmittedlyhavinghadadiIIerentorderoIhearingthecasesplannedIorthatmorningdocketanddespitethe
IactthattheIaxheaderonthesummaryevictionorderthatwashurriedlymovedthroughindicatesatimestampingoIa8:24amIorahearingthatwasnoticedat8:30amon3/15/12,andwheretheWashoe
CountySheriII'soIIicedeputiesCannizzaroenteredandbrokeintoCoughlin'srentalsometimeshortlyaIter1PMthatsameday,3/15/12,withoutannouncingthemselvesaslawenIorcementandwherethey
enteredwiththeirgunsand/orpagersdrawninandimmediatelyplacedCoughlininhandcuIIsandtoldhimhewasdetainedincontrasttothetypicalprocedurescarriedoutbytheSheriII'soIIiceincidentto
evictionsinWashoeCounty.Incidenttothatsummaryeviction(wherethedocket,atleast,morereviewisnecessary,indicatesthatKernandWesternNevadaManagement'sSueKingswitcheduptheirbasis
Ioranevictionallthesuddenintheir3/15/12IilingoIaLandlord'sAIIidavitthatsuddenlychangedthebasisIorseekinganevictiontooneIornon-paymentoIrent(seeminglyinresponsetoCoughlinPre
HearingBrieIpointingoutthediIIicultiestheywouldIaceunderGlazerinpursuingaNoCause,particularlyagainstCoughlin,whomatthatpointwas,again,arguablyacommercialtenant,especiallywhere
theParkTerraceHOAhadexpresslyapprovedthearrangementwithtwoindividualswhomwerearguablysublessorstoCoughlin).inthethirdgrievanceagainstCoughlinIormingSCR105complaintIor
whichaIormaldisciplinaryhearing,thegrievanceIiledbyJudgeDorothyNashHomesinNG12-0402.
JudgeBeesleyandJudgeNashHolmesattendedMcGeorgeSchooloILawtogetherin1977.Perhaps,theIilingthatJudgeBeesleywasreIerringtowhenhethrewCoughlinunderthebusatCoughlin's
11/14/12Iormaldisciplinaryhearing(withoneoIthethreegrievancenumberslistedintheComplaint,whichtheSBNandPanelwillclaimalsoIulIilledtheHearingrequiredby60838IortheWal-Martcandy
barconvictionthatresultedinthecurrentnow5monthlongsuspensionoICoughlin'slicensetopracticelawinNevada)isthematterwherein,onMarch30th,2011CoughlinIiledtheIollowing:
Filed:3/30/2012,inNVBAdversaryProceedingCadleCompanyv.Keller10-05104
Entered:3/30/2012BrieI
DocketText:BrieIinOppositiontoNoticeoIDeIaultandPraecipe/IntenttotakeDeIaultwithCertiIicateoIServiceFiledbyZACHCOUGHLINonbehalIoISAMANTHAL.HALL,
ROBERTKELLER(Relateddocument(s)49NoticeoIEntryoIDeIaultIiledbyPlaintiIICADLECO.)(Attachments:#(1)AIIidavitAIIidavitoICounselCoughlinIorKellerinSupportoI
Opposition#(2)ExhibitExhibit1RegardingWCSOEvictionProcedures#(3)ExhibitRenoMunicipalCourtMarshalsandJudgeNashHolmesseizeattorneyssmartphone#(4)Exhibit
EmailtoWCSOHaleyregardingexcusableneglectprejudicetoKeller'scase#(5)32612FaxtoRMC#(6)Exhibit22420IaxtormcregardingdeIiciencyinrecordonappeal#(7)
Exhibit11TR26800NOTICEOFAPPEALANDMOTIONS3712WITHEXHIBIT1ATTACHED)(COUGHLIN,ZACH)
InsubmittingthatsomewhatinIlammatory3/30/12Iiling(whichcuriouslyseemedtoimmediatelyresultinJudgeNashHolmesenteringanOrderoIthesamedatein11TR26800wherebysheOrder
Coughlin'spropertyreleasedtohim,thoughDDAMaryKandarasdraggedherIeetuntilApril7th,2012beIoreIinally"allowing"theWashoeCountyJailtoreleasetoCoughlinthepropertythatitalternately
admittedtohavingreleasedtotheCityoIRenoMarshalson2/28/12,deniedhavingthemicrosdcard,deniedthemicrosdeverbeingbookedintoproperty,allegedtohavegivenJudgeSIerrazza'sIormertribal
courtBailiIIandIormerCoughlinclientPeterEastmanon2/29/12whenEastmanappearedatthejailatCoughlin'srequesttogetCoughlin'skeyssoEastmancouldarrangeIorCoughlin'sdogJacksonPawluck
tobeIedandcaredIorduringCoughlin'ssummary5dayincarceration).
Coughlinputhisclient'sinterestaheadoIhisown(whereCoughlinwouldarguablybebetteroIIlettingthe2/27/12JudgeNashHolmessmartphone,cellphone,andmicrosdcardconIiscatingwithouta
warrant/5daysummarycontemptjailsentenceIortestiIyingthatanRPDSargentliedinconnectionwithhistestimonyabouttheRichardG.Hill,Esq.retaliatoryissuanceoIthreetraIIiccitationsoutsideHill's
lawoIIice,whereRPDSargentJohnTartertoldCoughlintoleaveaIterCoughlinpresenteduponbeingreleasedIromjailincidenttoathree-daystaystemmingIromHill'sline2RenoPoliceDepartment
oIIicersandmanagingcaughttogetCoughlinsubjecttocustodialtrespassingarrest(detailedatlengthin61901)andHillreIusingtogiveCoughlinhisdriverslicenselawaccuserclientsIilesandCoughlin
reportingtoSargentJohnTarteratthattimethatthreedayspriortothatRenoPoliceDepartmentoIIicerChrisCarterJuniorhadadmittedtoCoughlininresponsetoCoughlinqueryinghimashetoowason
RichardHill'spayrollthatRPDOIIicerChrisCarter,JradmittedtoCoughlin:"Yes,RichardHillpaysmealotoImoneysoIarrestwhohesaystoarrestandIdowhathesaystodo..."andwherebothoIIicer
CarterandSargentMarciaLopezreIusedtoundertakeanydiligentinquiryresponsetoCoughlin'simploringthemtoqueryHillastowhetherhehadjustsentCoughlinaBillIortheIullrentalvalueoIthe121
RiverrockpropertyIorthemonthoINovemberthatwascommiseratewiththesame$900thatCoughlinwaspreviouslychargedIortheIulluseanoccupancyoIthepremises.ThelacklusterIailuretoquery
HillwithanydiligencebybothoIIicerCarterandSargentLopezisreminiscentoIwhatRenoMunicipalCourtCourtappointeddeIenderKeithLoomisEsquirein1982graduateMcGeorgeschooloIlawtold
CoughlinatanApril10,2012trialdateinthatcriminaltrespassmatterwhereinRenoMunicipalCourtjudgeWilliamGardnerreIusedtorecusehimselIIromhearingthatcaseagainstCoughlindespitetheIact
thatatthattimehehadIiledagrievancewiththeStateBaroINevadaagainstCoughlinbywayoItheNG120434grievancethathisIellowRMCjudgeDorothyNashHolmesIiled
JudgeBeesleyIormerlypartneredwithnowWashoeLegalServiceschildadvocacydirectorKarenSabo,Esq.,whomCoughlinisorwassuingin60302.IncidenttoJudgeNashHolmesconIiscatingCoughlin's
smartphoneandmicrosdcard,andregularcellphoneon2/28/12,when,outsideanypermissibleinterpretationoIasearchincidenttoarrestgivenCoughlinpropertyhadbeenbookedintohispersonalproperty
attheWashoeCountyjailon2/27/12(uponJudgeNashHolmessummarilysentencingCoughlinto5daysinjailIorcontempt,despitecitingtoanonsummarycivilcontemptstatuteinNRS22.010andNRS
22.100,butcharacterizingherOrderasIindingCoughlinguiltyoIthe"misdemeanoroIcriminalcontempt"(despitenotinvokingNRS199.340,Nevada'scriminalcontemptstatute,whichisnotsummaryin
nature,andthereIorerequiresmoredueprocess,anddespiteJudgeNashHolmesrelyinguponunswornhearsaybyherMarshalJoelHarley(anditsnotclearHarleyevensaidwhatHolme'sallegedhedidin
renderingher"secondbitattheapple"oI3/12/12incomparisiontoher2/28/12OrderFindingDeIendantinContemptandImposingSanctions...InNevada,aSummaryContemptOrderunderNRS22.030
(whichiscivilinnature)IorconductnotcommittedintheimmediatepresenceoItheCourt(suchastheallegedconductinvolvingarestroomanddisassemblingasmartphoneorrecordingdeviceandhiding
somecomponentpartthereoIintherestroomthatJudgeNashHolmesmurkily,hazily,andvaguelytestiIiedtoduringCoughlin's11/14/12Iormaldisciplinaryhearing,andwhichsheincludedintheOrdershe
renderedinthattraIIiccitationcasestemmingIromCoughlinbeingtoldtoleaveHill'slawoIIiceuponappearingtheirdemandinghiskeys,wallets,driver'slicense,andclient'sIilesshortlyaIterbeingreleased
Iroma3daycustodialarreststayinjailincidenttoHill'scriminaltrespassComplaintagainstCoughlinatCoughlin'sIormerhomelawoIIice(inRJC2011-001708,theevictionmatterpresidedoverbyJudge
SIerrazza).LiketheOrderJudgeLindaGardnerclaimedtheparties"agreed"toincidenttoaTemporaryProtectionHearinginSantiagov.VaxevanisFV11-03383(seeattachedinExhibit1),JudgeSIerrazza
attemptedtocharacterizetheOrderheenteredon12/21/12IollowingaverycontentioussixhourhearingonCoughlin'sNovember17th,2011IiledstampedMotiontoContestPersonalPropertyLienasan
"OrderResolvingTenant'sMotiontoContestPersonalPropertyLien"despiteCoughlinclearlyindicating,ontherecordatthathearingthathewascertainlynot"agreeing"toanything,norwashewaivinghis
righttoappealanyOrderJudgeSIerrazzamayenterorrenderincidenttothatHearing...whichwasconductedinaniscoerciveatmospherewhereinRichardHillwaspermittedtojokealongwithRenojustice
courtbailiIIsradiusinchieIbailiIISextonastotheIactthathetoquotewouldliketosticksomethingsupCoughlin'sass"inreIerencetomultipleincidentswhereRenojusticecourtbailiIIshadeitheras
bailiIIarrestedtoldCoughlinthathewouldputhisIootoICoughlin'sassormadecommentaryaschieISextondidtoCoughlinrespectingSexton'sindicationoICoughlinontwodiIIerentoccasionstheweek
oIThanksgiving2011thatCoughlinindicatedthattheIilingoIIiceand/ornotattempttoIiledocumentssoclosetothe5PMclosingtimeoItheIilingoIIice.(seeattachedinExhibit1).
andhimhimhimhimandhimInIact,inHill'sJanuary14th,2012grievancetotheSBN,Hillwrites,inaccurately:
"4.WerepresentDr.MatthewMerIiss,aphysicianIromChico,CaliIornia.Dr.Merlissownsthepropertyat121RiverRockStreet,Reno,Nevada.BeginninginMarch2010,theproperty
wasleasedtoMr.Coughlinandhisthen-girlIriend.TheleaseexpiredinFebruary2011.ThegirlIriendleItthecommunityinapproximatelyMay2011.Dr.Merlisscontactedusin
approximatelyAugust2011toassistinevictingMr.Coughlin.CoughlinhadnotpaidrentorutilitiessinceMay.Hecontendedthattherewerehabitabilityissueswiththepropertythat
justiIiedhiswithholdingrent.AlloIhisclahnsweredecidedadverselytohispositionattheevictionhearing.JusticeoIthePeacePeterSIerazzaorderedCoughlinevictedIromthepremises
eIIectiveNovember1,2011.Onthatdate,theWashoeCountySheriffsDepartmentperformedtheirnormalevictionprocedure:lockswerechangedandtheevictionnoticewas
postedonthefrontdoor.Wevideotapedthehomeanditscontentsatthattime.UponinspectionoverthenextIewdays,itbecameapparentthat"somebody"wasbreakingintothe
homeonaregularbasis.OnSunday,November13,2011,Dr.Merlisscametotown,andImethimatthehomeonRiverRockStreet.Aswewalkedthroughthehome,itwasobviousthat"
One,itisnottrueIorHilltowrite"TheleaseexpiredinFebruary2011."TheStandardRentalAgreementutilizedbythepartiesprovidedthattheLeasereneweduponitstermsautomaticallyinaccordancewith
theNRS118Aholdovertenantprovision.Further,itisnotaccurateIorHilltowrite"CoughlinhadnotpaidrentorutilitiessinceMay."One,thelandlordassentedtoanarrangementwithCoughlin'sIormerco-
tenant,MelissaUlloa,wherebyheagreedtoallowMs.UlloatomakeinstallmentpaymentstomakeupIortheIactthatshetookCoughlin's$450contributiontothe$900IoreachoIthemonthsoIMay2011
andJune2011andonlysentthelandlordMerliss$550IorMay2011andnothingIorJune2011.CoughlinprovidedMs.Ulloawith$450IoreachoIthosemonths,andthereIore,incombinationwithDr.
Merliss'sassenttoUlloa'srepaymentplan(whicharguablysavedMs. Ulloa from a grand larceny charge of a variety to which the two petty larceny charges Coughlin faced shortly after Ms. Ulloa's
secretly absconding with Coughlin's rental contributions (which Coughlin was only made aware, and the concomitant rent due, upon an August 11th, 2011 email from the landlord Merliss).
Merliss admitted to assenting to the repayment plan with Ms. Ulloa on the record in 1708 before Judge Sferrazza. Further, Merliss (though, originally, not Hill or Baker in their demands and
eviction notices, in violation of NRCP 11) admitted, under oath, that he had expressly, in writing, assented to an agreement with Coughlin for a rent deduction of $350 going forward in
exchange for Coughlin "dealing with the weeds". Coughlin did "deal with the weeds" (see the attached artificial turf installation Coughlin had installed in an enterprising approach which the
landlord's landscaper for the other property Merliss owned next door and his quasi real estate broker property manager Darlene Sharpe quickly grew unhappy with, given it was cutting in to the
"$2,000" that Dr. Merliss eventually claimed, under oath, at the 10/25/12 eviction "Trial" that he wound up paying Green Action Lawn Service to "deal with the weeds" at Coughlin's former
home law office. "Dealing with the weeds", to Green Action Lawn Service, included tearing up Coughlin's artificial turf installation leaving Street causing Coughlin's law office substantial losses
lost profits time away from work and expenses associated with immediately mitigating the criminal conduct of green action lawn service where they not only tore up the artificial turf
installation even though they knew it was there prior to submitting their bid for services to landlord Merliss, who apparently did not realize or remember that he had also assented to a $350
rent deduction with Coughlin on or about May 24th 2011 in exchange for Coughlin quote dealing with the weeds. Green action lawn service sought close the artificial turf installation Coughlin
put into place of his former law office the week prior to their tearing it up and leaving industry when they were doing the weeds at the property Merliss owns next-door at 252 Mill St.
Hill's grievance of 1/14/12 to the SBN goes on to allege:
"SomeonehadbeenintheresinceIhadlastbeeninseveraldaysbeIore.Dr.Merlissdiscoveredthatthebasementdoorwasbarricaded(notlocked)Iromtheinside.TheReno
PoliceDepartmentwassummoned.Theytriedtocoaxwhoeverwasinthebasementout,withoutsuccess.AIterDr.Merlisshadtokickthedoordown,it"wasdiscoveredthatMr.
Coughlinhadbrokeninandwasinthebasement.HewasarrestedandispresentlyIacingcriminaltrespasschargesinRenoMunicipalCourt.Seecaseno.11CR2640521.Heis
alsoIacingacontemptmotioninIrontoIJudgeSIerrazzaintheevictioncase.SIerazzahasstayedthatmatterpendingtheresolutionoIthecriminaltrial.ThatwasscheduledIor
January10,2012,butwascontinuedattherequestoIMr.Coughlin'snewattorney.
5.TheevictionorderisnowonappealtotheSecondJudicialDistrictCourt.SeecaseCVl1-o3628,pendinginDepartment7.AspartoItheevictionprocess,alienwasasserted
againstthepersonalpropertythatCoughlinleItbehindatthehome.OnNovember16,2011,CoughlinIiledamotiontocontestthelandlord'slienintheRenoJusticeCourt.The
courttriedtopromptlysetahearing,butCoughlinreIusedtocooperateinsettingthematter,andthecourttookitoIIcalendar.Coughlinthenreinitiatedthatprocessandahearing
washeldinDecember,atwhichtimethecourtheardevidenceoICoughlin'slackoIcooperationinsettingtheNovemberhearing.YoumayalsowanttocontactReno1ustice
Courtstaff,andinparticular,chiefclerkKarenStancil,aboutMr.Coughlin'sabusivetreatmentoIherandherstaII.AIterthehearing,thecourtissuedanOrdergranting
Coughlinatwo-daytimewindowtoremovehispersonalproperty.TheIirstdaywasThursday,December22,2011.AIterCoughlinwasallowedintothehomethatIirstday,he
sentoutane-mailtotheeIIectthatbecausehehadappealedJudgeSIerazza'sorder,hewasentitledtoastayoIproceedingsandwastoresumeinthehome.Asaresult,hedid
verylittletoremoveanyoIhispersonalpropertythatday.OnFriday,December23,2011,aIterhelearned,again,thathisstayhadbeendenied,Coughlinassembledasmallcrew
andtheywereabletoremoveasubstantialamountoIhispersonalproperty.(YouneedtounderstandthatMr.Coughlinisahoarder.WehavethephotosandvideosiIyouwould
liketoseethem.)However,Mr.CoughlindidnotgetalloIhispropertyout.Forexample,Icounted13carseatsthathehadsomehowmanagedtogetdownintothebasement.
HavingIailedtoremovealloIhisbelongings,Mr.CoughlinthenmovedbeIoreJudgeFlanaganIoratemporaryrestrainingordertopreventthedisposaloIhisabandonedproperty
inaccordancewithJudgeSIerazza'sorder.AttachedisMr.Coughlin'smotion,myoffice'sopposition,andMr.Coughlin'sreply.ThesedocumentsdemonstrateMr.Coughlin's
completeandutterincompetenceasanattorney.
OnJanuary11,2012,JudgeFlanagandeniedMr.Coughlin'srequestIoratemporaryrestrainingorder.OnJanuary12,2011,thecontractorhiredtocleanthehousecommenced
work.Mr.CoughlinIlaggedthecontractordownintraIIicwhenhe(thecontractor)wasonhiswaytothedumpwiththeabandonedpropertyIromthehouse.Coughlincalledthe
police,whoarrivedatthetransIerstation.CoughlinwasIalselyassertingthatthecontractorhadtriedtorunhin1over.Healsotoldthepolice"
TheECOMMrecordings(atleastwhatSkaudecidedtodivulge,Iinally)canbedescribedthusly:
PHONECALLStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-22-52PMSourceID50CoryGoble'sIirst911callIromAustinLichty's7753786673.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-24-29PMSourceID43Duraldesaying153enroute.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-24-34PMSourceID46Rosasaying396enroute.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-25-06PMSourceID13reportingpartyadvisedtheyarenowatIirstandcenter.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-25-22PMSourceID21probablyDuraldesaying153.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-26-30PMSourceID12RPDRosasayingcharles396ontheotherend.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-26-34PMSourceID14unintellibleshortstatementsoundslikeguiltnexus.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-27-25PMSourceID41probablyDuraldesayingRenoC153twentythree.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-27-29PMSourceID43probablyadispatchersayingc153.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-28-11PMSourceID17DuraldesayingRenoC153I'llbeoutonhimontheCenterSt.Bridge.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-28-17PMSourceID18ProbablyadispatchersayingCharles153.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSunday,August21,201112-08-40AMSourceID17DispatcherindicatingRenoC153wagonavailableIoramale.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSunday,August21,201112-08-51AMSourceID26someoneotherthanDuraldesoundslikemakethatalevelbclearthatinabout
5minutes.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSunday,August21,201112-19-51AMSourceID42probablyDuraldesayingRenoC153tomainstationbreak151
unintelligible.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSunday,August21,201112-21-02AMSourceID28oddbysomebodyc153seemstosplitinmiddleyetstilloneIile.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSunday,August21,201112-38-03AMSourceID22DuraldesayingRenoc153rtIreturning.wav
PRIMARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSunday,August21,201112-38-10AMSourceID27Duralde'swiIeDispatchJessicaDuraldec153104breakunion9toreno.wav
SECONDARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-36-19PMSourceID5RosasayingCharles396.wav
SECONDARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-36-31PMSourceID19Rosasaying29whitemale.wav
SECONDARYRADIOTRAFFICStartTimeSaturday,August20,201111-37-23PMSourceID24mansayingcomeandsplitthatupthenIemaledispatchersayinggo
aheadwiththat.wav
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
PHONE CALL Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-22-52 PM Source_ID = 50 Cory Goble's first 911 call from Austin Lichty's 775 378 6673.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-24-11 PM Source_ID = 39 weese 063341 c153 scene 10 N Virginia rink check larceny cell phone susp os also loud verb disturb.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-24-29 PM Source_ID = 43 Duralde saying 153 en route.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-24-34 PM Source_ID = 46 Rosa saying 396 en route.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-25-06 PM Source_ID = 13 reporting party advised they are now at first and center.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-25-22 PM Source_ID = 21 probably Duralde saying 153.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-26-30 PM Source_ID = 12 RPD Rosa saying charles 396 on the other end.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-26-34 PM Source_ID = 14 unintellible short statement sounds like guilt nexus.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-27-25 PM Source_ID = 41 probably Duralde saying Reno C153 twenty three.wav
Close
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-27-29 PM Source_ID = 43 probably a dispatcher saying c153.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-28-11 PM Source_ID = 17 Duralde saying Reno C153 I'll be out on him on the Center St. Bridge.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-28-17 PM Source_ID = 18 Probably a dispatcher saying Charles 153.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Sunday, August 21, 2011 12-08-40 AM Source_ID = 17 Dispatcher indicating Reno C153 wagon available for a male.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Sunday, August 21, 2011 12-08-51 AM Source_ID = 26 someone other than Duralde sounds like make that a level b clear that in about 5 minutes.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Sunday, August 21, 2011 12-16-41 AM Source_ID = 13 Duralde indicated he will be en route to main station to drop off Coughlin's smartphone for copying data prior to
depart.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Sunday, August 21, 2011 12-19-51 AM Source_ID = 42 probably Duralde saying Reno C153 to main station break 151 unintelligible.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Sunday, August 21, 2011 12-21-02 AM Source_ID = 28 odd by somebody c153 seems to split in middle yet still one file.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Sunday, August 21, 2011 12-38-03 AM Source_ID = 22 Duralde saying Reno c153 rtf returning.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Sunday, August 21, 2011 12-38-10 AM Source_ID = 27 Duralde's wife Dispatch Jessica Duralde c153 10 4 break union 9 to reno.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Sunday, August 21, 2011 12-38-41 AM Source_ID = 6 Duralde's wife Jessica c151 reno, Alaksa can you switch to share some information call please.wav
SECONDARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-36-19 PM Source_ID = 5 Rosa saying Charles 396.wav
SECONDARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-36-31 PM Source_ID = 19 Rosa saying 29 white male.wav
SECONDARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-37-23 PM Source_ID = 24 man saying come and split that up then female dispatcher saying go ahead with that.wav
11 30 12 063341 updated motion for new trial with ex 1 attached in 2 pages per format.pdf
Download all

Print
Case No. RCR2011-063341
From:Jeannie Homer (HomerJ@reno.gov)
Sent: Thu 11/08/12 2:48 PM
3 attachments
Motion for Protective Order toQuash Subpoenas and for Protective Order Regarding Issuance ofSubpoenas.pdf (2.2 MB) , Motion for Protective Order toQuash Subpoenas and for Protective Order
Regarding Issuance of Subpoenas[Part 2].pdf (1442.4 KB) , Ex Parte Emergency Order PendingHearing.pdf (81.0 KB)
Please see attached documents from Creig Skau, Deputy City Attorney:
1) Motion for Protective Order to Quash Subpoenas and for Protective Order Regarding Issuance of Subpoenas (part 1 & 2)
2) Ex Parte Emergency Order Pending Hearing (set for November 13, 2012 at 9:00a.m.)
Thank you.
Jeannie Homer
Legal Secretary
1 East First Street, 3rd Floor
Reno, Nevada 89505
(775)334-2050
(775)334-2420/fax
homerj@reno.gov
ATTORNEY-CLIENTPRIVILEGE
This e-mail message transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it are confidential, and are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not the
intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of any of the information contained in, or
attached to this e-mail transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediatel y notify us by forwarding this e-mail to the sender or by telephone at (775) 334-2050 and
then delete the message and its attachments.
Fwd: FW: Case No. RCR2011-063341

From:Creighton C. Skau (skauc@reno.gov)
Sent: Fri 11/09/12 11:45 AM
Cc: Jeannie Homer (HomerJ@reno.gov)
1 attachment
photo[1].JPG (181.2 KB)
DearMr.Coughlin,
PleasebeadvisedthatJudgeSIerazaauthorizedserviceuponyoubyemailinanOrder. Accordingly,authorizedservicehasalreadybeeneIIected.
1. SetIorthbelowisthelanguageoIJudgeSIeraza'sOrderandthelanguageoItheCity'sMotion. UnIortunately,Icannotreplicatetheattachments. However,theyconsisted
mostlyoI documentsyoupurportedlyserved,soyoushouldbeIamiliarwiththem. Also,IamprovidingalternativemeansIoryoutoobtainthedocuments,assetIorth hereaIter.
2. TheCourtprovideduswithanaddresswhichyouprovidedtotheCourt. Thataddressis 1471E.9thSt.,
Reno,NV89512. RenoCarsonMessangerServiceattemptedtoserveyouatthataddressyestarday,butyouwereapparentlynotthere. Today,RenoCarsonMessangerServiceagainattempted
toserveyouthereataround11:00a.m. TheycalledmyoIIiceandweredirectedtoleavetheJudgesOrderandtheCity'smotionattheIrontoIthataddress. Theyhaveprovidedmewitha
photographoIthepacketleItattheIrontdoor. (Attached). Accordingly,youcanobtaintheseitemsatthataddress.
3. YoumayalsocallourOIIiceat334-2050andrequestacopyIromMs.Homer,whichyoumaypickup atourOIIice,thirdIlooroICityHall.
TheJudge'ssignedOrder,enteredNovember8,2012,states:
INTHEJUSTICECOURTOFRENOTOWNSHIP
COUNTYOFWASHOE,STATEOFNEVADA
STATEOFNEVADA,
PlaintiIIs,

vs.
COUGHLIN,ZACHARYBARKER
DeIendant.
CASE
NO.:
RCR2011-
063341
DEPT.
NO.:2
EXPARTEEMERGENCYORDERPENDINGHEARING
ThismatterhascomebeIoretheCourtbasedupontheIollowingcircumstances:
A. TheRenoCityAttorneysOIIice(RCAO)representsanumberoICityoIRenoemployeeswhohavebeennamedinsubpoenas. TheRCAOcontactedCourt
personnelonNovember7,2012torequestatimetoappearIoranordershorteningtimeregardingamotiontoquashandIorprotectiveorder. DuetotheproximityoIthetrialdateinthismatter,
November19,2012,theCourtdirectedtheRCAOtoIileandserveitssubstantivemotionandprovidenoticethatthematterwouldbeheardonNovember8,2012at9:00am. TheCityoIReno
IileditsmotiononNovember7,2012.
B. AtthehearingonthismatteronNovember8,2012,DeputyCityAttorneyCreigSkauappearedonbehalIoItheRCAOandtheCityemployeesrequestingprotectiverelieI.
ZackYoungwaspresentincourt. Mr.Coughlindidnotappear. Mr.SkaurepresentedthathewasunderthebelieIthatthePublicDeIendersoIIicerepresentedMr.Coughlin,thatthePublic
DeIenderwasservedbelievingthiswasserviceuponMr.Coughlin,thathelearnedMr.CoughlinrepresentedhimselIthismorningandattemptedtocallandleItavoicemailmessagewithaphone
numberbelievedtobeMr.Coughlinsat8:30thismorning.
C. TheCourtisadvisedthatthePublicDeIender,JeremyBoslerandtheCityoIRenoChieICriminalDeputyCityAttorney,DanWong,mayalsohavereceivedsubpoenasand
IiledrequestsIorrelieIsimilartotheRCAOsrequests.
D. TheCourtreadtheRCAOsmotioninpreparationIorthehearing. DuetotheabsenceoInoticetoMr.Coughlin,noargumentwasreceivedonthemeritsoIthemotion.
However,theCourtIindsthattheRCAOsmotionandsupportingmaterialspresentasuIIicientevidentiarybasistoissuethisOrder.
TheCourtdeemingitselIsuIIicientlyinIormedandgoodcauseappearingthereIore,
ITISHEREBYORDEREDasIollows:
1. AhearingonthemeritsoIthesemattersisherebysetbeIorethisCourtIor9:00a.m.onNovember13,2012. Oralpresentationsshallbelimitedto10minuteseach. The
ClerkshallnotiIyMr.BoslerandMr.WongoIthehearing.
2. AnysubpoenanotproperlyissuedbytheclerkorotherwisenotproperlyissuedinaccordancewithNRS174.305isherebyquashed. Anysubpoenanotpersonallyservedby
anon-partyorotherwiseproperlyservedinaccordancewithNRS174.345isherebyquashed. TheCourtreservesitsrulingonanyothergroundssuchasrelevancyorundueburdenuntilthe
hearingonthemerits.
3. AprotectiveorderisherebygrantedpursuanttoJCRCPRule26(c),eIIectiveuntilthehearingonthismatteronNovember13,2012,totheeIIectthatuponserviceoIthis
OrderonDeIendantZacharyBarkerCoughlin,DeIendantCoughlinshallnotthereaIterissueorcausetobeissuedorserveorattempttoserveorcausetobeservedanysubpoenaorsubpoenaduces
tecuminthiscaseunlesshehasIirstpresentedtheproposedsubpoenaorsubpoenaducestecumtotheCourtIortheCourtsreviewregardingadequacy,relevancyandnecessityoIthesubpoena
orsubpoenaducestecum,andsuIIiciencyoItheproposedmethodoIservice.
4. CounselIromtheRenoCityAttorneysOIIiceisdirectedtopromptlyattempttoserveacopyoIthisOrderandtheRCAOsmotionandanysupplementsbypersonal
serviceuponZacharyBarkerCoughlinattheaddressintheCourtsIile,1471E.9
th
Street,Reno,NV89512,withacopymailedtosaidaddress. Serviceshallalsobeattemptedbyemailat
zachcoughlinhotmail.com.
Datedthis|8|dayoINovember,2012.

/s/

JUSTICEOFTHEPEACE
TheCityoIReno'sMotionstates:
JOHNJ.KADLIC
RenoCityAttorney
CREIGTONSKAU
DeputyCityAttorney
NevadaStateBarNo.34
P.O.Box1900
Reno,Nevada89505
(775)334-2050
(775)334-2420Fax
Attorneys for City of Reno
INTHEJUSTICECOURTOFRENOTOWNSHIP
COUNTYOFWASHOE,STATEOFNEVADA
STATEOFNEVADA, CaseNo.RCR2011-063341
PlaintiIIs, Dept.No.2
vs.
COUGHLIN,ZACHARYBARKER,
/
MOTIONFORPROTECTIVEORDERTOQUASHSUBPOENASANDFORPROTECTIVEORDERREGARDINGISSUANCEOFSUBPOENAS
COMESNOW,CityoIReno(City),astheemployerandonbehalIoIRenoPoliceDepartmentOIIicersRonRosaandThomasAlaksa,andCourtMarshallJoel
HarleyandRenoEmergencyCommunicationCenteremployeesSavannahMontgomeryandScottWeese(andanyotherCityemployees(collectivelyCityemployees)whosenameswere
unreadableinsubpoenas),byandthroughtheircounseloIrecord,JohnJ.Kadlic,RenoCityAttorney,andCreigSkau,DeputyCityAttorney,andherebymovesthisCourtIoranordertoquashthe
subpoenasclaimedtohavebeenservedonIortheseCityemployeesinviolationoIJusticeCourtRulesoICivilProcedure(JCRCP)45andIortheentryoIaprotectiveorderpursuanttothe
///
JCRCP26. ThisMotionisbasedupontheattachedmemooIPointsandAuthorities,theattachedExhibitsandanyadditionalorIurtherevidencetheCourtdeemsjustandproper.
I. StatementofFacts
TheIollowingproceduralbackgroundisrelevanttothismatter:
1. OnOctober26,2012,CityoIRenoEmergencyCommunicationCenteremployees(ECOMM)SuzyRogersandKelleyOdomreceivedemailsIromZachCoughlincontainingnine(9)
Subpoenas,copiesoIwhichareattachedasExhibit1andincorporatedhereinbyreIerence.
2. OnNovember2,2012,CitysentMr.CoughlinalettertotwoaddressesviaUSMailinIorminghim,amongotherthings,theCityoIRenoPoliceReportandCityoIRenoECOMMmaterials
regardingCaseNumberRMC2011-063341wereavailableIorpick-upprovidedhesubmitpaymenttotheCityoIRenoIor$108. AcopyoItheletterisattachedasExhibit2and
incorporatedhereinbyreIerence. OnNovember5,2012,thissameletterwassentagaintoMr.CoughlinbycertiIiedmailtothesametwoaddresses.
3. ThiscorrespondencealsoinIormedMr.CoughlinthattheIour(4)subpoenasheclaimedtohaveservedregardingtheappearanceoItheCityemployeesRonRosa,ThomasAlaksa,Savannah
MontgomeryandScottWeesewereineIIectivebecauseoIaIailuretocomplywithJCRCP45(a)and/orJCRCP45(b). TheletterindicatedbecauseserviceoIthesubpoenasIortheseIour
(4)individualswasineIIective,theseindividualswouldnotbeappearingonNovember19,2012.(Exhibit2).
4. OnNovember1,2012,Mr.Coughlindeliveredtwelve(12)subpoenasandaNoticeoIErrataandRevisedSupplementalMotionForaNewTrialbyslidingthem
throughthesecurityglassintheIrontoIIiceoItheRenoPoliceDepartmentatapproximately4:50p.m.aIterbeingtoldtheoIIicewasclosed. Three(3)subpoenascontainedinthispacket
areduplicates. Assuch,thispacketappearstocontainthesameten(10)subpoenashepreviouslysenttoRenoECOMMemployeesKelleyOdomandSuzyRogers. AcopyoIthispacket
isattachedasExhibit3andincorporatedhereinbyreIerence.
5. OnNovember3,2012,Mr.Coughline-mailedanothersubpoenaducestecumtobothCityECOMMemployees,KelleyOdomandKariannBeechler,seekingdocumentspreviouslyrequested
inearliersubpoenasducestecum. ThesesubpoenasalsocontainedmultiplepagesoIrequestsIormaterialsunrelatedtoCaseRMCRCR2011-063341. AcopyoIthesedocumentsis
attachedasExhibit4andincorporatedhereinbyreIerence.
6. OnNovember5,2012,DeputyCityAttorneyRobertBonyreceivedatelephonecallIromMr.CoughlinregardingtheletterthisoIIicemailedonNovember2,2012. Amongotherthings,
Mr.CoughlindidnotindicatehewouldbewithdrawinghissubpoenasIorRonRosa,ThomasAlaksa,SavannahMontgomeryandScottWeese. Mr.Coughlindidstatetohavethese
witnessesreadyIortrial.
7. OnNovember6,2012,Mr.CoughlinsubmittedanewdocumententitledSubpoenaDucesTecumcontainingseventeen(17)pagesoIblendeddocumentsregardingmatterspendingbeIore
RenoJusticeCourtonNovember19,2012andtheStateBarOINevadaNorthernNevadaDisciplinaryBoardtotheRenoPoliceDepartment. ThesubpoenaducestecumontheIirstpageoI
thepacketcontainsmanyunreadablenames. AcopyoIthepacketisattachedasExhibit5.
1. OnNovember6,2012CityemployeeMarshallJoeHarleywashandedapacketoImaterialsIromanunidentiIiedperson. ThecoversheetoIthepackedisentitledSubpoenaDuces
TecumregardingCaseRCR2011-063341. ThisdocumentalsoappearstocontainnamesoIotherindividualsbutthehandwritingisunreadable. ItisnotknowniItheotherindividuals
onthissubpoenaareCityemployees. AheadnoteontheSubpoenaindicatesthatiItherequesteddocumentsaree-mailedtoMr.Coughlin,personalappearancemaynotberequired. A
copyoIthepacketisattachedasExhibit6.
II. Argument:
A. Service
JCRCP45addressessubpoenas. Inpertinentpartitstates:
(b)Service.
(1)Asubpoenamaybeservedbyanypersonwhoisnotapartyandisnotlessthan18yearsoIage.ServiceoIasubpoenauponapersonnamedthereinshallbemadeby
deliveringacopythereoItosuchpersonand,iItheperson'sattendanceiscommanded,bytenderingtothatpersontheIeesIoroneday'sattendanceandthemileageallowedbylaw.
WhenthesubpoenaisissuedonbehalIoItheStateoranoIIiceroragencythereoI,Ieesandmileageneednotbetendered.Priornotice,notlessthan15days,oIanycommanded
productionoIdocumentsandthingsorinspectionoIpremisesbeIoretrialshallbeservedoneachpartyinthemannerprescribedbyRule5(b).
ThesubpoenasMr.Coughline-mailedtoKelleyOdom,KariannBeechlerandSuzyRogersonOctober26,2012andNovember3,2012andre-deliveredtotheReno
PoliceDepartmentonNovember2,2012andNovember6,2012commandingtheappearanceoIthemanydiIIerentCityemployeesabovearedeIicientandineIIectiveastheyIailtocomplywith
personalservicerequirementoIJCRCP45(b). Accordingly,servicewasineIIectiveandalloIthesubpoenasshouldbequashed.
InadditiontotheIailureoIpersonalservice,alloIMr.CoughlinssubpoenasreIerencedinExhibits1,3,4and5,also:
1. ViolateJCRCP45(a)(1)(D)inthattheydonotsetIorththetextoIsubdivisions(c)and(d)oIJCRCP45.
2. ViolateJCRCP45(b)(1)whichstatesthatasubpoenamaybeservedbyanypersonwhoisnotaparty totheproceeding. AlloIthesubpoenasweree-mailedtoCityECOMM
employeesKelleyOdom,KariannBeechlerandSuzyRogersonOctober26,
2012andNovember3,2012and/orhanddeliveredtotheRenoPoliceDepartmentonNovember2,2012andNovember6,2012byMr.Coughlin,apartyinthismatter.
1. ViolateJCRCP45(b)(1)whichstatesthatserviceoIasubpoenacommandingattendancerequiresthatpaymentIoronedaysattendanceandthemileageallowedbylaw. NowitnessIee
ormileageIeehasbeensubmittedbyMr.CoughlinIortheappearanceanynamedCityemployee.
2. ViolateJCRCP45(c)whichstatesthatapartyorattorneyresponsibleIortheissuanceandserviceoIasubpoenashalltakereasonablestepstoavoidimposingundueburdenorexpenseona
personsubjecttothesubpoena. Mr.CoughlinisservingalitanyoIsubpoenasonmanyCitydepartmentsandCityemployeesregardingthiscase. However,heisalsoservingsubpoenas
onCitydepartmentsandCityemployeesonamultitudeoIothercasesandproceedingsthatareunrelatedtotheinstantaction. Thesesubpoenasareundulyburdensome,duplicative,
irrelevant,unintelligible,oppressive,harassing,seekinIormationthatisirrelevanttothisactionandviolatetheapplicableproceduralrules.
Basedontheabove,therequirementsoIJCRCPRule45havenotbeenmetandthesubpoenasIorallCityemployeestoappearonNovember19,2012mustbequashed. TheCity
alsomovestoquashanyothersubpoenasMr.Coughline-mailedtoCityemployeesKelleyOdom,KariannBeechlerandSuzyRogersand/orsubmittedtotheRenoPoliceDepartmentwhichdonot
relatetotheCityortothismatter.
B. ProtectiveOrder
InaccordancewithJCRCP26,theCityseeksaprotectiveorderinthismatter. Asdescribedabove,Mr.Coughlin,aNevadaattorneywithasuspendedlicense,isabusingthesubpoenaprocess
grantedtohimbythisCourt. Heise-mailingmultipleCityemployeesordroppingoIIthesamesubpoenas(someoIwhichrelatetothismatterandmanywhichrelatetoaStateBarproceedingor
othercriminalmatters)atmultipleCitydepartments. ThisiscreatingconIusionandleadingtoawasteoItimeandresourcesoIpublicsaIetyemployees. Asanattorney,Mr.Coughlinshouldbe
awareoIthesubpoenaprocess. ThisisnottheIirstmatterinwhichMr.Coughlinhasabusedacourtproceduralmatter. ForthisCourtsinIormation,RenoMunicipalCourtJudgeHolmes
issuedaSuaSponteOrderDenyingRelieISoughtinImproperDocumentonMarch13,2012Iinding,amongotherthings,thatMr.CoughlinIailedtoIollowproperlegalprocedureinpreparingand
IilingmotionsinamatterpendingbeIorethatCourtandthatMr.CoughlinblatantlyabusedthatCourtsIaxIilingprocess.Assuch,thatCourtorderedthatMr.CoughlinbeprohibitedIrom
IaxinganydocumentstothatCourt. AcopyoIthisOrderisattachedasExhibit7.
Basedontheabove,pursuanttoJCRCP26(c)(2)andJCRCP26(c)(3),CityrespectIullyseeksanOrderIromthisCourtrequiringMr.Coughlintosubmitanysubpoenaheintendstoserveinthis
mattertothisCourtIorreviewpriortoissuanceandservicetoensureMr.CoughlinisseekingrelevantinIormationregardingaspeciIiccaseandisIollowingtheappropriatelegalprocess.

III. CONCLUSION
Basedontheabove,itisrespectIullyrequestedthatthisCourtissueanorder:
1. ToquashthesubpoenasIorRonRosa,ThomasAlaksa,SavannahMontgomery,ScottWeese,JoelHarleyoranyotherCityemployeewhosenameswereunreadableinthesubpoenasIor
IailuretocomplywithJCRCPRule45;
2. ToquashanyothersubpoenasMr.Coughline-mailedtoCityemployeesKelleyOdom,KariannBeechlerandSuzyRogersand/orsubmittedtotheRenoPoliceDepartmentwhichdonotrelate
totheCityortothismatterbecausetheyIailedtocomplywithJCRCPRule45.
3. GrantaprotectiveordertotheCitypursuanttoJCRCP26requiringMr.CoughlintosubmitanysubpoenaheintendstoserveinthismattertothisCourtIorreviewpriortoissuanceand
servicetoensureMr.CoughlinssubpoenasarerelevantandIollowtheappropriatelegalprocess.
AFFIRMATION
TheundersigneddoesherebyaIIirmthattheprecedingdocumentIiledinthiscourtdoesnotcontainthesocialsecuritynumberoIanyperson.
RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTEDthis dayoINovember,2012.
JOHNJ.KADLIC
RenoCityAttorney
By:

CREIGTONSKAU

DeputyCityAttorney

P.O.Box1900

Reno,NV89505

Attorneys for City of Reno
Astotheothermattersaddressedbyyoubelow,IworkintheCivilDivisionandIhavenoknowledgeorauthoritytoaddressthem. Isuggestthatyoutakeupthosematterswith
theattorney(s)assignedtothem.
Sincerely,
CreigSkau
DeputyRenoCityAttorney

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeannie Homer <homerj@reno.gov>
To: "'bonyr@reno.gov'" <bonyr@reno.gov>, "'skauc@reno.gov'" <skauc@reno.gov>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 08:50:18 -0800
Subject: FW: Case No. RCR2011-063341
FYI

Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 8:36 PM
To: HomerJ@reno.gov; complaints@nvbar.org; hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; fflaherty@dlpfd.com; patrickk@nvbar.org; tsusich@nvdetr.org
Subject: RE: Case No. RCR2011-063341
couldn't open them, and I don't accept service of anything form you... See Allison Ormaas comments on 3/12/12 in 11 tr 26800 with respect to
your offices violation of the RMC Rules to the extent there is not difference technologically anymore between an email and a fax:

Rule 5: Motions/Pleadings by Facsimile
A. All rules and procedures that apply to motions/pleadings filed in person at the court shall also apply to motions/pleadings filed by facsimile, except as otherwise specified in this rule.
B. All motions/pleadings filed by facsimile will only be accepted through the clerk's office (775-334-3824).
C. Except by prior court approval, a motion/pleading by facsimile shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages in length, including the cover sheet and exhibits. A document shall not be split into multiple transmissions to avoid the page
limitation.
D. Each transmitted page shall bear sequential numbers in the transmission.
E. All persons are eligible to use motion/pleading-by-facsimile procedures.
F. All motions/pleadings filed by facsimile must be accompanied by a cover sheet which must include the persons name, address, fax number and telephone number.
G. All facsimile motions/pleadings filed by an attorney must include the attorney's name, the firms name, address, fax number and telephone number. In addition, the attorneys state bar number must be conspicuously
displayed on the cover sheet.
H. All motions /pleadings filed by facsimile must be accompanied by proof of service. Service may be accomplished by facsimile when the receiving party is a governmental agency, an attorney, or with the consent of the
receiving party. If service of the motion/pleading is accomplished by facsimile the 3-day allowance for mailing shall not be computed into the time for response.
I. A defense attorney filing a motion/pleading in the first instance must also file a proper authorization to represent.
J. Any motion /pleading received by the court after 4:30 p.m. or on a non-court day shall be filed on the follo wing court day.
Rule 6: Continuances
No continuance shall be granted, including a stipulated continuance, except for good cause. A motion or stipulation for continuance must state the reason therefore and whether or not any continuance has previously been sought or
granted.
Further, Please consider Pamela Roberts attempts to mislead the Court and opposing counsel where (despite Rich HIll getting a continuance agree to by then court appointed defense counsel Lew Taitel, whose business partners Coughlin
was suing in CV11-03015 and or CV11-03126, Taitel agreed to a continuance, in violation of Coughlin's speedy trial right, where Hill needed to go on a six week vacation in 11 cr 26405) Roberts at first agreed, in writing, to a continuance
in response to Coughlin's request for one in 11 CR 22176, but then retaliated against Coughlin's pointing out her RPC 3.8 violations on the day of Trial, 11/30/12 by refusing the stipulate to a continuance an blaming it on the Court.

Pursuant to RMCR Rule 5(H), the City Attorney's Office does not have my consent to service via any means other than the traditional snail mail, usps, or personal service. And I am not
currently included amongst those who are "attorneys", so you are stuck with that. Your office on the other hand, fits within both the 'governmental agency" and "attorney
exceptions"...someone needs to tell Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, Esq. that becuase he has lied numerous times, on the record about not being served where he has been. Take, for instance

Further, does your office represent any of the RMC's court appointed defenders? Taitel, in 11 CR 26405, failed to follow RMC Rules in withdrawing from representation:
Rule 3: Authorization to Represent
A. Attorneys representing defendants shall promptly serve written notice of their appearance with the City Attorney and file the same with the Court.
B. An attorney desiring to withdraw from a case shall file a motion with the court and serve the City Attorney with the same. The court may rule on the motion or set a hearing.
Further, these RMCR's seem to change out of the blue, is there some record of what changes were made and when?

Hazlett-Steven's lies, in part, helped secure a dismissal of my appeal in cr12-1262 (the appeal of the Richard G. Hill eviction trespass case). Also, you will want to query the RMC's D2 and Lisa Gardner as to why Coughlin has a
confirmation of delivery of his timely under NRS 189.010 Notice of Appeal in 11 cr 26405, yet D2 failed to file it, and the appeal in cr12-1262 was dismissed in light of the combination of both asserting, in one way or another, that the
Notice of Appeal was not received in a timely manner. The delivery confirmations say otherwise.

Please remit $250,000 in the form of a certified check to the address below within 10 days in settlement of these torts. SBN, please provide to me the grievance number associate with this new grievance that is created upon the
successful transmission of this email.

Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
utbound fax report
Inbox x
Voxox noreply@voxox.com Jun27
Hi zachcoughlin,
You r Fax was successfully sent to 14021bda-178b-448f-afcc-1af150604a18general693298 ( 17753344226).
xoxo,
The Voxox Team
This message was intended for renoattorney@gmail.com. Want to control which emails you receive from Voxox? Get Voxox: http://download.voxox.com and adjust your Notifications in the
Settings/Preferences window. Voxox by TelCentris, Inc. is located at 10180 Telesis Ct., San Diego, CA 92109.
Hi zachcoughlin,
Your Fax was successfully sent to 14021bda-178b-448f-afcc-1af150604a18general693298 ( 17753344226).
Hi zachcoughlin,
Your Fax was delivered @ 08:13:34 AM on 2012-06-28.
to me
to me
to me
PleasegetthistotheseCityofRenoemployees
Hi zachcoughlin,
Hi zachcoughlin,
Your Fax was successfully sent to 3ad3f15b-3a33-4863-a6cd-7934ec8f8b32general693298 ( 17753343859).
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:48:18 -0800
From: HomerJ@reno.gov
Subject: Case No. RCR2011-063341
Thank you.
JeannieHomer
LegalSecretary
1EastFirstStreet,3rdFloor
Reno,Nevada 89505
(775)334-2050
(775)334-2420/Iax
homerj@reno.gov
Thise-mailmessagetransmissionandanydocuments,Iilesorpreviouse-mailmessagesattachedtoitareconIidential, andareprotectedbytheattorney-clientprivilegeand/orworkproductdoctrine.IIyouarenottheintendedrecipientora
person responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notiIied that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution oruseoIanyoItheinIormationcontainedin,orattachedtothise-mailtransmissionis
STRICTLYPROHIBITED. IIyouhavereceivedthistransmissioninerror,pleaseimmediatelynotiIyusbyIorwardingthise-mailtothesenderorbytelephoneat(775)334-2050andthendeletethemessageanditsattachments.

to me
to me
Sent: Wed11/28/1212:35AM
To: renodirectreno.gov(renodirectreno.gov)
sometimes they don't clean out their inbox, but I seem to not have my email set up to receive bounceback messages perfectly all the time, so in an abundance of caution, I ask that Reno Direct
help make sure these good folks get the message below:
kbeechler@reno.gov
odomk@reno.gov
bonyr@reno.gov
christensend@reno.gov
Subject: RE: RCR12-065630
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 05:02:29 -0800
DearMr.Dogan,
IunderstanditismyinviolablerightasacriminaldeIendanttosubpoenawitnesses. PleasesubpoenaRPDSargentZachThewandinteviewhim
regardinganyclaimoIrightdeIenseCoughlinmayhaverespectinganyallegedissuancebyThewtoCoughlinoIaninvitationtoCallhimatacertain
RPDnumberandor911inconnectionwithvariousdiscussionThewandCouglinhadpriortothe1/14/12arrest. Pleasealso(inconjunctionwiththe
investigatoronthiscase,andIhaveyettobeinIormedoIwhomthatis...andMr.Novak,IappreciatetheworkandnotationsyoumadetotheIilethatI
haveonlyjustbeenmadeprivytobyMr.Leslie...IsubmityouaredoneadisservicewherethereisnotmoretransparencygiventotheresultsoIyour
worktoyourcriminalindigentdeIendants,asthecircumstancesdictatetheyassumetheworstwhensupportingdocumentationtocursorycontentionsis
notshow.
So,whomistheinvestigatorhere,andwillyoupleaseprovidemethedocumentationdetailingtheresultsoItheinvestgiationundertaken? IIno,please
indicatesoinwritinganddetailthebasisIorsuchareIusal.
Mr.DoganandorMr.Leslie,pleasealsosubpoenaSargentPaulSiIreandOIIicerSchaur. PleasepropoundtoDDAYoungthevideosIamattaching
onceagain,onoIthemomentsjustpriortoarrestwithSiIre,whereSargentSiIreviolatesIundamentaltenantsoIdomesticviolencevictimadvocacy
whereinheengagesin"blamethevictim"behavior(CoughlinwasadjudgeavictimoIdomesticviolenceonorabout1/23/12byMasterEdmonson,in
twoseparatecasesFV12-00188and187..
Further,viewthe"SargentLopezIhaveaquestionIoryouvideoandattachedMotionIorNewTrialIilinginthecriminaltrespassconvictionmatter(see
also,61901ontheN.S.Ct.site)11cr26405,wherein,on1/13/12,onedaypriortothearrestinthecaseyouareattorneyoIrecordonrcr2012-065630,
on1/14/12)RPDSargentMarciaLopesiscaughtontapingadmittingtoIraudonherpart,thatoIOIIicerChrisCarter,Jr.,landlordMerliss,andopposing
counselHillincidenttothecriminaltrespassarrest. PleasedevelopadeIenseandinvestigationbaseduponwitnessbiasanmotive,seekingtodrawa
connectionbetweentheactionsadaylaterbySiIre,Schaur,etal,visavistheinteractionwithSargentLopezhere. Pleasealsointerviewandsubpoena
OIIicerTravisWarren,whomCoughlinhasrecentlylearnedapproachedandmetwithhisparentsatCoughlin'sIather'smedicalpractice(andCoughlin's
IatherisbothJohnKadlic,RenoCityAttorney,andperhapsRobertBony,Esq.,DeputyCityAttorney'spatients)andpurportedlysoughtto"have
Coughlincommitted"orsomethignalongthoselines. PleasedevelopadeIenseandcollectandprovideinvestigationrelativetotheideathatdoingso
bytheRPDandorRenoCityAttorneyisviolativeoIPalmerv.Pioneer,andhasprejudicedCoughlin'scase(whatiIyourIamilydesertedyouBiray,in
part,duetoIraudulentmisrepresentationsbylocallawenIorcementwithanagendathatincludescoveringupanumberoIwrongIularrestspotentially
exposingthemtobothcriminalandcivilpenalties? WhatwouldyouthinkoIapublicdeIenderandhisassistantwhohadnotdonejacktoadvocateon
yourbehalI? Whohadnotsentoutasinglesubpoena? Whyhaven'tyoucollectedthedispatchtapes,notjustthe911calls. Thecommunications
betweendispatchandtheRPDarelikelywaymorerevelatorythanthecallsthemselves. Youareaware,areyounot,thatRPDOIIicerDuraldean5
otheroIIicerspulledCoughlinovershortlyaItermidnighton1/13/12,justaIterCoughlinhadbailedoutonthejaywalkingarrest,right? Youareaware
CoughlinIiledawrittencomplaintagainstDuralde(arrestingOIIicerinthecaseGoodnight,thenLesliewasoneinrcr2011-063341,right)on9/7/12and
1/8/12,right? YouwereawareoIthat,rightBiray? Right,Leslie? So,pleasesubpoenathedispatchcommunicationsbetweentheRPDand
Ecomm,notjustthelogs,whichiswhatEcommtriedtopassoIIasresponsiverecently. Theaudiotapes...KariannBeechler. SheIeesitappropriate
toactasaIiltertocomplaintsoIpolicemisconduct,eventhoughengenderinglegitimateandperceivedIearoIsubstantialimmediateharmatthehandsoI
locallawenIorcement. Further,pleasesubpoenaDeputyMedinaandSargentBradshaw. Also,reviewtheresultsoIasubpoenaducestecumtothe
RPDregardinganythingrelatedtoCoughlin,especiallythe11/15/11incidentwithSargentTarter...
Canyouindicatewhetherthe"misuseoI911"statueappearsinanypublisheddecisions? Whydidyouindicate,ontherecord,incourton11/6/12that
youare"unawareoIanybasisIoranopposition"theDDAYoung'sMotiontoAmend? AreyouindicatingyouhaveIailedtoreceivethevoluminous
correspondenceandmediasubmissionIromCoughlinwhereintheprejudicetoCoughlinandhisdeIensewasdetailed,especiallyvisavisthedenialoIa
speedytrial(60days),thespoliationoIevidenceangle,andtheprosecutorialmisconductlineoIargument(DDAYoungattemptedtoholdatrialon
5/7/12inviolationoIthemandatorystayinNRS178.405inviewoIthethenstillpendingOrderIorCompetencyEvaluationyou,Dogan,procurredata
StatusConIerencewithYoungon2/27/12,whereinJudgeSchroederislistedastheHearingJudge. NeitheroIyouhaveeverdeniedthatinanyway.
ThenYoungviolatedNRs178.405againbyIiling,at2:55pmonthatday,adocumentintheassociatecasercr2011-063341,despitetheIilestamping
oI1:31pm2/27/12onJudgeCliIton'sOrderForCompetencyEvaluation. Neitheryou,Dogan,norYounghaveeverdeniedtheveracityoIthat
statement,despiteitbeingassertdirectlytoyouonnumerousoccasions.
Astotheamendedcharge,pleaseseetheattachedBecketttreatmentoIit(IormerNyeCountyDA,SCR111(10),etc.
Further,pleasesubpoenaandinterviewOIIicerAlanWeaver,SargentBrianDye,andSargentOliverMillertodevelopmoreclearlyabasisIormoving
IoramistrialIorprosecutorialandorlawenIorcementmisconducthere(byonlyagainstDDAYoungshouldyouobtainsomereasonablesuIIicientbasis
Iorviewinghiscomplicityinthismesdeeds,orassenttotheminandway,.
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
rpd sargent lopez i have a question for you 11 cr 26405 00696 26800.wmv
10 31 12 marked as received by Clerk of Court Orduna and proof of service by Rick Reasoner 0204.pdf
2 27 12 065630 Young and Dogan Clandestine Status Conference leads to SBN SCR 105 Complaint against Coughlin 0434 Nash.pdf
2 27 12 Judge Schroeder status conference clifton order rcr2012-065630 26800.pdf
ChiefMarshalRoperandMarshalHarleyonsettingtherecordstraightinNG12-0435
2 28 and 3 12 and 3 12 and 3 14 nash orders and grievances 26800 0204 0434.pdf
5 4 12 mch goondnight email trespas rmc 26405 loomis young 063341 065630.htm
5 4 12 email goodnight mhc hazlett young trespass loomis.htm
rmc longoni handout demanding payment on transcripts on appeals in violation of nevada law 26405 cr11-2064 cr12-1262 26406 11 tr26800 ocr.pdf
12 21 11 email to rmc regarding no response from Longoni.pdf
10 5 12 stamped 60838 SCR 111 King SBN Susich Motion Show Cause against NNDB and SBN 12-31434.pdf
2 28 12 Contempt Order Nash 26800 26405 065630 00696 063341 bf size reduced.pdf
Download all
From: BDogan@washoecounty.us
Subject: RCR12-065630
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:33:45 +0000
Your case with me has been continued to October 30th, at 10:00 A.M.

Biray Dogan, Deputy PD
(775) 337-4868
Fax: (775) 337-4856
Sent: Fri11/23/124:09PM
To: roperjreno.gov(roperjreno.gov);harleyjreno.gov(harleyjreno.gov);jeeloreno.com(jeeloreno.com);skentskentlaw.com(skentskentlaw.com);cvellisbhIs.com
(cvellisbhIs.com);eiIert.ntaatt.net(eiIert.ntaatt.net);nevtelassnsbcglobal.net(nevtelassnsbcglobal.net);patrickknvbar.org(patrickknvbar.org);christensendreno.gov
(christensendreno.gov);miketahoelawyer.com(miketahoelawyer.com);davidcnvbar.org(davidcnvbar.org);IIlahertydlpId.com(IIlahertydlpId.com);
IIlahertydyerlawrence.com(IIlahertydyerlawrence.com);stuttlewashoecounty.us(stuttlewashoecounty.us);wongdreno.gov(wongdreno.gov);ormaasareno.gov
(ormaasareno.gov);mkandarasda.washoecounty.us(mkandarasda.washoecounty.us);zyoungda.washoecounty.us(zyoungda.washoecounty.us);bdoganwashoecounty.us
(bdoganwashoecounty.us);jlesliewashoecounty.us(jlesliewashoecounty.us);holmesdreno.gov(holmesdreno.gov)
DearPanel,JudgeNashHolmes,ChieIRoper,MarshalHarley,BarCounsel,etal,
IapologizeIorusingemailtocommunicatehere,butmycurrentindigencyandtimeconstraintssorequireit.Further,Iinnowaywishtoviolateany
OrdersbyanyoItheRMCJudgesrespectingemailingorcontactingtheRMCinconnectionwithspeciIiccases,andsubmitthislimitedcorrespondence
inthehopesthatmyinterpretationoIanysuchOrdersisinlinewithrealityandwillIorgiveatleastthislimiteduseoIemailoutsideoIanyattempttoIile
anythinginanyoIthemattersinwhichIamapartybeIoretheRMC. TheexigencyinvolvedhererelatesprimarilytotheenormousdeIerencethatwill
begiventothePanel'sdecisionintheSBNv.Coughlindisciplinarymatter,andmydesiretohavethePanelaIIordedeveryopportunitytohaveall
essentialinIormationnecessarytoarriveatajustdecisionatitsdisposal.WhatIollowsisinpartarequestandinpartarecognitionoItheextenttowhich
JudgeNashHolmes'sactionduringthe2/27/12Trialin11TR26800maylikelyhavebeenthebestthingtohavehaddone,owingtohervastexperience
intheseandagreatdealmanyothermatters,and,hopeIully,willhaveanupbeatresultstemmingthereIrom.
AttheDoubleRBlvd.NorthernOIIiceoItheStateBaroINevada,RMCJudgeNashHolmes,on11/14/12,testiIiedunderoath andindicated
somethingalongthelinesoItheIollowing:
Duringthe11TR26800"simpletraIIiccitationTrial"on2/27/12,startingatabout3pm,JudgeHolmesinterrogatedCoughlinasvariouspoints
throughouttheTrialastowhetherhewasrecordingtheproceedings(withoutpermission),andorwhetherhehada"recordingdevice"(whetherevery
laptopanyonebringstoCourtwouldbeconsidereda"recordingdevice"toJudgeHolmesisnotexactlyclear).
JudgeHolmesthentestiIiedthataIteraninitialroundoIinterrogationoICoughlinastowhetherhewasrecordingtheproceedingsandorhada"recording
device"thatCoughlingot"allsneakity"andsaidhewasnot,butthen"quote,'tooktheFiIth'thenimmediatelyaskedtobeallowedtousethe
restroom...andIorderedMarshalJoelHarleytoaccompanyhimthere...anditwasreportedtomethatwhileintherestroomCoughlindisassembleda
recordingdeviceandhidsomepartoIitintherestroom..." (CoughlinrecountsthistestimonyIrommemory,andadmittedly,itisIarIromverbatim).
Itiscategoricallyfalse(thoughnotnecessarilymaliciouslyso)for1udgeNashHolmestoassert,intheaudiorecordon3/12/12theorderofeventsandwhensheasked
Coughlinherquestionsaboutrecording,consideringwhenarestroombreaktookplaceandexactlywhatitissheaskedCoughlinandwhen,andwhathisresponses
were,andwhensomeallegationsby"theMarshal"weremade,whattheyconsistedof,etc..on3/12/12in11tr26800theaudiotranscriptreads7minutesintothe
audiorecordtheRMCprovidedtheSBN:
1udgeNashHolmes(Nash):Itappearstomeinthiscasethatthedefendantissufferingfromsomeextremeformofmentalillness.duringthetrialIaskedthe
defendantattorneyrepeatedlyifhewasrecordingtheproceedingshedeniedthatvehementlyafewtimesandthenhequotetookthefifthafewothertimesand
thenherequestedtobeexcusedtogotothebathroomandtheMarshallaterreportedtomethatwhilethegentlemanwasinthebathroomhedisassembleda
recordingdeviceinhispocketandtookthememoryoutofitanditwaslaterfoundinthat,uh,bytheMarshalnooneelsehadgoneintothebathroomandthat
wasretrievedanditwasputintohispossessionattheSheriff'sofficeandwhentheybookedhimintojailforthecontemptchargethatwasbookedintoevidence
andIaskedtheSheriff'sofficetoholdthatintoevidence.IbelievehehasviolatedSupremeCourtRule229(2)(B)whichwasamendedbyADKT440,August
1st,2011...."
OneCoughlindidnotdoanythingoIthesortindicatedbyJudgeNashHolmes(bywayoIunattributedhearsay,likehercarsleepingallegationsinher3/14/12letterreCoughlintotheSBN)
above.
PerhapsNRS178.405 inthecontextoINRS5.073shouldhavesomebaringonanythingsaidordoneorOrderedbyJudgeNashHolmesIollowingherstatementatthe7minutemarkthat"It
appearstomeinthiscasethatthedeIendantissuIIeringIromsomeextremeIormoImentalillness."TotheextentanyquestionoICoughlin'scompetencywascommunicatedtoorbroughtto
JudgeNashHolmesattentionpriortothe2/27/123:00pmstartoItheTrialin11TR26800,thatproceedingshouldhavebeenstayedorsuspended,especiallyiItheWCPD'sOIIicemadesuch
communnicationsinclosetemporalproximitytothe1:31pm2/27/12OrderIorCompetencyEvaluationbyJudgeCliItoninRCR2011-065630. Andarguably,giventhesameoIIice(ina
broadsense)inwhichDDAZ.YoungandDDAKandaraswork,itisarguablyabasisIorconIlictingouttheWCDA'sOIIiceIromanyoneoIthethreeprosecutionsishasmaintainedagainst
Coughlinthisyear(especiallyconsideringtheissuesrelatedtowhethertheWCSO'stimelyeIIectedthelockoutoI11/1/11intheevictionIromCoughlin'sIormerhomelawoIIice,which,given
therecentadmissionsbythelocksmiththerethatday,andtheRenoCarsonMessengerreceiptIromthedayprior,andCaseyBaker,Esq'stestimonyrelatedtohisinteractionswiththeWCSO
onOctober28th,2012duringhissworntestimonyatthecriminaltrespasstrialbeIoreRMCJudgeGarderon6/18/12,andtheRJC'sIailuretoevenmovetoQuashCoughlin'ssubpoenaing
recordsrelatedtotheIaxlogsandconIrimationoItransmissionorreceiptincidenttotheRJC's"usualcustomandpractice"oIIaxingevictionOrderstotheWCSOIorservice(likethoseinthe
RichardHill/CaseyBakerSummaryEviction"Trial"involvingCoughlin'sIormerhomelawoIIice,andthe"within24hoursoIreceipt"languageIoundwithinNRS40.253(theOrderisvoidor
invalidaIterthatpoint,inwhichcase,itwouldmeanHillandorBakerwerethetrespassers,notCoughlin,regardless,itsinappropriateIorRMCcourtappointeddeIenderLoomisto
categoricallyreIusetoassertanyclaimoIrightdeIensethatsuchacriminaltrespassdeIendantmaywishtoassertIor,say,RichardHilladmitstochargingthesamerentundera"storageoI
personalproperty"thatwaspreviouslychargedIor"Iulluseandoccupancy". Nonetheless,postinganEvictionOrder thatdoesnotcontainstayawaylanguage(muchlesstheIactthatis
doesnothavetherequired"within24hours"languagecalledIorbythestatute)isnottantamounttopostinganotrespassingsign,Iurther,Hazlett-Stevensmakingargumentsinhisclosingasto
mattersnotinevidence(allegationsoIlivingintheresidence)isreversibleerror,andIorJudgeGardnertodoasJudgeHowarddid,anpreventtheCityAttorneyIromevenhavingtoOppose
Coughlin'sMotionIorNewTrial,isIurtherindicationoItheextenttowhichCoughlin'sreactionsduringthe2/27/12Trial,howeveroIIputting,arenottotallyunIounded. Further,thatwhich
JudgeNashHolmeshadcommunicatedtoherpriortothestartoITrialon2/27/12in11tr26800needstobetestiIiedtounderoath,ratherthanhaveBarCounselasserttohalIbaked"can'task
thejudgeabouthermentalprocesses"loophole,ashehasdone. But,actually,areviewoItheHardesty/MirchdynamicmaydictatethatCoughlinwouldhavebeenIairlylimitedinthatregard
anyways,nonetheless,JudgeNashHolmesappeared,tohercredit,andansweredsomequestions. TheanswersrevealedanopportunityputIorwardnowtoclearsomethingsup,thoughthe
constraintsoItheDisciplinaryHearingIormat,somedisagreementsoverwhattheSBNcommunicatedtoCoughlinwithrespecttotherulesthatwouldbeappliedtohimvisavisNRCP45
subpoenas(whether,he,asasuspendedattorneycouldissuesasubpoena(CoughlinmaintainstheBar/Panel/Boarddidgivehimsuchauthority)andwhetheranywitnessIeeorsubpoenadecus
tecumIeemustbepaidbyCoughlin(Coughlinmaintainshewasprovidedindicationsuponwhichhereasonablyreliedthathewouldnotbesorequiredinadditionstotherulesorpracticies
attachedtotheservicethereoI),andotherIactorsseverelylimitedtheextenttowhichtheopportunitycreatedbyJudgeNashHolmestestimonywasrealizedtoitsIullpotential. That
necessitatedthiscorrespondence. CoughlinrecallstheIirsttimehesawopposingcounselallegehewaslyinginaIiling,itwasoneoItheearlyone'sbyRichardHill'sIormerassociateCasey
Baker,alleging"outrightlies". Itwasupsetting,especiallyconsideringhowunIairandbaselesstheallegationsseemed...andCoughlinnowswisheshewouldhavedoneandsaidsomethings
diIIerentlyincidenttohistestimonyrelativetoRPDSargentTarterandJudgeNashHolmes'sowntestimony,andintendstoaddresstheextenttowhichobjectionableconductbyopposing
counselcanoItentimesbecomeasortoIlearnedcharacteristicperpetuatingaraceto,iInottheethicalgutter,atleastapreponderanceoIRambolitigating. Tosomeextenttheincidentswith
MarshalHarleyandRCAOrmaasmaybeIalloutIromthat. Importanttoo,however,istoconsiderwhetherthe"courthousesanctuary"doctrinehassomeapplication,howeverconIusingit
maybe,wheretheWCSOmaybehiredbyprivatepartiestoconductservice,andtheMarshalsareonlyextendingintra-governmentalcourtesiesinassistinginthemannerinwhichMarshal
Harleydidon2/27/12. RichardHillgetsthe"oopsies"alot. Oppsie,IaskedIor$20Kinattorney'sIeeincidenttoasummaryevictionatthetrialcourtlevel,despitethatnotbeing
supportableunderNRS69.020,Hillsays. Oopsie,IleItthewindowunitairconditionerintheexposedtothestreetbytheLakemilllodgewindowatyourIormerhomelawoIIice,whichwas
thenrobbed,butIorwhichIstillmanagedtochargeyouIullrentalvalueatIulluseandoccupancyrates,thoughIhadyousubjecttoanarrestIorcustodialtrespassanyways,HillandBaker
say.
(atthe9minute48secondmarkoItheIirstaudioIileattachedIrom2/27/12)
"Judge:Sir,Iwouldlikeyoutoraiseyourhandtobesworn,becauseitsmyexperiencethatpeoplewhorepresentthemselvestendtotestiIyawholelotwhentheyareaskingotherpeople
questions,solet'sjuststartthatwayandthenwewon'thavetodoitlater,soswearhiminandthenwe'llgetgoing
Marshal:Testimony(inaudible)...youareaboutto(inaudible)understand(inaudible)truth,wholetruth,nothingbuttruth,solemnly?
Coughlin:Yes,Sir?"
However,Iromthere,throughouttheTrialJudgeNashHolmesinterruptsCoughlinduringhisquestioningoITartertoindicatetoCoughlinthatheisaskingquestionsandnottestiIying,orthat
hewillhaveanopportunitytomakesomepointwhenitshisturntotestiIy,iIhechoosestotestiIy,etc.,etc,andeventuallyJudgeNashHolmesasksCoughlin,aItertherestroombreak,iIhe
intendstotestiIyonhisownbehalI..."Nordoesthetrialjudge'sspeculationthatAppellantmightusehisclosingargumenttopresentunsworntestimony." Soto,139S.W.3dat857.
ThetranscriptIromthe2/27/12certiIiedaudiorecordingoIthetraIIiccitationTrial
atthe1hourand6minute 18secondmarkoItherunningtime(yesthecertiIiedaudiotranscriptisprovidedinaFTRIormatthatnecessitatesinstallingTheRecordPlayer,butIortheeaseoI
thereceipientsoIthiscorrespondnece,CoughlinconveretedtheaudiothereinexactlyasitwasintoamoreworkableIormat,.mp3Iiles,splitintotwoIilesIor2/27/12(beIoreandaItertheone
restroombreak)andoneIileIorthecontinuationIothetrialon3/12/12)oIIileone:
JudgeNashHolmes(Judge):Sir,Mr.Coughln,sitdown,Iamdonewithyou.
Coughlin:JusttopreserveIortherecord,YourHonor.
Judge:Sitdown,sitdown,your'redone. FortherecordthedeIendantislookinginhispocketsandbehindhisbackandturningaroundandclowningaroundandshowingutterdisprespectIor
thiscourtandiIyousayanotherwordordoanotherlittleanticlikethatyouaregoingoutoIthisCourtinhandcuIIs. Doyouhaveanyotherwitnesses? Prosecutor?
ProsecutorOrmaas:No,YourHonor,theCityrests.
Judge:Sir,doyouwishtotestiIy?
Coughlin:CanIcallOIIicerTarterasmyownwitness?
Judge:youcancallanyoneyouwishtotestiIy.
Coughlin:Iamsorry,YourHonor,butIreallyneedtousetherestroom.
Judge:Youhavetwominutes. Marshal(Harley),youwillescorthimtotherestroom,don'ttakeanythingwithyou,Sir...
Coughlin:CanItakemynoteswithme?
Judge:No,turnthemupsidedown.
Coughlin:CanItaketheonepage?
Judge:No,turnthemupsidedown.
Coughlin:Really?
Judge:Turnthemupsidedown. Marshalyouwillgowithhimtotherestroom.
Coughlin:WillIbeabletogointothestallalone? Justchecking.
Judge:Youhavetwominutes. Youhavetwominutes.
Coughlin:Okay.
(thatendstheIirstaudioIileattachedIor2/27/12,whichrepresentstheentiretyoItheproceedingpriortotheONLYrestroombreakduringthatTrial)
(StartoIthesecondaudioIileoI2/27/12,whichrepresentstheentiretyoItheproceedingsoIthatdayIollowingtheONLYrestroombreakoItheday).
Coughlin:(re-enterscourtroom):Thankyou,YourHonor.
Judge:Okay,wearebackontherecordin11TR26800. Mr.Coughlin,areyourecordingtheseproceedings?
Coughlin:No,YourHonor.
Judge:DoyouhaveanysortoIdevicesinyourpocket?
Coughlin:Ibelievewhatisinmypocketisprivate,YourHonor.
Judge:IwanttoknowiIyouhaveanysortoIrecordingdevicesinyourpocket!
Coughlin:IbelievethatisaFourthAmendmentissue,YourHonor.
Judge:Iamaskingyou,areyouarerecordinganythingIromtheseproceedingsinyourpocketwithoutCourtpermission?
Coughlin:IbelievethatisaFourthAmendmentissue.
Judge:Sir?
Coughlin:And,no,I'mnot.
Judge:Okay,proceed,doyouhaveanyquestionsIorthiswitness(RPDSargentJohnTarter)thatarediIIerentIromtheareathatwegavegoneoveralready.
Coughlin:Well,IwouldliketoaskaIollowupontherollingstopcitation..."(thereaIterJudgeNashHolmesdoesnotaskanyotherquestionsoICoughlininanywayrelatedtorecordingor
recordingdevices,nordidJudgeNashHolmesaskanyquestionsoIanyonerelatedtorecordingorrecordingdevicesbesides. JudgeNashHolmesdidask,beIoretherestroombreak,oI
Coughlin,iICoughlinhadanyevidenceorprooItosupporthiscontentionthatheattemptedtoprovidetoeitherRenoCityAttorneyWongorOrmaasdiscoveryorinIormationrelatedtothe
statementtoCoughlin,incidenttotheNovember13th,2011custodialcriminaltrespassarrestoICoughlinathisIormerlawoIIiceincidenttoanimpermissiblesummaryevictionoIa
commercialtenantnotbasedonthenon-paymentoIrent(ie,aNoCauseEvictionNoticewaspostedandaLandlord'sAIIidavitallegedaNoCausebasisIorproceeding).
OnthesecondaudioIileIrom2/27/12,atthe 5minutemark,theIollowoccursontherecord:
"Coughlin:wasIthere?DoIrememberthenameoItheotheroIIicerwhowastherewithhimwhowentintoRichardHill'slawoIIiceIortwentyminuteswithhimandhungout?
Judge:IIyoumentionthenameRichardHillagainIamgoingtoholdyouincontemptbecauseIhavetoldyourepeatedlytosticktotherelevantissuesabouttheboulevardstop."
(Atthe11:17minutemarkoIthesecondaudioIrom2/27/12theIollowingoccursontherecord):
Judge:OIIicer(RPDSargentTarter),youareexcused. Sir,doyouintendtotestiIy?
Coughlin:Yes,YourHonor.
Judge:ThentestiIy,youdon'tneedtotakethestand,youcantestiIyrightthere,youdon'thavetoaskyourselIquestions,justgivemeashortnarrativeversionoIwhathappened,anddon'treIer
toyourselIinthethirdperson,hewassworninatthebeginningoIthecase,don'treIertoyourselIinthethirdperson,justtellmewhathappened.
Coughlin:Yes,yourhonor,IreportedabribetoSargentTarter,thenheretaliatedagainstme.
Judge:Sir! Sir!Keepitrelevant!
RenoCityAttorneyOrmaas:Objection,movetostrike!
Judge:Keepitrelevantaboutwhetherornottheboulevardstopoccurredandwhathappened:
Coughlin:SargentTarterperjuredhistestimonytoday
Judge:Sir,Sir,answerabouttheboulevardstop.
Coughlin:Yes,YourHonor,thisincidentoccurredwhenIwentovertoRichardHill'soIIice.
Judge:Sir.
Coughlin:Ican'tgetintothat? Okay.
Judge:Sir,boulevardstop.
Coughlin:SargentTarterliedtodaywhenhe...
Judge:Allright, Sir!
Coughlin:abouttheboulevardstop,Iamsaying...Idisagree
Judge:takehimintocustody,youareincontemptoIcourt,youwillspendthenextIivedaysinjail,thiscourtisIinished,thismatteriscontinued
Coughlin:YourHonorImoveIorastay,Ihaveatrial..andIhaveclientswhoneedme
Judge:thatisyourproblem,Sir. FortherecordyouareincontemptoIcourtbecauseyouhavebeeninsubordinate,youhavedisregardedalloImyrequests,directions,orders,cajoling,my
eIIortstogetyoutoIollowtheinstructionsoIthecourt,toactlikealawyer,oreventoactlikeadeIendantrepresentinghimselIinthiscourt,youhavemadeIaces,belittled,youhaveargued,
youhaveplayed,youhavebeenridiculousinthiscourtroomandbroughtupissuesthatareirrelevantandimmaterialandtodisruptthisproceeding,andthereareonlyIiveorsixpeoplehere
thatyoucoulddisrupt,youhavedoneeverythingyoucantodivertIromthematteratquestionandtokeepusIromresolvingtheissueoIwhetherornotyouhavecommittedthetraIIicviolation
oItheboulevardstop,andyouareinuttercontemptoIthiscourtandhavedonenothingtodealwiththeIactsoIthiscase...youarebeinganobstinatejackass,Iamhavingahardtimebelieving
youarealawyer,youobviouslymissedtheclassononevidence,courtroomdecorumandoncriminallaw..."
CoughlinwastakenintocustodywhereuponasearchincidenttoarrestwasperIormedintheholdingarea/backroomoItheRMCbyMarshalJoelHarleywithMarshalScottCoppaassisting,
andMarshalCoppawasoneoItwoMarshalstransportingCoughlintotheWashoeCountyDetentionFacilitywhereheservedthe5daysinjailJudgeNashHolmesordered(andtheRMC
reIusedtoreturnthe$100thatCoughlin'smotherpaidintotheRMCwhencounterclerk"Tom"promisedhertheCourtwouldissueanOrderresultinginCoughlinbeingreleasedIromjailone
dayearly...however,asideIromtheWCDCwalkingCoughlindowninhandcuIIsIromhiscelltothebookingdeskandback,therewasnoreleaseIromcustodyandCoughlin'smotherwasnot
returnedher$100paymentinexchangeIoranearlyreleasebyeithertheRMCortheWCDC.
Whileconductingthesearchincidenttoarrest,RMCMarshalHarleywentthroughCoughlin'spocketsandtookoutasimpleIlipstylecellphone,asmartphone,amicrosdcard,andan
electronicshaver. UpontakingpossessionoIthemicrosdcardMarshalHarleyimmediatelybeganinterrogatingCoughlinastowhetheritwouldworkwiththesmartphone,thendirected
anotherMarshalto"gotelltheJudgethatCoughlinwasrecording!"withoutanyothersupportIorsuchanaccusation. NoneoIthisoccurredintherestroomandChieIMarshalRoperhas
indicatedtoCoughlinthatMarshalHarley,incarryingoutJudgeNashHolmesOrdertoescortCoughlintotherestroom,didnotactuallygointherestroom,butratherwaitedoutsideitsdoor.
IaskthatChieIMarshalRoper,MarshalHarley,andMarshalCoppacorrectthemisrepresentationsmadebyJudgeNashHolmes(whetherornottheywerepurposeIulorwheresomethingwas
lostintranslationandtheaIIidavitrequirementoINRS22.030Ior"contemptnotintheimmediatepresenceoItheCourt"wasnotIollowedbyJudgeNashHolmesincidenttoher2/28/12
Order,whereinJudgeNashHolmeswrites,onpage2oIher2/28/12OrderFindingtheDeIendnatinContemptoICourtandImposingSanctions:"Thematterwascalledatapprxoimately
3:00p.m.andconcludedwithoua verdictabout4:30p.m.aIterthecourtheldthedeIendnatincriminalcontemptoIcourtIorhisbehaviorandactivitescommittedinthedirectpresenceoIthis
courtduringthetrial. ThecourtIindsthatdeIendant'scontemptuousconductconsideoIhis....deceitIul...behaviorduringtrial,alloIwhichappeardtobedonetovexanannoythecourt,the
witness,andtheopposingparty,andtodisruptthetrialprocess. ThecourtIindsthattheIollowingoccurred,andconstitutecontempt...."9)deIendant'slyingtothecourtinresponsetodirect
questionsposedbythecourtwithregardtohisrecordingtheproceedings...(page3)...ThecourtIindsthatthedeIendnat'sactionswereintentionalanddoneinutterdisregardandcontemptIor
thecourt,aninthepresenceoIthecour,IorpurposesoIdisruptinganddelayingtheproceedinsanddishonoringtheruleoIlawandthiscourt,andconstitutethemisdemeanoroIcriminal
contempt,aviolationoINRS22.010. GoodcauseappearingthereIore,theIollowingsanctionsareimposed: ITISORDERED,pursuanttoNRS22.100,thatthedeIendantbeincarcerated
attheWahoeCountyRegionalDetnetionFacilityIorthetermoIIive(5)days,Iromthetimehewastakenintocustodyonthiscourt'sorderonFebruary27,2012,andthatsentenceshallnotbe
reducedIoranyreason..." Thetimestampingonthat2/28/12 OrderFindingtheDeIendantinContemptoICourtandImposingSanctionsindicate"3:47". WashoeCountySheriII'sOIIice
personnelDeputyHodge,PatriciaBeckman,RMC
Somehow,inher2/28/12Order(andduringtheTrial)JudgeNashHolmesIounditrelevantthat,allegedly,theRPD"gaveCoughlinabreak"overhisdriver'slicensebeingexpired(actually,
Coughlin'sthenvalid,current,driver'slicensewasbeingwithheldbyRichardG.Hill,Esq.,asCoughlinreportedtoSargentTarter...anditwaslikelyanoldDLthattheRPDisreIerringtoas
"expired"whenmentioningthe"break",which,again,wassomehowrelevantenoughtoIinditswayintotheOrder,butthewithholdingoICoughlin'sthencurrent,validDLbyHillwas
sustainedasirrelevantduringtheTrial(andinIactseemstohavebeenoneoIamyriadoIvaguebasisIorissuingasummarycriminalcontemptOrderrequiringthenlicensedattorneywith
client'sdependinguponhim,Coughlin,immediatelybeingtakentotheWCDCIor5daysinjail...).
CoughlinherebyrequeststheRMC,WCDA,andWCDCtoindicatetheextenttowhichhispropertywasbookedintohispersonalpropertyattheWCDC,onlytohavetheWCDCandor
WCDAreleasethepropertytotheCityoIRenoMarshalstheIollowingday,wellaIteranytimeIrametoconductasearchincidenttoarrest(NNDBMemberMaryKandaraswasinvolvedin
thismatter,andinIact,despiteJudgeNashHolmesorderingthepropertyreleasedon3/30/12,ittookuntil4/7/12andapprovalbyMaryKandarasbeIorethepropertywassoreleased.
wcso12-1805c-47951.
WithlocalattorneyPamWilmorestanding,watching,andorhearing/participatingintheconversations,onoraboutMarch21st,2012WCSO'sP.BeckmanhandedCoughlinanotethatread
"PerJudgesOrders,callMarshalDeighton"andprovidedaphonenumberIorCoughlintoseekIurtherexplanationastotheadmissionthattheCityoIRenoMarshalshadreturnedtothejailon
2/28/12andretrieveditemsoICoughlin'spersonalproperty,includinghis"Ilip"phone,hissmartphone,andhismicrosdcard. DeputyHodge'sadmissionthat,contrarytotheindicationsby
WCSOCummingsandCampbellthatthemicrosdcardwasreleasedtoCoughlin'sagenton2/29/12,butrather,wasnotsorelease,combinedwithhisstatementthatthesmartphone,microsd
card,etc.werereleasedtotheMarshalsbecauseitwouldbeeasierIorCoughlintogethispropertybackthroughthem,revealthatasearchnotincidenttoarrestoccurredherebytheRMCon
2/28/12andortheCityoIRenoMarshals,or,tobeIair,atleastsomesortoI"seizure"did(especiallyconsideringthatuponthesmartphoneandmicrosdcardIinallybeingreturnedtoCoughlin
onorabout4/7/12byWCSODeputyIver,BrandiBerriman,andPatriciaBeckman(andonlyaIter"Maddy"gotapprovalIromDDAKandaras,andaIterCoughlinwasthreatenedwithabuseoI
processbyDeputyBeatson). TheRMC'sMarilynTognonialsomadesomeindicationsrespectingthesmartphoneandmicrosdcardtoCoughlin. Perhaps,theallusionto wcso12-1805c-
47951inJudgeNashHolmes3/30/12OrderReleasingCoughlin'spropertyindicateswhetherawarrantorsomeotherlawIulOrderallowedIortheMarshalstoretrievethoseitemsadayaIter
theywerebookedintoCoughlin'spersonalpropertyatthejail...butCoughlinhasnotbeenprovidedanysuchWarrantorOrderandherebyrequeststhathebesoprovidedacopyoIitnow,and
that,givenimportantdatawaslosttoCoughlinuponhisdiscoverythemicrosdcardandsmartphonehadbeenwiped,thatanycopiesoIthedatathenstoredthereinbeprovidedtoCoughlin
(theDiazcaseintheNinthCircuitseemstoprovidedagreatdealoIlatitudetolawenIorcementtosearchdigitaldatawithinthereachoIonewhomissubjecttoacustodialarrest,andperhaps
evencopyit...inwhichcase....iswouldbeappreciateiIacopythereoIcouldbeprovidedtoCoughlin,andsomecompensationIortheextenttowhichhis32GBmicrosdcardwasrendered
uselessuponitsreturn,aswashisHTCG2cellphone(whichneverquiteworkedthesameIromthenonandwasrenderedtotallyinoperativeashorttimethereaIter...the32GBmicrosdcard
havinganapproximatevalueoI$85andtheHTCG2smartphoneausedvalueoIaround$175.00).
IknowIwriteinthethirdpersonsometimes(itstoughrepresentingyourselI,especiallywhentimerequireslotsoIcopyingandpasting,etc.,etc)andthatitcanappearawkward.
IwouldappreciatethepartiesreceivingthiscorrespondencewhohaveanyknowledgeoItheeventsdetailedherein(especiallywithrespecttotheIalseaccusationsrelatedtorecordings,
disassembling,andhidingcomponentpartsoIdevicesintheRMCrestroomasdetailedontherecordon3/12/12in11TR26800andagaininJudgeNashHolmestestimonyatthe11/14/12
DisciplinaryHearingIorNG12-0434(andNG12-0204,andNG12-0435)tosettherecordstraight.
ForaverbatimorclosetoittranscriptionoIwhatJudgeNashHolmestestiIiedtoattheDisciplinaryHearingon11/14/12(includingthosemattersshepurportedtorepeatdetailsrelatedtowhat
variosuRMCMarshalstoldherregardingCoughlin,onwouldlikelyneedgetthetranscriptoranyrecordingsIromtheCCRassignedtothatHearing,CarolHummel,andgivenCoughlin's
currentindigency,anyrequirementthatCoughlinpayupIrontIorthetranscriptwouldmakereviewprohibitive,andCoughlinherebyrequestsoIthePanelaIeewaiverordeIermentoIsuch
costsinthatregard):
LindaShaw,Owner,SunshineReportingServices-Reno
1895PlumasSt,
Reno,NV89509,
(775)323-3411
SunshineReportingServices
EricNelson
CCRLongoni
(775)323-3411
Iax(775)323-2749
151CountryEstatesCircle
Reno,Nevada89511
CarolHummel
(775)827-9120/
Iax(775)827-9120
chummelcharter.net
Inher3/12/12Orderin11TR26800,atransmogriIicationoIsortsappearstooccur,turninga"simpletraIIiccitationtrial"intoaDisciplinaryHearing,albeitoneoIasummarynature,withan
absentRespondent. ThatOrderread,inrelevantpart:
"BaseduponthetotalcircumstancesoIthiscase,thein-courtperIormanceoIthe
deIendant,asobservedbythiscourt,thewrittendocumentsIaxedtothecourtIorIilingby
thisdeIendant,thestatementsandbehavioroIthisdeIendantandhisoverallconductherein,
thiscourtIinds,byclearandconvincingevidence,thatZacharyBarkerCoughlin,anattorney
licensedtopracticelawintheStateoINevada,hascommittednumerousactsoIattorney
misconduct,including,butnotlimitedto,violatingtheIollowingRulesoIProIessional
Conduct:
8.4(c}-engagingindishonesty,Iraud,deceitormisrepresentation;
8.4(d)-engaginginconductthatisprejudicialtotheadministrationoIjustice;
3.3(a)-lackoIcandortothecourtbyknowinglymakingIalsestatementstoatribunal;
3.l-deIendinginaproceedingbyassertingorcontrovertinganissuewithoutabasisin
IactandwithmattersthatareknowntobeIrivolous;
3.2-IailuretomakereasonableeIIortstoexpeditelitigation.and,inIact,taking
extrememeasurestodelaylitigation;
3.4(c)-beingunIairtoopposingcounselbycontinuallyalludingtomattersthelawyer
doesnotreasonablybelievearerelevantorsupportedbyadmissibleevidence;
1.3-Iailingtoactwithreasonablediligenceandpromptness;and
1.I-lackoIcompetenceinhispracticeandappearancesbeIorethiscourt.
Inaddition,ZacharyBarkerCoughlin,likelyalsoviolatedNevadaSupremeCourtRule
229,section2(b),asamendedbyADKT449onAugust1,2011,bysurreptitiouslyrecording
thetraIIiccitationtrialoIFebruary27,2012withouttheadvancepermissionoIthiscourtand
thenlyingtothiscourtwhenquestionedaboutitanddenyingthathehaddoneso.
WhetherornottherearemedicalreasonstoexplainMr.Coughlin'sactionsisnotIor
thiscourttodecide.HehasbecomenothinglessthanavexatiouslitiganttoRenoMunicipal
Courtduetohisunorthodox,disruptive,bizarreandirrationalmethodsandpracticesthatgo
beyondthepaleoIanythingthatiscivil,ethical.proIessionalorcompetent.Goodcause
appearingthereIore,thecourtordersasIollows:
ITISORDEREDthatthismatteriscontinued,andallproceedingsrelatingtheretoare
tolled,untilIurtherorderoIthiscourt,whilethematteroIattorneyZacharyBarkerCoughlin
isreIerredtotheStateBaroINevada;
ITISORDEREDthatnoIurtheractionshallbetakenbytheRenoCityAttorney's
OIIice,ortheclerksorstaIIoIRenoMunicipalCourt,intheabove-entitledcase,pending
IurtherorderoIthiscourt;
ITISORDEREDthatZacharyBarkerCoughlinisbarredandIorbiddenIromIaxing,
emailing,delivering.havingdelivered,serving.presentingIorIiling.personallyorotherwise,
anymotionordocumenttoRenoMunicipalCourt,intheabove-entitledcase,pendingIurther
orderoIthiscourt."
One,Coughlinisnotemailingthiscorrespondenceinthat"abovetitledcase(11TR26800)butinconnectionwithmattersoutsidethatcase. Three,itisreallynotatallclearhowJudgeNash
Holmescouldmakeallthoserulings,andonlyaIterhavingdonethat,decidetosuspendtheproceedingsIoraCompetencyEvaluation,giventheimportoINRS178.405:
NRS 178.405SuspensionoItrialorpronouncementoIjudgmentwhendoubtarisesastocompetenceoIdeIendant;noticeoIsuspensiontobeprovidedtootherdepartments.
NRS178.405SuspensionoItrialorpronouncementoIjudgmentwhendoubtarisesastocompetenceoIdeIendant;noticeoIsuspensiontobeprovidedtootherdepartments.
1.AnytimeaIterthearrestoIadeIendant,including,withoutlimitation,proceedingsbeIoretrial,duringtrial,whenuponconvictionthedeIendantisbroughtupIorjudgmentorwhenadeIendantwho
hasbeenplacedonprobationorwhosesentencehasbeensuspendedisbroughtbeIorethecourt,iIdoubtarisesastothecompetenceoIthedeIendant,thecourtshallsuspendtheproceedings,thetrial
orthepronouncingoIthejudgment,asthecasemaybe,untilthequestionoIcompetenceisdetermined.
2.IItheproceedings,thetrialorthepronouncingoIthejudgmentaresuspended,thecourtmustnotiIyanyotherdepartmentsoIthecourtoIthesuspensioninwriting.Uponreceivingsuchnotice,the
otherdepartmentsoIthecourtshallsuspendanyotherproceedingsrelatingtothedeIendantuntilthedeIendantisdeterminedtobecompetent.
NRS189.030TransmissionoItranscript,otherpapers,soundrecordingandcopyoIdockettodistrictcourt.
1.Thejusticeshall,within10daysaIterthenoticeoIappealisIiled,transmittotheclerkoIthedistrictcourtthetranscriptoIthecase,allotherpapersrelatingtothecaseandacertiIiedcopyoIthe
docket.
2.ThejusticeshallgivenoticetotheappellantortheappellantsattorneythatthetranscriptandallotherpapersrelatingtothecasehavebeenIiledwiththeclerkoIthedistrictcourt.
3.IIthedistrictjudgesorequests,beIoreoraIterreceivingtherecord,thejusticeoIthepeaceshalltransmittothedistrictjudgethesoundrecordingoIthecase.
NRS5.073 ConIormityoIpracticeandproceedingstothoseoIjusticecourts;exception;impositionandcollectionoIIees.
1.ThepracticeandproceedingsinthemunicipalcourtmustconIorm,asnearlyaspracticable,tothepracticeandproceedingsoIjusticecourtsinsimilarcases.AnappealperIectedtransIersthe
actiontothedistrictcourtIortrialanew,unlessthemunicipalcourtisdesignatedasacourtoIrecordasprovidedinNRS 5.010.Themunicipalcourtmustbetreatedandconsideredasajusticecourt
whenevertheproceedingsthereoIarecalledintoquestion.
2.EachmunicipaljudgeshallchargeandcollectsuchIeesprescribedinNRS 4.060thatarewithinthejurisdictionallimitsoIthemunicipalcourt.
(AddedtoNRSby1989,903;A1991,455;1997, 115)
NRS5.075 FormoIdocketandrecords. TheCourtAdministratorshallprescribetheIormoIthedocketandoIanyotherappropriaterecordstobekeptbythemunicipalcourt,which
IormmayvaryIromcourttocourtaccordingtothenumberandkindoIcasescustomarilyheardandwhetherthecourtisdesignatedasacourtoIrecordpursuanttoNRS 5.010.
CityAttorneyOrmaassurecouldbemadetoexplainherstatementsontherecordregardingwhetherthecitationorreportin11tr26800containedanymentionoIretaliation,givenshewas
lookingrightatitandgivenwhatshesaidincourt.Also,thewhisperingwithMarshalHarley,andthebitsaboutCoughlinreportingtoOrmaaswhatRPDOFIicerCartersaidtoCoughlinin
61901,andOrmaas'sresponsestheretoon2/27/12,andDanWong,dittoatanearlierhearingonthatmatter...
Simply put, there was no questioning by Judge Nash Holmes of Coughlin as to whether he was recording anything or whether he possessed a "recording device" until AFTER the one and only
restroom break Judge Nash Holmes mentions on the audio record. Judge Nash Holmes did ask Coughlin if he had any proof that City Attorney's Wong and Ormaas failed, in some way, to received
or follow up on some offer by Coughlin to provide materials related to Coughlin's contentions respecting the statement madAnd that sua sponte interrogation of Couglin occured IMMEDIATELY
AFTER THE RESTROOM BREAK, A BREAK IN WHICH JUDGE NASH HOLMES REFUSED TO ALLOW COUGHLIN TO TAKE HIS YELLOW LEGAL PAD WITH HIM AND WHICH OCCURED AFTER COUGHLIN
MADE A VERBAL PRESERVATION ON THE RECORD OF THE WHISPERING IN EACH OTHER'S EARS BY CITY ATTORNEY ALLISON ORMAAS AND MARSHAL HARLEY (WHO SEEMED A BIT UPSET ABOUT
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS COUGHLIN ASKED THEM IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE TRIAL (DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME WHERE JUDGE NASH HOLME'S ASSISTANT INDICATED, ON THE RECORD IN
ONE OF THE OTHER CASES ON THAT STACKED DOCKET, THAT Judge Nash Holmes just couldn't be found, and how odd that was...which is odd, considering what was going on in 11 cr 22176, 11 cr
26405 12 cr 00696 and 11 tr 26800, and rcr2012-065630 and rcr2011-063341 at the time (lots of reasons for and indications that local law enforcement and prosecutors and public defenders were
non too happy with Coughlin...and consider the 2/24/12 email vacating the 2/27/12 status conference between young and dogan that neither YOung nor Dogan wish to testify about...but which
seems to have been held anyways after a written communication of its being reset was transmitted to Coughlin by Dogan, wherein, during the time Judge Nash Holmes couldn't be found (maybe
she was at one of the group meetings amongst Judges about Coughlin that RMC Administrative Judge William Gardner referenced on the record in 11 CR 26405? Interesting the Notice of Appeal in
60302 was filed that same day too, 2/27/12) Dogan got his ORder for Competency Evaluation of Coughlin in rcr2012-065630 (apparently in retaliation for Coughlin's filing of 2/21/12, and DDA Zach
Young was still smarting from a filing by Coughlin of approximately 11/28/12, which resultd in Young promptly amending his complaint in rcr2011-063341 to add a charge that was duplicative, even
where YOung failure to allege theft or possessing/receiving "from another' under Staab makes his so charging Coughlin in that iPhone case a RPC 3.8 violation, which is YOung's specialty,
apparently. That, and violating NRs 178.405, which YOung did by filing in rcr2011-063341 with a stamp of 2:55pm a fugitive document of his own, an Opposition to Coughlin's or the WCPD Motion
to Appear as CoCounsel on 2/27/12...never mind Young tried to hold a TRIAL on 5/7/12 in that case despite the Order finding Coughlin competent in cr12-0376 didn't even get signed and entered
until 5/9/12...ditto the Trial seeting of 5/8/12 in RMC 11 cr 26405, the criminal trespass case. NOt much respect for nrs 178.405 (including within NRs 5.010) here in Northern nevada..
Coughlin didn't received the 2/28/12 Contempt Order in 11 tr 26800 until July 2012...but did file a Notice of Appeal 3/7/12...despite "summary criminal contempt" being a final appealable order,
Judge Nash Holmes continues to refuse to follow NRS 189.010-050
It is true that contempt committed in a trial courtroom can under some circumstances be punished summarily by the trial judge. See Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 539 . But adjudication by
a trial judge of a contempt committed in his immediate presence in open court cannot be likened to the proceedings here. For we held in the Oliver case that a person charged with contempt
before a "one-man grand jury" could not be summarily tried. [349 U.S. 133, 138] The power of a trial judge to punish for a contempt committed in his immediate presence in open ... In re Oliver,
333 U. S. 257. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel of Coughlin violated in both 11 cr 22176 and 11 tr 26800, also orders no sufficiently detailed or capable of being known how to comply with, not
sufficient warning, violat Houston v Eighth Judicial District (Nev.).
See, this is why In Re Oliver and Cooke require all elements of "summary criminal contempt" occur " in the "immediate presence" of the Court. Maybe Marshal Harley and some other Marshal have
misled Judge Nash HOlmes, or maybe something worse is going on here....but what Judge Nash HOlmes said on the recording is entirely misleading an inaccurate, if not an outright lie (again,
maybe not a lie by Judge Nash Holmes, maybe she is repeating a lie, but regardless her reliance on unattributed hearsay is distrubing an inappropriate, particulary where she not only purports to
issue a "summary criminal contempt" conviction against an attorney, but also where Judge Nash Holmes appears to try to transmogrify what she sees as "a simple traffic citation trial" into a full
blown SCR 105 disciplinary hearing where she is both Bar Counsel and the Panel...That Marshal needs to sign an affidavit, under NRS 22.020 and Judge Nash HOlmes ought to have to put
something on the record, under oath, in response to Coughlin's recent subpoena (and SBN Pat King wishes to let Judge Nash HOlmes phone in her testimony, and it probably won't even be sworn
testimony, but rather just some musings by Judge Nash Holmes purporting to make "rulings" finding "by clear and convincing evidence" all sorts of things outside her jurisdiction) on 11/14/12, on,
Partick O. King, SBN Bar Counsel has also filed Motion to Quash the Subpoenas Coughlin attempted to have served on Marshal Joel Harley, Marshal Deighton, Judge Nash HOlmes, Judge William
Gardner, Judge Gardners Administrative Assistant Lisa Wagner, who can't quite find the NOtice of Appeal Coughlin faxed to her (allowable under the RMC Rules) on June 28th, 2012 in 11 CR 26405
(the appeal was dismissed under an NRS 189.010 analysis by Judge Elliot, whom also got Coughlin appeal of the 11 cr 22176 conviction resulting in this Court's 6/7/12 temporary suspension Order
in cr11-2064, which was denied based upon a civil preparation of transcript down payment rule, in that criminal appeal, where the RMC has a thing in place with this Pam Longoni that violates
Nevada law in that it refused to give Coughlin the audio cd of the trial for some time, insisting only Longoni would be allowed to transcribe it, and that the transcript's preparation would absolutely
not start until a down payment was made. Plus, even where Coughlin caved to the payment demands..Longoni repeatedly hung up the phone on him and otherwise ignored his communications
(there may be an issue of the email Longoni holding out to the public issuing a "bounceback"...but she needs to sign an affidavit as to whether she put Coughlin on a blocked list, and upon
information and belief, Coughlin faxed his request to the number the RMC held out for her on her behalf too...
In her March 14th, 2012 grievance against Coughlin to the SBN Judge Nash Holmes details some concerns she has with Coughlin's work as a self representing attorney defending a traffic citation
(now NG12-0434, and perhaps, NG12-0435, depending upon whom you ask and what King means by "Clerk of Court"...because in King's 3/23/12 email to Coughlin he apparently identifies Ms.
Marilyn Tognoni as "Clerk of Court of Department 3"...whoever, wouldn't it be Second Judicial District Court Clerk of Court Joey Orduna Hastings that would need to send Family Court Judge Linda
Gardner's April 2009 Order sanctioning Coughlin to the SBN's King for King now apparent contention that the NG12-0435 "ghost grievance" consisting of Judge L. Gardner's April 2009 Order was
not filed by the RMC Judges?
AS to the application of the "courthouse sanctuary" doctrine to RMC Marshal Harley serving the Order to Show Cause upon Coughlin at approximately 1:25 pm in one of the conference rooms right
outside the interior of Courtroom B at the RMC:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-district-court/1372465.html
"THE LAW
(COURTHOUSE SANCTUARY)
Despite antagonistic dicta to the contrary; most modern era precedent dealing with the issue of Courthouse Sanctuary from service of 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 of Housing Preservation, City of 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 foreign 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 of a New York Court of limited territorial jurisdiction to contest jurisdiction. See Palazzo v. Conforti, 50 N.Y.S.2d 706 (N.Y. Civ.Ct.1944); Singer
v. Reising, 154 Misc. 239, 276 N.Y.S. 714 (Queens County 1935).
The Baumgartner Appellate Division panel also acknowledges a limited Courthouse Sanctuary rule for New York residents if 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 itself would not be applicable to the instant case as service of process was effected
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 of immunity from arrest of a litigant attending a trial of an action to which he is a party found early
recognition and dates back to the book of 13 Henry IV, J.B. Sampson v. Graves, 208 A.D. 522, 203 N.Y.S. 729 (1st Dept.1924). This is for the obvious reason that England had no sovereign
states. The privilege is not a creature of statute, but was created and deemed necessary for the due administration of justice. See Matthews v. Tufts, 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 for application of the Courthouse Sanctuary? The answer is that the
Court of Appeals never established such a rule. In contra point of fact, the Court of 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 of Appeals expressly addressed the New York State resident immunity distinction and established in its dicta that whether any distinction should or does
in fact exist, is at least doubtful. This immunity is one of the necessities of the Administration of Justice, and Court's would often be embarrassed if suitors or witnesses, while attending Court,
could be molested with process. It is noted that Person involved a foreign state resident. In establishing the sanctuary doctrine, the Court stated that this rule is especially applicable
Ez
d^Z
traverse hearing and essentially allows the plaintiff to use a defective default judgment as a weapon to compel the defendant to submit to the service of process. Ford Motor Credit Co. v.
Bobo; cite supra. The location of an individual's residence does little to legitimize such a mockery. Absent the compulsion of clear controlling precedent; this Court will not
condone such a situation..."
NRS 266.595 Appeals. Appeals to the district court may be taken from any final judgment of the municipal court in accordance with the provisions of NRS 5.073.
1.ThepracticeandproceedingsinthemunicipalcourtmustconIorm,asnearlyaspracticable,tothepracticeandproceedingsoIjusticecourtsinsimilarcases.AnappealperIectedtransIersthe
actiontothedistrictcourtIortrialanew,unlessthemunicipalcourtisdesignatedasacourtoIrecordasprovidedinNRS 5.010.Themunicipalcourtmustbetreatedandconsideredasajusticecourt
whenevertheproceedingsthereoIarecalledintoquestion.
2.EachmunicipaljudgeshallchargeandcollectsuchIeesprescribedinNRS 4.060thatarewithinthejurisdictionallimitsoIthemunicipalcourt.
(AddedtoNRSby1989,903;A1991,455;1997, 115)
NRS5.075 FormoIdocketandrecords. TheCourtAdministratorshallprescribetheIormoIthedocketandoIanyotherappropriaterecordstobekeptbythemunicipalcourt,which
IormmayvaryIromcourttocourtaccordingtothenumberandkindoIcasescustomarilyheardandwhetherthecourtisdesignatedasacourtoIrecordpursuanttoNRS 5.010.
NRS5.010 GeneralrequirementsIorcourt;designationascourtoIrecord. Theremustbeineachcityamunicipalcourtpresidedoverbyamunicipaljudge.Themunicipalcourt:
1.MustbeheldatsuchplaceinthecitywithinwhichitisestablishedasthegoverningbodyoIthatcitymaybyordinancedirect.
2.MaybyordinancebedesignatedasacourtoIrecord.
The personal service by Marshal Harley of the Order to Show Cause in the appeal of the summary eviction matter from Coughlin's former home law office at 121 River Rock St, with Richard G. Hill,
Esq. as opposing counsel in CV11-03628, occurred while Coughlin was speaking to RCA Ormaas in attempts to resolve the matter (11 TR 26800 a traffic citation matter wherein RPD Sargent Tarter
and other officers responded to Richard G. Hill, Esq.'s office on 11/15/12 (its possible both Hill and Coughlin called the police and or 911...can't remember) when Coughlin appeared there after
being released from 3 days in jail incident to the 11/13/12 criminal trespass arrest (now a conviction and discussed in that attached materials, some of which appear on the Nevada Supreme
Court's site under case 61901, the conviction stemming from 11 CR 26405 before RMC Administrative Judge W. Gardner, the brother of District Court Judge Linda Gardner whose April 2009 Order
sanctioning Coughlin was cited by Washoe Legal Services at the cause for his firing, and led to 60302, now on appeal...
I would really just like to move on from all of this, but this is a time of exigent circumstances, and if the RMC and the City of Reno Marshals do not take affirmative steps to disavow the unsworn
hearsay Judge Nash Holmes attributed in her supposedly sworn testimony at Coughlin's 11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing, it may be that a negligent hiring, training, or supervision cause of action may
acrue against various Marshals, even personally (and its not so clear Mr. Christensen and the City of Reno would extend any purported representation to such personal liability, for, say, slander or
libel).
NRS 22.010 Actsoromissionsconstitutingcontempts. TheIollowingactsoromissionsshallbedeemedcontempts:
1. Disorderly,contemptuousorinsolentbehaviortowardthejudgewhilethejudgeisholdingcourt,orengagedinjudicialdutiesatchambers,ortowardmastersorarbitratorswhilesittingonareIerenceorarbitration,orotherjudicial
proceeding.
2. AbreachoIthepeace,boisterousconductorviolentdisturbanceinthepresenceoIthecourt,orinitsimmediatevicinity,tendingtointerrupttheduecourseoIthetrialorotherjudicialproceeding.
3. DisobedienceorresistancetoanylawIulwrit,order,ruleorprocessissuedbythecourtorjudgeatchambers.
4. DisobedienceoIasubpoenadulyserved,orreIusingtobeswornoranswerasawitness.
5. RescuinganypersonorpropertyinthecustodyoIanoIIicerbyvirtueoIanorderorprocessoIsuchcourtorjudgeatchambers.
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 jurorconcerninganactioninwhichthejurorhasbeenimpaneledtodetermine,orinanymanner
approachingorinterIeringwithsuchjurorwiththeintenttoinIluencetheverdict.
7. AbusingtheprocessorproceedingsoIthecourtorIalselypretendingtoactundertheauthorityoIanorderorprocessoIthecourt.
|1911CPA452;RL5394;NCL8941|(NRSA1983,843)

NRS 22.030 Summary punishment of contempt committed in immediate view and presence of court; affidavit or statement to be filed when contemptcommittedoutsideimmediateviewandpresenceofcourt;
disqualificationofjudge.
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.IIthecourtorjudgesummarilypunishesapersonIoracontemptpursuanttothis
subsection,thecourtorjudgeshallenteranorderthat:
(a)RecitestheIactsconstitutingthecontemptintheimmediateviewandpresenceoIthecourtorjudge;
(b)FindsthepersonguiltyoIthecontempt;and
(c)PrescribesthepunishmentIorthecontempt.
2. IIacontemptisnotcommittedintheimmediateviewandpresenceoIthecourtorjudgeatchambers,anaIIidavitmustbepresentedtothecourtorjudgeoItheIactsconstitutingthecontempt,orastatementoItheIactsbythemasters
orarbitrators.
3. Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinthissubsection,iIacontemptisnotcommittedintheimmediateviewandpresenceoIthecourt,thejudgeoIthecourtinwhosecontemptthepersonisallegedtobeshallnotpresideatthetrialoIthe
contemptovertheobjectionoItheperson.TheprovisionsoIthissubsectiondonotapplyin:
(a)AnycasewhereaIinaljudgmentordecreeoIthecourtisdrawninquestionandsuchjudgmentordecreewasenteredinsuchcourtbyapredecessorjudgethereoI10yearsormoreprecedingthebringingoIcontemptproceedingsIor
theviolationoIthejudgmentordecree.
(b)Anyproceedingdescribedinsubsection1oI NRS 3.223,whetherornotaIamilycourthasbeenestablishedinthejudicialdistrict.
NRS 22.100 Penaltyforcontempt.
1. Upontheanswerandevidencetaken,thecourtorjudgeorjury,asthecasemaybe,shalldeterminewhetherthepersonproceededagainstisguiltyoIthecontemptcharged.
2. Exceptasotherwiseprovidedin NRS 22.110,iIapersonisIoundguiltyoIcontempt,aIinemaybeimposedonthepersonnotexceeding$500orthepersonmaybeimprisonednotexceeding25days,orboth.
3. Inadditiontothepenaltiesprovidedinsubsection2,iIapersonisIoundguiltyoIcontemptpursuanttosubsection3oI NRS 22.010,thecourtmayrequirethepersontopaytothepartyseekingtoenIorcethewrit,order,ruleor
processthereasonableexpenses,including,withoutlimitation,attorneysIees,incurredbythepartyasaresultoIthecontempt.
NRS 199.340 Criminalcontempt. EverypersonwhoshallcommitacontemptoIcourtoIanyoneoItheIollowingkindsshallbeguiltyoIamisdemeanor:
1. Disorderly,contemptuousorinsolentbehaviorcommittedduringthesittingoIthecourt,initsimmediateviewandpresence,anddirectlytendingtointerruptitsproceedingsortoimpairtherespectduetoitsauthority;
2. BehavioroIlikecharacterinthepresenceoIareIeree,whileactuallyengagedinatrialorhearingpursuanttoanorderoIcourt,orinthepresenceoIajurywhileactuallysittinginthetrialoIacauseoruponaninquestorother
proceedingauthorizedbylaw;
3. BreachoIthepeace,noiseorotherdisturbancedirectlytendingtointerrupttheproceedingsoIacourt,juryorreIeree;
4. WillIuldisobediencetothelawIulprocessormandateoIacourt;
5. Resistance,willIullyoIIered,toitslawIulprocessormandate;
6. ContumaciousandunlawIulreIusaltobeswornasawitnessor,aIterbeingsworn,toansweranylegalandproperinterrogatory;
7. PublicationoIaIalseorgrosslyinaccuratereportoIitsproceedings;or
8. AssumingtobeanattorneyoroIIiceroIacourtoractingassuchwithoutauthority.
ARTICLEIV-JudicialDepartment
Sec.4.010MunicipalCourt. TheMunicipalCourtmustincludeonedepartmentandmayincludeadditionaldepartmentsinthediscretionoItheCityCouncil.IItheCityCouncil
determinestocreateadditionaldepartments,itshalldosobyresolutionandmayappointadditionalmunicipaljudgestoserveuntilthenextelection.
(Ch.662,Stats.1971p.1976;ACh.553,Stats.1973p.881;Ch.373,Stats.1979p.645;Ch.208,Stats.1985p.675;Ch.9,Stats.1993p.21)
Sec.4.020MunicipalCourt:QualiIicationsoIMunicipalJudge;salary.
1.AMunicipalJudgemustbe:
(a)AnattorneylicensedtopracticelawintheStateoINevada.
(b)AqualiIiedelectorwithintheCity.
2.AMunicipalJudgeshallnotengageintheprivatepracticeoIlaw.
3.ThesalaryoIaMunicipalJudgemustbe:
(a)FixedbyresolutionoItheCityCouncil.
(b)UniIormIoralljudgesintheMunicipalCourt.
(Ch.662,Stats.1971p.1976;ACh.343,Stats.1973p.422;Ch.553,Stats.1973p.881;Ch.98,Stats.1977p.211;Ch.561,Stats.1977p.1395;Ch.208,Stats.1985p.675;Ch.599,Stats.1993p.
2501;Ch.327,Stats. 1999 p. 1369)
Sec.4.030DispositionoIIines. AllIinesandIorIeituresIortheviolationoIordinancesshallbepaidtotheCityClerkinthemannertobeprescribedbyordinance.
(Ch.662,Stats.1971p.1977)
Sec.4.040Procedure,additionaljudges. ThepracticeandproceedingsintheCourtmustconIormasnearlyaspracticabletothatoIjusticescourtsinsimilarcases.Uponthewritten
requestoItheCityManageranadditionaltemporaryMunicipalJudgemaybeprovidedIorsolongastheCityCouncilauthorizesadditionalcompensationIorsuchaJudge.Wheneverapersonis
sentencedtopayaIine,theCourtmayadjudgeandenteruponthedocketasupplementalorderthattheoIIendermay,iIheorshedesires,workonthestreetsorpublicworksoItheCityattherateoI
$25Ioreachday.ThemoneysoearnedmustbeappliedagainsttheIineuntilitissatisIied.
CONTEMPT
Actsoromissionsconstituting,generally,22.010
Affidavitoffactsconstituting,22.030
Affidavitspresentedinbadfaith,NRCP 56(g),JCRCP 56(g)
Appearance,IailureoIdeIendanttomake,22.130
Arrest
Bond,22.070
ExcusesIornotbringingarrestedpersonbeIorecourt,22.140
IllnessoIdeIendant,eIIect,22.140
Attorneysatlaw
Barexamination,earlyreleaseoIresults,SCR 68
Discharged,Iailuretodelivercertainmaterialstoclient,7.055
Bail
ViolationoIconditionsdeemedcontempt,178.484
Commercialpremises,violationsoIwritoIrestitution,118C.210
CommissioninpresenceoIcourtorjudge,22.030
CompellingperIormance,imprisonment,22.110
Courtorder,violation,1.250, 22.010
Courtreporters,656.240
Criminal,193.110, 193.300, 199.340
Custodialparent,Iailuretocomplywithvisitationorders,125C.030, 125C.040
DischargeIromarrest,22.070
DisqualiIicationoIjudgeorjustice,makingoIchargenotpunishedascontempt,1.225, 1.230
Documents,reIusaltopermitinspection,NRCP 37(b)(2),JCRCP 37(b)(2)
FailuretoperIormspeciIicactsdirectedbyjudgment,22.010, NRCP 70, JCRCP 70
Imprisonment,22.100, 22.110
IndictmentIorcontemptuousconduct,22.120
Justicecourts,civilproceedings,74.040
Materialwitnessgrantedimmunity,IailuretotestiIy,178.576
MisconductbydeIendantduringcriminaltrial,175.387
MunicipalcourtmaypunishIor,266.570
Punishment,22.030, 22.100, 22.120
ReentryonrealpropertyaIterejectment,22.020
ReIusaltoanswerorbesworn,22.010, 50.195, NRCP 37(b)(1),JCRCP 37(b)(1)
SheriIIsduties,22.060, 50.205
Subpoenas,Iailuretoobey
Deemedcontempt,22.010, 174.385
Witnesses,IorIeituresanddamages,50.195
Summarypunishment,22.030
TrialsIorcontempt
Bycourtorjury,22.100
DisqualiIicationoIjudge,22.030
Investigatingcharge,22.090
TheRSICVictoriaOldenburgwantstotalktothePanelabouthowtheRSICandWal-Martareinalongtermbusinesspartnershipwherethe2ndSt.
Wal-MartisontriballandrentedoutbytheRSICandpatrolledbyitstribaloIIicers,whoadmittoroutinelymakingmisdemeanorpettytheIt/shopliIting
custodialarrest(OIIicerKameronCrawIordandDonnieBraunworthhavebeentrainedinalltheneato"hedidn'tgivemealltheinIormationnecessaryto
issueacitation"explanations(includingCrawIordslyingunderoaththatCoughlindidn'tprovidehisdriver'slicensetohimonSeptember9th,2011,
especiallywhereWal-Mart'sFrontinoadmitshedidnotmakeacitizen'sarrest,nordidanyWal-Martemployee)evenwheresuchmisdemeanorarrestsby
tribaloIIicersareIorbiddenunderNRS171.1255..RenoCityAttorneytoowouldlikeachancetoexplainhowsheprosecutescasesbaseduponarrestsby
tribaloIIicersIormisdemeanorwhereNevadalawexpresslypreventsmisdemeanorarrestsbytribaloIIicersunderNRS171.1255.
IwasIorcedtocrossexamine/interactwitharepresentedpartyatthe11/14/12DisciplinaryHearing,andtheSBNandPanel'sviolationsoISCR105
contributedgreatlytomyIailuretoalertMr.Garinpriortothat.IthinkoutoIIairnessIandMr.Garin/Ms.NordstromshouldbeprovidedtranscriptsIrom
the11/14/12Hearing.
NRS171.1255ArrestbyofficeroragentofBureauofIndianAffairsorpoliceofficeremployedbyIndiantribe.
1.Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinsubsection2,anoIIiceroragentoItheBureauoIIndianAIIairsorapersonemployedasapoliceoIIicerbyanIndiantribemaymakeanarrestinobediencetoa
warrantdeliveredtohimorher,ormay,withoutawarrant,arrestaperson:
(a)ForapublicoIIensecommittedorattemptedintheoIIiceroragentspresence.
(b)WhenapersonarrestedhascommittedaIelonyorgrossmisdemeanor,althoughnotintheoIIiceroragentspresence.
(c)WhenaIelonyorgrossmisdemeanorhasinIactbeencommitted,andtheoIIiceroragenthasreasonablecauseIorbelievingthepersonarrestedtohavecommittedit.
(d)Onachargemade,uponareasonablecause,oIthecommissionoIaIelonyorgrossmisdemeanorbythepersonarrested.
(e)WhenawarranthasinIactbeenissuedinthisStateIorthearrestoIanamedordescribedpersonIorapublicoIIense,andtheoIIiceroragenthasreasonablecausetobelievethatthepersonarrested
isthepersonsonamedordescribed.
(I)WhenthepeaceoIIicerhasprobablecausetobelievethatthepersontobearrestedhascommittedabatteryuponthatpersonsspouseandthepeaceoIIicerIindsevidenceoIbodilyharmtothe
spouse.
2.SuchanoIIiceroragentmaymakeanarrestpursuanttosubsection1only:
(a)WithintheboundariesoIanIndianreservationorIndiancolonyIoranoIIensecommittedonthatreservationorcolony;or
(b)OutsidetheboundariesoIanIndianreservationorIndiancolonyiItheoIIiceroragentisinIreshpursuitoIapersonwhoisreasonablybelievedbytheoIIiceroragenttohavecommittedaIelony
withintheboundariesoIthereservationorcolonyorhascommitted,orattemptedtocommit,anycriminaloIIensewithinthoseboundariesinthepresenceoItheoIIiceroragent.
ForthepurposesoIthissubsection,IreshpursuithasthemeaningascribedtoitinNRS 171.156.
PleaseseethephotographintheattachedmaterialsoItheRSICOIIicertakingCoughlin'sdriver'slicenseIromhim,therebyvitiatinghisassertionthatanarrestwasanavailableoptionduetoCouglin
notprovidinghisdriver'slicensetotheOIIicers.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
11 22 12 final collection for Chief Marshal Roper's review 0204 26800 part 1 of 2.pdf
11 22 12 final collection for Chief Marshal Roper's review 0204 26800 part 2 of 2.pdf
11TR26800 031412 RMC continuation of trial Nash Ormaas Hill traffic citation 031412_20120312-1033_01cd003b8f0851d0.mp3
11TR26800 RMC 022712 part 2 of 2 from 2 27 12 031412_20120227-1621_01ccf56bce224540.mp3
11TR26800 RMC 022712 part 1 of 2 from 2 27 12 031412_20120227-1507_01ccf5618f76c460 (2).mp3
CV11-03628 ENTIRE EFLEX COMBINED FOR APPENDIX IN 60331 AND 61383 COUGHLIN V MERLISS 26406 1708 26800 NG12-0204.pdf
FW:pleaseindicatesomeresponsetomysubpoenaanddiscoveryrequests
CR12-1262 appeal.pdf
11 2 12 file stamped complete notice of errata and revised supplemental 26405 1708 0204.pdf
11 15 11 rpd tarter redacted 0204 0434 26800 police report ormaas retaliation.pdf
Download all

Sent: Thu11/22/121:24PM
To: odomkreno.gov(odomkreno.gov);newmanhreno.gov(newmanhreno.gov)
3attachments
exhibit1to61901102412Iilingopposition.pdI(9.4MB),102412stampedmotionIorleavetoIileopposition61901020412-33724.pdI(228.4KB),11212Iilestampedcompletew
195exanddvdnoticeoIerrataandrevisedsupplemental2640517080204.pdI(979.7KB)
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
To: bdogan@washoecounty.us; zyoung@da.washoecounty.us; jbosler@washoecounty.us; complaints@nvbar.org
Subject: please indicate some response to my subpoena and discovery requests
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:18:10 -0800
Dear Mr. Dogan and DDA Young,
Please find attached updated discovery relevant to the RCR2012-065630 matter, especially considering Sargent Paul Sifre's ordering both the 1/12/12 custodial jaywalking arrest and the 1/14/12 "misuse of 911" arrest
(though Sargent Kim Bradshaw appears to have a connection to those in addition to the July 3, 2012 "disturbing the peace" arrest in 12 CR 12420.
Mr. Dogan, I am formally requesting that you send the Reno Police Department Custodian of Records (Doreen and Harriet Neumann et al) and the ECOMM (Kelley Odom, Kariann Beechler
a subpoena and supboena duces tecum for all police reports, documentations, recordings of any kind, etc., etc. related to the 10 incarcerations of Zachary B. Coughlin (dob 9/27/76) since 8/19/11, including the dispatch
tapes of communications between the RPD and Ecomm dispatchers.
Please note that the "possible fight" report that the RPD alludes to in its arrest report of 1/12/12 is similar to the now debunked arguments in court and in pleadings on file and questions asked eliciting testimony thereto
by DDA Young and RPD Officer Duralde in RCR2011-063341.
It is my understanding the Richard Hill and or one of his contractors (possibly Phil Stewart of Nevada Building Industries) called RPD Dispatch or 911 (or possibly just called a Sargent or Officer of their choosing directly) and
that what was communicated therein resulted in RPD response appropriate to reports of a "possible fight". Please include in the discovery materials the calls that RPD Officer Hollingsworth alludes to in the videos from
that day that Coughlin can authenticate and verify as he filmed them (which show Hill lying to Officer Hollingsworth where he alleges Coughlin, on 1/12/12, had already "lost his appeal" in that appeal of the summary
eviction from his law office (not true, as the Order denying the appeal was entered 3/30/12)...
This is also a formal complaint/police report of the extortionate threats made by Hill and apparent filing of false police reports where Hill lies to the RPD (like he did in the 11/13/12 custodial arrest that is now detailed in
61901 and that attached filing in 11 CR 26405) to effect a false arrest of Coughlin.
Please respond in some way, Mr. Dogan as to whether you have complied with my requests that you subpoena Sargent Sifre, Sarget Zach Thew (relevant to a claim of right defense that may arise given Sargent Thews
directions to Coughlin in the days prior to the arrest of 1/14/12) and Sargent Marcia Lopez and Officer Chris Carter...Sargent Lopez's testimony will be particulary important given the motive she and the RPD had to harass
and retaliate against Coughlin arising from Coughlin, on 1/13/12, getting Sargent Lopez to admit on video that she and Carter committed misconduct and fraud incident to teh 11/13/12 arrest of Coughlin fro criminal
trespass in 11 CR 26405.
Further, please subpoena RPD Officer Travis Look (one of the "arresting officers" in 065630 whom utilized excessive force, along with then trainee Wesley Leedy, at the direction of Sargent Paul Sifre, despite Officer
Hollingsworth indicated to Coughlin on video that Coughlin was not violating the law, and therefore, no lawful warning or order having been given to Coughlin). Additionally, please subpoena Richard Hill, Casey Baker,
and Phi Stewart, Christopher Allaback, and Laura Foreshee to testify regarding the arrest.
Further, Mr. Dogan and Mr. Young, the RPD had a multitude of recordings device out and recording that night, yet none have been propounded to me....I am hereby reiterating my request to be provided that mandatory
discovery, regardless of the extent to which the DA's Office does not feel it excuplatory in nature or where, predictably, Mr. Dogan and the WCPD don't see it's utility. Speaking of not seeing any utility...Mr. Dogan, what is
it you have done, in any way, to advocate on my behalf in this matter?
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
To: skent@skentlaw.com; mike@tahoelawyer.com; nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net; patrickk@nvbar.org; fflaherty@dlpfd.com; davidc@nvbar.org; complaints@nvbar.org; tsusich@nvdetr.org; je@eloreno.com; cvellis@bhfs.com;
eifert.nta@att.net; rhrc@laketahoelaw.com; stuttle@washoecounty.us; kadlicj@reno.gov; wongd@reno.gov; schornsby@nvdetr.org
Subject: new Discovery finally produced by Reno City attorney on 1/12/12 Jaywalking arrest in SCR 105 Complaint
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:46:53 -0800
DearPanelandBarCounsel,
PleaseIindtheattachadditionaldiscoverytheRenoCityAttorney'sOIIicegavemetodayrelatedtothecustodialjaywalkingarrestoI1/12/12,atwhich
timeRichardHillappliedIoranreceivedaTPOIromRJCJudgeSchroederin40minutes(andRPDOIIicerLooktookaspecialtriptothejailtoattempt
toservetheTPOIorHill). PleaseseeattachedthevideooIthearrestandinteractionspriorthereto,andconsiderthelackoIaccuracyinHilland
Baker'sSecondMotiontoShowCause,JudgeFlanagansdenyingthatMotionincidenttoa3/23/12and3/29/12OrdertoShowCauseHearing(which
WCSODeputyMachen,thesameonewhoIiledaIalseaIIidavitincidenttothesummaryevictionorderpostingandlockouton11/1/11intheRichard
Hillevictioncasesrev2011-001708servedonCoughlin,bywayoIviolatingthe"courthousesanctuary"doctrine,andCaplowholdsattorneyoIrecord
andeIileronthatcaseCoughlindidnotrequirepersonalserviceanyways...thiswashazingbyHillandtheRMCMarshalsandWCSODeputies,plainand
simple,atthe2/27/12Trialin11TR26800,thetraIIiccitationtrialthatNG12-0204stemsIrom,whichstemsIromRPDSargentTartertellingCoughlin
toleaveHill'soIIiceupongoingthereaIterbeingreleasedIroma3daycustodialarrestincidenttoHillandMerliss'slieson11/13/12resultingina
wrongIularrestIorcriminaltrespassoICoughlinbyRPDOIIicerChrisCarterandSargentMarciaLopez). InthevideoHillisseeandheardlyingto
OIIicerHollingsworthinseekingtoabuseprocessandhaveCoughlinarrested. ThentraineeOIIicerLeedythenproceedstoadoptHill'sapproach
nearlyverbatiminhisarrestreport. SargentSiIre(whomarrestedCoughlinagaintwodayslateron1/14/12Ior"misuseoI911"whichDDAYoung
nowsseekstoamendtoacrimethatwillleveragethe"seriousoIIense"dictatesoISCR111,eventhoughhelacksanRPC3.8probablecausebasisIor
doingso. Further,bothHillandOIIicerLeedysubstantiallymisrepresentwhatOIIicerHollingsworthsaid. Additionally,shouldOIIicer
HollingsworthhadindeedtoldCoughlinthatwhathewasdoingwaslegalbutthattheOIIicerwasorderingCoughlinnottodoit,orthreateningCoughlin
inordertoachievecooperation,thatwouldviolateSoldalv.CookCounty,whichisessentiallywhatRPDSargentTarterdidon11/15/11inhisthree
traIIiccitationsoutsideHill'soIIice,whichlesto11tr26800,whichbegatng12-0434,and,arguablyng12-0435. IguessittakesalotoIpeopletohelp
BoardmemberRichardG.Hill,Esq.andhisIled-to-KentuckyassociateCaseyBaker,Esq.makemoney...OnecanhardlyblameCoughlinIorhalI-way
believingRPDOIIicerCarter'sstatementon11/15/11that"RichardG.HillpaysmealotoImoneysoIdowhathesaystoandIarrestwhohesaysto...".
Coughlin'smerelyattributingthestatementthatRPDCartersaidtoCarterisnotmisconduct. Hill'smakingupthingsabouta"crackpipeandbagoI
weed"and"largequantityoIpills"(seethevideo"Zach'sarrest014thatHillandMerlissthemselvesIilmedtoseethatthe"pills"arevitamins...andHill's
contractorPhilStewart,signedanaIIidavitthatmentionsthis"largequantityoIpills"). IIyouknewalltheThursdaynightsIspentsince2003with
Coe,andnowdeceasedJudgeBob,andsomanyothers,youwouldrealizehowinIinitelytackyHill'sconductis.
videoofRPDMarciaLopezadmittingtomisconducton1/13/12supportinginferenceofretaliationandmotivefor1/14/12
065630arrestandprosecution
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
1 12 12 audio of RPD Officer Leedy 12 cr 00696 rmc jaywalking arrest 1708 26405 03628 000018.cda
7 3 12 redacted disturbing the peace arrest 12 cr 12420 rmc loomis sotelo mauser weaver dye 00696 26800 sbn 0204 25 page discovery northwind ncs krebs reduced size.pdf
1 14 12 bf additional discovery 12 cr 00696 jaywalking arrest Richard Hill's lies led to RPD RMC RJC TPO rcp2012-000018 0204 Leed.pdf
rcp 2012-000018 D3 Hill v Coughlin Protection Order smaller nuanced.pdf
1 20 12 WDC APPEAL RICHARD HILL 2ND MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE.pdf
4 20 12 1708 0204 exhibits 1 to 4 of Hills motion for attorney's fees cv11-03628.pdf
11 9 12 61901 amendment to opposition.pdf
11 5 12 000374 notice that noa was not file stamped motion for new trial or to set aside order kern king schroeder ptthoa 0204.pdf
10 29 12 notice of errata and SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 26405 1708 26800 0650630.pdf
bifurcate atty client severe hearing trialotjl.pdf
bifurcate atty client severe hearing trial.pdf
CV11-03628 ENTIRE EFLEX COMBINED FOR APPENDIX IN 60331 AND 61383 COUGHLIN V MERLISS 26406 1708 26800 NG12-0204 BF.pdf
Download all

Sent: Thu11/22/121:23PM
To: bdoganwashoecounty.us(bdoganwashoecounty.us);zyoungda.washoecounty.us(zyoungda.washoecounty.us);odomkreno.gov(odomkreno.gov);newmanhreno.gov
(newmanhreno.gov)
1attachment
rpdsargentlopezihaveaquestionIoryou11cr264050069626800.wmv(13.3MB)
videooIRPDMarciaLopezadmittingtomisconducton1/13/12supportinginIerenceoIretaliationandmotiveIor1/14/12065630arrestandprosecution
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
1udgeHowardandCassandra1acksonwanttoexplain
Sent: Thu11/22/1212:56AM
To: jeeloreno.com(jeeloreno.com);cvellisbhIs.com(cvellisbhIs.com);davidcnvbar.org(davidcnvbar.org);complaintsnvbar.org(complaintsnvbar.org);eiIert.ntaatt.net
(eiIert.ntaatt.net);miketahoelawyer.com(miketahoelawyer.com);patrickknvbar.org(patrickknvbar.org);skentskentlaw.com(skentskentlaw.com);skaucreno.gov
(skaucreno.gov);robertspreno.gov(robertspreno.gov);hazlett-stevenscreno.gov(hazlett-stevenscreno.gov);wongdreno.gov(wongdreno.gov)
6attachments
DistCtOrderREDACTEDcr12-1018longonitranscriptdeIective.pdI(141.4KB),121611emailtoplongonicharter.netlongoniand122111emailtoballarddreno.govregarding
longoni221762680002040435.pdI(22.7KB),10912AIIidavitoILauraPeters0204neversenttoCoughlinnoprooIoIservice,yetIilestamped.pdI(1516.8KB),121511221762064
OrderbyHowardontranscriptcosts.pdI(92.8KB),12151122176ROBERTSNOTICEOFDENIALOFSERVICE.pdI(110.8KB),111612skaugrievancematerialscombined0204
063341.pdI(1943.8KB)
HowRMChandoutsandagreementswithPamLongoniarenotviolatingNRS189.030andNRS4.14(a)
RCASkauwantstoexplainhisliesaboutthejudgeauthorizeservicebyemailIoranunnoticedhearingwhereSkausoughttoargueemailservicewas
insuIIicientwhenitcametohispeople...ThenRCAHazlett-StevenswanttoexplainhismysteriousclaimstohavenotreceivedtheNoticeoIAppealin
cr12-1262orwhyheputsonperjuredtestimonybyRichardG.Hill,Esq., RCAPamRobertswouldliketoexplainthesameIor11cr22176. RCA
AllisonOrmaaswantstoexplainwhatshewaswhisperinginRMCMarshalHarley'searson2/27/12andwhetheritwasaboutthesameIailuretochart
Iollowupon,orreportRPDChrisCarter'sadmissionthat"RichardHillpaysmealotoImoney,soIarrestwhohesaystoanddowhathesaystodo...",
justlikeRenoCityAttorneyChieICriminalDeputyDanWongexplainedhewassurelynotgoingtodotowhenCoughlinmadethesamereporttohimon
1/19/12....
SBNClerkoICourtLauraPeterswantstoexplainhowsheapprovedIaxIilingIorCoughlinon9/11/12,andhowherAIIidavitoI10/9/12woundupinthe
DisciplinaryIileonlymadeavailabletoCoughlin5daysbeIorethehearing(withthousandsoIpagesoIIillerandduplicatestohidethelittleit
contained...whichinthecaseoILindaGardner'sgrievance,wasamysteriousprintoutIromablogandnomore...nocoverletter,nonothing...andKings
emailwherehepurportsthatthe"ClerkoICourt"senthimtheOrderstillhasnotbeenclariIied,thoughJoeyOrdunaHastings,ClerkoICourtoIthe
SecondJudicialDistrictCourtwantstoindicatewhethershesentittotheSBN,or,morelikely,theClerkoICourtoIoneoItheMuniCourtDepartments
(probablyJudgeNashHolmes'inD3,consideringher3/23/12emailtotheSBNaboutCoughlin'sclothingchoicestocheckonatraIIiccitationatamunic
courtIilingoIIicewindow...)whogotaholdoIDistrictCourtJudgeLindaGardnersApril2009Orderwhen JudgeL.Gardner passedittoherbrother,
RMCWilliamGardner,whoreIusedtorecusehimselIIromCoughlin'scriminaltrespasscasebaseduponRichardHill'sComplaint,butdidmanageto
passhissister'sOrderaroundtohisIellowJudgesandholdmeetingswiththemabouthowtogetbackatCoughlinIorpointingoutthingstheydothat
violatedueprocessrightsandotherlaws. LikethoserequiringastayoIproceedingswhenadeIendantscompetencyisbroughtintoquestion. DDA
Youngisgreatatviolatingthoselaws,andbossingJudgeSIerrazzaaroundincourt,demandinghetakeintocustodyanyonewhodoesn'tdojustexactly
whatDDAYoungwantsandorgivejustexactlytheanswerheislookingIor....
PatKing,LauraPeters andDavidClarkwanttoexplainhowtheirstatementsandcorresponencewithCoughlinrespectinghisrighttoissuesubpoenas
andwaiveroIwitnessIeesoIIeesIorsubpoenaducestecumsdepartedremarkablyIromthesuddenaboutIaceonthatissuewhentheMotionstoQuash
startedcomingin,thoughtheDisciplinaryHearingoI11/14/12wentonjusttheysame,right....
DearPanel,SBN,andMr.Garin,andMs.NordstromandRMCChieIMarshalRoper,andMarshalJoelHarley,
BailiIIJohnReyeswantstoexplainhisviewsonhow"itsnotaFourthAmendmentviolationiIthepersonwasguiltyoIthecrimeyoususpectedhimoI
committingwhenyoudidthesearch"andhowitsacceptable"subterIuge"IorReyestohelpolJimmySleazy,WCPDJimLesliebymusclingover
indigentcriminaldeIendantsIorhimwhenLesliecan'tbebotheredupholdingtheSixthAmendment,whereuponReyescomestoJimmy'srescueandtells
Coughlin,Leslieathisside,that"I'mgoingtoputmyIootupyourass..."ReyeswatchesdeIendantsgetputinjailIormonthsdayindayoutIordoingless
thanthat....
SteveTuttlewantstoexplainwhytheRJCdidn'trespondtoCoughlin'srequestsIorinIormationonthetransmissionoItheEvictionOrderinrjc2011-
001708totheWashoeCountySheriII'sOIIice.
LizStuchellandDeputyMachen,andRoxySilvawanttoexplainalltheIalseaIIidavitsoIserviceheIiles,andMaureenandRoxy'sassertionsthatthe
"receipt"oItheevictionOrderinNRS40.253wasat8:05amon11/1/11inrjcRev2011-001708(SheriIImusteIIectthelockout"within24hoursoI
receiptoItheOrder"...andCaseyBaker,Esq.wantstoexplainhistestimonyoI6/18/12whenheexplainedwhathedidwiththeSheriII'sOIIiceon
October28th,2011...andRenoCarsonMessengerservicewanttoexplainwhytheirreceiptshowstheydeliveredthelockoutordertotheWCSOat4:45
pmon10/31/12,whilethelocksmithswearsthelockoutwasnoteIIecteduntilacoupleminutesto5pm,anddeIinitelynotsoonerthan4:48pm,despite
Machens11/1/11AIIidavitoIService(thathissupervisorStuchellhadtoadmitwasIalseinthatitalleged"personalservice"wheretheWCSOadmitsno
onewashome(andthelocksmithtotallyreIutesHill'stestimonyoI6/18/12"theytriedtoserveittoyoubutyouranaway..."(really,Rich,becaueCasey
didn'ttestiIytothat,buthedidsaythatyouweren'teventherethatday,sowhatdoyoubasethatswornallegationsonRich,besidesyourdesiretomitigate
yourliabilityIorallyourmisdeedsthere?).
ChieIMarshalRoperandJoelHarleywantedtoexplainsomeoIthethingsJudgeNashHolmesgot"conIused"oninher"sworntestimony"...whichis
shapinguptolookatlotliketheunswornhearsaytestimonyoIaJudgeintheInReMirchcasethatresultedinadisbarment,whichinNevada,are
irrevocableasoI2008.Tobeclear,JudgeNashHolmestestiIiedIalselyatthe11/14/12DisciplinaryHearinginanumberoIways.Theattachedaudio
IromtheHearingandJudgesNashHolmesvariousOrders(whichrevealadisturbingattempttomixandmatchvariouscivilandcriminalcontempt
statutes,someplenary,somesummary,andaddthetransmogriIicationoIa"simpletraIIiccitationTrial"intosomesortoISummaryDisciplinary
Hearing...whichSBNBarCounselPatKingisonlytoohappytosignonto,eagertokickbackandrelyonSCR111(5)aIterhavingIedJudgeNash
HolmestheinstructiontomakesuretocopyandpasteasmanysectionsoItheRulesoIProIessionalConductintoan"Order"thatissuretopointoutthe
burdenoIprooInecessaryIora"ethicalviolation"IindinginaDisciplinaryHearingsetting.Theonlythinglesstransparentthanthisawkwardattemptby
BarCounselandJudgeNashHolmestoget'rdonewasthebrotherandsisteractbyJudgeWilliamGardnerandhissister JudgeLindaGardner,
complimented,oIcourse,bythatohsosuspiciouslooking"5"intheSBN's"received"stampoIJudgeL.Gardner'sApril2009Ordersanctioning
Coughlin,whichWashoeLegalServices'sPaulElcanocitedasthesolereasonIorCoughlin'sIiring(andwhichbegattheMandamusPetitionagainstL.
Gardnerin54844,thewrongIulterminationsuitagainstWLSin60302,thecriminaltrespassconvictionin11CR26405thatJudgeW.GardnerreIusedto
recusehimselIIrom,etc.,etc.
WCPDBirayDoganandDDAZachYoungwantedtoexplaintheirviolationsoINRS178.405andthecommunicationswithRMCJudgeNashHolmes
regardingthe2/27/12OrderIorCompetencyEvaluationthatshouldhavepreventedherIromevenholdingtheTrial(theonethatoccurredrightaIterRMC
MarshalHarleyservedacivilevictionappealdocumentonbehalIoItheprocessserverRichardG.Hill,Esq.hiredtoserveCoughlintheOrdertoShow
Causeincv11-03628thatCoughlinhadalreadyreceivedinconnectionwithhisbeingtheattorneyoIrecordandane-Iileronthatmatter...seeCaplow).
RPDSargentMarciaLopezandOIIicerChrisCarterwishtoaddressthepanelabouttheirmisconductin11CR26405andtheextenttowhichRichard
Hillandhisclient,Dr.MattMerlissmisledthem,especiallyvisavistheattachedIilingsin11CR26405and61901.
SargentPaulSiIrehadsomethoughtsonthecustodialjaywalkingarrestandSiIrev.WellsFargo,LLC.OIIicersWesleyandLookwantedtoweighinon
thattoo..
RPDOIIicerNickDuraldeandhiswiIe,ECOMM/911dispatcherJessicaDuralde(whowasworkingthatnightoIthe8/20/11arrestthatstartedayearin
whichCoughlinwasarrest10times,includingacustodialarrestIorjaywalkingon1/12/12thenanotheroneIor"misuseoI911"eventhoughCoughlin
receivedtwoprotectionordersinFV12-00187,and-00188),withOIIicerDuraldepullingCouglinoverinthemiddleoIthenightuponhiswalkingtohis
caraIterbeingreleasedIromjailona15degreenighton1/13/12,whereIiveotherRPDOIIicershelpedOIIicerDuraldewiththepressingmatteroIthe
suddendisappearanceoICoughlin'slicenseplate...),(allsuspiciouslycloseintimetoCoughlinIilingacomplaintagainstDuraldeandtheRPDon1/7/12
withtheRPD)wantedtoweighinonthemisconductattendanttoDuralde'stestiIyingthatdispatchreportedtohimselIandRPDOIIicer'sAlaksaandRosa
thatnightabout"apossibleIight"thussupportingtheirreponseandtheassociatedTerryStopweaponscheckIriskpatdownandcustodialarrestIora
misdemeanorallegedlyoccuringoutsidetheirpresenceaIter7pm:
NRS171.136Whenarrestmaybemade.
1.IItheoIIensechargedisaIelonyorgrossmisdemeanor,thearrestmaybemadeonanyday,andatanytimeoIdayornight.
2.IIitisamisdemeanor,thearrestcannotbemadebetweenthehoursoI7p.m.and7a.m.,except:
(a)UponthedirectionoIamagistrate,endorseduponthewarrant;
(b)WhentheoIIenseiscommittedinthepresenceoIthearrestingoIIicer;
(c)WhenthepersonisIoundandthearrestismadeinapublicplaceoraplacethatisopentothepublicand:
(1)ThereisawarrantoIarrestagainsttheperson;and
(2)ThemisdemeanorisdiscoveredbecausetherewasprobablecauseIorthearrestingoIIicertostop,detainorarrestthepersonIoranotherallegedviolationoroIIense;
(d)WhentheoIIenseiscommittedinthepresenceoIaprivatepersonandthepersonmakesanarrestimmediatelyaItertheoIIenseiscommitted;
(e)WhentheoIIensechargedisbatterythatconstitutesdomesticviolencepursuanttoNRS 33.018andthearrestismadeinthemannerprovidedinNRS 171.137;
(I)WhentheoIIensechargedisaviolationoIatemporaryorextendedorderIorprotectionagainstdomesticviolenceissuedpursuanttoNRS 33.017to33.100,inclusive;
(g)WhenthepersonisalreadyincustodyasaresultoIanotherlawIularrest;or
(h)WhenthepersonvoluntarilysurrendershimselIorherselIinresponsetoanoutstandingwarrantoIarrest.
TheRSICVictoriaOldenburgwantstotalktothePanelabouthowtheRSICandWal-Martareinalongtermbusinesspartnershipwherethe2ndSt.Wal-
MartisontriballandrentedoutbytheRSICandpatrolledbyitstribaloIIicers,whoadmittoroutinelymakingmisdemeanorpettytheIt/shopliIting
tribaloIIicersareIorbiddenunderNRS171.1255..RenoCityAttorneytoowouldlikeachancetoexplainhowsheprosecutescasesbaseduponarrestsby
tribaloIIicersIormisdemeanorwhereNevadalawexpresslypreventsmisdemeanorarrestsbytribaloIIicersunderNRS171.1255.
contributedgreatlytomyIailuretoalertMr.Garinpriortothat.IthinkoutoIIairnessIandMr.Garin/Ms.NordstromshouldbeprovidedtranscriptsIrom
the11/14/12Hearing.
spouse.
WashoeLegalServicesPaulElcanoandStateBaroINevada'sCoeSwobe'scontactswithmyIather,Palmerv.Pioneer,etc.
So,thisistheElcanoapproach...hegetsanemailon4/19/12thatisawrittenemploymentlawcenteredcomplaintIromanemployee...andhehasthe
employeesuspendedwithindaysthereaIter...thenclaimstohavenotreceivedtheemail,thenadoptssomeDuluthModel"PowerandControl"wheelco-
optingorleveragingoI"treatment"orarmchairpsychiatry...
Elcano,McGeorge'78.NashHolmes,McGeorge'79.Beesley,McGeorge'79.StephenKent,McGeorge'80.RMCJudgeHoward(Wal-Martconviction
resultingin6/7/12temporarysuspensionin60838),McGeorge'81.Loomis,McGeorge'82(twiceCoughlin'sRMCcourtappointedcounsel,allowedto
withdrawwithpaybothtimes,reIusedtoadvocateinanyway).Gammick,McGeorge'82.Springgate,McGeorge'85(opposingconselinng12-0435
askingIorsanctionsindivorcecaseclosingargument).Kandaras,McGeorge'91(DeputyDistrictAttorneyinvolvedinwarrantlessseizureoICoughlin's
smartphone.DDAZ.Young,McGeorge'04.Hazlett-Stevens,McGeorge,'06.
WhatdoyoucallitwhenJudgeNashHolmestestiIies,on11/14/12thatshequestionedCoughlinabout"recordingdevices"andorwhetherhewas
recordingBEFOREtheonerestroombreak,purposeIullychangingtheorderoIthequestioningandtherestroombreaktosuggestsomeIurtiveactivityon
Coughlin'spart,whichJudgeNashHolmesthenIurtherattemptedtoampliIyinherassertionthatMarshalJoelHarleywasorderedtoIollowCoughlin
intotherestroomandthataMarshalassertedtoherthatCoughlin"disassembledarecordingdevice"intherestroomand"hidapartorportionoIitinthe
restroom"
FraudonthecourtConductoIcounselinomittingportionoIdepositionwhendepositionisreadintorecord,andgivingimpressionthatentiredocumentis
beingproIIered,resultinginbuttressingoIhisparty'spositionisIraudonthecourtwarrantingtheimpositionoIsanctions.Sup.Ct.Rules,Rules172,172,
subd.1(a,d).SierraGlass&Mirrorv.VikingIndustries,Inc.,1991,808P.2d512,107Nev.119,rehearingdenied.
Itiscategoricallyfalsefor1udgeNashHolmestoassert,intheaudiorecordon3/12/12theorderofeventsandwhensheaskedCoughlinherquestionsaboutrecording,consideringwhena
restroombreaktookplaceanexactlywhatitissheaskedCouglinandwhen,andwhathisresponseswere,andwhensomeallegationsby"theMarshal"weremade,whattheyconsistedof,
etc..on3/12/12in11tr26800theaudiotranscriptreads7minutesintotheaudiorecordtheRMCprovidedtheSBN:
1udgeNashHolmes(Nash):Itappearstomeinthiscasethatthedefendantissufferingfromsomeextremeformofmentalillness.duringthetrialIaskedthedefendantattorney
repeatedlyifhewasrecordingtheproceedingshedeniedthatvehementlyafewtimesandthenhequotetookthefifthafewothertimesandthenherequestedtobeexcusedtogoto
thebathroomandtheMarshallaterreportedtomethatwhilethegentlemanwasinthebathroomhedisassembledarecordingdeviceinhispocketandtookthememoryoutofitand
itwaslaterfoundinthat,uh,bytheMarshalnooneelsehadgoneintothebathroomandthatwasretrievedanditwasputintohispossessionattheSheriff'sofficeandwhenthey
bookedhimintojailforthecontemptchargethatwasbookedintoevidenceandIaskedtheSheriff'sofficetoholdthatintoevidence.IbelievehehasviolatedSupremeCourtRule
229(2)(B)whichwasamendedbyADKT440,August1st,2011...."
above.
NRS178.405shouldhavepreventedanythingsaidordonebyJudgeNashHolmesIollowingherstatementatthe7minutemarkthat"ItappearstomeinthiscasethatthedeIendantissuIIering
IromsomeextremeIormoImentalillness."Further,thatwhichJudgeNashHolmeshadcommunicatedtoherpriortothestartoITrialon2/27/12in11tr26800needstobetestiIiedtounder
oath,ratherthanhaveBarCounselasserttohalIbaked"can'taskthejudgeabouthermentalprocesses"loophole,ashehasdone.
Hereistheactualstatementsmade,verbatim,IromthecertiIiedaudiotranscriptoIthe2/27/12"simpletraIIiccitationTrial"stemmingIromCoughlingoingtoRichardG.Hill,Esq.'soIIiceto
gethisdriver'slicense,wallet,keys,andclient'sIilesIollowingacustodialarrestIortrespass(seeRPDSargentLopezandOIIicerCarter'sexplanationsthereoIin11CR26405and61901)and
threedaysspentinjail,uponbeingreleasedthereIromon11/15/12...andattheTrialonthattraIIiccitationissuedbyRPDSargentJohnTarter,RMCMarshalJoelHarley,justbeIoreTrial(when
JudgeNashHolmescouldn'tbeIoundandWCPDBirayDoganandDDAZachYoungweregettinganOrderIorCompetencyEvaluationoICoughlininrcr2012-065630at1:31pm...andthe11
TR26800Trialstartinglate,notat1pmasnoticed,butat3pm....withRMCW.GardneradmittingtomeetingsbeingheldamongsttheRMCJudgeswhereintheybrainstormedwaysoI
combatingCoughlin'schampioningoIdueprocessrightsIorthedisenIranchised...
Simplyput,therewasnoquestioningbyJudgeNashHolmesoICoughlinastowhetherhewasrecordinganythingorwhetherhepossesseda"recordingdevice"untilAFTERthe
oneandonlyrestroombreakJudgeNashHolmesmentionsontheaudiorecord.AndthatsuasponteinterrogationoICouglinoccuredIMMEDIATELYAFTERTHE
RESTROOMBREAK,ABREAKINWHICHJUDGENASHHOLMESREFUSEDTOALLOWCOUGHLINTOTAKEHISYELLOWLEGALPADWITHHIMAND
WHICHOCCUREDAFTERCOUGHLINMADEAVERBALPRESERVATIONONTHERECORDOFTHEWHISPERINGINEACHOTHER'SEARSBYCITY
ATTORNEYALLISONORMAASANDMARSHALHARLEY(WHOSEEMEDABITUPSETABOUTSOMEOFTHEQUESTIONSCOUGHLINASKEDTHEM
IMMEDIATELYBEFORETHETRIAL(DURINGTHATPERIODOFTIMEWHEREJUDGENASHHOLME'SASSISTANTINDICATED,ONTHERECORDINONEOF
THEOTHERCASESONTHATSTACKEDDOCKET,THATJudgeNashHolmesjustcouldn'tbeIound,andhowoddthatwas...whichisodd,consideringwhatwasgoingon
in11cr22176,11cr2640512cr00696and11tr26800,andrcr2012-065630andrcr2011-063341atthetime(lotsoIreasonsIorandindicationsthatlocallawenIorcementand
prosecutorsandpublicdeIenderswerenontoohappywithCoughlin...andconsiderthe2/24/12emailvacatingthe2/27/12statusconIerencebetweenyounganddoganthatneither
YOungnorDoganwishtotestiIyabout...butwhichseemstohavebeenheldanywaysaIterawrittencommunicationoIitsbeingresetwastransmittedtoCoughlinbyDogan,
wherein,duringthetimeJudgeNashHolmescouldn'tbeIound(maybeshewasatoneoIthegroupmeetingsamongstJudgesaboutCoughlinthatRMCAdministrativeJudge
WilliamGardnerreIerencedontherecordin11CR26405?InterestingtheNoticeoIAppealin60302wasIiledthatsamedaytoo,2/27/12)DogangothisORderIorCompetency
EvaluationoICoughlininrcr2012-065630(apparentlyinretaliationIorCoughlin'sIilingoI2/21/12,andDDAZachYoungwasstillsmartingIromaIilingbyCoughlinoI
approximately11/28/12,whichresultdinYoungpromptlyamendinghiscomplaintinrcr2011-063341toaddachargethatwasduplicative,evenwhereYOungIailuretoallege
theItorpossessing/receiving"Iromanother'underStaabmakeshissochargingCoughlininthatiPhonecaseaRPC3.8violation,whichisYOung'sspecialty,apparently.That,
andviolatingNRs178.405,whichYOungdidbyIilinginrcr2011-063341withastampoI2:55pmaIugitivedocumentoIhisown,anOppositiontoCoughlin'sortheWCPD
MotiontoAppearasCoCounselon2/27/12...nevermindYOungtriedtoholdaTRIALon5/7/12inthatcasedespitetheOrderIindingCoughlincompetentincr12-0376didn't
evengetsignedandentereduntil5/9/12...dittotheTrialseetingoI5/8/12inRMC11cr26405,thecriminaltrespasscase.NOtmuchrespectIornrs178.405(includingwithin
NRs5.010)hereinNorthernnevada..
Coughlindidn'treceivedthe2/28/12ContemptORderin11tr26800untilJuly2012...butdidIileaNoticeoIAppeal3/7/12...despite"summarycriminalcontempt"beingaIinal
appealableorder,JudgeNashHOlmescontinuestoreIusetoIollowNRS189.010-050(soCoughlinhastotypethetranscript,yay....
Itistruethatcontemptcommittedinatrialcourtroomcanundersomecircumstancesbepunishedsummarilybythetrialjudge.SeeCookev.UnitedStates,267U.S.517,539.
ButadjudicationbyatrialjudgeoIacontemptcommittedinhisimmediatepresenceinopencourtcannotbelikenedtotheproceedingshere.ForweheldintheOlivercasethata
personchargedwithcontemptbeIorea"one-mangrandjury"couldnotbesummarilytried.|349U.S.133,138|ThepoweroIatrialjudgetopunishIoracontemptcommittedin
hisimmediatepresenceinopen...InreOliver,333U.S.257.SixthAmendmentRighttoCounseloICoughlinviolatedinboth11cr22176and11tr26800,alsoordersno
suIIicientlydetailedorcapableoIbeingknownhowtocomplywith,notsuIIicientwarning,violateHoustonvEighthJudicialDistrict(Nev.).
See,thisiswhyInReOliverandCookerequireallelementsoI"summarycriminalcontempt"occur"inthe"immediatepresence"oItheCourt.MaybeMarshalHarleyandsome
otherMarshalhavemisledJudgeNashHOlmes,ormaybesomethingworseisgoingonhere....butwhatJudgeNashHOlmessaidontherecordingisentirelymisleadingan
inaccurate,iInotanoutrightlie(again,maybenotaliebyJudgeNashHolmes,maybesheisrepeatingalie,butregardlessherrelianceonunattributedhearsayisdistrubingan
inappropriate,particularywhereshenotonlypurportstoissuea"summarycriminalcontempt"convictionagainstanattorney,butalsowhereJudgeNashHolmesappearstotryto
transmogriIywhatsheseesas"asimpletraIIiccitationtrial"intoaIullblownSCR105disciplinaryhearingwheresheisbothBarCounselandthePanel...ThatMarshalneedsto
signanaIIidavit,underNRS22.020andJudgeNashHOlmesoughttohavetoputsomethingontherecord,underoath,inresponsetoCoughlin'srecentsubpoena(andSBNPat
KingwishestoletJudgeNashHOlmesphoneinhertestimony,anditprobablywon'tevenbesworntestimony,butratherjustsomemusingsbyJudgeNashHolmespurportingto
make"rulings"Iinding"byclearandconvincingevidence"allsortsoIthingsoutsideherjurisdiction)on11/14/12,on,PartickO.King,SBNBarCounselhasalsoIiledMotionto
QuashtheSubpoenasCoughlinattemptedtohaveservedonMarshalJoelHarley,MarshalDeighton,JudgeNashHOlmes,JudgeWilliamGardner,JudgeGardnersAdministrative
AssistantLisaWagner,whocan'tquiteIindtheNOticeoIAppealCoughlinIaxedtoher(allowableundertheRMCRules)onJune28th,2012in11CR26405(theappealwas
dismissedunderanNRS189.010analysisbyJudgeElliot,whomalsogotCoughlinappealoIthe11cr22176convictionresultinginthisCourt's6/7/12temporarysuspension
Orderincr11-2064,whichwasdeniedbaseduponacivilpreparationoItranscriptdownpaymentrule,inthatcriminal appeal,wheretheRMChasathinginplacewiththisPam
LongonithatviolatesNevadalawinthatitreIusedtogiveCoughlintheaudiocdoIthetrialIorsometime,insistingonlyLongoniwouldbeallowedtotranscribeit,andthatthe
transcript'spreparationwouldabsolutelynotstartuntiladownpaymentwasmade.Plus,evenwhereCoughlincavedtothepaymentdemands..Longonirepeatedlyhungupthe
phoneonhimandotherwiseignoredhiscommunications(theremaybeanissueoItheemailLongoniholdingouttothepublicissuinga"bounceback"...butsheneedstosignan
aIIidavitastowhethersheputCoughlinonablockedlist,anduponinIormationandbelieI,CoughlinIaxedhisrequesttothenumbertheRMCheldoutIorheronherbehalI
too...
InherMarch14th,2012grievanceagainstCoughlintotheSBN(nowNG12-0434,andperhaps,NG12-0435(stampedas"received"bytheSBNIromthe"ClerkoICourt"oI
somestillunnamedCourt(I'dbetitsIromtheRMCClerkoICourt,whomKingpurportedtohavecertiIieddocumentsIromaCourtshedoesn'tevenworkIoratthe11/14/12
DisciplinaryHearing...butthenagain,PanelChairEcheverriaallowWLS'sElcanotocertiIydocumentsjustbecauseheclaimedtohavewatchedatapeoIahearing,whereElcano
isneitheralicensedattorney,nordoesheworkIoranyCourt....),dependinguponwhomyouaskandwhatKingmeansby"ClerkoICourt"...becauseinKing's3/23/12emailto
CoughlinheapparentlyidentiIiesMs.MarilynTognonias"ClerkoICourtoIDepartment3"...whoever,wouldn'titbeSecondJudicialDistrictCourtClerkoICourtJoeyOrduna
HastingsthatwouldneedtosendFamilyCourtJudgeLindaGardner'sApril2009OrdersanctioningCoughlintotheSBN'sKingIorKingnowapparentcontentionthatthe
NG12-0435"ghostgrievance"consistingoIJudgeL.Gardner'sApril2009OrderwasnotIiledbytheRMCJudges?Oh,ClerkoICourtOrdunaHastings?Doyouhaveanything
tosayaboutthis?JudgeNashHolme's3/14/12grievancetobarcounselreads:
"
Re:ZacharyBarkerCoughlin,NevadaBarNo.9473
DearMr.Clark:
ThisletterconstitutesaIormalcomplaintoIattorneymisconductand/ordisabilityagainstZacharyBarkerCoughlin.TheaccompanyingboxoImaterialsdemonstratessomeoItheproblemswiththepractice
oIthisattorneybeingexperiencedbymyselIandtheotherthreejudgesinRenoMunicipalCourt.MytwomostrecentOrdersinwhatshouldbeasimpletraIIiccitationcaseareselI-explanatoryandareincluded,
togetherwithcopiesoImassivedocumentsMe.CoughlinhasIaxIiledtoourcourtinthiscase.AudiorecordingsoItwooImyhearingsinthismatterarealsoincluded.HeIailedtoappearIorthesecondonethis
pastMonday.
IhaveanothertraIIiccasependingtrialwithhimthatwasre-assignedtomebasedonourDepartmentIjudgebeingoutIorsurgery.WehavemultipleaddressesIorMr.Coughlinandcan'tseemtolocate
himbetweencasesveryeasily.WearesettingthatcaseIortrialandattemptingtoservehimatthemostrecentaddresswehave(1422E.9
th
St.#2RenoNY89512),althoughIheardtodayhemaybelivinginhis
vehiclesomewhere.WedohaveanaddressIorhismother,however,assherecentlypostedpartoIaIineIorhim.
JudgeKenHoward,Department4,hadacaseonMr.CoughlinlatelastyearthatisnowonappealtotheSecondJudicialDistrictCourt.JudgeBillGardner,Department2,alsohasamattercurrently
pendinginhiscourtwithMr.CoughlinasthedeIendant.IhaveenclosedsomecopiesoIdocumentsIromthosematters,inchronologicalorder,simplybecausetheyappeartodemonstratethatheisquickly
decompensatinginhismentalstatus.OurstaIIalsomadeyousomeaudiotapesoICoughlininthehimandhimandhimandhimandhimandhimandhimhimandIwillhimandhimandhimandhimandhimin
Departments2and4soyoucanhearIoryourselIhowthisattorneyactsincourt.YoucanseehisbehaviorinmytraIIiccitationcasedoesnotappeartobeanisolatedincident.
ItismyunderstandingthatRenoJusticeCourtalsohasamatterpendingonthisattorney.MyJudicialAssistantwascontactedbytheWashoePublicDeIenderinFebruarywhenIhadMr.Coughlinjailed
IorContemptoICourtandtheystatedthattheyrepresenthiminaGrossMisdemeanormatterinRJC.IhavenootherinIormationonthat.
YouwillhavetheIullcooperationoImyselI,theotherjudges,andthestaIIoIRenoMunicipalCourtinyourpursuitoIthismatter.Mr.CoughlinhaspositionedhimselIasavexatiouslitigantinourcourt,
antagonizingthestaIIandevenourpro temp judgesonthemostsimpletraIIicandmisdemeanormatters.IdothinkthisisacaseoIsomeurgency,andIapologizeIortakingtwodaystogetthispackagetoyou;
ourITpersonwasillandcouldnotmakethecopiesoItheaudiosoIMr.Coughlin'shearingsuntiltoday,andIIeltitwasimportantthattheaudiosbeincludedinthematerialstobeconsideredbytheStateBar.On
February27,2012, Mr. Coughlintoldmehewasactivelypracticinglawandhadappointmentswithclients.|donotknowiIthatwastrue,butiIso,hecouldbecausingseriousharmtothepracticeoIlawin
NorthernNevadaandcouldbejeopardizingsomeone'sIreedomorpropertyinterests."
MaybeitwouldbebestiftheRMCfocusedlessonofferingunswornhearsaytestimonythatiseasilyproventobepatentlyfalseatDisciplinaryHearings(totheextentoneisallowedtooffer
suchproof,whichPanelChairEcheverriainvariablyrulesis"notrelevent"andKingsmuglybasksinhisSCR111(5)vacationwithhis"ClerkofCourt"LauraPeters...whoseliesabout
SCR105(4)resultedinPanelChairEcheverriaquashingallsubpoenasCoughlinissued,includingthosetowhichSBNBarCounselPatKingfiledonbehalfofhisformerco-workeratthe
AG'sOffice,RenoCityAttorneyDanWong...WhiletheotherRenoCityAttorney,CreigSkau,keptCoughlinbusywithhisliesabout"thejudgeauthorizedmetoserveyoubyemail"...
Sincerely
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
WashoeLegalServicesPaulElcanoandStateBarofNevada'sCoeSwobe'scontactswithmyfamily
Sent: Thu11/22/1212:37AM
To: skentskentlaw.com(skentskentlaw.com);eiIert.ntaatt.net(eiIert.ntaatt.net);complaintsnvbar.org(complaintsnvbar.org);cvellisbhIs.com(cvellisbhIs.com);davidcnvbar.org
(davidcnvbar.org);jeeloreno.com(jeeloreno.com);miketahoelawyer.com(miketahoelawyer.com);patrickknvbar.org(patrickknvbar.org);tsusichnvdetr.org
(tsusichnvdetr.org);jgarinlipsonneilson.com(jgarinlipsonneilson.com);snordstromlipsonneilson.com(snordstromlipsonneilson.com);IIlahertydlpId.com(IIlahertydlpId.com);
IIlahertydyerlawrence.com(IIlahertydyerlawrence.com);roperjreno.gov(roperjreno.gov);duraldenreno.gov(duraldenreno.gov);duraldejreno.gov(duraldejreno.gov);
lopezmreno.gov(lopezmreno.gov);cartercreno.gov(cartercreno.gov);tarterjreno.gov(tarterjreno.gov);leedywreno.gov(leedywreno.gov);looktreno.gov(looktreno.gov);
siIrepreno.gov(siIrepreno.gov);weaverareno.gov(weaverareno.gov);milleroreno.gov(milleroreno.gov);zyoungda.washoecounty.us(zyoungda.washoecounty.us);
bdoganwashoecounty.us(bdoganwashoecounty.us);voldenburgrsic.org(voldenburgrsic.org);kcrawIordrsic.org(kcrawIordrsic.org);dbraunworthrsic.org
(dbraunworthrsic.org);jreyeswashoecounty.us(jreyeswashoecounty.us);stuttlewashoecounty.us(stuttlewashoecounty.us)
8attachments
10251261901opposition(FiledMotionMotionIorleavetoIileoppositionoroppositiontoscr111(4)petition)001-Copy.pdI(225.1KB),11212IilestampedcompletenoticeoIerrata
andrevisedsupplemental2640517080204.pdI(884.6KB),contemptscr119(2)inrecoughlin60838(FiledMotionMotionIorOrdertoShowCauseorContemptOrderAgainstBar
CounselandNNDB)001.pdI(294.3KB),6181260630coughlinvcityoIreno020412-18956.pdI(2.2MB),61112deminimis37cIr11.25(3)(a)notaseriousoIIensesupportand
11.25(3)(c)lackingdueprocess608380204.pdI(129.1KB),11912stamped60302NoticeoILackoIAccesswithbothpartsoIexhibit1.pdI(5.0MB),103111receipt1708lockout
wcso264050362860331within24hourshilltriedtogetat501pmversusbakeroct28thtestimonyIromMemooICosts-EX1(4-3-12).pdI(19.7KB),11111locksmithreceiptwcso
lockoutIromMemooICosts-EX1(4-3-12)-2compare618testimonywhenthelocksmithIinallygotthere.pdI(79.3KB)
DearPanel,SBN,andMr.Garin,andMs.NordstromandRMCChieIMarshalRoper,andMarshalJoelHarley,

BailiIIJohnReyeswantstoexplainhisviewsonhow"itsnotaFourthAmendmentviolationiIthepersonwasguiltyoIthecrimeyoususpectedhimoI
committingwhenyoudidthesearch"andhowitsacceptable"subterIuge"IorReyestohelpolJimmySleazy,WCPDJimLesliebymusclingover
indigentcriminaldeIendantsIorhimwhenLesliecan'tbebotheredupholdingtheSixthAmendment,whereuponReyescomestoJimmy'srescueandtells
Coughlin,Leslieathisside,that"I'mgoingtoputmyIootupyourass..." ReyeswatchesdeIendantsgetputinjailIormonthsdayindayoutIor
doinglessthanthat....

SteveTuttlewantstoexplainwhytheRJCdidn'trespondtoCoughlin'srequestsIorinIormationonthetransmissionoItheEvictionOrderinrjc2011-
001708totheWashoeCountySheriII'sOIIice.

LizStuchellandDeputyMachen,andRoxySilvawanttoexplainalltheIalseaIIidavitsoIserviceheIiles,andMaureenandRoxy'sassertionsthatthe
"receipt"oItheevictionOrderinNRS40.253wasat8:05amon11/1/11inrjcRev2011-001708(SheriIImusteIIectthelockout"within24hoursoI
receiptoItheOrder"...andCaseyBaker,Esq.wantstoexplainhistestimonyoI6/18/12whenheexplainedwhathedidwiththeSheriII'sOIIiceon
October28th,2011...andRenoCarsonMessengerservicewanttoexplainwhytheirreceiptshowstheydeliveredthelockoutordertotheWCSOat4:45
pmon10/31/12,whilethelocksmithswearsthelockoutwasnoteIIecteduntilacoupleminutesto5pm,anddeIinitelynotsoonerthan4:48pm,despite
Machens11/1/11AIIidavitoIService(thathissupervisorStuchellhadtoadmitwasIalseinthatitalleged"personalservice"wheretheWCSOadmitsno
onewashome(andthelocksmithtotallyreIutesHill'stestimonyoI6/18/12"theytriedtoserveittoyoubutyouranaway..."(really,Rich,becaueCasey
didn'ttestiIytothat,buthedidsaythatyouweren'teventherethatday,sowhatdoyoubasethatswornallegationsonRich,besidesyourdesireto
mitigateyourliabilityIorallyourmisdeedsthere?).
Chief Marshal Roper and Joel Harley wanted to explain some of the things Judge Nash Holmes got "confused" on in her "sworn
testimony"...which is shaping up to look at lot like the unsworn hearsay testimony of a Judge in the In Re Mirch case that resulted in a
disbarment, which in Nevada, are irrevocable as of 2008. To be clear, Judge Nash Holmes testified falsely at the 11/14/12 Disciplinary
Hearing in a number of ways. The attached audio from the Hearing and Judges Nash Holmes various Orders (which reveal a disturbing
attempt to mix and match various civil and criminal contempt statutes, some plenary, some summary, and add the transmogrification of a
"simple traffic citation Trial" into some sort of Summary Disciplinary Hearing...which SBN Bar Counsel Pat King is only too happy to sign on
to, eager to kick back and rely on SCR 111(5) after having fed Judge Nash Holmes the instruction to make sure to copy and paste as many
sections of the Rules of Professional Conduct into an "Order" that is sure to point out the burden of proof necessary for a "ethical violation"
finding in a Disciplinary Hearing setting. The only thing less transparent than this awkward attempt by Bar Counsel and Judge Nash
Holmes to get 'r done was the brother and sister act by Judge William Gardner and his sister Judge Linda Gardner, complimented, of
course, by that oh so suspicious looking "5" in the SBN's "received" stamp of Judge L. Gardner's April 2009 Order sanctioning Coughlin,
which Washoe Legal Services's Paul Elcano cited as the sole reason for Coughlin's firing (and which begat the Mandamus Petition against L.
Gardner in 54844, the wrongful termination suit against WLS in 60302, the criminal trespass conviction in 11 CR 26405 that Judge W.
Gardner refused to recuse himself from, etc., etc.
WCPD Biray Dogan and DDA Zach Young wanted to explain their violations of NRS 178.405 and the communications with RMC Judge Nash
Holmes regarding the 2/27/12 Order for Competency Evaluation that should have prevented her from even holding the Trial (the one that
occurred right after RMC Marshal Harley served a civil eviction appeal document on behalf of the process server Richard G. Hill, Esq. hired
to serve Coughlin the Order to Show Cause in cv11-03628 that Coughlin had already received in connection with his being the attorney of
record and an e-filer on that matter...see Caplow).
RPD Sargent Marcia Lopez and Officer Chris Carter wish to address the panel about their misconduct in 11 CR 26405 and the extent to
which Richard Hill and his client, Dr. Matt Merliss misled them, especially vis a vis the attached filings in 11 CR 26405 and 61901.
Sargent Paul Sifre had some thoughts on the custodial jaywalking arrest and Sifre v. Wells Fargo, LLC. Officers Wesley and Look wanted
to weigh in on that too..
RPD Officer Nick Duralde and his wife, ECOMM/911 dispatcher Jessica Duralde (who was working that night of the 8/20/11 arrest that
started a year in which Coughlin was arrest 10 times, including a custodial arrest for jaywalking on 1/12/12 then another one for "misuse of
911" even though Coughlin received two protection orders in FV12-00187, and -00188), with Officer Duralde pulling Couglin over in the
middle of the night upon his walking to his car after being released from jail on a 15 degree night on 1/13/12, where five other RPD
Officers helped Officer Duralde with the pressing matter of the sudden disappearance of Coughlin's license plate...), (all suspiciously close in
time to Coughlin filing a complaint against Duralde and the RPD on 1/7/12 with the RPD) wanted to weigh in on the misconduct attendant
to Duralde's testifying that dispatch reported to himself and RPD Officer's Alaksa and Rosa that night about "a possible fight" thus
supporting their reponse and the associated Terry Stop weapons check frisk pat down and custodial arrest for a misdemeanor allegedly
occuring outside their presence after 7 pm:
NRS 171.136 Whenarrestmaybemade.
1. IItheoIIensechargedisaIelonyorgrossmisdemeanor,thearrestmaybemadeonanyday,andatanytimeoIdayornight.
2. IIitisamisdemeanor,thearrestcannotbemadebetweenthehoursoI7p.m.and7a.m.,except:
(2)ThemisdemeanorisdiscoveredbecausetherewasprobablecauseIorthearrestingoIIicertostop,detainorarrestthepersonIoranotherallegedviolationoroIIense;
(d)WhentheoIIenseiscommittedinthepresenceoIaprivatepersonandthepersonmakesanarrestimmediatelyaItertheoIIenseiscommitted;
(e)WhentheoIIensechargedisbatterythatconstitutesdomesticviolencepursuanttoNRS 33.018 andthearrestismadeinthemannerprovidedin NRS 171.137;
(I)WhentheoIIensechargedisaviolationoIatemporaryorextendedorderIorprotectionagainstdomesticviolenceissuedpursuantto NRS 33.017 to 33.100,inclusive;
TheRSICVictoriaOldenburgwantstotalktothePanelabouthowtheRSICandWal-Martareinalongtermbusinesspartnershipwherethe2ndSt.
Wal-MartisontriballandrentedoutbytheRSICandpatrolledbyitstribaloIIicers,whoadmittoroutinelymakingmisdemeanorpettytheIt/shopliIting
tribaloIIicersareIorbiddenunderNRS171.1255.. RenoCityAttorneytoowouldlikeachancetoexplainhowsheprosecutescasesbasedupon
arrestsbytribaloIIicersIormisdemeanorwhereNevadalawexpresslypreventsmisdemeanorarrestsbytribaloIIicersunderNRS171.1255.
contributedgreatlytomyIailuretoalertMr.Garinpriortothat. IthinkoutoIIairnessIandMr.Garin/Ms.Nordstromshouldbeprovidedtranscripts
Iromthe11/14/12Hearing.

spouse.
WashoeLegalServicesPaulElcanoandStateBaroINevada'sCoeSwobe'scontactswithmyIather,Palmerv.Pioneer,etc.
So, this is the Elcano approach...he gets an email on 4/19/12 that is a written employment law centered complaint from an employee...and
he has the employee suspended within days thereafter...then claims to have not received the email, then adopts some Duluth Model
"Power and Control" wheel co-opting or leveraging of "treatment" or armchair psychiatry...
Elcano, McGeorge '78. Nash Holmes, McGeorge '79. Beesley, McGeorge '79. Stephen Kent, McGeorge '80. RMC Judge Howard
(Wal-Mart conviction resulting in 6/7/12 temporary suspension in 60838), McGeorge '81. Loomis, McGeorge '82 (twice Coughlin's RMC
court appointed counsel, allowed to withdraw with pay both times, refused to advocate in any way). Gammick, McGeorge '82.
Springgate, McGeorge '85 (opposing consel in ng12-0435 asking for sanctions in divorce case closing argument). Kandaras, McGeorge
'91 (Deputy District Attorney involved in warrantless seizure of Coughlin's smart phone. DDA Z. Young, McGeorge '04. Hazlett-Stevens,
McGeorge, '06.
What do you call it when Judge Nash Holmes testifies, on 11/14/12 that she questioned Coughlin about "recording devices" and or
whether he was recording BEFORE the one restroom break, purposefully changing the order of the questioning and the restroom break to
suggest some furtive activity on Coughlin's part, which Judge Nash Holmes then further attempted to amplify in her assertion that Marshal
Joel Harley was ordered to follow Coughlin into the restroom and that a Marshal asserted to her that Coughlin "disassembled a recording
device" in the restroom and "hid a part or portion of it in the restroom"
Fraud on the court Conduct of counsel in omitting portion of deposition when deposition is read into record, and giving impression that
entire document is being proffered, resulting in buttressing of his party's position is fraud on the court warranting the imposition of
sanctions. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rules 172, 172, subd. 1(a, d). Sierra Glass & Mirror v. Viking Industries, Inc., 1991, 808 P.2d 512, 107 Nev. 119,
rehearing denied.
Itiscategoricallyfalsefor1udgeNashHolmestoassert,intheaudiorecordon3/12/12theorderofeventsandwhensheaskedCoughlinherquestionsaboutrecording,consideringwhena
restroombreaktookplaceanexactlywhatitissheaskedCouglinandwhen,andwhathisresponseswere,andwhensomeallegationsby"theMarshal"weremade,whattheyconsistedof,
etc..on3/12/12in11tr26800theaudiotranscriptreads7minutesintotheaudiorecordtheRMCprovidedtheSBN:
1udgeNashHolmes(Nash):Itappearstomeinthiscasethatthedefendantissufferingfromsomeextremeformofmentalillness.duringthetrialIaskedthedefendantattorney
repeatedlyifhewasrecordingtheproceedingshedeniedthatvehementlyafewtimesandthenhequotetookthefifthafewothertimesandthenherequestedtobeexcusedtogoto
thebathroomandtheMarshallaterreportedtomethatwhilethegentlemanwasinthebathroomhedisassembledarecordingdeviceinhispocketandtookthememoryoutofitand
itwaslaterfoundinthat,uh,bytheMarshalnooneelsehadgoneintothebathroomandthatwasretrievedanditwasputintohispossessionattheSheriff'sofficeandwhenthey
bookedhimintojailforthecontemptchargethatwasbookedintoevidenceandIaskedtheSheriff'sofficetoholdthatintoevidence.IbelievehehasviolatedSupremeCourtRule
229(2)(B)whichwasamendedbyADKT440,August1st,2011...."
above.
NRS178.405shouldhavepreventedanythingsaidordonebyJudgeNashHolmesIollowingherstatementatthe7minutemarkthat"ItappearstomeinthiscasethatthedeIendantissuIIering
IromsomeextremeIormoImentalillness."Further,thatwhichJudgeNashHolmeshadcommunicatedtoherpriortothestartoITrialon2/27/12in11tr26800needstobetestiIiedtounder
oath,ratherthanhaveBarCounselasserttohalIbaked"can'taskthejudgeabouthermentalprocesses"loophole,ashehasdone.
Hereistheactualstatementsmade,verbatim,IromthecertiIiedaudiotranscriptoIthe2/27/12"simpletraIIiccitationTrial"stemmingIromCoughlingoingtoRichardG.Hill,Esq.'soIIiceto
gethisdriver'slicense,wallet,keys,andclient'sIilesIollowingacustodialarrestIortrespass(seeRPDSargentLopezandOIIicerCarter'sexplanationsthereoIin11CR26405and61901)and
threedaysspentinjail,uponbeingreleasedthereIromon11/15/12...andattheTrialonthattraIIiccitationissuedbyRPDSargentJohnTarter,RMCMarshalJoelHarley,justbeIoreTrial
(whenJudgeNashHolmescouldn'tbeIoundandWCPDBirayDoganandDDAZachYoungweregettinganOrderIorCompetencyEvaluationoICoughlininrcr2012-065630at1:31pm...and
the11TR26800Trialstartinglate,notat1pmasnoticed,butat3pm....withRMCW.GardneradmittingtomeetingsbeingheldamongsttheRMCJudgeswhereintheybrainstormedwaysoI
combatingCoughlin'schampioningoIdueprocessrightsIorthedisenIranchised...
Simply put, there was no questioning by Judge Nash Holmes of Coughlin as to whether he was recording anything or whether he possessed a "recording device" until AFTER the one and only restroom break Judge Nash
Holmes mentions on the audio record. And that sua sponte interrogation of Couglin occured IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE RESTROOM BREAK, A BREAK IN WHICH JUDGE NASH HOLMES REFUSED TO ALLOW COUGHLIN TO
TAKE HIS YELLOW LEGAL PAD WITH HIM AND WHICH OCCURED AFTER COUGHLIN MADE A VERBAL PRESERVATION ON THE RECORD OF THE WHISPERING IN EACH OTHER'S EARS BY CITY ATTORNEY ALLISON ORMAAS
AND MARSHAL HARLEY (WHO SEEMED A BIT UPSET ABOUT SOME OF THE QUESTIONS COUGHLIN ASKED THEM IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE TRIAL (DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME WHERE JUDGE NASH HOLME'S
ASSISTANT INDICATED, ON THE RECORD IN ONE OF THE OTHER CASES ON THAT STACKED DOCKET, THAT Judge Nash Holmes just couldn't be found, and how odd that was...which is odd, considering what was going on
in 11 cr 22176, 11 cr 26405 12 cr 00696 and 11 tr 26800, and rcr2012-065630 and rcr2011-063341 at the time (lots of reasons for and indications that local law enforcement and prosecutors and public defenders were non
too happy with Coughlin...and consider the 2/24/12 email vacating the 2/27/12 status conference between young and dogan that neither YOung nor Dogan wish to testify about...but which seems to have been held
anyways after a written communication of its being reset was transmitted to Coughlin by Dogan, wherein, during the time Judge Nash Holmes couldn't be found (maybe she was at one of the group meetings amongst
Judges about Coughlin that RMC Administrative Judge William Gardner referenced on the record in 11 CR 26405? Interesting the Notice of Appeal in 60302 was filed that same day too, 2/27/12) Dogan got his ORder for
Competency Evaluation of Coughlin in rcr2012-065630 (apparently in retaliation for Coughlin's filing of 2/21/12, and DDA Zach Young was still smarting from a filing by Coughlin of approximately 11/28/12, which resultd in
Young promptly amending his complaint in rcr2011-063341 to add a charge that was duplicative, even where YOung failure to allege theft or possessing/receiving "from another' under Staab makes his so charging
Coughlin in that iPhone case a RPC 3.8 violation, which is YOung's specialty, apparently. That, and violating NRs 178.405, which YOung did by filing in rcr2011-063341 with a stamp of 2:55pm a fugitive document of his
own, an Opposition to Coughlin's or the WCPD Motion to Appear as CoCounsel on 2/27/12...nevermind YOung tried to hold a TRIAL on 5/7/12 in that case despite the Order finding Coughlin competent in cr12-0376 didn't
even get signed and entered until 5/9/12...ditto the Trial seeting of 5/8/12 in RMC 11 cr 26405, the criminal trespass case. NOt much respect for nrs 178.405 (including within NRs 5.010) here in Northern nevada..
Coughlin didn't received the 2/28/12 Contempt ORder in 11 tr 26800 until July 2012...but did file a Notice of Appeal 3/7/12...despite "summary criminal contempt" being a final appealable order, Judge Nash HOlmes
continues to refuse to follow NRS 189.010-050 (so Coughlin has to type the transcript, yay....
It is true that contempt committed in a trial courtroom can under some circumstances be punished summarily by the trial judge. See Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 539 . But adjudication by a trial judge of a
contempt committed in his immediate presence in open court cannot be likened to the proceedings here. For we held in the Oliver case that a person charged with contempt before a "one-man grand jury" could not be
summarily tried. [349 U.S. 133, 138] The power of a trial judge to punish for a contempt committed in his immediate presence in open ... In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel of Coughlin violated in
both 11 cr 22176 and 11 tr 26800, also orders no sufficiently detailed or capable of being known how to comply with, not sufficient warning, violate Houston v Eighth Judicial District (Nev.).
See, this is why In Re Oliver and Cooke require all elements of "summary criminal contempt" occur " in the "immediate presence" of the Court. Maybe Marshal Harley and some other Marshal have misled Judge Nash
HOlmes, or maybe something worse is going on here....but what Judge Nash HOlmes said on the recording is entirely misleading an inaccurate, if not an outright lie (again, maybe not a lie by Judge Nash Holmes, maybe
she is repeating a lie, but regardless her reliance on unattributed hearsay is distrubing an inappropriate, particulary where she not only purports to issue a "summary criminal contempt" conviction against an attorney, but
also where Judge Nash Holmes appears to try to transmogrify what she sees as "a simple traffic citation trial" into a full blown SCR 105 disciplinary hearing where she is both Bar Counsel and the Panel...That Marshal needs
to sign an affidavit, under NRS 22.020 and Judge Nash HOlmes ought to have to put something on the record, under oath, in response to Coughlin's recent subpoena (and SBN Pat King wishes to let Judge Nash HOlmes
phone in her testimony, and it probably won't even be sworn testimony, but rather just some musings by Judge Nash Holmes purporting to make "rulings" finding "by clear and convincing evidence" all sorts of things
outside her jurisdiction) on 11/14/12, on, Partick O. King, SBN Bar Counsel has also filed Motion to Quash the Subpoenas Coughlin attempted to have served on Marshal Joel Harley, Marshal Deighton, Judge Nash HOlmes,
Judge William Gardner, Judge Gardners Administrative Assistant Lisa Wagner, who can't quite find the NOtice of Appeal Coughlin faxed to her (allowable under the RMC Rules) on June 28th, 2012 in 11 CR 26405 (the
appeal was dismissed under an NRS 189.010 analysis by Judge Elliot, whom also got Coughlin appeal of the 11 cr 22176 conviction resulting in this Court's 6/7/12 temporary suspension Order in cr11-2064, which was
denied based upon a civil preparation of transcript down payment rule, in that criminal appeal, where the RMC has a thing in place with this Pam Longoni that violates Nevada law in that it refused to give Coughlin the
audio cd of the trial for some time, insisting only Longoni would be allowed to transcribe it, and that the transcript's preparation would absolutely not start until a down payment was made. Plus, even where Coughlin
caved to the payment demands..Longoni repeatedly hung up the phone on him and otherwise ignored his communications (there may be an issue of the email Longoni holding out to the public issuing a "bounceback"...but
she needs to sign an affidavit as to whether she put Coughlin on a blocked list, and upon information and belief, Coughlin faxed his request to the number the RMC held out for her on her behalf too...
In her March 14th, 2012 grievance against Coughlin to the SBN (now NG12-0434, and perhaps, NG12-0435 (stamped as "received" by the SBN from the "Clerk of Court" of some still unnamed Court (I'd bet its from the
RMC Clerk of Court, whom King purported to have certified documents from a Court she doesn't even work for at the 11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing...but then again, Panel Chair Echeverria allow WLS's Elcano to certify
documents just because he claimed to have watched a tape of a hearing, where Elcano is neither a licensed attorney, nor does he work for any Court....), depending upon whom you ask and what King means by "Clerk of
Court"...because in King's 3/23/12 email to Coughlin he apparently identifies Ms. Marilyn Tognoni as "Clerk of Court of Department 3"...whoever, wouldn't it be Second Judicial District Court Clerk of Court Joey Orduna
Hastings that would need to send Family Court Judge Linda Gardner's April 2009 Order sanctioning Coughlin to the SBN's King for King now apparent contention that the NG12-0435 "ghost grievance" consisting of Judge
L. Gardner's April 2009 Order was not filed by the RMC Judges? Oh, Clerk of Court Orduna Hastings? Do you have anything to say about this? Judge Nash Holme's 3/14/12 grievance to bar counsel reads:
"
Re:ZacharyBarkerCoughlin,NevadaBarNo.9473
DearMr.Clark:
ThisletterconstitutesaIormalcomplaintoIattorneymisconductand/ordisabilityagainstZacharyBarkerCoughlin.TheaccompanyingboxoImaterialsdemonstratessomeoItheproblemswiththe
practiceoIthisattorneybeingexperiencedbymyselIandtheotherthreejudgesinRenoMunicipalCourt.MytwomostrecentOrdersinwhatshouldbeasimpletraIIiccitationcaseareselI-explanatoryandare
included,togetherwithcopiesoImassivedocumentsMe.CoughlinhasIaxIiledtoourcourtinthiscase.AudiorecordingsoItwooImyhearingsinthismatterarealsoincluded.HeIailedtoappearIorthe
secondonethispastMonday.
IhaveanothertraIIiccasependingtrialwithhimthatwasre-assignedtomebasedonourDepartmentIjudgebeingoutIorsurgery.WehavemultipleaddressesIorMr.Coughlinandcan'tseemtolocate
himbetweencasesveryeasily.WearesettingthatcaseIortrialandattemptingtoservehimatthemostrecentaddresswehave(1422E.9
th
St.#2RenoNY89512),althoughIheardtodayhemaybelivinginhis
vehiclesomewhere.WedohaveanaddressIorhismother,however,assherecentlypostedpartoIaIineIorhim.
JudgeKenHoward,Department4,hadacaseonMr.CoughlinlatelastyearthatisnowonappealtotheSecondJudicialDistrictCourt.JudgeBillGardner,Department2,alsohasamattercurrently
pendinginhiscourtwithMr.CoughlinasthedeIendant.IhaveenclosedsomecopiesoIdocumentsIromthosematters,inchronologicalorder,simplybecausetheyappeartodemonstratethatheisquickly
decompensatinginhismentalstatus.OurstaIIalsomadeyousomeaudiotapesoICoughlininthehimandhimandhimandhimandhimandhimandhimhimandIwillhimandhimandhimandhimandhim
inDepartments2and4soyoucanhearIoryourselIhowthisattorneyactsincourt.YoucanseehisbehaviorinmytraIIiccitationcasedoesnotappeartobeanisolatedincident.
ItismyunderstandingthatRenoJusticeCourtalsohasamatterpendingonthisattorney.MyJudicialAssistantwascontactedbytheWashoePublicDeIenderinFebruarywhenIhadMr.Coughlinjailed
IorContemptoICourtandtheystatedthattheyrepresenthiminaGrossMisdemeanormatterinRJC.IhavenootherinIormationonthat.
YouwillhavetheIullcooperationoImyselI,theotherjudges,andthestaIIoIRenoMunicipalCourtinyourpursuitoIthismatter.Mr. CoughlinhaspositionedhimselIasavexatiouslitigantinourcourt,
antagonizingthestaIIandevenourpro temp judgesonthemostsimpletraIIicandmisdemeanormatters.Idothinkthisisacase oIsomeurgency,andIapologizeIortakingtwodaystogetthispackagetoyou;
ourITpersonwasillandcouldnotmakethecopiesoItheaudiosoIMr. Coughlin'shearingsuntiltoday,andIIeltitwasimportantthattheaudiosbeincludedinthematerialstobeconsideredbytheStateBar.
OnFebruary27,2012, Mr. Coughlintoldmehewasactivelypracticinglawandhadappointmentswithclients.|donotknowiIthatwastrue,butiIso,hecouldbecausingseriousharmtothepracticeoIlawin
NorthernNevadaandcouldbejeopardizingsomeone'sIreedomorpropertyinterests."
MaybeitwouldbebestiftheRMCfocusedlessonofferingunswornhearsaytestimonythatiseasilyproventobepatentlyfalseatDisciplinaryHearings(totheextentoneisallowedtooffer
suchproof,whichPanelChairEcheverriainvariablyrulesis"notrelevent"andKingsmuglybasksinhisSCR111(5)vacationwithhis"ClerkofCourt"LauraPeters...whoseliesabout
SCR105(4)resultedinPanelChairEcheverriaquashingallsubpoenasCoughlinissued,includingthosetowhichSBNBarCounselPatKingfiledonbehalfofhisformerco-workeratthe
AG'sOffice,RenoCityAttorneyDanWong...WhiletheotherRenoCityAttorney,CreigSkau,keptCoughlinbusywithhisliesabout"thejudgeauthorizedmetoserveyoubyemail"...

Sincerely
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
11 16 11 voicemail from Tim regarding Washoe Legal Service's Elcano's attempt to settle lawsuit with treatment routine 60302 ng12-0204.mp3
3 8 11 voice mail from Tim Coughlin to Zach Coughlin regarding SBN's Coe Swobe's contacting him for WLS's Elcano ng12-0204.mp3
LITIGATIONHOLDNOTICETOTHERENOMUNICIPALCOURTRMCBallard
4 27 09 email from WLS's Elcano to Coughlin to call SBN's Swobe ng12-0204.pdf
June_2008_Nevada_Lawyer In re Mirch compare to ng12-0204.pdf
11 16 12 skau grievance materials combined 0204 063341.pdf
2 27 12 and 3 8 12 Affidavits of Service by WCSO Machen in 1708 and 03628 26800 00696 marshal harley.pdf
2 27 12 Order For Competency Evaluation Judge Clifton RCR2012-065630 1 31 pm file stamp rjc rmc schroeder nash holmes young dogan 26800 26405 loomis - Copy.pdf
3 7 12 rmc 11 cr 26405 loomis gardner 178.405 Coughlin Trial Setting 26800 00696 063341 065630.pdf
3 8 12 26800 nash barker denial return of bail $100 wcso rmc 0204 00696.pdf
3 8 12 Coughlin Trial Setting 11 cr 26405 april 10 8 am trial loomis gardner 650630 26800 0032 0376.pdf
3 9 12 needs stamped 11 tr 26800 0204 MOTION TO RETURN CELL PHONES; MOTION TO SET ASIDE SUMMARY.pdf
3 12 12 rmc 11 tr 26800 order judge nash holme suspending case and referring to the SBN enhanc.pdf
3 13 12 158 pm 26800 Nash rmc SUA SPONTE ORDER DENYING RELIEF SOUGHT IN IMPROPER DOCUMENT.pdf
3 13 12 1238pm 11 TR 26800 SUA SPONTE ORDER DENYING RELlEF SOUGHT IN IMPROPER DOCUMENT RPD WCSO RMC RJC NASH KING CLARK SBN check.pdf
3 13 1238 pm 26800 SUA SPONTE ORDER DENYING RELlEF SOUGHT IN IMPROPER DOCUMENT 0204 0434.pdf
3 16 12 sbn grievance king with ng12-0434 nash 26800 of 3 14 12 and ng12-0434 4 10 09 linda gardner sanction order 00696 26405.pdf
3 30 12 nash order releasing property 26800 0204 0434 cleaned up-3.pdf
5 4 12 goodnight email 063341 26405 26800 regarding mhc loomis hazlett-stevens 0204 0434.pdf
5 6 09 email from wls ed elcano 26405 60302 garnder 01955 10896 60302 26800 60317 54844 dd.pdf
5 6 09 email from wls ed elcano 26405 60302 garnder 01955 10896 60302 26800 60317 54844.pdf
Download all

Sent: Mon11/19/126:44AM
To: christensendreno.gov(christensendreno.gov);kadlicjreno.gov(kadlicjreno.gov);IIlahertydlpId.com(IIlahertydlpId.com);IIlahertydyerlawrence.com
(IIlahertydyerlawrence.com);leIcourtleIcourtlaw.com(leIcourtleIcourtlaw.com);roperjreno.gov(roperjreno.gov)
DearSirs,
IsubmitthisrespectIullytoeachoIyou. IItheRMCortheMarshalshaveacounseloIrecord,pleaseletmeknow,otherwise,Ihavesomequestions.
First,isitappropriateIorSuzanneRamostobeexhortingindividualstoseekprotectionordersagainstme,particularlygivenherconnectiontoWashoe
LegalServices,whomIamsuing,iIthatisinIactwhatMs.Ramosisdoing,iInot,nodisrespectmeanttoMs.Ramos...However,justtheotherdayshe
andChieICriminalDeputyCityAttorneyWonglaughedmalevolentlyatmeintheelevator,cacklingproIusely,astheideaoImybeingabletopartakein
anyoIthevictim'sservicesoIIered,eveniImyvictimizer'smay,insomeinstances,belocallawenIorcement...thiswasanechobacktothe1/14/12
"misuseoI911arrest"....
One,didthe"ClerkoICourt"IortheRMCtransmitJudgeW.Gardner'ssister'sApril2009OrdertotheStateBaroINevadaatanytime. Two,under
whatauthoritydoestheRMC'sDonnaBallardorCassandraJackson,oranyonethereinhavetobe"certiIying"OrdersIromtheSecondJudicialDistrict
CourtIortheSBN? Three,oItheaudiotranscriptsprovidedbytheRMCtotheSBNontheprosecutionsandcitationsrelatedtoZacharyB.Coughlin,
whichwereprovidedtotheSBN,andwhichwereprovidedtotheScreeningPanel,andwhichwerecertiIied,andwhichwerenotcertiIied.
WhatisthecostoIa"certiIied"audiotranscript? WhatisthediIIerencebetweena"certiIied"audiotranscript,andtheaudiotranscriptprovidedto
Coughlin'smother,MaryBarkerIorthe2/27/12Trialin11TR26800.
THERMCANDITSMARSHALSAREHEREBYPLACEDONALITIGATIONHOLDNOTICE(TOWHATEVEREXTENTTHEYWERENOT
ALREADY)ASTOALLMATERIALSANDORDOCUMENTATIONRELATEDTOTHE2/27/12"MISDEMEANOROFCRIMINAL
CONTEMPT"(CITINGTOACIVILSTATUTE,ANDNOTEVENTHESUMMARYCONTEMPTONE,NRS22.030(WHEREISTHEAFFIDAVIT
OFMARSHALJOELHARLEYORANYOTHERMARSHAL,asrequiredbyNRS22.030Iorallegedconductnotoccurringinthe'immediate
presence'oIthecourt. WHOSEREPORTSTOJUDGENASHHOLMESWERERELIEDUPONINHERORDERASRENDEREDON2/27/12,
ANDAGAINASREDUCEDTOWRITINGON2/28/12AND3/12/12? PLEASEPROVIDEACOPYTHEREOF).
JudgeNashHolmes'testimonyattheSBNDisciplinaryhearingon11/14/12wascompletelyIalseinanumberoIinstances. PleasehaveJudgeNash
HolmesreviewtheaudiotranscriptoIthatTrialin11TR26800andspeakwiththeMarshals,andcourtstaIIandconsiderwhethertherearen'tsome
materialmisrepresentationsbeingmade,orwhichweremade,underoath,atthe11/14/12DisciplinaryHearing. TheaudiotranscriptoIthehearing
clearlycontrovertsJudgeNashHolmesdepictionoIanumbersoIeventsduringthatTrial,chieIoIwhichconcernshertestimonythatsheaskedCoughlin
questionsdirectedto"recording"and"recordingdevices"atanumberoIoIpointsduringthetrial,whichisIalse. Therewasone,andonlyonebrieI
exchangeinthatregard. Further,JudgeNashHolmesexplicitlymisrepresentedtheorderoItheonerestroombreakinrelationtotheoneinstanceoI
JudgeNashHolmesbrieIlyquestioningCoughlinabout"recording"or"recordingdevices". TheaudiotranscriptdoescontainastatementbyJudge
NashHolmesindicating"Isawit..Isawit"whenCoughlinnotedIorthisrecordthatMarshalHarleywaswhisperinginDCAOrmaas'sears(orvice
versa)...andDCAOrmaaswasapparentlysocomIortableduringparticularlycontentiouspointsinthetrial(suchaswhenJudgeNashHolmesordereda
MarshaltoescortCoughlintotherestroom,andreIusedtoallowCoughlintotakeevenonesheetoIyellowlegalpaperwithhim,whereuponOrmaas
jokinglyasked:"CanTerry(RMCMarshal)escortmetotherestroom?". PerhapsthetimeIordoinghitpiecesonCoughlinisoveranditmightbe
useIultoaskyourselIwhetherDCAOrmaasandMarshalHarleyhavebehavedinamannerthathascausedtheRMCundueburden. Towit:did
MarshalHarleycreateanappearanceoIimproprietyandorviolatethe"courthousesanctuary"doctrineininterruptingapleabargainingconIerence
betweenOrmaasandCoughlintoattempttopersonallyserveCoughlinwithanOrdertoShowCauseintheRichardG.Hill,Esqledsummaryeviction
IromCoughlin'sIormerhomelawoIIicecase(anddespitetherulingstherein,11TR26800baresastrongconnectiontoMr.Hillandthatevictioncase,
whichbegatthecriminaltrespasscase,whichbegatthecustodialjaywalkingcase,whichbegatthe"misueoI911"case,whichbegatarrestson6/28/12
and7/3/12,andthreatsthereoIon9/21/12...),onappealinCV11-03628. WasMarshalHarleysmirkingwhenheattemptedtoeIIectserviceon
CoughlinonbehalIoIWCSODeputyMachen(whose11/7/11AIIidavitoIServiceinthetrialcourtsummaryevictiontrialinthatmatter,rjcRev2011-
001708,incorrectlyassertedpersonalserviceuponCoughlinoIthelockoutOrderon11/1/11,IorwhichhissupervisorLizStuchellsubsequentlyadmitted
inwritingmeantmerelypostingtheOrderontheIormerhomelawoIIice'sdoorwhenthetenantwasnotthere. WhywassuchanOrdertoShowCause
evenbeingserved,inlightoICaplow,andCoughlinhavingbeenaregisteredeIileratthattime,andthereIoreservedelectronicallytheOrdertoShow
Cause(ata3/23/12Hearing)on2/8/10andtheNoticeoIEntryoIOrderthereoIon2/10/10. PerhapsHillandBakerwereunsureoItheimportoI
Caplowwheretheopposingcounselwasappearingprose...buttoaindigentdeIendantwhohadalreadybeendeniedasinglecontinuancebyJudge
Howard(baseduponhismistakenbelieIthatCoughlinhaddoneanythingcontributingtothecontinuanceoIthe11/14/11originalTrialdatein11CR
22176(which,intheIinalthreeminutestackedontotherecordinthatmatter,JudgeHowardadmits,thoughhisameliorationconsistednotoIcontinuing
thematterandallowinganinnocentman,Coughlin,toarrangetoaddresstheunlawIulrentdistraintRichardHillwasapplyingtotheexcuplatoryvideo,
audioandothermaterialsthatwilldemonstratethatWal-MarthadpreviouslyexpressedaspeciIicretaliatoryanimusandplanoIactionagainstCoughlin
(somethingAPAssociateFrontinotestiIiedto/admittedsomewhatatTrial). PerhapstheHastingslawschoolconnectionbetweenPamelaRobertsand
someoneCoughlinissuing,CarynSternlichtoIWashoeLegalServicescontributedtoMs.RobertsabruptlybackingoutoIthecontinuanceshehad
agreedtoinwriting(Coughlinhadbeenevictedlessthanonemonthprior,withaninterveningcriminaltrespassarrest). ItstimeIorCityAttorney
KadlicandtheRenoPoliceDepartmenttoceasetellingthemselvestheyaredoingCoughlinsomesortoIIavoror"helpinghimgethelp",and,rather,
addresstheextenttowhich,beginningwitanextremelysuspectarreston8/20/11(aretaliatoryoverchargingoI"Ielonygrandlarceny"bytheRPDin
rcr2011-063341resultedinCoughlinbeinghitveryhardinanumberoIwaysincidenttoasudden7dayjailstay,duringwhichtimeasummaryeviction
orderwasserved. ThirteendaysaIterbeingreleasedIromcustodyincidenttothatIirstarrest,camethe9/9/11Wal-Martarrest(whichwasviolativeoI
Nevadalawinthat,especiallywhereCityAttorneyRobertsandWal-Martreadilyconcedethatno"citizen'sarrest"or"shopkeeper'sprivilege"was
presentinthatmatter,astheaudiotranscriptreveals,andNRS171.1255IorbidstribalpoliceIrommakingmisdemeanorarrests,whichisexactlywhat
theydidinthatcase,11CR22176. TheaudiorecordisdevoidoIajurisdictionalIindingIorthatandothergoodreasons,including,theIactthat
whetherornotCoughlinhasanytribalorIndianbloodwasnotestablished,whichmeansajurisdictionalbasisIortheprosecutionwasnoteither,inwhich
case,theconvictionmaynotstand,astheappropriateIorummaywellbeinaTribalCourt. Regardless,theRMC'spracticeoIpresentingthemethodoI
andmanneroIaIIectingthepreparationoItranscriptsincriminalappealsisdirectlyatoddswithNevadalaw,andarguablyillegal,andCoughlinhereby
requeststhattheRMCandorCityoIRenoimmediatelyarrangeIorthetranscriptsinallcaseshehasappearedbeIoretheRMCin(andinallhearingsin
allthosecases)immediatelybeorderedpreparedandprovidedtoCoughlinwithin10days. ThemitigationoIdamagesincidenttothetortscommitted
uponCoughlinarguablydictatethatthisbedone,andatnochargewhatsoever,whetherupIrontordowntheroad.
PleasehaveJudgeNashHolmesandMarshalsHarley,Coppa,Townsend,andDeightonprepareaIIidavitsimmediatelydispellingthedamagingand
materialmisrepresentationsoromissionstheyhavemade(whetherpurposeIully,negligently,orinadvertently)thathavearguablycostapatentattorneyin
theprimeoIhiscareerearningwisehislivelihood,andthereIore,subjectedthismunicipalitytosigniIicantliability,regardlessoIwhatimmunityonlya
selectIewoIthoseindividualsmayenjoy. AnoticeoIappealoIthe"misdemeanoroIcriminalcontempt"NRS22.010convictionwasIiled,andthatis
aIinalappealableorder(andonereallyhasnototherchoicebuttoviewitasasummarycontemptconvictiongiventhesummarynatureoIthemannerin
whichiswashandled...though,contrarytoJudgeHoward'sindicationstoCoughlininthelastthreeminutesoItheaudiotranscriptin11CR22176,such
ordersare,inIactappealable,evenwherethesummaryincarcerationhasalreadybeenserved. PleaseconsiderwhethertheRMChasadutytotransmit
theROAandorderthepreparationoItranscriptsinboth11cr22176(Iorboththesummarycontemptconvictionandthepettylarcenyconviction)and11
tr22176totheDistrictCourtimmediately. Additionally,pleaseindicateinwritingtheCityAttorney'sstanceonappointinganalternateprosecutorand
ortherecusaloIallRMCJudgesIrommattersinvolvingCoughlin.Additionally,theCityoIRenomightwanttoconsiderwhetherSBNPatKingisusing
theRMCtomakehisjobeasier,whereheseekstoobtain"convictions"thatspeciIicallyIindbytheburdenoIprooIrequiredindisciplinaryhearingsto
proveethicalrulesviolationsunderSchaeIer(the"byclearandconvincingevidence"languageechoedinJudgeNashHolmes'March12th,2012Order,
whichlooksparticularlyinIluencedbyKingandtheSBNnowthattheSBNhasbeenIorcedtoreleasecertaininternaldocumentsandsubmissions.
Additionally,givenrecentadmissionsbytheWCPDandinIormationgleanedIrommaterialsittoohasIinallybeenIorcedtorelease,theRMCand
JudgeNashHolmesareherebyrequestedtoconsiderwhetherthecontentoIher3/14/12grievancetotheSBNagainstCoughlinmayneedsomerevising,
andrequestisherebymadeIoranAIIidavitbyJudgeNashHolmesaddressingsuchrequest,respectIullymade. Lastly,Couglinherebyrequests,that,
giventhecircumstances,andhisindigency,thecompleteIilesandallaudiotranscriptsandothermaterialssubpoenaed(andpleaseconsiderwhetherthe
SBNhasIinallybeenIorcedtorecognizetheextenttowhichitsagentsandortheNNDBandorPanelmaderepresentationstoCoughlinthatmaterially
altertheviabilityoItheviewsontheadequacyoIthetechnicalcompliancewithNRCP45 byCoughlin'ssubpoenasassetIorthbyCityAttorneyBony,
ChieICriminalDeputyCityAttorneyWong,andCityAttorneySkau giventhedictatesoISCR105(4).
Supreme Court has obligation in disciplinary proceeding to look beyond label given to attorney's conviction to true nature of facts, in order to determine whether underlying circumstances of
conviction warrant discipline. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 111, subd. 3. State Bar of Nevada
v. Claiborne, 1988, 756 P.2d 464, 104 Nev. 115. Attorney And Client 39
2. Indictment
Sincerely,
newDiscoveryfinallyproducedbyRenoCityattorneyon1/12/121aywalkingarrestinSCR105Complaint
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
rmc longoni handout demanding payment on transcripts on appeals in violation of nevada law 26405 cr11-2064 cr12-1262 26406 61901 60302 11 tr26800.pdf
cr12-1018 rmc transcript pam longoni failure to prepare and forward on appeal nrs 189.030otjl.pdf
DistCtOrder_REDACTED cr12-1018 longoni transcript defective.pdf
RMC transcripts on appeal failure to pepare Pam Longoni cr12-1018otjl.pdf
cr12-1018 rmc transcript pam longoni failure to prepare and forward on appeal nrs 189.030.pdf
12 16 11 email to plongoni@charter.net longoni and 12 21 11 email to ballardd@reno.gov regarding longoni 22176 26800 0204 0435.htm
6 11 12 de minimis 37 cfr 11.25(3)(a) not a serious offense support and 11.25(3)(c) lacking due process 60838 0204.pdf
6 18 12 12-18962 60838 in re coughlin scr 111 filed stamped.pdf
6 18 12 60630 coughlin v city of reno 0204 12-18956.pdf
6 25 12 SCR 115 Affidavit Coughlin 12-19902 0204 60838.pdf
6 25 12 stamped Coughlin's motion for extensio nto file brief and exhibit 60302.pdf
6 25 12 stamped 60302 MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE OPENING BRIEF AFTER DEADLINE HAS RUN.pdf
8 13 12 61426 stamped Coughlins PETITION SCR 102(4)(D) AND SCR 111(7) IN RE COUGHLIN 8 13 12.pdf
8 27 12 stamped 60331 APPELLANT'S Motion IFP with attached proposed Opening Brief.pdf
8 28 12 stamped 60302 coughlin v wls appellant's opening brief[1].pdf
8 28 12 stamped 60302 Coughlin's Opening Brief wls 60302 12-27202 0204.pdf
10 5 12 60838 file stamped proof of service of Petition In Re Coughlin.pdf
10 5 12 file stamped proof of service of Petition In Re Coughlin Petiton for Dissolution.pdf
10 5 12 filestamped 60838 Motion to Show Cause contempt scr 119(2) in re coughlin 60838 Coughlin.pdf
10 15 12 stamped 61901 Kings SCR 111(4) petition for 26405 trespass conviction.pdf
Download all

Sent: Wed11/14/126:46AM
To: (skentskentlaw.com)(skentskentlaw.com);(miketahoelawyer.com)(miketahoelawyer.com);(nevtelassnsbcglobal.net)(nevtelassnsbcglobal.net);(patrickknvbar.org)
(patrickknvbar.org);(IIlahertydlpId.com)(IIlahertydlpId.com);(davidcnvbar.org)(davidcnvbar.org);(complaintsnvbar.org)(complaintsnvbar.org);(tsusichnvdetr.org)
(tsusichnvdetr.org);(jeeloreno.com)(jeeloreno.com);(cvellisbhIs.com)(cvellisbhIs.com);(eiIert.ntaatt.net)(eiIert.ntaatt.net);(consultlaketahoelaw.com)
(rhrclaketahoelaw.com);(stuttlewashoecounty.us)(stuttlewashoecounty.us);(kadlicjreno.gov)(kadlicjreno.gov);(wongdreno.gov)(wongdreno.gov);(schornsbynvdetr.org)
(schornsbynvdetr.org)
DearPanelandBarCounsel,
PleaseIindtheattachadditionaldiscoverytheRenoCityAttorney'sOIIicegavemetodayrelatedtothecustodialjaywalkingarrestoI1/12/12,atwhich
timeRichardHillappliedIoranreceivedaTPOIromRJCJudgeSchroederin40minutes(andRPDOIIicerLooktookaspecialtriptothejailtoattempt
toservetheTPOIorHill). PleaseseeattachedthevideooIthearrestandinteractionspriorthereto,andconsiderthelackoIaccuracyinHilland
Baker'sSecondMotiontoShowCause,JudgeFlanagansdenyingthatMotionincidenttoa3/23/12and3/29/12OrdertoShowCauseHearing(which
WCSODeputyMachen,thesameonewhoIiledaIalseaIIidavitincidenttothesummaryevictionorderpostingandlockouton11/1/11intheRichard
Hillevictioncasesrev2011-001708servedonCoughlin,bywayoIviolatingthe"courthousesanctuary"doctrine,andCaplowholdsattorneyoIrecord
andeIileronthatcaseCoughlindidnotrequirepersonalserviceanyways...thiswashazingbyHillandtheRMCMarshalsandWCSODeputies,plainand
simple,atthe2/27/12Trialin11TR26800,thetraIIiccitationtrialthatNG12-0204stemsIrom,whichstemsIromRPDSargentTartertellingCoughlin
toleaveHill'soIIiceupongoingthereaIterbeingreleasedIroma3daycustodialarrestincidenttoHillandMerliss'slieson11/13/12resultingina
wrongIularrestIorcriminaltrespassoICoughlinbyRPDOIIicerChrisCarterandSargentMarciaLopez). InthevideoHillisseeandheardlyingto
OIIicerHollingsworthinseekingtoabuseprocessandhaveCoughlinarrested. ThentraineeOIIicerLeedythenproceedstoadoptHill'sapproach
nearlyverbatiminhisarrestreport. SargentSiIre(whomarrestedCoughlinagaintwodayslateron1/14/12Ior"misuseoI911"whichDDAYoung
nowsseekstoamendtoacrimethatwillleveragethe"seriousoIIense"dictatesoISCR111,eventhoughhelacksanRPC3.8probablecausebasisIor
doingso. Further,bothHillandOIIicerLeedysubstantiallymisrepresentwhatOIIicerHollingsworthsaid. Additionally,shouldOIIicer
HollingsworthhadindeedtoldCoughlinthatwhathewasdoingwaslegalbutthattheOIIicerwasorderingCoughlinnottodoit,orthreateningCoughlin
inordertoachievecooperation,thatwouldviolateSoldalv.CookCounty,whichisessentiallywhatRPDSargentTarterdidon11/15/11inhisthree
traIIiccitationsoutsideHill'soIIice,whichlesto11tr26800,whichbegatng12-0434,and,arguablyng12-0435. IguessittakesalotoIpeopletohelp
BoardmemberRichardG.Hill,Esq.andhisIled-to-KentuckyassociateCaseyBaker,Esq.makemoney...OnecanhardlyblameCoughlinIorhalI-way
believingRPDOIIicerCarter'sstatementon11/15/11that"RichardG.HillpaysmealotoImoneysoIdowhathesaystoandIarrestwhohesaysto...".
Coughlin'smerelyattributingthestatementthatRPDCartersaidtoCarterisnotmisconduct. Hill'smakingupthingsabouta"crackpipeandbagoI
weed"and"largequantityoIpills"(seethevideo"Zach'sarrest014thatHillandMerlissthemselvesIilmedtoseethatthe"pills"arevitamins...andHill's
contractorPhilStewart,signedanaIIidavitthatmentionsthis"largequantityoIpills"). IIyouknewalltheThursdaynightsIspentsince2003with
Coe,andnowdeceasedJudgeBob,andsomanyothers,youwouldrealizehowinIinitelytackyHill'sconductis.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
1 12 12 audio of RPD Officer Leedy 12 cr 00696 rmc jaywalking arrest 1708 26405 03628 000018.cda
7 3 12 redacted disturbing the peace arrest 12 cr 12420 rmc loomis sotelo mauser weaver dye 00696 26800 sbn 0204 25 page discovery northwind ncs krebs reduced size.pdf
1 14 12 bf additional discovery 12 cr 00696 jaywalking arrest Richard Hill's lies led to RPD RMC RJC TPO rcp2012-000018 0204 Leed.pdf
rcp 2012-000018 D3 Hill v Coughlin Protection Order smaller nuanced.pdf
1 20 12 WDC APPEAL RICHARD HILL 2ND MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE.pdf
4 20 12 1708 0204 exhibits 1 to 4 of Hills motion for attorney's fees cv11-03628.pdf
11 9 12 61901 amendment to opposition.pdf
11 5 12 000374 notice that noa was not file stamped motion for new trial or to set aside order kern king schroeder ptthoa 0204.pdf
CityAttorneySkau,updateddiscoveryiniPhonecase,dispatchrecordings,don'tseemtorevealbasisfor"apossiblefight"
assertionsinofficetestimonyandprosecutors'sfilingsandargument
10 29 12 notice of errata and SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 26405 1708 26800 0650630.pdf
bifurcate atty client severe hearing trialotjl.pdf
bifurcate atty client severe hearing trial.pdf
CV11-03628 ENTIRE EFLEX COMBINED FOR APPENDIX IN 60331 AND 61383 COUGHLIN V MERLISS 26406 1708 26800 NG12-0204 BF.pdf
Download all

Sent: Wed11/14/122:09AM
To: zyoungda.washoecounty.us(zyoungda.washoecounty.us);skentskentlaw.com(skentskentlaw.com);miketahoelawyer.com(miketahoelawyer.com);nevtelassnsbcglobal.net
(nevtelassnsbcglobal.net);patrickknvbar.org(patrickknvbar.org);IIlahertydlpId.com(IIlahertydlpId.com);davidcnvbar.org(davidcnvbar.org);complaintsnvbar.org
(complaintsnvbar.org);tsusichnvdetr.org(tsusichnvdetr.org);jeeloreno.com(jeeloreno.com);cvellisbhIs.com(cvellisbhIs.com);eiIert.ntaatt.net(eiIert.ntaatt.net);
rhrclaketahoelaw.com(consultlaketahoelaw.com);stuttlewashoecounty.us(stuttlewashoecounty.us);kadlicjreno.gov(kadlicjreno.gov);wongdreno.gov(wongdreno.gov);
schornsbynvdetr.org(schornsbynvdetr.org);jlesliewashoecounty.us(jlesliewashoecounty.us);jgoodnightwashoecounty.us(jgoodnightwashoecounty.us);jboslerwashoecounty.us
(jboslerwashoecounty.us)
DearDDAYoungandBarCounselandPanelMembers,
TheprosecutioninRCR2011-063341andtheassociatedarreston8/20/11iswhatstartedallthisoII(by"allthis"Imeanthe46daysinjail,the10
diIIerenttripstojail,theIivetosixdiIIerentevictions,allsummary,thecompetencyevaluations,andalltheassociatedgrievances. Thisarrestand
prosecutionhavelargelybeenbasedonandtheoIIiceandprosecutorhavecitedto,theircontentionthattheinIormationIromECOMMordispatchtold
theRPDOIIicers(andthearrestingOIIicerNickDuraldeismarriedtoadispatcherworkingthatnightandperhapswhosevoiceisontheseIiles,Iinally
giventomeonlytoday,byRenoCityAttorney'sOIIiceCreightonSkau,aIterhesecuredmyattendanceatahearingthatIdonotbelievewasnoticedina
legalsincebysendingmeanemailsayingJudgeSIerrazzaauthorizedserviceoIthenoticeoIthehearingbyemail...whichJudgeSIerrazzadenies(in
IairnesstoMr.Skau...itspossibletheJudgedidsaythat...Mr.Youngcouldmaybeshedsomelightonthat,asapparentlytheirwasasortoIgroupmeeting
withhe,theRenoCityAttorneyandtheWCPDonoraboutNovember8th,2012inrCR2012-063342,thatIwasnotnoticedonand,oIcoursedidnot
attend).
Anyways,DDAYoungandOIIicerDuraldehaveconstantlyharpedonhowdispatchreporteda"possibleIight" andhowthatsomehowjustiIiedthe
rashapproachtakenbyOIIicerDuralde,theoverchargingoI "oooh,that'saIelony"FelonyGrandLarceny(7daysinjail,theevictionnoticeinthe
RichardHillssummaryevictionIrommyIormerhomelawoIIicewasservedduringtheinteriminRJCRev2011-001708)Iorathreeyearoldiphonethat
theallegedowner,CoryGoble,testiIiedwasworthabout$80atthetime....(andtheoverchargingoIaIelonyenabledOIIicerDuraldetoconductasearch
incidenttoarrestIoramisdemeanornotcommittedinhispresence,aIter7pm...whichNevadalawprohibits,particularlywhere,ashere,therewasno
citizen'sarrest(CoughlinhimselIcalled911andthereisavideooIthetimepriortoarrestwhereCoughlinisheardimploringtheskateryouthstostay
peaceIulandwaitIorlawenIorcementtoarrivesoacivilresolutionoIthedisputecouldbegarnered).
IamwritingnowandprovidingthisnewproductionoIECOMM/911dispatchrecordingsthatwouldseemtobetheState'slasthopeoIprovingthatthe
OIIicersweretoldoI,bydispatch,"apossibleIight"andthereinprovidesomeIactualbasisIorthatwhichOIIicerDuraldeandDDAYounghavetestiIied
to,andIiledpleadingsinthatmatterarguingthatreportsoI"apossibleIight"justiIiedthesubsequentterrystopweaponscheckpatdown,andsearch
incidenttoarrest(remember,OIIicerDuraldeannounced20secondsintoarrivingonscenethathewasgoingtoarrestCoughlinanddoasearchoI
Coughlin'spocketspriortoconductinganyoIthepretexutal"investigation"thathelatertestiIiedto...itsjustthatOIIicerDuraldedidnotrealizehewas
beingrecordedwhenhesaidthat....nomatterhowhe"remixed"thingsinhisSupplementaryDeclaration(Iiledwithin48hoursoIarrest)orhisNarrative
(byallindications,theNarrativewasonlyIiledsomethreemonthsaIterthearrestandapparentlyaItertheRPDandCityAttorneysOIIicebecameaware
thatthevideooIthearrestwaspubliclyavailable).
Ihavelistenedcloselytothesedispatchrecordingsandhearnothingabout"apossibleIight". DoesthatmaketheOIIicer'sTestimonyperjuryandDDA
Young'sconductmisconduct? DDAYoung,IhaveaHearinginaIewhourson11/14/12attheSBN'sOIIiceonDoubleR.Blvd. Iaskthatyou
attendandexplainthesemattersasthisarrestispledinBarCounselKingsSCR105Complaint.
Mr.LeslieandMr.Goodnight,IaskthatyouattendandexplainyourIailuretosubpoenathedispatchrecordingsuntilOctober3,2012(despitetheTrial
occuringonMay7th,2012(inviolationoINRS178.405,noless),andagainonJuly16th,2012....and,againonAugust29th,andSeptember5th,
2012....andthenpleaseexplainwhyyouIeignedinabilitytopersonallyservesubpoenasasabasisIorIailingtogetNicoleWatson(easilyIoundandor
servedviaacertiIiedmailingunderNRS174.345,attheaddressesyourinvestigatorreIusedtoturnovertomeuntilNovember2012uponacourtorder
(youguysaresupposedtohelpdeIendtheaccused,nottheCountyorlocallawenIorcementagainsttheirpotentialcivilliabilityIoregodrivenIoolish
arrests)asastudentatMcQueenHighSchoolalongwithLucyByington,bothpercipientwitnesses,andwhereWatsonwascapturedontapeadmittingto
the"manwithasix-pack"holdingthephonealoItandoIIeringitup,andannouncing,veryloudly,thathewoud"throwitintheriver"iIitwasnot
immediatelyclaimed(thereinpresentingyetanotherclaimoIrightdeIenseandIurthervitiatingthelegitimacyoIDDAYoung'sretaliatory,deIiciently
pled,amendingoItheComplaintonDecember5th,2012toincluded"possessingorreceivingstolenpropertyIromanother".
IaskthatininquiryintotheproprietyoIMr.Skau'semailattached(whereintheCityAttorney'sgainedanadvantageandprejudicedmyabilitytodeIend
inbothNG12-0204,etc.(theBarHearing)andthepettylarcenyTrial(inRCR2011-063341). IwillnotethatatleastJoeGoodnightgatheredthethree
911calls.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
PHONE CALL Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-22-52 PM Source_ID = 50.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-22-45 PM Source_ID = 44.wav
TribalPolicenotallowedtoarrestformisdemeanorsFW:CaseNo.RCR2011-063341
Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-23-55 PM Source_ID = 34.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Sunday, August 21, 2011 12-08-40 AM Source_ID = 17.wav
Download all

Sent: Sun11/11/128:40AM
To: homerjreno.gov(homerjreno.gov);complaintsnvbar.org(complaintsnvbar.org);hazlett-stevenscreno.gov(hazlett-stevenscreno.gov);robertspreno.gov(robertspreno.gov);
kadlicjreno.gov(kadlicjreno.gov);IIlahertydlpId.com(IIlahertydlpId.com);patrickknvbar.org(patrickknvbar.org);tsusichnvdetr.org(tsusichnvdetr.org);wongdreno.gov
(wongdreno.gov);ormaasareno.gov(ormaasareno.gov);bonyrreno.gov(bonyrreno.gov);skaucreno.gov(skaucreno.gov);davidcnvbar.org(davidcnvbar.org);
drakejreno.gov(drakejreno.gov);jeeloreno.com(jeeloreno.com);cvellisbhIs.com(cvellisbhIs.com);miketahoelawyer.com(miketahoelawyer.com);nevtelassnsbcglobal.net
(nevtelassnsbcglobal.net);skentskentlaw.com(skentskentlaw.com)
HowexactlyisitthatbothCityAttorneyPamelaRoberts,Esq.andChrisHazlett-Stevens,Esq.didnotviolateRPC3.8orotherwiseprosecuteIorarrests
thatwerenotlawIul
inRMC11CR22176(IndianTribepolicecustodialarrestIormisdemeanor? NotlawIulunderNRS171.1255,andeveniItheywereRPD,whichthey
arenot,itsnotliketheychargeCoughlinwithsomethingotherthanpettylarcenyalaNRS171.136(2)...
Further,canyouprovidemeanindicationoIhowitwaslawIulIorRSICOIIicer'sKameronCrawIordorDonnieBraunworthtoarrestmeon9/9/11(and
Wal-Mart'sThomasFrontinomadeexplicitlyclearinhistestimonyattrialon11/30/11thatneitherhenoranyoIWal-Mart'sstaIIinanywayeIIecteda
custodialarrestoICoughlinonthatdate)IoramisdemeanorgiventheIollowing:
NRS171.1255ArrestbyoIIiceroragentoIBureauoIIndianAIIairsorpoliceoIIiceremployedbyIndiantribe.
spouse.
(AddedtoNRSby1985,452)
WhileOrmaasmadesuretogetjudicialnoticetakenoIjurisdictionin11TR26800,itdoesn'tseemPamelaRoberts,Esq.didintheIndianColonyWal-Martmatter...Whyisthat,Pam? Triballand?
NeverdeterminediICoughlinhadevenanounceoItribalblood? RSICOIIicersnotentitledtomakecustodialarrestsIormisdemeanors,even,apparently,one'scommittedrightintheirpresence?
So,eveniICoughlindidreIusetoprovidehisdriver'slicense(whichhasbeenproventobealie,andperjurysubornedbyPamRobertsastothetestimonyoIWal-Mart'sFrontinoandtheRSIC
OIIicer'sCrawIordandBraunworthviapolicereports,dispatchrecordings(ANDPLEASEBEADIVSED,ASITSWITHINTHE2YEARS,THATTHECITYOFRENO,THESOUTHDISPATCH
CENTERFORECOMMORWASHOECOUNTY,ORWHOEVERITISTHATHANDLESTHERSICDISPATCHCALLS,ITONALITIGATIONHOLDNOTICE. COUGHLINDEMANDS
(ANDTHEDISPATCH/ECOMMSOUTHDISPATCHCENTERWILLGETITSNRS174.345SUBPOENAINTHEMAILFORAMISDEMEANORSOONENOUGH)THATTHECUSTODIAN
OFRECORDSMAINTAINANYANDALLRECORDINGS,LOGS,OROTHERDOCUMENTATIONORMEDIAINANYWAYCONNECTEDTOZACHARYB.COUGHLININANYWAY
WHATSOEVER,ESPECIALLYWITHREGARDTOTHEARRESTOF9/9/11ATTHERSICWAL-MARTINRENONEVADANEARGLENDALEANDW.2NDST.
So,allthesearrestsbytheRSICpoliceoIallegedshopliItersatWal-Mart...SlingBla...er,OIIicerBraunworthtestiIiedthattherewaslotsoIthem(soundslikeWal-MartandtheRSIChavethewhole
"Iindawaytogetasearchincidenttoarrest"thingdownpart,whileavoidinganywrongIularrestliabilityagainstthedeeppockettenantWal-Martbyavoidingany"shopkeeper'sprivilege"type
citizen'sarrests(ortryingtousejustasmuchintimidationandcoercionasFrontinoandthegangcanmuster,whileseekingtoclaimnottohaveeIIectedacitizen'sarrestlaterincourt,givensettingthe
RSICuptohandlethosetypesoIlawsuitsisarguablyabetterlongtermlossmitigationapproachIortheselongtermbusinesspartners,Wal-Martandtheirpartner/landlordtheRSIC.
So,pleaseenlightenme. HowisittheseRSICOIIicersaremakingallthesecustodialarrestsIorsimplemisdemeanors? AndjustwhereintheaudiotranscriptoItheTrial(youmightwanttohave
RMChousetranscriptionistPamLongoniIinallygetaroundtomakingatranscriptandprovidingittoCoughlin,asthehandoutstheRMCitselIprovidesdeIendantsbaringLongoni'sandtheRMC's
"downpayment"/transcripthostagerulesaretantamounttoextortioninviolationoINRS189.030. ThenthereisthebitabouttheRMCandorotherdiscoveringover$700Kwas"missing",andthe
attemptstochalkitupto"dataentry"errors. Pleasegetthattranscripttomerightaway,andtranscriptsoIeveryotherhearingIhaveeverhadintheRMC,includingtheoneonoraroundFebruary
2nd,2012orsowhereRMCcourtappointeddeIenderRobertoPuentessuccessIullyarguedIoranOrderGrantingHisWithdrawal(IiveWithdrawalsbycourtappointedcounseloICoughlin,Iourviaan
OrderGrantingadulyIiledMotion(thoughtheseguy'sMotionswouldn'tpassmy7thgradeEnglishClass'sbi-weeklywritingassignmentinmydaysatSwopeMiddleSchool)andHon.W.Gardner
startstodivulge,onlyaIterCoughlin'sprompting,bitbybitsomeoIthepatentconIlictsthatshouldhavepreventedhimIromeverrulingonasinglemotioninthatcase11CR26405. Withsuchlack
oIvigorIromtheRMC'scourtappointeddeIensecounsel,couldaclassactionlawsuitagainsthem,theRMC,andortheCityoIRenobeapossibilitysomeday? Certainlyisanicelilsidegig$7Ka
monththoseguysget...andalltheseprosecutionsandtripstojailthisyearcertainlyhaveaIIordedanopportunitytoseethe"operation"upclose.
Also,youknow,astolotsoIthesearrests,likesaytheJuly3rd,2012arrestbyRPDOIIicerAlanWeaverandnowSargentBrianDyein12CR12420(whereintwoRMCcourtappointedcounselhave
alreadysoughtandobtainedOrdersGrantingTheirWithdrawal,one,byKeithLoomis,onebyHenrySotelo,thelatterinviolationoIthestayinNRS178.405)thelegitimacyoIeIIectingacustodial
arrestiscompletelysuspectconsidering:
ARREST:BYWHOMANDHOWMADE
NRS171.124ArrestbypeaceoIIiceroroIIiceroIDrugEnIorcementAdministration.
1.Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinsubsection3andNRS 33.070and33.320,apeaceoIIiceroranoIIiceroItheDrugEnIorcementAdministrationdesignatedbytheAttorneyGeneraloItheUnited
StatesIorthatpurposemaymakeanarrestinobediencetoawarrantdeliveredtohimorher,ormay,withoutawarrant,arrestaperson:
(a)Forapublicoffense committedorattemptedintheofficerspresence.
(b)WhenapersonarrestedhascommittedaIelonyorgrossmisdemeanor,althoughnotintheoIIicerspresence.
(c)WhenaIelonyorgrossmisdemeanorhasinIactbeencommitted,andtheoIIicerhasreasonablecauseIorbelievingthepersonarrestedtohavecommittedit.
(e)WhenawarranthasinIactbeenissuedinthisStateIorthearrestoIanamedordescribedpersonIorapublicoIIense,andtheoIIicerhasreasonablecausetobelievethatthepersonarrestedisthe
personsonamedordescribed.
2.ApeaceoIIiceroranoIIiceroItheDrugEnIorcementAdministrationdesignatedbytheAttorneyGeneraloItheUnitedStatesIorthatpurposemayalso,atnight,withoutawarrant,arrestanyperson
whomtheoIIicerhasreasonablecauseIorbelievingtohavecommittedaIelonyorgrossmisdemeanor,andisjustiIiedinmakingthearrest,thoughitaIterwardappearsthataIelonyorgross
misdemeanorhasnotbeencommitted.

SobacktotheWal-MartRSICarrest...thechargesheetdoesn'tsayCoughlinwasarrestedIoranythingotherthanpettylarceny....but:
(2)Themisdemeanorisdiscoveredbecausetherewasprobablecauseforthearrestingofficertostop,detainorarrestthepersonforanotherallegedviolationoroffense;
(d)Whentheoffenseiscommittedinthepresenceofaprivatepersonandthepersonmakesanarrestimmediatelyaftertheoffenseiscommitted;
(e)WhentheoIIensechargedisbatterythatconstitutesdomesticviolencepursuanttoNRS 33.018andthearrestismadeinthemannerprovidedinNRS 171.137;
(I)WhentheoIIensechargedisaviolationoIatemporaryorextendedorderIorprotectionagainstdomesticviolenceissuedpursuanttoNRS 33.017to33.100,inclusive;
So,onexactlywhatbasiswastheJuly3rd,2012arrestmadebytheRPD? ThepolicereportsaysthearrestwasmadeIor"disturbingthepeace",yettheonlyallegationoIanythingremotelyinthe
"oIIicer'spresence"relatestotheminortraIIiccitationtheCityoIRenoisclingingtoinattemptstomitigatetheSec.1983damageshere. However,theRPDadmitsatleastonevehiclewasbetween
their'sandCoughlin'sandSooudietal(besidesmakinganincomprehensiblystupiddecisiontobrieIlyIileanamendedcomplaintIortrespassingwhereeventheRPDwassmartenoughtorealizethat
wasapoorchoicegivenCoughlinstillhadleaseatNorthwind,andthusapatclaimoIrightdeIensetoanytrespassallegationabsentsomethinglikethemanuIacturedprotectionorderthatRPDOIIicer
WeavercoercedMilanKrebsintoobtaining,justlikeWeaverattemptedtogetSuperiorStorage'sMattGranttodo,shortlyaIterWeaver,inIullviewoIWelch,SargentMiller,andotherRPDOIIicer's,
onSeptember21st,2012,threatenedtocomeupwithyetanotherIraudulent"Iailuretosecurealoadonone'svehicle"arrestoICoughlin). So,eventhoughWeaverandDyearestuckwiththeir
statementsinthewrittenreports,whereintheyallegetohavearrestCoughlinIor"disturbingthepeace"onlytothentackon"citations"IorthetwotraIIicoIIenses(andthe"prooIoIinsurance"citation,
evenaIterOIIicerWeaveradmitstobeingprovidedahighdeIinitionpdIpictureona5inchsmartphonescreenwithapolicynumber,etc.,onlytobeampliIiedbytheJuly5th,2012bailhearingracket
tearing(atennisreIerenceIorJillDrake,Esq.,...Iorshame,reallyJill,really,reallyunimpressed).
Please remit a certified check for $450,000 in satisfaction of these torts committed upon Coughlin, under color of law.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
To: homerj@reno.gov; complaints@nvbar.org; hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; fflaherty@dlpfd.com; patrickk@nvbar.org; tsusich@nvdetr.org
Subject: RE: Case No. RCR2011-063341
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 20:36:27 -0800
couldn't open them, and I don't accept service of anything form you... See Allison Ormaas comments on 3/12/12 in 11 tr 26800 with respect to your
offices violation of the RMC Rules to the extent there is not difference technologically anymore between an email and a fax:
C. Except by prior court approval, a motion/pleading by facsimile shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages in length, including the cover sheet and exhibits. A document shall not be split into multiple transmissions to avoid the page limitation.
G. All facsimile motions/pleadings filed by an attorney must include the attorney's name, the firms name, address, fax number and telephone number. In addition, the attorneys state bar number must be conspicuously displayed on
the cover sheet.
H. All motions /pleadings filed by facsimile must be accompanied by proof of service. Service may be accomplished by facsimile when the receiving party is a governmental agency, an attorney, or with the consent of the receiving
party. If service of the motion/pleading is accomplished by facsimile the 3-day allowance for mailing shall not be computed into the time for response.
J. Any motion /pleading received by the court after 4:30 p.m. or on a non-court day shall be filed on the following court day.
No continuance shall be granted, including a stipulated continuance, except for good cause. A motion or stipulation for continuance must state the reason therefore and whether or not any continuance has previously been sought or granted.
Further, Please consider Pamela Roberts attempts to mislead the Court and opposing counsel where (despite Rich HIll getting a continuance agree to by then court appointed defense counsel Lew Taitel, whose business partners Coughlin was
suing in CV11-03015 and or CV11-03126, Taitel agreed to a continuance, in violation of Coughlin's speedy trial right, where Hill needed to go on a six week vacation in 11 cr 26405) Roberts at first agreed, in writing, to a continuance in response
to Coughlin's request for one in 11 CR 22176, but then retaliated against Coughlin's pointing out her RPC 3.8 violations on the day of Trial, 11/30/12 by refusing the stipulate to a continuance an blaming it on the Court.
Pursuant to RMCR Rule 5(H), the City Attorney's Office does not have my consent to service via any means other than the traditional snail mail, usps, or personal service. And I am not currently
included amongst those who are "attorneys", so you are stuck with that. Your office on the other hand, fits within both the 'governmental agency" and "attorney exceptions"...someone needs to
tell Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, Esq. that becuase he has lied numerous times, on the record about not being served where he has been. Take, for instance

Hazlett-Steven's lies, in part, helped secure a dismissal of my appeal in cr12-1262 (the appeal of the Richard G. Hill eviction trespass case). Also, you will want to query the RMC's D2 and Lisa Gardner as to why Coughlin has a confirmation
of delivery of his timely under NRS 189.010 Notice of Appeal in 11 cr 26405, yet D2 failed to file it, and the appeal in cr12-1262 was dismissed in light of the combination of both asserting, in one way or another, that the Notice of Appeal was not
received in a timely manner. The delivery confirmations say otherwise.
Please remit $250,000 in the form of a certified check to the address below within 10 days in settlement of these torts. SBN, please provide to me the grievance number associate with this new grievance that is created upon the successful
transmission of this email.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
utbound fax report
Inbox x
Jun 27
Hi zachcoughlin,
xoxo,
The Voxox Team
This message was intended for renoattorney@gmail.com. Want to control which emails you receive from Voxox?
Get Voxox: http://download.voxox.com and adjust your Notifications in the Settings/Preferences window. Voxox
by TelCentris, Inc. is located at 10180 Telesis Ct., San Diego, CA 92109.
Jun 27
Hi zachcoughlin,
Jun 28
Hi zachcoughlin,
Jun 28
Hi zachcoughlin,
Voxox noreply@voxox.com
to me
to me
to me
to me
SUBPOENAANDSUBPOENADUCESTECUMATTACHED
Jun 28
Hi zachcoughlin,
to me
Sent: Fri11/09/122:41AM
To: renodirectreno.gov(renodirectreno.gov)
10attachments
SAM0201.3gp.001(4.0MB),subpoenarpdrosa063341911dispatch.pdI(575.2KB),rpdalaksa063341rpd26405.pdI(588.1KB),rcr2011-063341subpoenascottweesereno
emergencycommunications911dispatch.pdI(590.8KB),063341subpoenarenoemergencycommunicationsdispatch911264051708.pdI(626.7KB),subpoenarenopolicedepartment
rpdcustodianoIrecords063341.pdI(611.2KB),subpoenacityoIrenoemergencydispatchservicesrenoemergencycommunicationsrcr2011-063341.pdI(588.4KB),subpoenasavannah
montgomeryrenoemergencycommunicationsdispatch911063341.pdI(601.6KB),063341subpoenatoemergencyrenoemergencycommunicationsdispatch9112680026405.pdI(5.8
MB),Iaxemaillettertormcadministratorcassandrajacksonsubpoenaa2680026405063341.pdI(51.8KB)
ZachCoughlin,Esq.(lawlicenseinNevadatemporarilysuspended)
1471E.9thSt.
Reno,NV89512
TelandFax:949.667.7402
October26th,2012,
TO:
RenoDirect,RMCadministratorCassandraJackson,CityAttorneyHazlett,JudicialAssistantLisaWagner
RenoMunicipalCourt
775-326-6612oIIice
775-334-2399dutyphone
sendviaUSMail,FaxandEmail
DearRenoDirect/AdministratoroIRenoMunicipalCourtCassandraJackson

OnOctober22nd,2012inRCR2012-063341JudgeSIerrazzarenderedanOrderallowingmetoservesubpoenasandsubpoenaducestecumswithoutIirstpayingthestatutory
Iees. ItisunclearwhetherIwillultimatelyberesponsibleIorthem,buttheJudgewasclearthatIcouldservedthemwithoutmakingthepayments(anIFP,Isuppose).

PleaseIindthosesubpoenaandsubpoenaducestecumsattached. TheTrialissettoresumeNovember19th,2012,sotimeisoItheessenceandIappreciateyouroIIices
cooperationinthisregard. PleasenotethatoImaterialrelevanceiswhattheRPDwastoldbythedispatchers/emergencyservicespersonnel. Additionally,uponinIormation
andbelieI,notalloIthe911callshavebeenpropounded,despiteprevioussubpoenaandorrequestsbymyIormerpublicdeIender,Mr.Goodnight.

InthevideosItookoIthearrestandthemomentspriorthereto,itappearsthataTannerChanismakingwhatIbelievetobea911call,andIbelieveothersdidthatnightaswell,
August20th,2011betweenapproximately11:18pmandmidnightinrelationtothepurportedlarcenyoIacellphoneattheskateplazainIrontoICityHallindowntowanReno,
10N.CenterSt.,RenoNV.

Additionally,noneoIthedispatchrecordingshavebeenpropoundedandIamrequestingthatyoudosonow. Iamrequesting,butnotlimitingmyrequestto,allrecordingsand
ordocumentationrelatedtowhatanyoItheoIIicer'sinvolvedinmyarrestinRCR2011-063341communicatedorhadcommunicatedtothemconcerningthearrestandevents
leadingthereto,andthoseeventsoccurringaIterwards,onAugust20th,2011.

Also,IwouldlikeallrecordingsanddocumentationrelatedtomyarrestonNovember13th,2011inrelationtoRMCcase11CR26405,acriminaltrespassarrestinvolvingRPD
OIIicerChrisCarterJr.andSargentMarciaLopez. Further,Iwouldlikeanyandallrecordingsordocumentationrelatedtomeinanywaywhatsoever. IwouldpreIerthat
theybetransmittedtomedigitally,viaemail,dropbox,skydriveorsomeotherdigitallyveriIiablemeansastothedateandcontentoIthetransmission.

Pleasebesuretoincludeallmaterialsrelatedtomyarrestsinrcr2012-065620(january14th,2012),rmc12CR00696(January12th,2012custodialarrestIorpettylarcenyat
approximately3pmat121RiverRockSt.,Reno89501),June28th,2012arrestat1680SkyMountainDrivebyWCSO,July3rd,2012arrestatapproximately11ambyRPDin
RMC12CR12420,September9th,2011arrestatapproximately10pminRMC11CR22176,traIIiccitationonNovember15th,2011bySargentTarteretallnearSt.Laurence
andForrestin11TR26800(11TR26800:CasenumberWC12-1805andreIerredtounderControl#C-47951).

AndanyotherincidentsinvolvingZacharyBarkerCoughlin(mightbemispelledCuoghlin)dob9/27/1976(dobmightbelistedincorrectlyissomeplaces).

Sincerely,

ZachCoughlin

http://www.nvbar.org/lawyer-detail/11245

pleaseIindverIicationthatthisismyemailaddressabove
ZachCoughlin
1471E.9thSt.
Reno,NV89512
RE:CaseNo.RCR2011-063341
TelandFax9496677402
Sent: Thu11/08/128:36PM
To: HomerJreno.gov(homerjreno.gov);complaintsnvbar.org(complaintsnvbar.org);hazlett-stevenscreno.gov(hazlett-stevenscreno.gov);robertspreno.gov(robertspreno.gov);
kadlicjreno.gov(kadlicjreno.gov);IIlahertydlpId.com(IIlahertydlpId.com);patrickknvbar.org(patrickknvbar.org);tsusichnvdetr.org(tsusichnvdetr.org)
couldn't open them, and I don't accept service of anything form you... See Allison Ormaas comments on 3/12/12 in 11 tr 26800 with respect to your
offices violation of the RMC Rules to the extent there is not difference technologically anymore between an email and a fax:
C. Except by prior court approval, a motion/pleading by facsimile shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages in length, including the cover sheet and exhibits. A document shall not be split into multiple transmissions to avoid the page limitation.
G. All facsimile motions/pleadings filed by an attorney must include the attorney's name, the firms name, address, fax number and telephone number. In addition, the attorneys state bar number must be conspicuously displayed on
the cover sheet.
H. All motions /pleadings filed by facsimile must be accompanied by proof of service. Service may be accomplished by facsimile when the receiving party is a governmental agency, an attorney, or with the consent of the receiving
party. If service of the motion/pleading is accomplished by facsimile the 3-day allowance for mailing shall not be computed into the time for response.
J. Any motion /pleading received by the court after 4:30 p.m. or on a non-court day shall be filed on the following court day.
No continuance shall be granted, including a stipulated continuance, except for good cause. A motion or stipulation for continuance must state the reason therefore and whether or not any continuance has previously been sought or granted.
Further, Please consider Pamela Roberts attempts to mislead the Court and opposing counsel where (despite Rich HIll getting a continuance agree to by then court appointed defense counsel Lew Taitel, whose business partners Coughlin was
suing in CV11-03015 and or CV11-03126, Taitel agreed to a continuance, in violation of Coughlin's speedy trial right, where Hill needed to go on a six week vacation in 11 cr 26405) Roberts at first agreed, in writing, to a continuance in response
to Coughlin's request for one in 11 CR 22176, but then retaliated against Coughlin's pointing out her RPC 3.8 violations on the day of Trial, 11/30/12 by refusing the stipulate to a continuance an blaming it on the Court.
Pursuant to RMCR Rule 5(H), the City Attorney's Office does not have my consent to service via any means other than the traditional snail mail, usps, or personal service. And I am not currently
included amongst those who are "attorneys", so you are stuck with that. Your office on the other hand, fits within both the 'governmental agency" and "attorney exceptions"...someone needs to
tell Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, Esq. that becuase he has lied numerous times, on the record about not being served where he has been. Take, for instance

Hazlett-Steven's lies, in part, helped secure a dismissal of my appeal in cr12-1262 (the appeal of the Richard G. Hill eviction trespass case). Also, you will want to query the RMC's D2 and Lisa Gardner as to why Coughlin has a confirmation
of delivery of his timely under NRS 189.010 Notice of Appeal in 11 cr 26405, yet D2 failed to file it, and the appeal in cr12-1262 was dismissed in light of the combination of both asserting, in one way or another, that the Notice of Appeal was not
received in a timely manner. The delivery confirmations say otherwise.
Please remit $250,000 in the form of a certified check to the address below within 10 days in settlement of these torts. SBN, please provide to me the grievance number associate with this new grievance that is created upon the successful
transmission of this email.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
utbound fax report
Inbox x
Jun 27
Hi zachcoughlin,
xoxo,
The Voxox Team
This message was intended for renoattorney@gmail.com. Want to control which emails you receive from Voxox?
Get Voxox: http://download.voxox.com and adjust your Notifications in the Settings/Preferences window. Voxox
by TelCentris, Inc. is located at 10180 Telesis Ct., San Diego, CA 92109.
Jun 27
Hi zachcoughlin,
Jun 28
Hi zachcoughlin,
Jun 28
Hi zachcoughlin,
Jun 28
to me
to me
to me
to me
RE:ATTNReneeBrownRenoPostmasterreFW:complaintbyRenoNevadaAttorneyagainstpostalsupervisorsatGolden
ValleyStation
Hi zachcoughlin,
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:48:18 -0800
From: HomerJ@reno.gov
Subject: Case No. RCR2011-063341
Thank you.
Jeannie Homer
Legal Secretary
1 East First Street, 3rd Floor
Reno, Nevada 89505
(775)334-2050
(775)334-2420/fax
homerj@reno.gov
This e-mail message transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it are confidential, and are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not the
intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of any of the information contained in, or
attached to this e-mail transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by forwarding this e-mail to the sender or by telephone at (775) 334-2050 and
then delete the message and its attachments.
to me
Sent: Thu11/08/1211:45AM
To: Brown,ReneeM-Reno,NV(renee.m.brownusps.gov)
Cc: SLHoIheinsuspis.gov(slhoIheinsuspis.gov);WPHeisteruspis.gov(wpheisteruspis.gov);melinda.a.varszegiusps.gov(melinda.a.varszegiusps.gov);marybarkbarkyahoo.com
(marybarkbarkyahoo.com)
Dear Ms. Brown,
Iamwritingtoseekyourassistance,please. WehadsomeissuesinMarch-AprilishoI2012...andIhavesomesomewhatsimilarissuesnow...Iaman
attorney(well,asuspendedattorney...butIstillhavealicensewiththeUSPTO,butmyNevadalicensewastemporarilysuspendedon6/7/12....Ihave
movedalotthisyearandonlyhaveonemailingaddressIoreitherbusinessorpersonal....pleaseseemyemailbelowtomymother,MaryBarker,
respectingtheconIusionattendanttoherpayingIormypoboxIorsixmonthsorsostartinginapril. BeIorethatIhadtheproblemswiththeGold
VallenorNorthHillsStation(Passot,TerriJamesBuckHyde,etc)notlettingmegetakeytomymailbox,despitNRS118a.160andIwouldlikeany
documentationorrepresentationsmadetotheUSPSbyNvEnergyorParkTerraceTownHomesHOA,SueKing,WesternNevadaManagementorGayle
Kern,Esq.regardingmyrightsat1422E.9thSt.#2...asibelievetheirmisrepresentationstotheUSPSmayhavedamagedmegreatlyincausing
diIIicultiesingettingmymail...butmyexigentconcerntodayisIiguringoutwhatIneedtodotomakesureIamgettingmymailIorwardIromthe
Iollowingpreviousaddress:
POBox60952,RenoNV89506(thisisaboxthatbelongstoeitherorbothPamorPeterEastman,ormaybeevenInsureSmart....Iwasallowedtoutilize
thisboxduringaverytryingtime,incidenttothe1422E.9thSt.#2disputes...however,notallmailwasIorwardedtomeIromthisboxuponmyIilinga
changeoIaddressonoraround4/16/12tohavemailsenttotheboxmymomgotme,inhername,pobox3961,reno89505(atthedowntownvassar
station). Iorinstance,anapplicationIorsomegovernmentalbeneIitwasnotIorwardedIromthatbox,andIamtoldthatitmightbethecasethe
governmentalmailingsarenotIorwardorsomeotherproblem
in NOvember through December 2011 i rented a studio at 817 N. Virginia St. Reno 89503 (though I see different zip codes assigned to that
address). that is the silver dollar motor lodge.. i tried filing change of address for that weekly rental business (that allows renting
monthly for extended periods) and was told I couldn't because it is a business or something like that...
1422 E. 9th St. #2., reno 89512 is an old address for me, as is, by now, the PO Box 3961 my mom got me, but which is in her name (see
email below and my concerns respecting whether i need worry about filing changes of address for myself as a person and as a business (ie,
an attorney).
I would appreciate some help with this, it would make up some for the problems and treatment in january through may 2012 with hyde,
passot, james, et al...
Please address for all purposes as of today and going forward should be:
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
m: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 11/08/12 11:30 AM
To: marybarkbark@yahoo.com (marybarkbark@yahoo.com); mary@vsanevada.org (mary@vsanevada.org)
HiMom,
HopetheRAisokaytodaywiththeweathergettingcolder. Ithink itissoneatthat,ironicallyitwasOhiothatsealedtheDealIorPresident
Obama....
VERYIMPORTANT
Mom,becauethepobox3961isinyourname...andiconIirmedthiswiththevassarstation...youneedtoIileachangeoIaddressatIollowinglinkorina
station:
https://moversguide.usps.com/icoa/icoa-main-flow.do?execution=e1s1
this has some really BIG implications and consequences for me regarding notice, service, due process, my mail, etc....so please do this TODAY if you can, PLEASE and copy me on all the confirmation emails from the
USPS (it costs $1 to do it online...but I prefer that method...
Please try to change the address in my name from the box in your name (this could get really complicated and difiicult, unfortunately, as became apparent with the old PO Box 60952, Reno 89506....
Also, it might be necessary to do a change both for me personally "Zach Coughlin" and one for me as a business, ie and attorney (regardless of the suspension)....i still get mail at the po box 3961 at vassar
sometimes...though much mail seems to have been forward pursuant to my handing a change of address to the vassar station on or around 10/5/12...
One more thing....really would BE HUGE...could you buy me a book off amazon? I don't even have a debit card right now and it will take 10 days at least and $5 to get one....and the book is only like $8, and that
includes mailing..i need it asap:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-
keywords=%22west's+analysis+of+american+law%22&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3A%22west's+analysis+of+american+law%22
its called "West's Analysis of American Law" and any version from any year will do, the cheapest one is fine. Actually i would love to have two different versions, but one would do....PLEASE! thanks so much
love you
Love You,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
From: renee.m.brown@usps.gov
CC: SLHofheins@uspis.gov; WPHeister@uspis.gov; melinda.a.varszegi@usps.gov
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:26:10 -0500
Subject: FW: ATTN Renee Brown Reno Postmaster reFW: complaint by Reno Nevada Attorney against postal supervisors at Golden Valley Station
Dear Mr. Coughlin,

Thank you for your patience.
I have contacted our representatives in the Law Department in Salt Lake city. Your concerns are under review and are being further investigated.
Melinda Varszeqi has been assigned to your case and has been assigned as your point of contact. Ms. Varszeqi can be reached at the email address above; and by phone at (801)
984-8400.

Respectfully,

Renee Brown
Postmaster Reno NV
Nevada Sierra District
Office (775) 788-0634
Cell (775) 240-0296 (Not for Public)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This communication is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication may be strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone (775- 788- 0626) and return the communication to me
at 2000 Vassar Street, Reno, NV 89510- 9998. Thank you

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:44 PM
To: Brown, Renee M - Reno, NV; rmbrown@uspis.gov
Subject: ATTN Renee Brown Reno Postmaster reFW: complaint by Reno Nevada Attorney against postal supervisors at Golden Valley Station
Dear Reno Postal Inspector Renee Brown,
I respectfully submit this to you as an attorney whose law license is now in jeopardy, in large part to the malfeasance and retaliation of the Golden Valley Station supervisors Terri James, Buck Hyde
and "Ms. Passot".
I would appreciate a written response and something I can show to the State Bar of Nevada and my clients indicating my lack of culpability.
To: renee.brown@usps.gov
Subject: ATTN Renee Brown Reno Postmaster reFW: complaint by Reno Nevada Attorney against postal supervisors at Golden Valley Station
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:24:58 -0700
DearInspectorHoIheinsandInspectorHeister,
PleaseIorwardonallcorrespondencesyouhavereceivedIrommetoRenoPostmasterReneeBrown andpleasealsoemailmebackwithMs.Brown's
emailaddressandIaxnumber. Ihaveherphonenumber,orrathertheoneIhaveleItmessagesIorherat,whichisactuallyanumberIorherassistant,
CharlenaBalz. IwastoldbythesupervisorsattheGoldenValleyStation,hereinReno,NVthatwhilemychangeoIaddressIromthe1422E.9thSt.
#2addresswasprocessing(tomythenPOBOX60952)thatmymailwouldbeheldattheGoldenValleyStationandIcouldpickitupthere. However,
whenIwenttopickitup,IwasassaultedbysupervisorBuckHyde. Additionally,itseemssomeonehastakencaretopickoutmostalloIthemailIrom
courtsthatwasaddressedtomeandreturnittothecourts,ratherthanIorwarditontome,aswasdonewithotherlessimportantlookingmail. This
misleadinganddishonestapproachbytheGoldenValleyStationUSPSsupervisorsBuckHyde,TerriJames,and"Ms.Passot"(Ms.JamesreIusedtotell
meMs.Passot'sIirstname)hasrealdireconsequencesIormeandmylawpractice,IorwhichImaywellhavetoproceedwithaFederalTortsClaimAct
againstyourorganization. Iconsidertheiractionscriminal,volitional,andintentional,andthereIore,thisdoescomewithinyourjurisdiction.
PleaseconIirmthatyouareIorwardthisandallothercorrespondencesIrommetoReneeBrown.
FURTHER,PLEASENOTE,IHAVEANEWPOBOX,ITISLISTEDIMMEDIATELYBELOW:
From: SLHofheins@uspis.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com; steven.l.hofheins@usps.gov
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:25:44 -0500
Subject: RE: complaint by Reno Nevada Attorney against postal supervisors at Golden Valley Station
We cover all of Nevada with the exception of Clark County. We are out of the office quite a bit. However, I have returned calls to you and your phone number seem's to be
disconnected. This is not an Inspector issue. We are criminal investigators and have nothing to do with the day to day operations of the Postal Service. Since you have opened a
P.O. Box, let your clients know your correct mailing address there will be no delay in delivery. If you do not let your clients know your correct mailing address, your mail will be
delayed through the forwarding system. I believe the Sierra Station is a 24 hour facility so you can get your PO Box mail anytime. Window services close at 5:00 pm and
the employee's there need to close and prepare for the next business day.

Steve Hofheins
US Postal Inspector
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 10:19 PM
To: Hofheins, Stephen L; steven.l.hofheins@usps.gov
Subject: complaint by Reno Nevada Attorney against postal supervisors at Golden Valley Station

To: warren.p.heister@usps.gov
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:00:53 -0700
DearUSPS PostalInspectorsHoIheinsandHeister,
IhaveneveroncehadeitheroIyoupickupthephonewhenIcall. Thisisanemergency,tome. MyclientsandmyselIarebeingdamageddailyby
theuspswithholdingmymail. IsubmittedachangeoIaddressonlineoveroneweekago. SupervisorsattheGoldenValleystation,(inadditionto
muchmisconductandretaliation)toldmetheywouldholdmemailIortheweekorsoitindicatedatwww.usps.govthatitwouldtaketoprocessmy
changeoIaddress(givensomecomplicationwithupdatingmyaddresslinkedtomydebitcardIromtheaddressIwaschangingIrom:1422 E.9thSt.to
thePOBoxI amchangingitto: Ioundatthebottom oIthisemail(andhere:ZachCoughlin,Esq.,PO BOX 60952, RENO, NV, 89506,,Iax:9496677402;
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com NevadaBarNo:9473)oIaddresswouldtaketogointoaIIectandthatIcouldpickitupthereinthemeantime(Iamapracticingattorney,I
can'twait7-10daystogetmymail,thiswasexplained). Iwanttogetmymail,TODAY,RIGHTNOW. Youcancontactmeviaemail,Donot
contactmeviatelephone,Iwanta RESPONSEINWRITING. IdonotwantBuckHydetoplacehishandsonmeorpushmephysicallyagain,norto
ASSAULTmeagain. ThatmanissoIarIromaproIessionalitisbreathtaking,period. HereishowIbelieveitmaywork. Hyde,Passot,andTerri
Jamesviolatemyrights,interIerewithmymail,retaliate. ThatcausesmyselIandmyclientsdamage. WesueyouIorthosedamages. FederalTorts
ClaimsAct. Also,pleaseacceptthisasanoIIicialwrittencomplaint. IwishIorthecomplaintprocesstostartnow,butIreservetherighttoupdateor
supplementmycomplaintatalatertime.
PleaseIorwardthisontotheappropriateauthoritiesandorinspectors. TheactsandeventsreIerredtorelatedtoboththeDowntownRenopostoIIice
andespeciallytheGoldenValleyStationpostoIIice,thatwasassignedtomyrecentaddressoI1422E.9thSt.#2,Reno89512. Ihavebeengreatly
inconvenienceanddamageandamseekingrelieIinbothlawandequity.
IamwritingaboutapossibleviolationoItheFederalTortClaimsActorotherapplicablelaws. IwishtocomplainabouttheconductoI"Ms.Passot",
TerriJames,andBuckHyde,alloIwhichhaveretaliatedagainstmeandotherwisedeniedmemymailandbehavedinanextremelyunproIessional
manner. IamanattorneyinNevadaanditisoItheutmostimportancethatIgetmymail. Mr.Hydehasrecentlyputhishandsonmeandotherwise
assaultedmeandbothhe,Mrs.James,andMs.PassothavethreatenedtheabuseoIprocess,allseeminglytosavetheirstationa$40keychargeorto
otherwiseletmeknowwhatabigdealitisthattheyare"Feds".
PleaseplaceacopyoIthisComplaintintheiremploymentorpersonnelIilesandIwillprovideIurthersupplementarydocumentationinsupportoIthis
Complaintsoon. Inthemeantime. PleasetellGoldenValleyStationandMr.Hydetoceaseattackingmeandotherwiseabusingprocessandtoallow
metoretrievemymailatonce. Mr.HydeandanotheroldergentlemanindicatemymailwouldbeheldIoranotherweek,aboutoneweekago,aIter
muchdispute,yetwhenIshoweduptoretrievemymailMr.HydebehavedinanembarassingmannerandIhavenotbeenallowedtogetmymailwhile
themostrecentchangeoIaddresstoaPOBoxgoesthrough. TheyhavealladmittedtoretaliatingagainstmeundercoloroIlaw.
Zach Coughlin, Esq., PO BOX 60952, RENO, NV, 89506,tel:7753388118,Iax:9496677402;ZachCoughlinhotmail.com NevadaBarNo:9473
To: kenneth.a.snavely@usps.gov; penny.a.woodworth@usps.gov; ted.w.snyder@usps.gov
Subject: FW: complaint by Reno Nevada Attorney against postal supervisors at Golden Valley Station
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:58:31 -0700
Please note my new address. Please contact me only in writing.


To: kenneth.a.snavely@usps.gov; penny.a.woodworth@usps.gov; ted.w.snyder@usps.gov
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:22:41 -0700
DearUSPS PostalInspectors,
RE:RCR12-065630
PleaseIorwardthisontotheappropriateauthoritiesandorinspectors. TheactsandeventsreIerredtorelatedtoboththeDowntownRenopostoIIice
andespeciallytheGoldenValleyStationpostoIIice,thatwasassignedtomyrecentaddressoI1422E.9thSt.#2,Reno89512. Ihavebeengreatly
inconvenienceanddamageandamseekingrelieIinbothlawandequity.
IamwritingaboutapossibleviolationoItheFederalTortClaimsActorotherapplicablelaws. IwishtocomplainabouttheconductoI"Ms.Passot",
TerriJames,andBuckHyde,alloIwhichhaveretaliatedagainstmeandotherwisedeniedmemymailandbehavedinanextremelyunproIessional
manner. IamanattorneyinNevadaanditisoItheutmostimportancethatIgetmymail. Mr.Hydehasrecentlyputhishandsonmeandotherwise
assaultedmeandbothhe,Mrs.James,andMs.PassothavethreatenedtheabuseoIprocess,allseeminglytosavetheirstationa$40keychargeorto
otherwiseletmeknowwhatabigdealitisthattheyare"Feds".
PleaseplaceacopyoIthisComplaintintheiremploymentorpersonnelIilesandIwillprovideIurthersupplementarydocumentationinsupportoIthis
Complaintsoon. Inthemeantime. PleasetellGoldenValleyStationandMr.Hydetoceaseattackingmeandotherwiseabusingprocessandtoallow
metoretrievemymailatonce. Mr.HydeandanotheroldergentlemanindicatemymailwouldbeheldIoranotherweek,aboutoneweekago,aIter
muchdispute,yetwhenIshoweduptoretrievemymailMr.HydebehavedinanembarassingmannerandIhavenotbeenallowedtogetmymailwhile
themostrecentchangeoIaddresstoaPOBoxgoesthrough. TheyhavealladmittedtoretaliatingagainstmeundercoloroIlaw.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.,1422E.9thSt.#2,RENO,NV89512,tel:7753388118,Iax:9496677402;ZachCoughlinhotmail.com NevadaBarNo:9473
Sent: Thu11/08/125:02AM
To: Dogan,Biray(bdoganwashoecounty.us);ltibbalswashoecounty.us(ltibbalswashoecounty.us);kbeechlerreno.gov(kbeechlerreno.gov);odomkreno.gov(odomkreno.gov);
bonyrreno.gov(bonyrreno.gov);christensendreno.gov(christensendreno.gov)
DearMr.Dogan,
IunderstanditismyinviolablerightasacriminaldeIendanttosubpoenawitnesses. PleasesubpoenaRPDSargentZachThewandinteviewhim
regardinganyclaimoIrightdeIenseCoughlinmayhaverespectinganyallegedissuancebyThewtoCoughlinoIaninvitationtoCallhimatacertain
RPDnumberandor911inconnectionwithvariousdiscussionThewandCouglinhadpriortothe1/14/12arrest. Pleasealso(inconjunctionwiththe
investigatoronthiscase,andIhaveyettobeinIormedoIwhomthatis...andMr.Novak,IappreciatetheworkandnotationsyoumadetotheIilethatI
haveonlyjustbeenmadeprivytobyMr.Leslie...IsubmityouaredoneadisservicewherethereisnotmoretransparencygiventotheresultsoIyour
worktoyourcriminalindigentdeIendants,asthecircumstancesdictatetheyassumetheworstwhensupportingdocumentationtocursorycontentionsis
notshow.
So,whomistheinvestigatorhere,andwillyoupleaseprovidemethedocumentationdetailingtheresultsoItheinvestgiationundertaken? IIno,please
indicatesoinwritinganddetailthebasisIorsuchareIusal.
Mr.DoganandorMr.Leslie,pleasealsosubpoenaSargentPaulSiIreandOIIicerSchaur. PleasepropoundtoDDAYoungthevideosIamattaching
onceagain,onoIthemomentsjustpriortoarrestwithSiIre,whereSargentSiIreviolatesIundamentaltenantsoIdomesticviolencevictimadvocacy
whereinheengagesin"blamethevictim"behavior(CoughlinwasadjudgeavictimoIdomesticviolenceonorabout1/23/12byMasterEdmonson,in
twoseparatecasesFV12-00188and187..
Further,viewthe"SargentLopezIhaveaquestionIoryouvideoandattachedMotionIorNewTrialIilinginthecriminaltrespassconvictionmatter(see
also,61901ontheN.S.Ct.site)11cr26405,wherein,on1/13/12,onedaypriortothearrestinthecaseyouareattorneyoIrecordonrcr2012-065630,
on1/14/12)RPDSargentMarciaLopesiscaughtontapingadmittingtoIraudonherpart,thatoIOIIicerChrisCarter,Jr.,landlordMerliss,andopposing
counselHillincidenttothecriminaltrespassarrest. PleasedevelopadeIenseandinvestigationbaseduponwitnessbiasanmotive,seekingtodrawa
connectionbetweentheactionsadaylaterbySiIre,Schaur,etal,visavistheinteractionwithSargentLopezhere. Pleasealsointerviewandsubpoena
OIIicerTravisWarren,whomCoughlinhasrecentlylearnedapproachedandmetwithhisparentsatCoughlin'sIather'smedicalpractice(andCoughlin's
IatherisbothJohnKadlic,RenoCityAttorney,andperhapsRobertBony,Esq.,DeputyCityAttorney'spatients)andpurportedlysoughtto"have
Coughlincommitted"orsomethignalongthoselines. PleasedevelopadeIenseandcollectandprovideinvestigationrelativetotheideathatdoingso
bytheRPDandorRenoCityAttorneyisviolativeoIPalmerv.Pioneer,andhasprejudicedCoughlin'scase(whatiIyourIamilydesertedyouBiray,in
part,duetoIraudulentmisrepresentationsbylocallawenIorcementwithanagendathatincludescoveringupanumberoIwrongIularrestspotentially
exposingthemtobothcriminalandcivilpenalties? WhatwouldyouthinkoIapublicdeIenderandhisassistantwhohadnotdonejacktoadvocateon
yourbehalI? Whohadnotsentoutasinglesubpoena? Whyhaven'tyoucollectedthedispatchtapes,notjustthe911calls. Thecommunications
betweendispatchandtheRPDarelikelywaymorerevelatorythanthecallsthemselves. Youareaware,areyounot,thatRPDOIIicerDuraldean5
otheroIIicerspulledCoughlinovershortlyaItermidnighton1/13/12,justaIterCoughlinhadbailedoutonthejaywalkingarrest,right? Youareaware
CoughlinIiledawrittencomplaintagainstDuralde(arrestingOIIicerinthecaseGoodnight,thenLesliewasoneinrcr2011-063341,right)on9/7/12and
1/8/12,right? YouwereawareoIthat,rightBiray? Right,Leslie? So,pleasesubpoenathedispatchcommunicationsbetweentheRPDand
Ecomm,notjustthelogs,whichiswhatEcommtriedtopassoIIasresponsiverecently. Theaudiotapes...KariannBeechler. SheIeesitappropriate
toactasaIiltertocomplaintsoIpolicemisconduct,eventhoughengenderinglegitimateandperceivedIearoIsubstantialimmediateharmatthehandsoI
locallawenIorcement. Further,pleasesubpoenaDeputyMedinaandSargentBradshaw. Also,reviewtheresultsoIasubpoenaducestecumtothe
RPDregardinganythingrelatedtoCoughlin,especiallythe11/15/11incidentwithSargentTarter...
Canyouindicatewhetherthe"misuseoI911"statueappearsinanypublisheddecisions? Whydidyouindicate,ontherecord,incourton11/6/12that
youare"unawareoIanybasisIoranopposition"theDDAYoung'sMotiontoAmend? AreyouindicatingyouhaveIailedtoreceivethevoluminous
correspondenceandmediasubmissionIromCoughlinwhereintheprejudicetoCoughlinandhisdeIensewasdetailed,especiallyvisavisthedenialoIa
speedytrial(60days),thespoliationoIevidenceangle,andtheprosecutorialmisconductlineoIargument(DDAYoungattemptedtoholdatrialon
5/7/12inviolationoIthemandatorystayinNRS178.405inviewoIthethenstillpendingOrderIorCompetencyEvaluationyou,Dogan,procurredata
StatusConIerencewithYoungon2/27/12,whereinJudgeSchroederislistedastheHearingJudge. NeitheroIyouhaveeverdeniedthatinanyway.
ThenYoungviolatedNRs178.405againbyIiling,at2:55pmonthatday,adocumentintheassociatecasercr2011-063341,despitetheIilestamping
oI1:31pm2/27/12onJudgeCliIton'sOrderForCompetencyEvaluation. Neitheryou,Dogan,norYounghaveeverdeniedtheveracityoIthat
statement,despiteitbeingassertdirectlytoyouonnumerousoccasions.
Astotheamendedcharge,pleaseseetheattachedBecketttreatmentoIit(IormerNyeCountyDA,SCR111(10),etc.
Further,pleasesubpoenaandinterviewOIIicerAlanWeaver,SargentBrianDye,andSargentOliverMillertodevelopmoreclearlyabasisIormoving
IoramistrialIorprosecutorialandorlawenIorcementmisconducthere(byonlyagainstDDAYoungshouldyouobtainsomereasonablesuIIicientbasis
Iorviewinghiscomplicityinthismesdeeds,orassenttotheminandway,.
(NoSubject)
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
2 27 12 065630 Young and Dogan Clandestine Status Conference leads to SBN SCR 105 Complaint against Coughlin 0434 Nash.pdf
2 27 12 Judge Schroeder status conference clifton order rcr2012-065630 26800.pdf
2 28 and 3 12 and 3 12 and 3 14 nash orders and grievances 26800 0204 0434.pdf
5 4 12 mch goondnight email trespas rmc 26405 loomis young 063341 065630.htm
5 4 12 email goodnight mhc hazlett young trespass loomis.htm
rmc longoni handout demanding payment on transcripts on appeals in violation of nevada law 26405 cr11-2064 cr12-1262 26406 11 tr26800 ocr.pdf
12 21 11 email to rmc regarding no response from Longoni.pdf
10 5 12 stamped 60838 SCR 111 King SBN Susich Motion Show Cause against NNDB and SBN 12-31434.pdf
2 28 12 Contempt Order Nash 26800 26405 065630 00696 063341 bf size reduced.pdf
Download all
From: BDogan@washoecounty.us
Subject: RCR12-065630
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:33:45 +0000
Your case with me has been continued to October 30th, at 10:00 A.M.

Biray Dogan, Deputy PD
(775) 337-4868
Fax: (775) 337-4856
Sent: Thu11/08/122:10AM
(NoSubject)
To: bonyrreno.gov(bonyrreno.gov);christensendreno.gov(christensendreno.gov);zyoungda.washoecounty.us(zyoungda.washoecounty.us)
Hi Guys,
Check out this picture, how player is that, mang? See the cameras atop of City Hall, overlook the skate plaze, and inthe same mis en scene, the RPD sign admitting to recording the
action...Belissimo. Please turn over the videos, which you were put on a LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE sufficient to maintain within one week of the arrest at the Skate Plaza on August 20th, 2011 for
the events occuring between 11:10 pm and midnight on that date....in RCR2011-063341.
Thanks,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
11 7 12 for bony and christensen 063341 0204.pdf
for DDA Young, City Attorney's Bony and Christensen city hall cameras and RPD recording admission 063341.pdf
10 4 12 ORDER STRIKING document filed in error on 10 2 12 and returning document 26800 0204 0434 nash 00696 26405 with ex 1 10 2 12 filing by couglin noa notice.pdf
11 7 12 certified mailings of subpoena under NRS 174.345 063341 0402.pdf
Download all

Sent: Wed11/07/126:33AM
To: odomkreno.gov(odomkreno.gov);zyoungda.washoecounty.us(zyoungda.washoecounty.us);bdoganwashoecounty.us(bdoganwashoecounty.us)
Rule3.8. SpecialResponsibilitiesoIaProsecutor. Theprosecutorinacriminalcaseshall:
(a)ReIrainIromprosecutingachargethattheprosecutorknowsisnotsupportedbyprobablecause;
(b)MakereasonableeIIortstoassurethattheaccusedhasbeenadvisedoItherightto,andtheprocedureIorobtaining,counselandhasbeengivenreasonableopportunitytoobtaincounsel;
(c)NotseektoobtainIromanunrepresentedaccusedawaiveroIimportantpretrialrights,suchastherighttoapreliminaryhearing;
(d)MaketimelydisclosuretothedeIenseoIallevidenceorinIormationknowntotheprosecutorthattendstonegatetheguiltoItheaccusedormitigatestheoIIense,and,inconnectionwith
sentencing,disclosetothedeIenseandtothetribunalallunprivilegedmitigatinginIormationknowntotheprosecutor,exceptwhentheprosecutorisrelievedoIthisresponsibilitybyaprotectiveorder
oIthetribunal;
(e)Notsubpoenaalawyerinagrandjuryorothercriminalproceedingtopresentevidenceaboutapastorpresentclientunlesstheprosecutorreasonablybelieves:
(1)TheinIormationsoughtisnotprotectedIromdisclosurebyanyapplicableprivilege;
(2)TheevidencesoughtisessentialtothesuccessIulcompletionoIanongoinginvestigationorprosecution;and
(3)ThereisnootherIeasiblealternativetoobtaintheinIormation;
(I)ExceptIorstatementsthatarenecessarytoinIormthepublicoIthenatureandextentoItheprosecutorsactionandthatservealegitimatelawenIorcementpurpose,reIrainIrommaking
extrajudicialcommentsthathaveasubstantiallikelihoodoIheighteningpubliccondemnationoItheaccusedandexercisereasonablecaretopreventinvestigators,lawenIorcementpersonnel,
employeesorotherpersonsassistingorassociatedwiththeprosecutorinacriminalcaseIrommakinganextrajudicialstatementthattheprosecutorwouldbeprohibitedIrommakingunderRule3.6or
thisRule.
thisismyrequestIorreciprocaldiscoveryinallthreematters. IhaveIiredBirayDogan. Heisnotmyattorney. IhavealsoIiredJimLeslieinRCR2012-067980. And,Lesliehasbeen
removein2012-063341. BothLeslie,You,andDoganhavedeprivedmeoImyrighttoapreliminaryhearing: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51524700-76/court-hernandez-
preliminary-hearing.html.csp Well,thoseareprobablyIorwhenoneisincustody...andinsteadthesystemgotmybailmoney. AtleastIdon'tsoundasclueluessasBobBony,talking'bout
RJCR45....Huh? IservedthosecriminalsubpoenasviathemailNRS174.somethin'somethin. Hey,JimLeslie,whywegoingonaboutyoucan'ttrackdownNicoleWatson? Whydidn'tyou
mailasubpoenatoTempleton? WhydidyoumisleadmeJim. Biray,aslongasIamstuckwithyouonthiscase(hopeIullynotlongatall),IwantyoutosendasubpoenatoECOMM(youknow
KelleyOdom,andsendonetoHarrietTrumanoItheRPDtoo)gatheringallthatgreatexculpatorystuIIthatDDAYounghasIailedtopropound. ThenreviewthatMotionIoraMistrailalleging
ProsecutorialMisconductthatSeanSullivanIiledawhileback. Biray,haveyouseenyourgoogleresultslately?
Further,whileIwasalicensedattorney,IIiledanappearanceinrcr2012-065630,whichIdonotbelieverequiresanordertoremoveDogan...Icouldbewrong,butthatismypositiononit.
DearDDAYoung,
PleasecomplywithyourRPC3.8dutiesandreIrain

Mr.Young,pleasebeadvisedthatRPDSargentMarciaLopezwascaughtontape(andverydistraugtaboutit)admittingtopolicemisconductandaIalsearrestsheetbyChrisCarteronJanuary13th,
2012,about24hoursbeIoreoldRPDSargentSiIrearrestedCoughlinIor"misuseoI911"(okay,heorderedSchaurtodoit)...Anyways,BirayandIaregoingtoneedthosedispatchtapesoItheback
andIorthbetweentheRPD(alloIem)andECOMMandanyoneelse.
AlloItheallegationshereinalsorelateto"irregularities"intheproceedingsandprosecutorialmisconduct"justIyingtherelieIrequestedherein.Coughlin'sabilitytogetthisexculpatoryvideowherein
SargentLopezadmitsRPDOIIicerCarterandRichardHill,Esq.andCaseyBaker,Esq.lied,underoath(inHill'scase)attheJune18th,2012TrialandinviolationoINRCPRule11(inBaker'scasein
hisNovember21st,2011OppositiontoCoughlin'sMotiontoContestPersonalPropertyLien)wasseveralycomprimised,toanexcusableneglectextent,andtoagoodcausestandard,bythevarious
Iraudulent,retaliatoryarrestsandincarcerations(whichoIteninvolvearbitrarydenialoIdetainee'smedicationsandaccesstoevenonesheetoIpaper,evenwhereindigent,toIileadocument),andthe
IraudulentattemptsbyRPDinsendingoutOIIicerWarren(whoisaspecializedoIIicerinthatregardandmaywellhavegoodintentions,buttheCityAttorneyandtheRPDdohimnoIavorswhere
theyattempttocoveroverpolicemisconductbydiagnosing thevictimoIit)andotherstoalienateCoughlinIromhisIamilyandanyothertypeoIasupportsystem,allinthenameoIcoveringup
wrongIularrestsbytheWCPD,andorWCSOandorwrongIul"summarycontempt"Iindings,includingthosein11TR26800,RCR2012-065630(SargentSiIre'sordertoarrestCouglinonJanuary
14th,2012Ior"misuseoIemergencycommunications"NRS207.245(becausereportsoIpolicemisconductorharassmentneverqualiIyasa"perceivedemergency"accordingtoKariannBeechleroI
ECOMM)(though,JudgeCliItondoesseemtohaveabitoIaIairnessstreakwithinhim,andmayindeedrevealapenchantIordemonstratingtheextenttowhich,notermlimitsbedamned,the
judiciaryinWashoeCountyisnotgoingtobepushedaroundandonceitbecomesclearthatDDAYoungistryingtopullanInReBeckett(57280)onCoughlin,evenwhereYoungisviolatingRPC
3.8inthathelacksprobablecausetosoamendhisComplaint,well...)AndthethreediIIerentBeckettmatters(57763,57280,and54454)(Beckett,aDistrictAttorneyinNyeCounty
NRS207.245seekstoamendthepoliticallytrickytomaintainNRS207.245misuseoI911byadomesticviolencevictim(asadjudgeinFV12-00187and188)chargetoamisdemeanorgivinghimIar
more"leverage",theoIIenseoIResisting,Delaying,orObstructingaPublicOIIicerinviolationoINRS199.280(3),inlightoICoughlin'schosenproIession,attorney,andSCR111(6),attorney's
convictedoIcrimesrequiringBarCounselseektotakeawayone'slicenseuponaconviction::(6).DeIinitionoIseriouscrime.Thetermseriouscrimemeans(1)aIelonyand(2)anycrime
lessthanaIelonyanecessaryelementoIwhichis,asdeterminedbythestatutoryorcommon-lawdeIinitionoIthecrime,improperconductasanattorney,interIerencewiththeadministrationoI
CLARIFICATIONonChangeofAddressforZachCoughlin
justice,Ialseswearing,misrepresentation,Iraud,willIulIailuretoIileanincometaxreturn,deceit,bribery,extortion,misappropriation,theIt,oranattemptoraconspiracyorsolicitationoIanotherto
commitaseriouscrime.Compare
Also, Mr. Young, you know Zarate is lying as a witness. That is putting on perjured testimony. Zarate's statements in the VIDEO0100 that i have provided you in hard copy and digital formats
directly contradict his sworn testimony that he "personally eye witnessed" Coughlin grabbing the phone from the "man with the six pack". Then, you have Duralde and Zarate contradicting each
other about what Zarate told Duralde (one sentence according to Zarate...and that one sentence is captured at teh start of the tape of the arrest...but ol' Nick Duralde's testimony and
Supplemental Decl (and why was the Narrative apparently only prepared three months after the arrest, when it was propounded on 11 30 11?) attributes a whole bunch the "material elements"
that Officer Duralde neede to support his pc finding...kind of looks like a little "shake and bake" from Officer Duralde...unless you want to make you star witness Zarate the liar....either way, you
lose, as you are the prosecutor putting on the perjured testimony and persisting in a prosecution where you can't get a receiving conviction, especially at this late stage, do to Staab an other cases,
for the various "other person" and failure to specify, and duplicity/double jeapoardy rationale I have set forth to you...so you are left trying to get petty larceny, but you need intent at the time of
the "taking", and you need that intent to be to "permanently deprive"...and any furtiveness circumstantial you might put on is negated by the "son, son, don't put your...." and "you just admitted"
interchange...So you are basically prosecuting someone for asserting their fourth amendment rights....not good for your look...how did you draw mop up duty for all the lame brained ego drive
wrongful arrests by the RPD this past year? Why does Hicks get all the good looks? You deserve better, ZY.
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
10-00626.pdf
EXAMPLE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT 063341 26405.pdf
10 29 12 notice of errata and SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 26405 1708 26800 0650630 final with index to exhibits.pdf
Download all

Sent: Mon11/05/122:45AM
To: joey.hastingwashoecourts.us(joey.hastingwashoecourts.us);jacksoncreno.gov(jacksoncreno.gov);zyoungda.washoecounty.us(zyoungda.washoecounty.us);wagnerlreno.gov
(wagnerlreno.gov);tognonimreno.gov(tognonimreno.gov);shermanmreno.gov(shermanmreno.gov);lopezvreno.gov(lopezvreno.gov);renodirectreno.gov
(renodirectreno.gov);renomunirecordsreno.gov(renomunirecordsreno.gov);rjcwebwashoecounty.us(rjcwebwashoecounty.us);gaylekernkernltd.com(gaylekernkernltd.com);
jgarinlipsonneilson.com(jgarinlipsonneilson.com);hazlett-stevenscreno.gov(hazlett-stevenscreno.gov);stuttlewashoecounty.us(stuttlewashoecounty.us);eIlexwashoecourts.us
(eIlexwashoecourts.us);eIilingnvcourts.nv.gov(eIilingnvcourts.nv.gov)
DearRMC,RJC,SecondJudicialDistrictCourt,WCDA,andCityAttorney'sOIIice,
IapologizeIortheconIusioninmylastemail,pleaseignoretheaddressontheApril2012Noticethatwasinadvertentlyattachedtheretoandanyaddress
FW:pleasefilethiswiththeRMC
includedinanyemailthatwasIoundtherein.
PleasebeawarethattheIollowingismycurrentcontact,mailing,andbusinessaddressandIax,phone,andemailsinIormation:
Sincerely
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Sent: Mon11/05/122:31AM
To: ormaasareno.gov(ormaasareno.gov);renomunirecordsreno.gov(renomunirecordsreno.gov);jacksoncreno.gov(jacksoncreno.gov);tognonimreno.gov(tognonimreno.gov);
lopezvreno.gov(lopezvreno.gov);ballarddreno.gov(ballarddreno.gov);hazlett-stevenscreno.gov(hazlett-stevenscreno.gov);wongdreno.gov(wongdreno.gov);
sooudibreno.gov(sooudibreno.gov);zyoungda.washoecounty.us(zyoungda.washoecounty.us);eIilingnvcourts.nv.gov(eIilingnvcourts.nv.gov);eIlexwashoecourts.us
(eIlexwashoecourts.us);joey.hastingwashoecourts.us(joey.hastingwashoecourts.us)
1attachment
41612rmcnoticeoInonservice.pdI(96.8KB)
DearRenoMunicipalCourtandCityoIRenoAttorney,WCDA,andWDC,
Please note my new address for all future matters, and that my phone number is now the same as my fax number. Please update my address with
all RMC Departments.
Please alert Department 3 of this, as 12 00696 and 11 TR 26800 are still before it
12 CR 12420 is still before Department 1
Department 2 has 11 CR 26405 (which may be marked as "closed", however, a Motion for New Trial, etc. has recently been filed therein
Department 1 has 11 CR22176 and has yet to rule on several motions filed therein.
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
To: renodirect@reno.gov
Subject: please file this with the RMC
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:30:30 -0700
RE:convictingattorneyofsummarycriminalcontemptduringpendencyofOrderforCompetencyEvaluation
FW:convictingattorneyofsummarycriminalcontemptduringpendencyofOrderforCompetencyEvaluation
in 11 tr 26800
Sent: Sun11/04/1212:34AM
To: togninimreno.gov(togninimreno.gov);joey.hastingswashoecounty.us(joey.hastingswashoecounty.us);joey.ordunawashoecounty.us(joey.ordunawashoecounty.us);
david.hardywashoecounty.us(david.hardywashoecounty.us);patrickknvbar.org(patrickknvbar.org);skentskentlaw.com(skentskentlaw.com);miketahoelawyer.com
(miketahoelawyer.com);nevtelassnsbcglobal.net(nevtelassnsbcglobal.net);IIlahertydlpId.com(IIlahertydlpId.com);davidcnvbar.org(davidcnvbar.org);complaintsnvbar.org
(complaintsnvbar.org);tsusichnvdetr.org(tsusichnvdetr.org);jeeloreno.com(jeeloreno.com);cvellisbhIs.com(cvellisbhIs.com)
DearSBN,
Ihavesetmyemailtoaddtomyblockedsenderlistany"bounceback"orerrormessagesthatmightbesentmeinresponsetoyourantiquatedemail
systemhavinganysortoIIilesizelimitationsresultinginarejectionoIatransmissionthatprettymuchanoldIreegmailorhotmailaccountcouldaccept.
So,youronnoticeoIthatandyourapparentpurposeIulLudditestance(remindsmeoI"Investigator"Petersmentioninghowreluctantsheisto
investigateanything)isnotsomethingIwillbereceivinganynoticeoIsoyoumightwanttoadjustyouremailsystemaccordingly.
Ihaveanidea,howaboutyouimplementa"salarysizelimitation"onyourpaychecksuntilyouceasepursuingoutdatedanddubiousplausibledeniability
constructs?
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
To: togninim@reno.gov; joey.hastings@washoecounty.us; joey.orduna@washoecounty.us; david.hardy@washoecounty.us; patrickk@nvbar.org; skent@skentlaw.com; mike@tahoelawyer.com; nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net;
fflaherty@dlpfd.com; davidc@nvbar.org; complaints@nvbar.org; tsusich@nvdetr.org; je@eloreno.com; cvellis@bhfs.com
Subject: convicting attorney of summary criminal contempt during pendency of Order for Competency Evaluation
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 03:13:58 -0700
togninimreno.gov;joey.hastingswashoecounty.us;joey.ordunawashoecounty.us;david.hardywashoecounty.us;patrickknvbar.org;skentskentlaw.com;miketahoelawyer.com;
nevtelassnsbcglobal.net;IIlahertydlpId.com;davidcnvbar.org;complaintsnvbar.org;tsusichnvdetr.org;jeeloreno.com;cvellisbhIs.com
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Sent: Sun11/04/1212:29AM
To: tognonimreno.gov(tognonimreno.gov)
FW:Mr.King'sassertioninhis3/16/12letter
5attachments
11TR26800RMC03141220120312-103301cd003b8I0851d0.wmv(10.3MB),10251261901opposition(1)FILESTAMPED61901SCR111(4)InReCoughlin.pdI(225.1KB),61901
102912amendedemmental.pdI(230.2KB),PatrickKingsbngrievanceletteroI31612andJudgeNashHolmesgreivanceoI31412rmc11TR26800.pdI(575.8KB),exhibit1with
coverpagepart1oI361901102512Iiling.pdI(8.0MB)
resentduetoerrorinyouremailaddressbelow
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Subject: convicting attorney of summary criminal contempt during pendency of Order for Competency Evaluation
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 03:13:58 -0700
togninimreno.gov;joey.hastingswashoecounty.us;joey.ordunawashoecounty.us;david.hardywashoecounty.us;patrickknvbar.org;skentskentlaw.com;miketahoelawyer.com;
nevtelassnsbcglobal.net;IIlahertydlpId.com;davidcnvbar.org;complaintsnvbar.org;tsusichnvdetr.org;jeeloreno.com;cvellisbhIs.com
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Sent: Sun11/04/1212:28AM
4attachments
11cr26405puentes04101220120410-090301cd16I8c3aa49b0.mp3(5.1MB),11CR26405050812Loomis20120508-110401cd2d0a627I5I90.mp3(15.1MB),51109wlselcano
washoelegalservicesdismissallettercitingJudgeLindaGardner'sOrdersolecause264052680000696.pdI(902.5KB),5609emailIromwlsedelcano2640560302garnder01955
1089660302268006031754844dd.pdI(15.3KB)
resentbecaseoIerrorinyouraddresbelow
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Subject: FW: Mr. King's assertion in his 3/16/12 letter
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 03:00:11 -0700
DearJudgeHardy,ChairmanSusich,ClerkoICourtOrdunaHastings,BarCounsel,andMs.Tognini,andMembersoIthePanel,

ItisplainIrommyinteractionswithPatrickKingthattheironyoIRichardG.Hill,Esq'sallegationsoImy"ghostwriting"arerichestwhenconsideringtheapparent"ghost-
grievancing"goingonhere,especiallywithrespecttothegenesisoING12-0435,thegrievanceconsistingoIFamilyCourtJudgeLindaGardner'sApril2009Ordersanctioninga
domesticviolenceattorney$1,000,personally,whereIailedtoIollowJudgeLindaGardner'sorderstoseektointimidatehisbatteredspouseimmigrantclientintoacceptingthe
maritalsettlementagreementoIIeroIoneJohnSpringgate,Esq.(achimeraoIsortswhereMr.Springgate'sclientwouldagreetoberesponsilbeIoracollectionoIthirdparty
creditcarddebtIorwhichhewasthesolesignatoryandIorwhichevenunderandextremelyunlikely"doctrineoItheneccessaires,assuingmyclientlostona"wasteoImarital
assets",approach,myclient,Ms.Joshi,wouldbeveryunlikelytoeverIacejudgmentorexecutioninconnectionwithsuchthirdpartycreditscarddebts. IIailedtocaveto
JudgeLindaGardner'sbullyingdemands,andevenwheresheyelledatmeandmyclientintheimpromptu"settlementconIerence"shedecidedtohold10minutesbeIorethe
Trial(JudgeLindaGardneryelledatmeto"shutup"inIrontoImyclient,thenproceededtotellMs.Joshi"don'tlistentoyourattorney!"inanangry,hostile,andbelligerent
tone),andinsteadcitedtoanALRarticlethatpresentsthepositionItookasthemajorityviewpointinAmericanjurisprudencewithrespecttothedutyoIadomesticobligation
notbeingpermissiblysetoIIwithameredebt,particularlyathirdpartyunsecuredcreditcarddebt,suchasthoseIorwhichMr.Joshiwasthesolesignatory. ApparentlyJudge
GardneragreedwithJohnSpringgate'swhiningabouthowhe"neededtobeabletoknowhowmuchtochargeIorhistime"orsomethingalongthoselines(Mr.Springgate
indicatedthatCoughlin'sIailingtoimmediatelyacceptSpringgate'ssettlementoIIerwasscrewingupSpringgate'swholeproIitmargin,andthereIorecontrarytotheorderly
administrationoIjustice,orsomethingalongthoselines,atwhichpointSpringgatemovedIorsanctions(despitenothavingserveda21daysaIeharborIilingreadyNRCP11
motion),which,inJohn'swordswastantamountto"sendingashotacrossyourbow",abloodsportsortoIanalogyonemightexpectIromasemi-proIessionalIencerlikeMr.
Springgate. IwasIiredIromWashoeLegalServicesandtoldbyitsExecutiveDirectorthatthedecisionwasbasedsolelyonJudgeLindaGardner'sOrder....whichwasodd
givensheandMasterEdmondsonandatleastoneotherjudgehadgivenElcanopositivereviewsoImyworklessthantwomonthspriortothat. Elcano,though,did,atthe
timeoIreportingthosepositivereviewsmentionthathegoes"wayback"withLindaGardner,andthat"sheowes"himbecause"hedidherabigIavoralongtimeago",etc.,etc.

Anyways,BarCounselKinghasrecentlyindicatedthathewascompletelyunawarethatLindaGardneristhesisteroItheRMCJudgeWilliamGardnerwhoreIusedtorecuse
himselIIromthecriminaltrespassconvictionIsustainedincidenttoacustodialarrestatmyIormerhomelawoIIice,whereintheopposingcounselRichardG.Hill,Esq.,hasbeen
caughtlyingontaperegardingwhetheranywarningwasgiventometoleave,andwhethertheRPDidentiIiedthemselvesaslawenIorcementandissuedalawIulordertoleave
thepremisespriortothelandlordkickingdownadoortoa"basement"thatwas,accordingtoHill'sassociate,notevenapartoItheproperty(orincludedinthepartoIthe
propertycontainedwithinanyexteriordoorstothepremises.

DespitethestatementsoIRMCJudgeGardnerintheaudiocdsthatKinghimselIIinallyadmittedtometopossessingandreceivingIromRMCJudgeNashHolmes(aIterseveral
instancesoIKinglyingabouthiswillingnesstoallowingmetoreviewthematerialsJudgeNashHolmesandothersslippedtotheSBN,KingIinallywasIorcedtoturnoverat
leastaIewoIthoseitems. IncludedamongstthemwerethehearingsbeIoreJudgeWilliamGardneron4/10/12and5/8/12whereinRMCJudgeWilliamGardneradmitsthathis
sisterisnoneotherthanFamilyCourtJudgeLindaGardner,andthathissisterpassedhimherApril2009OrdersanctioningCoughlin(whichCoughlinIiledaPetitionIorWritoI
Mandamuschallengingin54844,):

WashoeLegalServicesIiredCoughlin,citingJudgeLindaGardner'sOrdersanctioningCoughlinasthesolereasonIoritsdoignso. CouglinsuedWLSIorwrongIul
termination,andJudgeElliotdismissedCoughlin'slawsuitwithoutreachingthemeritsoItheComplaint,butthendecidedtosanctionCoughlinIorhislawsuitallegedlylacking
"merit"anyways...goIigure. JudgeElliotalsoincarceratedCoughlinIromApril19th,2012-April26th,2012baseduponsomeIraudulentletterbyLake'sCrossing,andsome
MotionIorRevocationoIBailmadebyDDAZachYoungatatimewhenNRS178.405Iorbidhismakinganymotionsgiventhatallproceedingsmustbestayedduringthe
pendencyoIanOrderIorCompetencyEvaluation. Amazingly,inher3/16/12lettertotheSBN,JudgeNashHolmesisstillmentioninghowsheandtheRMCareIuriosly
tryingtosetIorTrialthecasestemmingIromtehcustodial"jaywalking"arrestoICoughlinonJanuary12th,2012incidnettotheliesbyRichardG.Hill,Esq.totheRPDonthat
date. Itiscuriousthatthatmatter11CR00696wasalloIthesuddentransIerredtoJudgeNashHolmesonFebruary27th,2012,thesamedayJudgeNashHolmeswas
purportedlymadeawareoIthe2/27/12OrderIorCompetencyEvaluationoICoughlininRCR2011-063341(relative,attheveryleast,tothecommunicationsbetweenTognini
andtheWCPD,attheveryleast). Additionally,SecondJudicialDistrictChieIAppealsClerkdeniedCoughlin's2/27/12IilingoIaMotionIorExtensionoITimeto
eIIectuateserviceinthewrongIulterminationlawsuitbyCoughlinagainstElcano(whomJudgeLindaGarnder"owesabigIavor",accordingtoElcano)inCV11-01955(beIore
JudgeElliot).

Further,totheextentJudgeElliot'sremandingCoughlinintocustodytocoercehisconsenttodivulgingextremelyprivatemedicalinIormationissomehowacontemptOrder,
thenthe"letter"or"evaluationunderseal"oI4/18/12byLakesCrossingDr.BillDavisandDr.SallyFarmermustbeintheIormoIanaIIidavit. Itwasnot. Further,
CoughlincalledDr.DavisIromthebookingroomatthejailandDr.DavisattemptedtoweaseloutoItheconsequencesoIhisproIessionalmisconduct,doneundercoloroIlaw,
byallegingthathe"didn'twritethe4/18/12letterIiledwiththeCourt"butmerelysigneditandwasnotresponsibleIoritbeingIiledwiththecourt. Totheextentthe
assertionsinthat4/18/12letterareoutrightlies(theyare...theletterindicatesCoughlinoutrightreIusedtoprovidebasicmedicalinIormation,whichisnottrue,Coughlin
indicatedhewould"needtocheckhisrecords"inresponsetooneinitialquestion,andthenmentionedthatsomeproIessional,particularlyphysicians,Iaceaninabilitytoobtain
malpracticeinsuranceiIwordgetsoutthattheytakeanti-depressants. SomehowDr.DavisandDr.FarmerinterpretedsuchastatementtoallowthemselvestoIilealetterwith
theCourtallegingthatCoughlin"threatenedoneoItheevaluatorswithlegalaction". NowonderLake'sCrossinginsistsondoingaTerryStopstyle"patdown"searchon
eachandeveryoneIorcedtogotherebytheCourtstogetaCompetencyEvaluation(theRJCandWCPDhaveitsetupsothatonemust utilizetheservicesoILake'sCrossingIor
anysuchevaluation)andmaintainastrickbanonanysortoIsmartphonesorcellularphoneswithintheirevaluationrooms(howdiIIicultitwouldbeIorDr.DavisandDr.
Farmertoliewithseemingimpunity,astheydidintheir4/18/12"evaluation"IiledwiththeCourtinCR12-0376,shouldtheirsubjectsbereadilyabletorevealthedishonestyoI
theseevaluatorsviasomerecordingimpeachigntheircredibility. TotheextentJudgeElliotIoundCoughlinincontemptoIcourt(whichheapparentlydidinresponseto
CoughlininquiringintothescopeandextentoIsuchaCompetencyEvaluationratherthansubmittingtoablankcheckinquestintohismentalhealthandmedicalrecordsincident
toaretaliatoryMotionIorCompetencyEvaluationon2/27/12byapublicdeIenderupsetthatCoughlinhadcriticizedhisIailingtoshowuptoacourtdateevenaIterthat
attorney,BirayDoganhadIiledaNoticeoIAppearanceandmetwiththeclienttodiscussthecaseRCR2012-065630,IoroveranhourandahalIjustoneweekprevioustothat
missedcourtappearance,andwhereDDAYoungwasclearlyretaliatingagainstCoughlinIorCoughlinIilingaMotionIorSanctionsagainstYoungjustdaysprevioustothatina
diIIerentcase.

Regardkess.MarilynTogniniisnowbeinglistedasawitnessCoughlinintendstocallathisNovember14th,2012NNDBhearingattheStateBaroINevadaOIIicesat9am,and
anyotherpersonwhomJudgeNashHolmesmaybereIerringtoinherattachedgrievanceagainstCoughlin(whereinshemanagestoalludetosomehearsayaboutCoughlinliving
inhiscardespitetheIactthatCoughlinwasclearlystilllivingat1422E.9thSt.atthetimeJudgeNashHolmeslettertotheSBNwaswritten,3/14/12,evenwhereJudgeNash
HolmesIeignsaninabilitytoreadilymakecontactwithCoughlin,depsiteneithershenortheRMCcalling,emailingorIaxingCoughlin,ormanagingtomailthe2/28/12Orderto
theaddressallotherRMCDepartmentsthenhadIorCoughlin. Regardless,that3/14/12grievancegoesontodemonstrateJudgeNashHolmesproIoundlackoIrespectIoror
knowledgeoIthedictatesoINRS178.405,orthelegalprinciples,ingeneral,relatedtoreIrainingIromproceedingwithprosecutionswherethecompetencyoItheaccusedisin
doubtinthemindoIthetrieroIIact. Further,theSBN'sBarCounselPatrickKing(whom,again,managedtojustinthelastcoupleweeksindicatethathewasunawarethat
JudgeWilliamGardnerandJudgeLindaGardnerarebrotherandsister,orevenrelated,despiteKingreceivingIromtheRMC'sJudgeNashHolmesaboxoImaterialsthat
includedmultiplehearingsinthecriminaltrespassproseuctionoICoughlinthatJudgeWilliamGardner(thenRMCAdministrativeJudge,whomadmittedto"atleastone
meeting"whereinheandtheotherRMCJudgesdiscussedCoughlin,alongwithChieIMarshalRoper,onlyIorJudgeGardnertothenattempttosaywithastraightIacethathe
"wasnotsurewhetherhewas"awareoIthisorthat,orhadanyknowledgeoIthegrievanceJudgeNashHolmesIiledagainstCoughlinwiththeSBN(despitethat3/14/12letter
totheSBNbyJudgeNashHolmesexpresslypurportingtobewrittenonbehalIoIherselIandALLtheotherRMCJudges,whose"Iullcooperation"sheassuresshecandeliverto
theSBNinseekingtodiscreditCoughlinandinsodoingassisttheCityoIRenoinaddressingthemultiplewrongIularrestsoICoughlinintheprecedingmonths.

Regardless,thecommunicationsbetweentheWashoeCountyPublicDeIenderandtheRMC,includingMs.TonginiandJudgeNashHolmes,andwhatexactlyJudgeWilliam
GardnerwasmadeawareoI,andwhathepassedIromhissister,JudgeLindaGardner,ontoJudgeNashHolmes,andwhatJudgeNashHolmespassedontoBarCounselKingis
nowoImaterialrelevance,andbringsintoplaytheissueoItheleveloIcandorwithopposingcounselKingexhibitsinhis4/19/12correspondencwithCoughlinwhenhepurports
toonlyhaverecievedJudgeLindaGardner'sApril2009OrderIorSanctionson3/15/12(andthat"5" inthe"15" looksshaky,Pat),wherinKingwrote:"It was sent to me by
the clerk of the court at my request, pursuant to my investigation." Which Clerk of Court, Mr. King? Clerk of Court Orduna Hastings? Then there is Judge Elliot dismissing Coughlin's
lawsuit against Washoe Legal Services, then incarcerating Coughlin between April 19th and April 26th, 2012 (during which time Richard G. Hill and Casey Baker filed their Motion for Attorney's Fees
of $40,050 incident to the appeal of a summary eviction in CV11-03628, which Coughlin's former co-worker Judge Flanagan awarded Baker and Hill, after Judge Flanagan refused to recuse
himself even where Coughlin pointed out the necessity of his so doing. Then Judge Elliot denied Coughlin's appeal of RMC Judge Howard's conviction of Coughlin for "petty larceny of a candy
bar and some cough drops" in 11 CR 22176 (the sole basis for the current temporary suspension of Coughlin's law license, incident to a trial where the Reno City Attorney Pamela Roberts offered
perjured testimony from Wal-Mart's Thomas Frontino and RSIC Officer Kameron Crawford that Crawford was justified in conducting a custodial arrest and search incident thereto for an alleged
misdemeanor offense, occurring after 7 pm, outside the presence of the officer, in light of Coughlin failure to provide the officer his driver's license. City Attorney Roberts had been provided by
the RSIC a video tape showing Coughlin providing Crawford his driver's license, and Coughlin's booking inventory sheet lists his drivers license (despite Officer Crawfords sworn testimony that
Coughlin did not have one on his person at the time, even where Wal-Mart's video shows Crawford copying down Coughlin's information off the driver's license Coughlin provided to Offier
Crawford, and where Wal-Mart admits that it did not effect a citizen's arrest of Coughlin, and therefore NRS 178.1255 required an application of the exclusionary rule to any partial package of
"cough drops" found in Coughlin's pockets upon a search incident to arrest (and even that is not all that necessary to prove Coughlin's innocence given that the RSIC Officer and Wal-Mart's Frontino
testified incorrectly that the receipt for the $83.82 worth of groceries that Coughlin selected and paid after his allegely consuming a "candy bar and some cough drops" while shopping, did, in fact
have an entry for that exact UPC of Duract Cough Melts ("cough drops"), contrary to the sworn testimony of both Wal-Mart's Frontino and the RSIC's Crawford). But none ofthat mattered much
to Judge Elliot, as he denied Coughlin's appeal based on some civil statute related to a litigant being required to pay for a transcript up front, even where, in criminal matters, the RMC is required
to transmit the record on appeal and order the production fo the transcripts within 10 days of the filing of a Notice of Appeal, pursuant to NRS 189.010-030, regardless of whether the criminal
defendant pays for the transcript up front. See CR12-1018 for other instances of teh RMC and its "exclusive trancriptionist" Pam Longoni perpetuating a fraud on the public (the RMC indicates
Longoni is the only transcriptionist they will allow, and demand that she be paid up front....Longoni hung up on Coughlin multiple times and otherwise prejudiced Coughlin's appeal by refusing to
prepare his transcript even where Coughlin would pay up front for the transcripts, in CR11-2064. Judge Elliot then dismissed Coughlin's appeal of the criminal trespass conviction by Judge William
Gardner in CR12-1262 where the RMC and Lisa Wagner failed to file the 6/28/12 Notice of Appeal Coughlin has confirmation that the RMC and City Attorney Hazlett-Stevens recieved, though both
maintain a dubious position counter to such irrefutable proof.

Additionally, one of the aspects of Richard G. Hill's grievance with the SBN against Coughlin, memorialized in NG12-0204 (one of the three greivances forming Mr. Kings SCR 105 SBN v. Couglin Petition) alleges some sort
of "ghostwriting" on Coughlin's part for a former client of Coughlin's John Gessin. This is plainly not true, though some confusion may have arisen given the fact that at about the time Gessin and Couglin parted ways,
Gessin apparently paid for and signed up for an E-flex account (apparently non-attorneys may do so?). Hill's allegations respecting Gessin are baseless and ironic given the fact that Coughlin filed Notice of Appearance
as Gessin's attorney in various matters, and even sent Gessin a correspondence wherein he warns Gessin that he will not tolerate any appearance of ghostwriting (what can an attorney do when a client pays him money,
drafts of NRCP 60(b) Motions are worked up extensively over a period of time, then the client decides he wants to part ways, and takes with him those drafts? File a Notice of Appearance so there is at least some paper
trial?). It would be helpful to addressing Hill's allegations vis a vis "ghostwriting" for Gessin if the Second Judicial District Court would present or allow for inspection anything it may have tending to shed light on such
allegations.

Here is one correspondence Coughlin sent then client John Gessin refuting the allegations that Hill made to the SBN in his attached 1/14/12 grievance against Coughlin (attached to the SBN King's 2/14/12 letter to
Coughlin):

"Subject: NOTICES OF APPEARANCES

John,Letmeknowwhatsgoingon,igotanewtemporaryaddressandphonenumber.theresissomeghostwritingtaboos,so...iIyouwantmetowithdraw
thatsIine,whatever,itsallgood
ZachCoughlin,Esq."

Further,inher10412orderin11TR26800,1udgeNashHolmescontinuestorefusetoallowCoughlintoappealafinalappealableorderconvictinghimof"summarycriminalcontempt",
eventhough1udgeHolme'sOrderspecificallyreliesuponallegedconduct,andanessentialelementthereof,notoccuringinhere"immediatepresence",andwherethereisnoAffidavitby
herMarshal(1udgeNashHolmesstatesontherecordin11TR26800thatanRMCMarshal(apparentlyMarshalHarley)followedCoughlinintotherestroomduringabreakintheTrial
1udgeNashHolmesbegrudinglygrantedCoughlin(thoughsheorderedhimtoleavehisyellownotepadinthecourtroom?)whereuponMarshalHarleyplayedPeepingTomthrougha
bathroomstallandallegestohavespiedCoughlin"dissassemblingasmartphone",which1udgeNashHolmestookasanopportunitytofind"byclearandconvicing"evidencethatCoughlin
"lied""underoath"inresponsetoherimpromptu,suasponte,interrogationofCoughlinimmediatelyfollowingthatbathroombreak(andsoonafterRMCMarshalHarley(whoviolated
the"courthousesanctuary"dictatesagainstservingCoughlin1udgeFlanagan'sOrdertoShowCausefora3/23/12HearingonRichardG.Hill'sMotionintheevictionappealinCV11-03628
whileCoughlinandCityAttorneyOrmaaswherehagglingoverpleadetailsimmediatelypriortothetrafficcitationtrialin11TR26800(incidenttoCoughlinbeingtoldtoleaveHill'soffice
uponarrivingtheirtoretrievehiskeys,wallet,anddriver'slicense,andclient'sfileuponbeingreleasedfromthreedaysinjailincidenttoacriminaltrespasscomplaintHillsignedagainst
Coughlin,whichtheRPDcommittedmisconductinsubjectingCoughlintoacustodialarrestfor,especiallyinlightofthevideotapedadmissionofSargentLopezandthematrialspresented
inCoughlin'srecentfilingsin61901and11CR26405). RMCMarshalHarleytookituponhimselftoaidWCSODeputyMacheninfilingafalseAffidavitofServiceinHarley'shanding
Coughlin,onbehalfofHill,adocumentHillpaidtheWCSOtoserveonCoughlin(anhowunseemlyandbullyingtoattempttoserveitatthetrafficcitationtrial,appearanceofimpartiality
andimproprietybedamned,Caplow,regardless.). AndCityAttorneyOrmaasmayhavebeenwhisperinginHarley'searsgivenherapparentconcernorherresponsestoCoughlin
askingher,shortlybeforethetrialcommenced,ifsheplannedtofollowuponorinanywaydocumenttheadmissionstoacceptingbribesfromRichardHillmadebytheofficereffectingthe
custodialcriminaltrespassarrest,RPDOfficerChrisCarter,1r.(whomwillapparentlyattestthathewasjesting,thoughitsnotclearwhatisfunnyaboutarrestinganattorneyfortrespass
athisformerhomelawofficewheretheWCSOadmitsitliedinfilinganAffidavitofServiceattestingtohaving"personallyserved"CoughlinsuchanEvictionOrder.

Iappreciatethisopportunitytoclarifymysubpoena.

Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402

From: PatrickK@nvbar.org
Subject: RE: Mr. King's assertion in his 3/16/12 letter
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:29:10 +0000
April 19, 2012

Zach Coughlin

Dear Mr. Coughlin,

A screening panel of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Panel met on Tuesday April 10, 2011 to address the grievances filed against you. The panel directed me to proceed to a formal
disciplinary hearing. As such, I will be preparing a formal Complaint.

I understand from the e-mail below, that you do not believe you should have been found guilty of the theft at Wal-Mart and that you should not have been found in contempt of
Court. However, it must concern you that you were found in contempt of Court by more than one Judge in two different trials. You wanted to know how I learned of or obtained a copy of Judge Gardners
Order after trial that was filed in 2009. It was sent to me by the clerk of the court at my request, pursuant to my investigation.

It would help me and perhaps yourself, if you would respond and explain why you were convicted of theft and why you were held in contempt of Court. You may be well served to
explain what remedial measures you are taking to make sure you do not repeat the conduct complained about. I cannot give you legal advice. However I can suggest you cooperate with Bar counsels
investigation and that you respond specifically to the allegations contained in Judge Holmes and Richard Hills grievance letters to the office of Bar Counsel.

Patrick King
To: Patrick King; David Clark; Glenn Machado
Subject: Mr. King's assertion in his 3/16/12 letter
Dear Bar Counsel,

One thing that I am not sure I have ever pointed out, is that my then live in girlfriend of over 4 years stole about 2 months worth of my portion of our rent from me (our arrangement was I would give her the money, she
would forward it on to the landlord) in the period between May-July 2011. I sacrificed a great deal and paid lots of her tuit ion, and she broke up with me and moved out on or around May 18th, 2011, about 3 days after
we hosted her entire family for her graduation from UNR. I did not know about her stealing my portion of the rent or failing t o pay her own portion until August 2011, as the landlord was on an extended vacation and failed
to communicate any deficiency in the rent until mid-August, 2011, and the eviction in RJC REV2011-001708 from my former home law office ensued within less than a week of his communicating this deficiency. He and his
counsel, Richard G. Hill, Esq. and Casey Baker pursued a No Cause Notice of Eviction because there was a wealth of support for me contention that habitability issues, fix and deduct, and the landlord's failure to cure, in
addition to personal property damage done by the landlord's landscaping crew and a provision in the lease holding the landlord liable for such, indicated it would "be the path of least resistance" to simply seek a No Cause
Eviction. The only problem in their attempt to circumvent the law (even though they still threatened to seek back rent in another forum after getting their No Cause, summary eviction) was the fact that the Lease
Agreement specifically allowed for me to have a commercial law office there, and NRS 40.253 makes impermissible a summary evict ion against a commercial tenant unless the non-payment of rent is Notice, which, of course
Baker and Hill chose not to do....and it was about the time that Hill started to understand that his "wrong site surgery" for his neurosurgeon landlord client might subject Hill and his firm to some malpractice liability, that Hill
started writing letters to bar counsel attempting to start some grievance on behalf of Gessin (whom Hill did not find so object ionable when Gessin was Hill's client and Hill was milking over $20K from Gessin) for
"ghostwriting" even though I was listed as Attorney of Record on several different Gessin cases, etc., etc.
Anyway, I deny guilt on each an every allegation made against me by Hill, Judge Nash Holmes, and whoever else has filed a grievance or complaint and also with respect to any criminal charge against me, including that
which resulted in a conviction in 11 CR 22176, which, I think will ultimately reveal was replete with prosecutorial misconduct, lying by the Wal-Mart loss prevention associate, and lying by the two RSIC police officers, in
additional to abuse of discretion and other errors by Judge Howard.
I am writing to report that I did not receive Mr. King's 3/16/12 letter until a substantial time after it was sent. The postmark on that 3/16/12 letter from Assistant Bar Counsel King (please see attached picture of the letter
and envelope) indicates it was mailed 3/16/12, and the letter indicates it was not faxed to me (despite my numerous written requests that such a practice be done in consideration of the problems I have encountered in the
USPS violations of the Federal Torts Claims Act and incident to the domestic violence I have been subjected to, in FV12-00188 and FV12-00187, which included interference with my mail).
FW:requestforaudiorecords
I timely filed an Official Change of Address with the USPS. Additionally, I made numerous appearances at both the Golden Valley USPS Station and the Downtown Reno Post Office in and attempt to make every diligent
effort to receive my mail. I have been threatened by and lied to by the supervisors of the Golden Valley Station USPS Station. I had a hearing related to a landlord tenant dispute on 3/15/12 (which makes Judge Nash
Holmes assertion, in her 3/14/12 letter that I was living in my car at that time rather suspect, given my home law office was l ocated at the property which was the subject of that hearing and which I was still located at on
3/14/12...of course, Judge Nash Holmes provides no attribution for such hearsay in her extremely reckless assertion) in RJC REV2012-00374 (the matter for which Gayle Kern sent a property manager who lacked even a law
license to litigate on her behalf, or on that of the HOA which Kern has now decided to appear for, despite her being listed a t he PTTHOA Resident Agent for sometime and despite Kern being a named party in the lawsuit in
RJC Rev2012-000374.
My point is, I did not receive Mr. King's mailing of 3/16/12, in a timely manner, and as such, I am requesting more time to respond to it. Additionally, I note that Mr. King, in that 3/16/12 letter, writes "I am enclosing
with this letter copies of a grievance letter, from the Municipal Court and a copy of an Order from District court....I will make available for your review and inspection the supporting documents and audio recordings."
However, as I have previously written, Mr. King has not made "available for (my) review and inspection the supporting documents and audio recordings". I wish to have a copy of all such "supporting documents and audio
recordings", and failing a copy being provided, I wish to be allowed the access to conduct a "review and inspection" of "the supporting documents and audio recordings" that Mr. King promised to afford me. At no time has
Mr. King ever allowed me such access. In addition, Mr. King now informs me that he has opened a grievance on behalf of Judge Linda M. Gardner, incident to a Order for Sanctions she entered in April 2009. Mr. King has
refused to indicate to me who submitted this Order for Sanctions or otherwise provided it to Bar Counsel as a Complaint or Grievance or otherwise. I believe someone necessarily must file the complaint or grievance.
Further, I believe I am entitled to know whom that is, and when such was filed. Additionally, Mr. King has, so failed to provi de a copy or any access to any purported complaint by the City of Reno Marshal's division incident
to my accessing justice, or attempting to, on March 22nd, 2012. I am again requesting that I be so provided as much.
I filed an Official USPS Change of Address on March 12, 2012, in anticipation of a change of address incident to a landlord tenant hearing set for March 15th, 2012, and further, in response to hostility, retaliation, lies, and
threats made by the USPS Golden Valley Station supervisors Buck Hyde, Terri James, and a "Ms." Passot. Some mail, like Mr. King's 3/16/12 letter to me, was eventually forwarded to me (Mr. King's letter has 3 different
yellow stickers affixed, one atop the other, on it by the USPS), however, some mail, like several Orders of the Reno Municipal Court, were not forwarded on to me, but rather, apparently, returned to the Reno Municipal
Court. Nonesuch Orders were returned to the RMC in time for Judge Nash Holmes 3/14/12 letter to Mr. King, as such, I have no i dea what Judge Nash Holmes is referring to when she describes difficulty contacting me (the
attempts by Judge Nash Holmes and the RMC apparently did not included either email or fax or a phone call, however....).
There has been little rhyme or reason as to what mailings the USPS simply returned to the sender (such as a mailing from the RMC dated 3/14/12) and which mailings it ultimately forwarded on to me (at my then PO BOX
60952, please note, I have a new PO BOX, that I intened to keep for a substantial period of time, it is PO BOX 3961, Reno 89505...), such as a 3/13/12 mailing from the Reno Justice Court, which was forwarded on to my
then PO BOX 60952 (albeit that envelope has 3 yellow stickers stacked atop each other as well, the farthest one down indicating a forwarding date of 3/21/12, then next sticker indicating a hold, and the final sticker atop the
stack indicating a forwarding date of 3/28/12....).
I stayed in a weekly motel for an extended period of time following my November 2011 No Cause eviction from my former home law office, and there was difficulties in filing a Change of Address incident to that given that
the Address being changed from was permanently assigned to a business, a motor lodge. Further, some problem cause Bank of America to temporarily deny my attempts to change my address on file online, and rather
require that I mail Bank of America a signed letter requesting as much, all the way to Florida. That resulted in delays in fil ing an online Change of Address with the USPS, given the USPS demands the online changes be
made with one's own debit card, and that they debit card bare the same billing address as the location one is filing a change of address from, or else, the USPS, will process such a request, but it will add 7-10 days to tohe
processing time. I chose that option given mailign a letter to Bank of America in Florida would have taken just as long. IN the interim I went to the Golden Valley USPS Station and explained these circumstances and
the supervisor, beyond calling me a "squatter" in advance of the hearing in RJC REv2011-000374 (and refusing to divulge whom had been providing information to them resulting in such a prejudicial view of my tenancy at
1422 E. 9th St. #2, Reno 89512), informed me that while my Change of Address to my then PO Box 60952 was being processed, my mail would be held at the Golden Valley Station and that I could retrieve it there for the
next 7-10 days. When I returned in the following days, a supervisor named Buck Hyde literally assaulted me, and he and two other supervisors there, Terri James and "Ms. Passot" informed me they were "Feds" and didn't
have to put up with any crap from an attorney related to state laws like NRS 118A.190, though they couldn't cite specifically t o any section of Title 39 of U.S. Code justifying their refusal to allow me a mailbox key to my
former home law office at 1422 E. 9th St. #2.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.,PO BOX 3961, RENO, NV, 89505,tel:7753388118,Iax:9496677402;ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com NevadaBarNo:9473
Sent: Sat11/03/129:31PM
To: carothersrreno.gov(carothersrreno.gov);Rogersreno.gov(rogersreno.gov)
Hi!
I will be out of the office until November 14th.
If you are inquiring about a tape request or wish to request a tape please contact Supervisor Robin Carothers at carothersr@reno.gov.
If this is relative to unit # entries or premise hazards contact Supervisor Suzy Rogers at .
If this is relative to some other matter and you need a response prior to my return please contact the Assistant Manager Kelley Odom at 334-1202.
Thank You
Ella Mae Carthen
Operations
COR Emergency Communications
Supervisor line (775) 334-2399
Office line (775) 326-6613
carthene@reno.gov
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
To: ecommops@reno.gov; odomk@reno.gov; beechlerk@reno.gov; zyoung@da.washoecounty.us; kadlicj@reno.gov; wongd@reno.gov; lstuchell@washoecounty.us; renodirect@reno.gov
Subject: FW: request for audio records
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 21:30:08 -0800
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
rmc subpoena 063341 TO ECOMM ODOM AND OTHERS.pdf
0204 ECOMM SUBPOENA.pdf
Download all
To: ecommops@reno.gov; odomk@reno.gov; beechlerk@reno.gov
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 20:18:12 -0800
Hi ECOMM,
RENO JUSTICE COURT CASE RCR2011-063341 D2
THIS IS A SUBPOENA FOR
STATE OF NEVADA, PLAINTIFF
V.
ZACH COUGHLIN, DEFENDANT
SUBPOENA AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
ATTN: YOU MUST COMPLY IN ACCORD WITH JCRCP 45 AND OR NRCP 45
ATTN: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS ECOMM, KELLY ODOM, CITY OF RENO, RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT ETC.

Pleasejustsendme(preIerablybyemail)anyandallrecordingsordocumentationoIanysortinvolvingZachCoughlinorZachCuoghlin,whetherwitha
dateoIbirthoI9/27/76or9/1/76,oranyotherDOB,includingIorZacharyCoughlinorZachCaughlinoranyiterationoIthosenames,includingdispatch
recordings(notjustthe911calls,byallrecordings,includingcommunicationswiththepoliceoIIicersorotherlawenIorcementpersonel),includingthose
inanywayrelatedtoincidentsorarrestson,butnotlimitedto,theIollowing:
August20th,2011arrestat10n.centerstbyRPDDuralde,involvingOIIicerRosaandOFIicerAlaksaaswellwithvarious911/rpd/dispatchcalls
includingsomemadebytheIollowingnumbers
any call ever made from or to:
7753786673
7758153680
7752338593
7752303726
7753043004
7752330367
7752296737
or7753388118
9496677402
also,myIormerWashoeCountyPublicDeIenderJimLeslieservedKellyOdomasubpoenaIorthesematrialson10312. IgotLeslieremovedandamnowrepresentignmyselIinRCR2012-
063341. LesliesaysECOMMandODOMIailedtoproduceanythingorrespondinanyway...whichIdoubt...sopleasejustincludetheresponsetothatsubpoenainwhatyousendme
ialsowantanythingrelatedtotheIollowingcriminalcases:
intheRenoMUnicCourt11cr22176(occuringatthew.2ndst.walmarton9/9/11ataround9pm,arrestbyRSIC,
NOvember13th,2011arrestinRMC11cr26405(arrestbyrenopdat121RiverRockSt.reno89501atsometimearoundnoon)
November30th,2011arrestbyrenomarshalsin11cr22176
january12th,2012arrestinrmc12cr00696(at121RiverRock89501aswell,pleaseincludeanythignrelatedtoRichardG.HIllorMattMerliss'scallstolawenIorcement,includinganythingon
HIll'stpoinrcp2012-000018)
january13thpulloverbyrpdduraldeelaloIcoughlinonnear252millst.
january14th,2012arrestinrcr2012-065630
anyoIthe911callsordispatchrecordingsrelatedtoanyincidentsorresponsestheretobylawenIorcmentinanywayconnectedtocoughlinonoraroundthe1422E.9thSt.#2addressbetween
december1,2011andthepresent,includinganycallsbyChristopher"Erin"ervinAllabackorLaureForesheeorLauraPetrone
anythingrelatedtorenomarshalrmcarrestin11tr26800on2/27/12
anythingonthe11/15/11incidentresultingin11tr26800onstlaurenceinvolvingtherpd,sargenttarter,652Iorrestst. richardhill,etc.
rcr2012-067980(anythingonthejune26th,2012arrestbywcsodeputymachenandbowman,andinIactanythinginvolvingZachCoughlinandanylawenIorcementIiguresatoraroundNorthwinds
Apartmentsat1680skymountaindriveandorSuperiorministorageat
1. Google+ page
7795 White Fir Street Reno, NV 89523
(775) 746-4322
or at some west fourth street address or Superior MIni STorage, especially on or around september 22nd 2012 whether involving officer alan weaver or
sargent oliver miller or not, including calls for law enforcement response by matt grant (a woman) or ken grant or marvin dye or anyone with superior mini storage
the july 3rd, 2012 arrest in rmc 12 cr 12420 AND ANYTHING AN EVERYTHING OTHERWISE RELATED TO ZACH COUGHLIN IN ANY WAY, DONT FORGET THE JAN 13 2012 STUFF
WITH SARGENT LOPEZ AND OFFICER WEAVER AND AVILA, ALL THE SARGENT SIFRE STUFF,
ANYTHING IN CR12-0376...ANDYTHING IN MH12-0032
I am subpoening all these materials incident to Judge Sferrazzas 10/22/12 ORder in RCR2011-063341, in which he granted me the right
to issue these subpoenas upon you without paying up front the witness fees or other expenses (IFP)
THanks,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:04:35 -0800
From: EcommOps@reno.gov
Subject: request for audio records
Mr. Coughlin,
Your request for audio records has been received. However, I do not have sufficient information to process it.
Can you tell me the date and time this occurred, along with the location so I will be able to locate the call.
Thanks,
Ella Mae
Close Print
FW:pleasefilethiswiththeRMC
Sent: Mon11/05/122:31AM
To: ormaasareno.gov(ormaasareno.gov);renomunirecordsreno.gov(renomunirecordsreno.gov);jacksoncreno.gov(jacksoncreno.gov);tognonimreno.gov
(tognonimreno.gov);lopezvreno.gov(lopezvreno.gov);ballarddreno.gov(ballarddreno.gov);hazlett-stevenscreno.gov(hazlett-stevenscreno.gov);
wongdreno.gov(wongdreno.gov);sooudibreno.gov(sooudibreno.gov);zyoungda.washoecounty.us(zyoungda.washoecounty.us);eIilingnvcourts.nv.gov
(eIilingnvcourts.nv.gov);eIlexwashoecourts.us(eIlexwashoecourts.us);joey.hastingwashoecourts.us(joey.hastingwashoecourts.us)
1attachment
41612rmcnoticeoInonservice.pdI(96.8KB)
DearRenoMunicipalCourtandCityoIRenoAttorney,WCDA,andWDC,
Please note my new address for all future matters, and that my phone number is now the same as my fax number. Please update my
address with all RMC Departments.
PleasealertDepartment3oIthis,as1200696 and11TR26800arestillbeIoreit
12CR12420isstillbeIoreDepartment1
Department2has11CR26405(whichmaybemarkedas"closed",however,aMotionIorNewTrial,etc.hasrecentlybeenIiledtherein
Department1has11CR22176andhasyettoruleonseveralmotionsIiledtherein.
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Subject: please file this with the RMC
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:30:30 -0700
in 11 tr 26800
RE:convictingattorneyofsummarycriminalcontemptduringpendencyofOrderforCompetencyEvaluation
FW:convictingattorneyofsummarycriminalcontemptduringpendencyofOrderforCompetencyEvaluation
Sent: Sun11/04/1212:34AM
To: togninimreno.gov(togninimreno.gov);joey.hastingswashoecounty.us(joey.hastingswashoecounty.us);joey.ordunawashoecounty.us
(joey.ordunawashoecounty.us);david.hardywashoecounty.us(david.hardywashoecounty.us);patrickknvbar.org(patrickknvbar.org);skentskentlaw.com
(skentskentlaw.com);miketahoelawyer.com(miketahoelawyer.com);nevtelassnsbcglobal.net(nevtelassnsbcglobal.net);IIlahertydlpId.com
(IIlahertydlpId.com);davidcnvbar.org(davidcnvbar.org);complaintsnvbar.org(complaintsnvbar.org);tsusichnvdetr.org(tsusichnvdetr.org);jeeloreno.com
(jeeloreno.com);cvellisbhIs.com(cvellisbhIs.com)
DearSBN,
Ihavesetmyemailtoaddtomyblockedsenderlistany"bounceback"orerrormessagesthatmightbesentmeinresponsetoyour
antiquatedemailsystemhavinganysortoIIilesizelimitationsresultinginarejectionoIatransmissionthatprettymuchanoldIreegmailor
hotmailaccountcouldaccept. So,youronnoticeoIthatandyourapparentpurposeIulLudditestance(remindsmeoI"Investigator"
Petersmentioninghowreluctantsheistoinvestigateanything)isnotsomethingIwillbereceivinganynoticeoIsoyoumightwantto
adjustyouremailsystemaccordingly.
Ihaveanidea,howaboutyouimplementa"salarysizelimitation"onyourpaychecksuntilyouceasepursuingoutdatedanddubious
plausibledeniabilityconstructs?
ZachCoughlin
1471E.9thSt.
Reno,NV89512
TelandFax:9496677402
From:zachcoughlinhotmail.com
To:togninimreno.gov;joey.hastingswashoecounty.us;joey.ordunawashoecounty.us;david.hardywashoecounty.us;patrickknvbar.org;skentskentlaw.com;
miketahoelawyer.com;nevtelassnsbcglobal.net;IIlahertydlpId.com;davidcnvbar.org;complaintsnvbar.org;tsusichnvdetr.org;jeeloreno.com;cvellisbhIs.com
Subject:convictingattorneyoIsummarycriminalcontemptduringpendencyoIOrderIorCompetencyEvaluation
Date:Sat,3Nov201203:13:58-0700
togninimreno.gov;joey.hastingswashoecounty.us;joey.ordunawashoecounty.us;david.hardywashoecounty.us;patrickknvbar.org;skentskentlaw.com;
ZachCoughlin
1471E.9thSt.
Reno,NV89512
Sent: Sun11/04/1212:29AM
5attachments
11TR26800RMC03141220120312-103301cd003b8I0851d0.wmv(10.3MB),10251261901opposition(1)FILESTAMPED61901SCR111(4)InReCoughlin.pdI
(225.1KB),61901102912amendedemmental.pdI(230.2KB),PatrickKingsbngrievanceletteroI31612andJudgeNashHolmesgreivanceoI31412rmc11TR
26800.pdI(575.8KB),exhibit1withcoverpagepart1oI361901102512Iiling.pdI(8.0MB)
resentduetoerrorinyouremailaddressbelow
ZachCoughlin
1471E.9thSt.
Reno,NV89512
Subject:convictingattorneyoIsummarycriminalcontemptduringpendencyoIOrderIorCompetencyEvaluation
Date:Sat,3Nov201203:13:58-0700
ZachCoughlin
1471E.9thSt.
Reno,NV89512
Sent: Sun11/04/1212:28AM
4attachments
11cr26405puentes04101220120410-090301cd16I8c3aa49b0.mp3(5.1MB),11CR26405050812Loomis20120508-110401cd2d0a627I5I90.mp3(15.1MB),511
09wlselcanowashoelegalservicesdismissallettercitingJudgeLindaGardner'sOrdersolecause264052680000696.pdI(902.5KB),5609emailIromwlsedelcano
2640560302garnder019551089660302268006031754844dd.pdI(15.3KB)
resentbecaseoIerrorinyouraddresbelow
ZachCoughlin
1471E.9thSt.
Reno,NV89512
Subject:FW:Mr.King'sassertioninhis3/16/12letter
Date:Sat,3Nov201203:00:11-0700
ItisplainIrommyinteractionswithPatrickKingthattheironyoIRichardG.Hill,Esq'sallegationsoImy"ghostwriting"arerichestwhenconsideringthe
apparent"ghost-grievancing"goingonhere,especiallywithrespecttothegenesisoING12-0435,thegrievanceconsistingoIFamilyCourtJudgeLinda
Gardner'sApril2009Ordersanctioningadomesticviolenceattorney$1,000,personally,whereIailedtoIollowJudgeLindaGardner'sorderstoseektointimidate
hisbatteredspouseimmigrantclientintoacceptingthemaritalsettlementagreementoIIeroIoneJohnSpringgate,Esq.(achimeraoIsortswhereMr.Springgate's
clientwouldagreetoberesponsilbeIoracollectionoIthirdpartycreditcarddebtIorwhichhewasthesolesignatoryandIorwhichevenunderandextremely
unlikely"doctrineoItheneccessaires,assuingmyclientlostona"wasteoImaritalassets",approach,myclient,Ms.Joshi,wouldbeveryunlikelytoeverIace
judgmentorexecutioninconnectionwithsuchthirdpartycreditscarddebts. IIailedtocavetoJudgeLindaGardner'sbullyingdemands,andevenwhereshe
yelledatmeandmyclientintheimpromptu"settlementconIerence"shedecidedtohold10minutesbeIoretheTrial(JudgeLindaGardneryelledatmeto"shut
up"inIrontoImyclient,thenproceededtotellMs.Joshi"don'tlistentoyourattorney!"inanangry,hostile,andbelligerenttone),andinsteadcitedtoanALR
articlethatpresentsthepositionItookasthemajorityviewpointinAmericanjurisprudencewithrespecttothedutyoIadomesticobligationnotbeing
permissiblysetoIIwithameredebt,particularlyathirdpartyunsecuredcreditcarddebt,suchasthoseIorwhichMr.Joshiwasthesolesignatory. Apparently
JudgeGardneragreedwithJohnSpringgate'swhiningabouthowhe"neededtobeabletoknowhowmuchtochargeIorhistime"orsomethingalongthoselines
(Mr.SpringgateindicatedthatCoughlin'sIailingtoimmediatelyacceptSpringgate'ssettlementoIIerwasscrewingupSpringgate'swholeproIitmargin,and
thereIorecontrarytotheorderlyadministrationoIjustice,orsomethingalongthoselines,atwhichpointSpringgatemovedIorsanctions(despitenothaving
serveda21daysaIeharborIilingreadyNRCP11motion),which,inJohn'swordswastantamountto"sendingashotacrossyourbow",abloodsportsortoI
analogyonemightexpectIromasemi-proIessionalIencerlikeMr.Springgate. IwasIiredIromWashoeLegalServicesandtoldbyitsExecutiveDirector
thatthedecisionwasbasedsolelyonJudgeLindaGardner'sOrder....whichwasoddgivensheandMasterEdmondsonandatleastoneotherjudgehadgiven
ElcanopositivereviewsoImyworklessthantwomonthspriortothat. Elcano,though,did,atthetimeoIreportingthosepositivereviewsmentionthathe
goes"wayback"withLindaGardner,andthat"sheowes"himbecause"hedidherabigIavoralongtimeago",etc.,etc.
Anyways,BarCounselKinghasrecentlyindicatedthathewascompletelyunawarethatLindaGardneristhesisteroItheRMCJudgeWilliamGardnerwho
reIusedtorecusehimselIIromthecriminaltrespassconvictionIsustainedincidenttoacustodialarrestatmyIormerhomelawoIIice,whereintheopposing
counselRichardG.Hill,Esq.,hasbeencaughtlyingontaperegardingwhetheranywarningwasgiventometoleave,andwhethertheRPDidentiIiedthemselves
aslawenIorcementandissuedalawIulordertoleavethepremisespriortothelandlordkickingdownadoortoa"basement"thatwas,accordingtoHill's
associate,notevenapartoItheproperty(orincludedinthepartoIthepropertycontainedwithinanyexteriordoorstothepremises.
DespitethestatementsoIRMCJudgeGardnerintheaudiocdsthatKinghimselIIinallyadmittedtometopossessingandreceivingIromRMCJudgeNash
Holmes(aIterseveralinstancesoIKinglyingabouthiswillingnesstoallowingmetoreviewthematerialsJudgeNashHolmesandothersslippedtotheSBN,
KingIinallywasIorcedtoturnoveratleastaIewoIthoseitems. IncludedamongstthemwerethehearingsbeIoreJudgeWilliamGardneron4/10/12and
5/8/12whereinRMCJudgeWilliamGardneradmitsthathissisterisnoneotherthanFamilyCourtJudgeLindaGardner,andthathissisterpassedhimherApril
2009OrdersanctioningCoughlin(whichCoughlinIiledaPetitionIorWritoIMandamuschallengingin54844,):
http://caseinIo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID22746
WashoeLegalServicesIiredCoughlin,citingJudgeLindaGardner'sOrdersanctioningCoughlinasthesolereasonIoritsdoignso. CouglinsuedWLSIor
wrongIultermination,andJudgeElliotdismissedCoughlin'slawsuitwithoutreachingthemeritsoItheComplaint,butthendecidedtosanctionCoughlinIorhis
lawsuitallegedlylacking"merit"anyways...goIigure. JudgeElliotalsoincarceratedCoughlinIromApril19th,2012-April26th,2012baseduponsome
IraudulentletterbyLake'sCrossing,andsomeMotionIorRevocationoIBailmadebyDDAZachYoungatatimewhenNRS178.405Iorbidhismakingany
motionsgiventhatallproceedingsmustbestayedduringthependencyoIanOrderIorCompetencyEvaluation. Amazingly,inher3/16/12lettertotheSBN,
JudgeNashHolmesisstillmentioninghowsheandtheRMCareIurioslytryingtosetIorTrialthecasestemmingIromtehcustodial"jaywalking"arrestoI
CoughlinonJanuary12th,2012incidnettotheliesbyRichardG.Hill,Esq.totheRPDonthatdate. Itiscuriousthatthatmatter11CR00696wasalloI
thesuddentransIerredtoJudgeNashHolmesonFebruary27th,2012,thesamedayJudgeNashHolmeswaspurportedlymadeawareoIthe2/27/12OrderIor
CompetencyEvaluationoICoughlininRCR2011-063341(relative,attheveryleast,tothecommunicationsbetweenTogniniandtheWCPD,atthevery
least). Additionally,SecondJudicialDistrictChieIAppealsClerkdeniedCoughlin's2/27/12IilingoIaMotionIorExtensionoITimetoeIIectuateservicein
thewrongIulterminationlawsuitbyCoughlinagainstElcano(whomJudgeLindaGarnder"owesabigIavor",accordingtoElcano)inCV11-01955(beIoreJudge
Elliot).
Further,totheextentJudgeElliot'sremandingCoughlinintocustodytocoercehisconsenttodivulgingextremelyprivatemedicalinIormationissomehowa
contemptOrder,thenthe"letter"or"evaluationunderseal"oI4/18/12byLakesCrossingDr.BillDavisandDr.SallyFarmermustbeintheIormoIan
aIIidavit. Itwasnot. Further,CoughlincalledDr.DavisIromthebookingroomatthejailandDr.DavisattemptedtoweaseloutoItheconsequencesoIhis
proIessionalmisconduct,doneundercoloroIlaw,byallegingthathe"didn'twritethe4/18/12letterIiledwiththeCourt"butmerelysigneditandwasnot
responsibleIoritbeingIiledwiththecourt. Totheextenttheassertionsinthat4/18/12letterareoutrightlies(theyare...theletterindicatesCoughlinoutright
reIusedtoprovidebasicmedicalinIormation,whichisnottrue,Coughlinindicatedhewould"needtocheckhisrecords"inresponsetooneinitialquestion,and
thenmentionedthatsomeproIessional,particularlyphysicians,IaceaninabilitytoobtainmalpracticeinsuranceiIwordgetsoutthattheytakeanti-depressants.
SomehowDr.DavisandDr.FarmerinterpretedsuchastatementtoallowthemselvestoIilealetterwiththeCourtallegingthatCoughlin"threatenedoneoIthe
evaluatorswithlegalaction". NowonderLake'sCrossinginsistsondoingaTerryStopstyle"patdown"searchoneachandeveryoneIorcedtogothereby
theCourtstogetaCompetencyEvaluation(theRJCandWCPDhaveitsetupsothatonemust utilizetheservicesoILake'sCrossingIoranysuchevaluation)
andmaintainastrickbanonanysortoIsmartphonesorcellularphoneswithintheirevaluationrooms(howdiIIicultitwouldbeIorDr.DavisandDr.Farmerto
liewithseemingimpunity,astheydidintheir4/18/12"evaluation"IiledwiththeCourtinCR12-0376,shouldtheirsubjectsbereadilyabletorevealthe
dishonestyoItheseevaluatorsviasomerecordingimpeachigntheircredibility. TotheextentJudgeElliotIoundCoughlinincontemptoIcourt(whichhe
apparentlydidinresponsetoCoughlininquiringintothescopeandextentoIsuchaCompetencyEvaluationratherthansubmittingtoablankcheckinquestinto
hismentalhealthandmedicalrecordsincidenttoaretaliatoryMotionIorCompetencyEvaluationon2/27/12byapublicdeIenderupsetthatCoughlinhad
criticizedhisIailingtoshowuptoacourtdateevenaIterthatattorney,BirayDoganhadIiledaNoticeoIAppearanceandmetwiththeclienttodiscussthecase
RCR2012-065630,IoroveranhourandahalIjustoneweekprevioustothatmissedcourtappearance,andwhereDDAYoungwasclearlyretaliatingagainst
CoughlinIorCoughlinIilingaMotionIorSanctionsagainstYoungjustdaysprevioustothatinadiIIerentcase.
Regardkess.MarilynTogniniisnowbeinglistedasawitnessCoughlinintendstocallathisNovember14th,2012NNDBhearingattheStateBaroINevada
OIIicesat9am,andanyotherpersonwhomJudgeNashHolmesmaybereIerringtoinherattachedgrievanceagainstCoughlin(whereinshemanagestoallude
tosomehearsayaboutCoughlinlivinginhiscardespitetheIactthatCoughlinwasclearlystilllivingat1422E.9thSt.atthetimeJudgeNashHolmesletterto
theSBNwaswritten,3/14/12,evenwhereJudgeNashHolmesIeignsaninabilitytoreadilymakecontactwithCoughlin,depsiteneithershenortheRMCcalling,
emailingorIaxingCoughlin,ormanagingtomailthe2/28/12OrdertotheaddressallotherRMCDepartmentsthenhadIorCoughlin. Regardless,that3/14/12
grievancegoesontodemonstrateJudgeNashHolmesproIoundlackoIrespectIororknowledgeoIthedictatesoINRS178.405,orthelegalprinciples,in
general,relatedtoreIrainingIromproceedingwithprosecutionswherethecompetencyoItheaccusedisindoubtinthemindoIthetrieroIIact. Further,the
SBN'sBarCounselPatrickKing(whom,again,managedtojustinthelastcoupleweeksindicatethathewasunawarethatJudgeWilliamGardnerandJudge
LindaGardnerarebrotherandsister,orevenrelated,despiteKingreceivingIromtheRMC'sJudgeNashHolmesaboxoImaterialsthatincludedmultiple
hearingsinthecriminaltrespassproseuctionoICoughlinthatJudgeWilliamGardner(thenRMCAdministrativeJudge,whomadmittedto"atleastonemeeting"
whereinheandtheotherRMCJudgesdiscussedCoughlin,alongwithChieIMarshalRoper,onlyIorJudgeGardnertothenattempttosaywithastraightIace
thathe"wasnotsurewhetherhewas"awareoIthisorthat,orhadanyknowledgeoIthegrievanceJudgeNashHolmesIiledagainstCoughlinwiththeSBN
(despitethat3/14/12lettertotheSBNbyJudgeNashHolmesexpresslypurportingtobewrittenonbehalIoIherselIandALLtheotherRMCJudges,whose"Iull
cooperation"sheassuresshecandelivertotheSBNinseekingtodiscreditCoughlinandinsodoingassisttheCityoIRenoinaddressingthemultiplewrongIul
arrestsoICoughlinintheprecedingmonths.
Regardless,thecommunicationsbetweentheWashoeCountyPublicDeIenderandtheRMC,includingMs.TonginiandJudgeNashHolmes,andwhatexactly
JudgeWilliamGardnerwasmadeawareoI,andwhathepassedIromhissister,JudgeLindaGardner,ontoJudgeNashHolmes,andwhatJudgeNashHolmes
passedontoBarCounselKingisnowoImaterialrelevance,andbringsintoplaytheissueoItheleveloIcandorwithopposingcounselKingexhibitsinhis
4/19/12correspondencwithCoughlinwhenhepurportstoonlyhaverecievedJudgeLindaGardner'sApril2009OrderIorSanctionson3/15/12(andthat"5" in
the"15" looksshaky,Pat),wherinKingwrote:"It was sent to me by the clerk of the court at my request, pursuant to my investigation." Which Clerk of Court, Mr.
King? Clerk of Court Orduna Hastings? Then there is Judge Elliot dismissing Coughlin's lawsuit against Washoe Legal Services, then incarcerating Coughlin between April
19th and April 26th, 2012 (during which time Richard G. Hill and Casey Baker filed their Motion for Attorney's Fees of $40,050 incident to the appeal of a summary eviction
in CV11-03628, which Coughlin's former co-worker Judge Flanagan awarded Baker and Hill, after Judge Flanagan refused to recuse himself even where Coughlin pointed out
the necessity of his so doing. Then Judge Elliot denied Coughlin's appeal of RMC Judge Howard's conviction of Coughlin for "petty larceny of a candy bar and some cough
drops" in 11 CR 22176 (the sole basis for the current temporary suspension of Coughlin's law license, incident to a trial where the Reno City Attorney Pamela Roberts offered
perjured testimony from Wal-Mart's Thomas Frontino and RSIC Officer Kameron Crawford that Crawford was justified in conducting a custodial arrest and search incident thereto
for an alleged misdemeanor offense, occurring after 7 pm, outside the presence of the officer, in light of Coughlin failure to provide the officer his driver's license. City
Attorney Roberts had been provided by the RSIC a video tape showing Coughlin providing Crawford his driver's license, and Coughlin's booking inventory sheet lists his drivers
license (despite Officer Crawfords sworn testimony that Coughlin did not have one on his person at the time, even where Wal-Mart's video shows Crawford copying down
Coughlin's information off the driver's license Coughlin provided to Offier Crawford, and where Wal-Mart admits that it did not effect a citizen's arrest of Coughlin, and therefore
NRS 178.1255 required an application of the exclusionary rule to any partial package of "cough drops" found in Coughlin's pockets upon a search incident to arrest (and even that
is not all that necessary to prove Coughlin's innocence given that the RSIC Officer and Wal-Mart's Frontino testified incorrectly that the receipt for the $83.82 worth of groceries
that Coughlin selected and paid after his allegely consuming a "candy bar and some cough drops" while shopping, did, in fact have an entry for that exact UPC of Duract Cough
Melts ("cough drops"), contrary to the sworn testimony of both Wal-Mart's Frontino and the RSIC's Crawford). But none ofthat mattered much to Judge Elliot, as he denied
Coughlin's appeal based on some civil statute related to a litigant being required to pay for a transcript up front, even where, in criminal matters, the RMC is required to transmit
the record on appeal and order the production fo the transcripts within 10 days of the filing of a Notice of Appeal, pursuant to NRS 189.010-030, regardless of whether the
criminal defendant pays for the transcript up front. See CR12-1018 for other instances of teh RMC and its "exclusive trancriptionist" Pam Longoni perpetuating a fraud on the
public (the RMC indicates Longoni is the only transcriptionist they will allow, and demand that she be paid up front....Longoni hung up on Coughlin multiple times and otherwise
prejudiced Coughlin's appeal by refusing to prepare his transcript even where Coughlin would pay up front for the transcripts, in CR11-2064. Judge Elliot then dismissed
Coughlin's appeal of the criminal trespass conviction by Judge William Gardner in CR12-1262 where the RMC and Lisa Wagner failed to file the 6/28/12 Notice of Appeal Coughlin
has confirmation that the RMC and City Attorney Hazlett-Stevens recieved, though both maintain a dubious position counter to such irrefutable proof.
Additionally,oneoItheaspectsoIRichardG.Hill'sgrievancewiththeSBNagainstCoughlin,memorializedinNG12-0204(oneoIthethreegreivancesIormingMr.KingsSCR105
SBNv.CouglinPetition)allegessomesortoI"ghostwriting"onCoughlin'spartIoraIormerclientoICoughlin'sJohnGessin. Thisisplainlynottrue,thoughsomeconIusion
mayhavearisengiventheIactthatataboutthetimeGessinandCouglinpartedways,GessinapparentlypaidIorandsignedupIoranE-Ilexaccount(apparentlynon-attorneysmay
doso?). Hill'sallegationsrespectingGessinarebaselessandironicgiventheIactthatCoughlinIiledNoticeoIAppearanceasGessin'sattorneyinvariousmatters,andevensent
GessinacorrespondencewhereinhewarnsGessinthathewillnottolerateanyappearanceoIghostwriting(whatcananattorneydowhenaclientpayshimmoney,draItsoINRCP
60(b)MotionsareworkedupextensivelyoveraperiodoItime,thentheclientdecideshewantstopartways,andtakeswithhimthosedraIts? FileaNoticeoIAppearancesothere
isatleastsomepapertrial?). ItwouldbehelpIultoaddressingHill'sallegationsvisavis"ghostwriting"IorGessiniItheSecondJudicialDistrictCourtwouldpresentorallowIor
inspectionanythingitmayhavetendingtoshedlightonsuchallegations.
HereisonecorrespondenceCoughlinsentthenclientJohnGessinreIutingtheallegationsthatHillmadetotheSBNinhisattached1/14/12grievanceagainstCoughlin(attachedto
theSBNKing's2/14/12lettertoCoughlin):
"Subject:NOTICESOFAPPEARANCES
John,Letmeknowwhatsgoingon,igotanewtemporaryaddressandphonenumber.theresissomeghostwritingtaboos,so...iIyouwant
metowithdrawthatsIine,whatever,itsallgood
ZachCoughlin,Esq."
Further,inher10412orderin11TR26800,1udgeNashHolmescontinuestorefusetoallowCoughlintoappealafinalappealableorderconvictinghimof"summary
criminalcontempt",eventhough1udgeHolme'sOrderspecificallyreliesuponallegedconduct,andanessentialelementthereof,notoccuringinhere"immediate
presence",andwherethereisnoAffidavitbyherMarshal(1udgeNashHolmesstatesontherecordin11TR26800thatanRMCMarshal(apparentlyMarshalHarley)
followedCoughlinintotherestroomduringabreakintheTrial1udgeNashHolmesbegrudinglygrantedCoughlin(thoughsheorderedhimtoleavehisyellownotepadin
thecourtroom?)whereuponMarshalHarleyplayedPeepingTomthroughabathroomstallandallegestohavespiedCoughlin"dissassemblingasmartphone",which1udge
NashHolmestookasanopportunitytofind"byclearandconvicing"evidencethatCoughlin"lied""underoath"inresponsetoherimpromptu,suasponte,interrogation
ofCoughlinimmediatelyfollowingthatbathroombreak(andsoonafterRMCMarshalHarley(whoviolatedthe"courthousesanctuary"dictatesagainstservingCoughlin
1udgeFlanagan'sOrdertoShowCausefora3/23/12HearingonRichardG.Hill'sMotionintheevictionappealinCV11-03628whileCoughlinandCityAttorneyOrmaas
wherehagglingoverpleadetailsimmediatelypriortothetrafficcitationtrialin11TR26800(incidenttoCoughlinbeingtoldtoleaveHill'sofficeuponarrivingtheirto
retrievehiskeys,wallet,anddriver'slicense,andclient'sfileuponbeingreleasedfromthreedaysinjailincidenttoacriminaltrespasscomplaintHillsignedagainst
Coughlin,whichtheRPDcommittedmisconductinsubjectingCoughlintoacustodialarrestfor,especiallyinlightofthevideotapedadmissionofSargentLopezandthe
matrialspresentedinCoughlin'srecentfilingsin61901and11CR26405). RMCMarshalHarleytookituponhimselftoaidWCSODeputyMacheninfilingafalse
AffidavitofServiceinHarley'shandingCoughlin,onbehalfofHill,adocumentHillpaidtheWCSOtoserveonCoughlin(anhowunseemlyandbullyingtoattemptto
serveitatthetrafficcitationtrial,appearanceofimpartialityandimproprietybedamned,Caplow,regardless.). AndCityAttorneyOrmaasmayhavebeenwhispering
inHarley'searsgivenherapparentconcernorherresponsestoCoughlinaskingher,shortlybeforethetrialcommenced,ifsheplannedtofollowuponorinanyway
documenttheadmissionstoacceptingbribesfromRichardHillmadebytheofficereffectingthecustodialcriminaltrespassarrest,RPDOfficerChrisCarter,1r.(whom
willapparentlyattestthathewasjesting,thoughitsnotclearwhatisfunnyaboutarrestinganattorneyfortrespassathisformerhomelawofficewheretheWCSOadmits
itliedinfilinganAffidavitofServiceattestingtohaving"personallyserved"CoughlinsuchanEvictionOrder.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
1471E.9thSt.
Reno,NV89512
From:PatrickKnvbar.org
To:zachcoughlinhotmail.com
Subject:RE:Mr.King'sassertioninhis3/16/12letter
Date:Thu,19Apr201221:29:100000
April 19, 2012

Zach Coughlin

Dear Mr. Coughlin,

A screening panel of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Panel met on Tuesday April 10, 2011 to address the grievances filed against you. The panel directed me to
proceed to a formal disciplinary hearing. As such, I will be preparing a formal Complaint.

I understand from the e-mail below, that you do not believe you should have been found guilty of the theft at Wal-Mart and that you should not have been found in
contempt of Court. However, it must concern you that you were found in contempt of Court by more than one Judge in two different trials. You wanted to know how I learned of or
obtained a copy of Judge Gardners Order after trial that was filed in 2009. It was sent to me by the clerk of the court at my request, pursuant to my investigation.

It would help me and perhaps yourself, if you would respond and explain why you were convicted of theft and why you were held in contempt of Court. You may
be well served to explain what remedial measures you are taking to make sure you do not repeat the conduct complained about. I cannot give you legal advice. However I can suggest you
cooperate with Bar counsels investigation and that you respond specifically to the allegations contained in Judge Holmes and Richard Hills grievance letters to the office of Bar
Counsel.

Patrick King

Dear Bar Counsel,
One thing that I am not sure I have ever pointed out, is that my then live in girlfriend of over 4 years stole about 2 months worth of my portion of our rent from me (our arrangement was I would give
her the money, she would forward it on to the landlord) in the period between May-July 2011. I sacrificed a great deal and paid lots of her tuition, and she broke up with me and moved out on or
around May 18th, 2011, about 3 days after we hosted her entire family for her graduation from UNR. I did not know about her st ealing my portion of the rent or failing to pay her own portion until
August 2011, as the landlord was on an extended vacation and failed to communicate any deficiency in the rent until mid-August, 2011, and the eviction in RJC REV2011-001708 from my former home
law office ensued within less than a week of his communicating this deficiency. He and his counsel, Richard G. Hill, Esq. and Casey Baker pursued a No Cause Notice of Eviction because there was a
wealth of support for me contention that habitability issues, fix and deduct, and the landlord's failure to cure, in addition t o personal property damage done by the landlord's landscaping crew and a
provision in the lease holding the landlord liable for such, indicated it would "be the path of least resistance" to simply seek a No Cause Eviction. The only problem in their attempt to circumvent the
law (even though they still threatened to seek back rent in another forum after getting their No Cause, summary eviction) was t he fact that the Lease Agreement specifically allowed for me to have a
commercial law office there, and NRS 40.253 makes impermissible a summary eviction against a commercial tenant unless the non-payment of rent is Notice, which, of course Baker and Hill chose not to
do....and it was about the time that Hill started to understand that his "wrong site surgery" for his neurosurgeon landlord cli ent might subject Hill and his firm to some malpractice liability, that Hill started
writing letters to bar counsel attempting to start some grievance on behalf of Gessin (whom Hill did not find so objectionable when Gessin was Hill's client and Hill was milking over $20K from Gessin) for
Anyway, I deny guilt on each an every allegation made against me by Hill, Judge Nash Holmes, and whoever else has filed a grievance or complaint and also with respect to any criminal charge against
me, including that which resulted in a conviction in 11 CR 22176, which, I think will ultimately reveal was replete with prosecutorial misconduct, lying by the Wal-Mart loss prevention associate, and lying
by the two RSIC police officers, in additional to abuse of discretion and other errors by Judge Howard.
I am writing to report that I did not receive Mr. King's 3/16/12 letter until a substantial time after it was sent. The postmark on that 3/16/12 letter from Assistant Bar Counsel King (please see attached
picture of the letter and envelope) indicates it was mailed 3/16/12, and the letter indicates it was not faxed to me (despite my numerous written requests that such a practice be done in consideration of
the problems I have encountered in the USPS violations of the Federal Torts Claims Act and incident to the domestic violence I have been subjected to, in FV12-00188 and FV12-00187, which included
interference with my mail).
I timely filed an Official Change of Address with the USPS. Additionally, I made numerous appearances at both the Golden Valley USPS Station and the Downtown Reno Post Office in and attempt to
make every diligent effort to receive my mail. I have been threatened by and lied to by the supervisors of the Golden Valley Station USPS Station. I had a hearing related to a landlord tenant dispute
on 3/15/12 (which makes Judge Nash Holmes assertion, in her 3/14/12 letter that I was living in my car at that time rather suspect, given my home law office was located at the property which was the
subject of that hearing and which I was still located at on 3/14/12...of course, Judge Nash Holmes provides no attribution for such hearsay in her extremely reckless assertion) in RJC REV2012-00374 (the
matter for which Gayle Kern sent a property manager who lacked even a law license to litigate on her behalf, or on that of the HOA which Kern has now decided to appear for, despite her being listed a
the PTTHOA Resident Agent for sometime and despite Kern being a named party in the lawsuit in RJC Rev2012-000374.
My point is, I did not receive Mr. King's mailing of 3/16/12, in a timely manner, and as such, I am requesting more time to respond to it. Additionally, I note that Mr. King, in that 3/16/12 letter, writes
"I am enclosing with this letter copies of a grievance letter, from the Municipal Court and a copy of an Order from District court....I will make available for your review and inspection the supporting
documents and audio recordings."
However, as I have previously written, Mr. King has not made "available for (my) review and inspection the supporting documents and audio recordings". I wish to have a copy of all such "supporting
documents and audio recordings", and failing a copy being provided, I wish to be allowed the access to conduct a "review and inspection" of "the supporting documents and audio recordings" that Mr.
King promised to afford me. At no time has Mr. King ever allowed me such access. In addition, Mr. King now informs me that he has opened a grievance on behalf of Judge Linda M. Gardner, incident
to a Order for Sanctions she entered in April 2009. Mr. King has refused to indicate to me who submitted this Order for Sancti ons or otherwise provided it to Bar Counsel as a Complaint or Grievance or
otherwise. I believe someone necessarily must file the complaint or grievance. Further, I believe I am entitled to know whom that is, and when such was filed. Additionally, Mr. King has, so failed to
provide a copy or any access to any purported complaint by the City of Reno Marshal's division incident to my accessing justice, or attempting to, on March 22nd, 2012. I am again requesting that I be
so provided as much.
I filed an Official USPS Change of Address on March 12, 2012, in anticipation of a change of address incident to a landlord tenant hearing set for March 15th, 2012, and further, in response to hostility,
retaliation, lies, and threats made by the USPS Golden Valley Station supervisors Buck Hyde, Terri James, and a "Ms." Passot. Some mail, like Mr. King's 3/16/12 letter to me, was eventually forwarded
to me (Mr. King's letter has 3 different yellow stickers affixed, one atop the other, on it by the USPS), however, some mail, l ike several Orders of the Reno Municipal Court, were not forwarded on to me,
but rather, apparently, returned to the Reno Municipal Court. Nonesuch Orders were returned to the RMC in time for Judge Nash Holmes 3/14/12 letter to Mr. King, as such, I have no idea what Judge
Nash Holmes is referring to when she describes difficulty contacting me (the attempts by Judge Nash Holmes and the RMC apparent ly did not included either email or fax or a phone call, however....).
There has been little rhyme or reason as to what mailings the USPS simply returned to the sender (such as a mailing from the RMC dated 3/14/12) and which mailings it ultimately forwarded on to me (at
my then PO BOX 60952, please note, I have a new PO BOX, that I intened to keep for a substantial period of time, it is PO BOX 3961, Reno 89505...), such as a 3/13/12 mailing from the Reno Justice
Court, which was forwarded on to my then PO BOX 60952 (albeit that envelope has 3 yellow stickers stacked atop each other as well, the farthest one down indicating a forwarding date of 3/21/12, then
next sticker indicating a hold, and the final sticker atop the stack indicating a forwarding date of 3/28/12....).
I stayed in a weekly motel for an extended period of time following my November 2011 No Cause eviction from my former home law office, and there was difficulties in filing a Change of Address incident
to that given that the Address being changed from was permanently assigned to a business, a motor lodge. Further, some problem cause Bank of America to temporarily deny my attempts to change my
address on file online, and rather require that I mail Bank of America a signed letter requesting as much, all the way to Flori da. That resulted in delays in filing an online Change of Address with the
USPS, given the USPS demands the online changes be made with one's own debit card, and that they debit card bare the same billi ng address as the location one is filing a change of address from, or
else, the USPS, will process such a request, but it will add 7-10 days to tohe processing time. I chose that option given mai lign a letter to Bank of America in Florida would have taken just as long.
IN the interim I went to the Golden Valley USPS Station and explained these circumstances and the supervisor, beyond calling me a "squatter" in advance of the hearing in RJC REv2011-000374 (and
refusing to divulge whom had been providing information to them resulting in such a prejudicial view of my tenancy at 1422 E. 9th St. #2, Reno 89512), informed me that while my Change of Address to
my then PO Box 60952 was being processed, my mail would be held at the Golden Valley Station and that I could retrieve it there for the next 7-10 days. When I returned in the following days, a
supervisor named Buck Hyde literally assaulted me, and he and two other supervisors there, Terri James and "Ms. Passot" informed me they were "Feds" and didn't have to put up with any crap from an
attorney related to state laws like NRS 118A.190, though they couldn't cite specifically to any section of Title 39 of U.S. Code justifying their refusal to allow me a mailbox key to my former home law
office at 1422 E. 9th St. #2.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq., PO BOX 3961, RENO, NV, 89505, tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949 667 7402; ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com Nevada Bar No: 9473
Sent: Sat11/03/129:31PM
To: carothersrreno.gov(carothersrreno.gov);Rogersreno.gov(rogersreno.gov)
Hi!
I will be out of the office until November 14th.
If you are inquiring about a tape request or wish to request a tape please contact Supervisor Robin Carothers at carothersr@reno.gov.
If this is relative to unit # entries or premise hazards contact Supervisor Suzy Rogers at .
If this is relative to some other matter and you need a response prior to my return please contact the Assistant Manager Kelley Odom at 334-1202.
Thank You
Ella Mae Carthen
Operations
COR Emergency Communications
Supervisor line (775) 334-2399
Office line (775) 326-6613
carthene@reno.gov
ZachCoughlin
1471E.9thSt.
Reno,NV89512
To:ecommopsreno.gov;odomkreno.gov;beechlerkreno.gov;zyoungda.washoecounty.us;kadlicjreno.gov;wongdreno.gov;lstuchellwashoecounty.us;
renodirectreno.gov
Subject:FW:requestIoraudiorecords
Date:Sat,3Nov201221:30:08-0800
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Download all
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 20:18:12 -0800
Hi ECOMM,
V.

Pleasejustsendme(preIerablybyemail)anyandallrecordingsordocumentationoIanysortinvolvingZachCoughlinorZachCuoghlin,
whetherwithadateoIbirthoI9/27/76or9/1/76,oranyotherDOB,includingIorZacharyCoughlinorZachCaughlinoranyiterationoIthose
names,includingdispatchrecordings(notjustthe911calls,byallrecordings,includingcommunicationswiththepoliceoIIicersorotherlaw
enIorcementpersonel),includingthoseinanywayrelatedtoincidentsorarrestson,butnotlimitedto,theIollowing:
August20th,2011arrestat10n.centerstbyRPDDuralde,involvingOIIicerRosaandOFIicerAlaksaaswellwithvarious911/rpd/dispatch
callsincludingsomemadebytheIollowingnumbers
7753786673
7758153680
7752338593
7752303726
7753043004
7752330367
7752296737
or7753388118
9496677402
also,myIormerWashoeCountyPublicDeIenderJimLeslieservedKellyOdomasubpoenaIorthesematrialson10312. IgotLeslieremovedandamnowrepresentignmyselIin
RCR2012-063341. LesliesaysECOMMandODOMIailedtoproduceanythingorrespondinanyway...whichIdoubt...sopleasejustincludetheresponsetothatsubpoenainwhatyou
sendme
january12th,2012arrestinrmc12cr00696(at121RiverRock89501aswell,pleaseincludeanythignrelatedtoRichardG.HIllorMattMerliss'scallstolawenIorcement,including
anythingonHIll'stpoinrcp2012-000018)
anyoIthe911callsordispatchrecordingsrelatedtoanyincidentsorresponsestheretobylawenIorcmentinanywayconnectedtocoughlinonoraroundthe1422E.9thSt.#2address
betweendecember1,2011andthepresent,includinganycallsbyChristopher"Erin"ervinAllabackorLaureForesheeorLauraPetrone
rcr2012-067980(anythingonthejune26th,2012arrestbywcsodeputymachenandbowman,andinIactanythinginvolvingZachCoughlinandanylawenIorcementIiguresatoraround
NorthwindsApartmentsat1680skymountaindriveandorSuperiorministorageat
1. Google+ page
(775) 746-4322
THanks,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:04:35 -0800
Mr. Coughlin,
Thanks,
Ella Mae
Sent: Sat11/03/129:30PM
To: ecommopsreno.gov(ecommopsreno.gov);odomkreno.gov(odomkreno.gov);beechlerkreno.gov(beechlerkreno.gov);ZYOUNGDA.WASHOECOUNTY.US
(zyoungda.washoecounty.us);kadlicjreno.gov(kadlicjreno.gov);WONGDRENO.GOV(wongdreno.gov);lstuchellwashoecounty.us
(lstuchellwashoecounty.us);renodirectreno.gov(renodirectreno.gov)
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Download all
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 20:18:12 -0800
Hi ECOMM,
V.

whetherwithadateoIbirthoI9/27/76or9/1/76,oranyotherDOB,includingIorZacharyCoughlinorZachCaughlinoranyiterationoIthose
names,includingdispatchrecordings(notjustthe911calls,byallrecordings,includingcommunicationswiththepoliceoIIicersorotherlaw
enIorcementpersonel),includingthoseinanywayrelatedtoincidentsorarrestson,butnotlimitedto,theIollowing:
August20th,2011arrestat10n.centerstbyRPDDuralde,involvingOIIicerRosaandOFIicerAlaksaaswellwithvarious911/rpd/dispatch
callsincludingsomemadebytheIollowingnumbers
7753786673
7758153680
7752338593
7752303726
7753043004
7752330367
7752296737
or7753388118
9496677402
RCR2012-063341. LesliesaysECOMMandODOMIailedtoproduceanythingorrespondinanyway...whichIdoubt...sopleasejustincludetheresponsetothatsubpoenainwhatyou
sendme
anyoIthe911callsordispatchrecordingsrelatedtoanyincidentsorresponsestheretobylawenIorcmentinanywayconnectedtocoughlinonoraroundthe1422E.9thSt.#2address
betweendecember1,2011andthepresent,includinganycallsbyChristopher"Erin"ervinAllabackorLaureForesheeorLauraPetrone
rcr2012-067980(anythingonthejune26th,2012arrestbywcsodeputymachenandbowman,andinIactanythinginvolvingZachCoughlinandanylawenIorcementIiguresatoraround
NorthwindsApartmentsat1680skymountaindriveandorSuperiorministorageat
1. Google+ page
(775) 746-4322
THanks,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:04:35 -0800
Mr. Coughlin,
Thanks,
Ella Mae
Sent: Sat11/03/128:18PM
To: EcommOpsreno.gov(ecommopsreno.gov);odomkreno.gov(odomkreno.gov);beechlerkreno.gov(beechlerkreno.gov)
Hi ECOMM,
RENOJUSTICECOURTCASERCR2011-063341D2
THISISASUBPOENAFOR
STATEOFNEVADA,PLAINTIFF
V.
ZACHCOUGHLIN,DEFENDANT
SUBPOENAANDSUBPOENADUCESTECUM
ATTN:YOUMUSTCOMPLYINACCORDWITHJCRCP45ANDORNRCP45
ATTN:CUSTODIANOFRECORDSECOMM,KELLYODOM,CITYOFRENO,RENOPOLICEDEPARTMENTETC.

whetherwithadateoIbirthoI9/27/76or9/1/76,oranyotherDOB,includingIorZacharyCoughlinorZachCaughlinoranyiterationoI
thosenames,includingdispatchrecordings(notjustthe911calls,byallrecordings,includingcommunicationswiththepoliceoIIicersor
otherlawenIorcementpersonel),includingthoseinanywayrelatedtoincidentsorarrestson,butnotlimitedto,theIollowing:
August20th,2011arrestat10n.centerstbyRPDDuralde,involvingOIIicerRosaandOFIicerAlaksaaswellwithvarious
911/rpd/dispatchcallsincludingsomemadebytheIollowingnumbers
7753786673
7758153680
7752338593
7752303726
7753043004
7752330367
7752296737
or7753388118
9496677402
RCR2012-063341. LesliesaysECOMMandODOMIailedtoproduceanythingorrespondinanyway...whichIdoubt...sopleasejustincludetheresponsetothatsubpoenainwhat
yousendme
anyoIthe911callsordispatchrecordingsrelatedtoanyincidentsorresponsestheretobylawenIorcmentinanywayconnectedtocoughlinonoraroundthe1422E.9thSt.#2
addressbetweendecember1,2011andthepresent,includinganycallsbyChristopher"Erin"ervinAllabackorLaureForesheeorLauraPetrone
rcr2012-067980(anythingonthejune26th,2012arrestbywcsodeputymachenandbowman,andinIactanythinginvolvingZachCoughlinandanylawenIorcementIiguresator
aroundNorthwindsApartmentsat1680skymountaindriveandorSuperiorministorageat
1. Google+ page
(775) 746-4322
THanks,
convictingattorneyofsummarycriminalcontemptduringpendencyofOrderforCompetencyEvaluation
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:04:35 -0800
Mr. Coughlin,
Thanks,
Ella Mae
Sent: Sat11/03/123:14AM
5attachments
11TR26800RMC03141220120312-103301cd003b8I0851d0.wmv(10.3MB),10251261901opposition(1)FILESTAMPED61901SCR111(4)InReCoughlin.pdI
(225.1KB),61901102912amendedemmental.pdI(230.2KB),PatrickKingsbngrievanceletteroI31612andJudgeNashHolmesgreivanceoI31412rmc11TR
26800.pdI(575.8KB),exhibit1withcoverpagepart1oI361901102512Iiling.pdI(8.0MB)
ZachCoughlin
1471E.9thSt.
Reno,NV89512
Sent: Sat11/03/123:00AM
4attachments
11cr26405puentes04101220120410-090301cd16I8c3aa49b0.mp3(5.1MB),11CR26405050812Loomis20120508-110401cd2d0a627I5I90.mp3(15.1MB),511
09wlselcanowashoelegalservicesdismissallettercitingJudgeLindaGardner'sOrdersolecause264052680000696.pdI(902.5KB),5609emailIromwlsedelcano
2640560302garnder019551089660302268006031754844dd.pdI(15.3KB)
ItisplainIrommyinteractionswithPatrickKingthattheironyoIRichardG.Hill,Esq'sallegationsoImy"ghostwriting"arerichestwhenconsideringthe
apparent"ghost-grievancing"goingonhere,especiallywithrespecttothegenesisoING12-0435,thegrievanceconsistingoIFamilyCourtJudgeLinda
Gardner'sApril2009Ordersanctioningadomesticviolenceattorney$1,000,personally,whereIailedtoIollowJudgeLindaGardner'sorderstoseektointimidate
hisbatteredspouseimmigrantclientintoacceptingthemaritalsettlementagreementoIIeroIoneJohnSpringgate,Esq.(achimeraoIsortswhereMr.Springgate's
clientwouldagreetoberesponsilbeIoracollectionoIthirdpartycreditcarddebtIorwhichhewasthesolesignatoryandIorwhichevenunderandextremely
unlikely"doctrineoItheneccessaires,assuingmyclientlostona"wasteoImaritalassets",approach,myclient,Ms.Joshi,wouldbeveryunlikelytoeverIace
judgmentorexecutioninconnectionwithsuchthirdpartycreditscarddebts. IIailedtocavetoJudgeLindaGardner'sbullyingdemands,andevenwhereshe
yelledatmeandmyclientintheimpromptu"settlementconIerence"shedecidedtohold10minutesbeIoretheTrial(JudgeLindaGardneryelledatmeto"shut
up"inIrontoImyclient,thenproceededtotellMs.Joshi"don'tlistentoyourattorney!"inanangry,hostile,andbelligerenttone),andinsteadcitedtoanALR
articlethatpresentsthepositionItookasthemajorityviewpointinAmericanjurisprudencewithrespecttothedutyoIadomesticobligationnotbeing
permissiblysetoIIwithameredebt,particularlyathirdpartyunsecuredcreditcarddebt,suchasthoseIorwhichMr.Joshiwasthesolesignatory. Apparently
JudgeGardneragreedwithJohnSpringgate'swhiningabouthowhe"neededtobeabletoknowhowmuchtochargeIorhistime"orsomethingalongthoselines
(Mr.SpringgateindicatedthatCoughlin'sIailingtoimmediatelyacceptSpringgate'ssettlementoIIerwasscrewingupSpringgate'swholeproIitmargin,and
thereIorecontrarytotheorderlyadministrationoIjustice,orsomethingalongthoselines,atwhichpointSpringgatemovedIorsanctions(despitenothaving
serveda21daysaIeharborIilingreadyNRCP11motion),which,inJohn'swordswastantamountto"sendingashotacrossyourbow",abloodsportsortoI
analogyonemightexpectIromasemi-proIessionalIencerlikeMr.Springgate. IwasIiredIromWashoeLegalServicesandtoldbyitsExecutiveDirector
thatthedecisionwasbasedsolelyonJudgeLindaGardner'sOrder....whichwasoddgivensheandMasterEdmondsonandatleastoneotherjudgehadgiven
ElcanopositivereviewsoImyworklessthantwomonthspriortothat. Elcano,though,did,atthetimeoIreportingthosepositivereviewsmentionthathe
goes"wayback"withLindaGardner,andthat"sheowes"himbecause"hedidherabigIavoralongtimeago",etc.,etc.
Anyways,BarCounselKinghasrecentlyindicatedthathewascompletelyunawarethatLindaGardneristhesisteroItheRMCJudgeWilliamGardnerwho
reIusedtorecusehimselIIromthecriminaltrespassconvictionIsustainedincidenttoacustodialarrestatmyIormerhomelawoIIice,whereintheopposing
counselRichardG.Hill,Esq.,hasbeencaughtlyingontaperegardingwhetheranywarningwasgiventometoleave,andwhethertheRPDidentiIiedthemselves
aslawenIorcementandissuedalawIulordertoleavethepremisespriortothelandlordkickingdownadoortoa"basement"thatwas,accordingtoHill's
associate,notevenapartoItheproperty(orincludedinthepartoIthepropertycontainedwithinanyexteriordoorstothepremises.
DespitethestatementsoIRMCJudgeGardnerintheaudiocdsthatKinghimselIIinallyadmittedtometopossessingandreceivingIromRMCJudgeNash
Holmes(aIterseveralinstancesoIKinglyingabouthiswillingnesstoallowingmetoreviewthematerialsJudgeNashHolmesandothersslippedtotheSBN,
KingIinallywasIorcedtoturnoveratleastaIewoIthoseitems. IncludedamongstthemwerethehearingsbeIoreJudgeWilliamGardneron4/10/12and
5/8/12whereinRMCJudgeWilliamGardneradmitsthathissisterisnoneotherthanFamilyCourtJudgeLindaGardner,andthathissisterpassedhimherApril
2009OrdersanctioningCoughlin(whichCoughlinIiledaPetitionIorWritoIMandamuschallengingin54844,):
WashoeLegalServicesIiredCoughlin,citingJudgeLindaGardner'sOrdersanctioningCoughlinasthesolereasonIoritsdoignso. CouglinsuedWLSIor
wrongIultermination,andJudgeElliotdismissedCoughlin'slawsuitwithoutreachingthemeritsoItheComplaint,butthendecidedtosanctionCoughlinIorhis
lawsuitallegedlylacking"merit"anyways...goIigure. JudgeElliotalsoincarceratedCoughlinIromApril19th,2012-April26th,2012baseduponsome
IraudulentletterbyLake'sCrossing,andsomeMotionIorRevocationoIBailmadebyDDAZachYoungatatimewhenNRS178.405Iorbidhismakingany
motionsgiventhatallproceedingsmustbestayedduringthependencyoIanOrderIorCompetencyEvaluation. Amazingly,inher3/16/12lettertotheSBN,
JudgeNashHolmesisstillmentioninghowsheandtheRMCareIurioslytryingtosetIorTrialthecasestemmingIromtehcustodial"jaywalking"arrestoI
CoughlinonJanuary12th,2012incidnettotheliesbyRichardG.Hill,Esq.totheRPDonthatdate. Itiscuriousthatthatmatter11CR00696wasalloI
thesuddentransIerredtoJudgeNashHolmesonFebruary27th,2012,thesamedayJudgeNashHolmeswaspurportedlymadeawareoIthe2/27/12OrderIor
CompetencyEvaluationoICoughlininRCR2011-063341(relative,attheveryleast,tothecommunicationsbetweenTogniniandtheWCPD,atthevery
least). Additionally,SecondJudicialDistrictChieIAppealsClerkdeniedCoughlin's2/27/12IilingoIaMotionIorExtensionoITimetoeIIectuateservicein
thewrongIulterminationlawsuitbyCoughlinagainstElcano(whomJudgeLindaGarnder"owesabigIavor",accordingtoElcano)inCV11-01955(beIoreJudge
Elliot).
Further,totheextentJudgeElliot'sremandingCoughlinintocustodytocoercehisconsenttodivulgingextremelyprivatemedicalinIormationissomehowa
contemptOrder,thenthe"letter"or"evaluationunderseal"oI4/18/12byLakesCrossingDr.BillDavisandDr.SallyFarmermustbeintheIormoIan
aIIidavit. Itwasnot. Further,CoughlincalledDr.DavisIromthebookingroomatthejailandDr.DavisattemptedtoweaseloutoItheconsequencesoIhis
proIessionalmisconduct,doneundercoloroIlaw,byallegingthathe"didn'twritethe4/18/12letterIiledwiththeCourt"butmerelysigneditandwasnot
responsibleIoritbeingIiledwiththecourt. Totheextenttheassertionsinthat4/18/12letterareoutrightlies(theyare...theletterindicatesCoughlinoutright
reIusedtoprovidebasicmedicalinIormation,whichisnottrue,Coughlinindicatedhewould"needtocheckhisrecords"inresponsetooneinitialquestion,and
thenmentionedthatsomeproIessional,particularlyphysicians,IaceaninabilitytoobtainmalpracticeinsuranceiIwordgetsoutthattheytakeanti-depressants.
SomehowDr.DavisandDr.FarmerinterpretedsuchastatementtoallowthemselvestoIilealetterwiththeCourtallegingthatCoughlin"threatenedoneoIthe
evaluatorswithlegalaction". NowonderLake'sCrossinginsistsondoingaTerryStopstyle"patdown"searchoneachandeveryoneIorcedtogothereby
theCourtstogetaCompetencyEvaluation(theRJCandWCPDhaveitsetupsothatonemust utilizetheservicesoILake'sCrossingIoranysuchevaluation)
andmaintainastrickbanonanysortoIsmartphonesorcellularphoneswithintheirevaluationrooms(howdiIIicultitwouldbeIorDr.DavisandDr.Farmerto
liewithseemingimpunity,astheydidintheir4/18/12"evaluation"IiledwiththeCourtinCR12-0376,shouldtheirsubjectsbereadilyabletorevealthe
dishonestyoItheseevaluatorsviasomerecordingimpeachigntheircredibility. TotheextentJudgeElliotIoundCoughlinincontemptoIcourt(whichhe
apparentlydidinresponsetoCoughlininquiringintothescopeandextentoIsuchaCompetencyEvaluationratherthansubmittingtoablankcheckinquestinto
hismentalhealthandmedicalrecordsincidenttoaretaliatoryMotionIorCompetencyEvaluationon2/27/12byapublicdeIenderupsetthatCoughlinhad
criticizedhisIailingtoshowuptoacourtdateevenaIterthatattorney,BirayDoganhadIiledaNoticeoIAppearanceandmetwiththeclienttodiscussthecase
RCR2012-065630,IoroveranhourandahalIjustoneweekprevioustothatmissedcourtappearance,andwhereDDAYoungwasclearlyretaliatingagainst
CoughlinIorCoughlinIilingaMotionIorSanctionsagainstYoungjustdaysprevioustothatinadiIIerentcase.
Regardkess.MarilynTogniniisnowbeinglistedasawitnessCoughlinintendstocallathisNovember14th,2012NNDBhearingattheStateBaroINevada
OIIicesat9am,andanyotherpersonwhomJudgeNashHolmesmaybereIerringtoinherattachedgrievanceagainstCoughlin(whereinshemanagestoallude
tosomehearsayaboutCoughlinlivinginhiscardespitetheIactthatCoughlinwasclearlystilllivingat1422E.9thSt.atthetimeJudgeNashHolmesletterto
theSBNwaswritten,3/14/12,evenwhereJudgeNashHolmesIeignsaninabilitytoreadilymakecontactwithCoughlin,depsiteneithershenortheRMCcalling,
emailingorIaxingCoughlin,ormanagingtomailthe2/28/12OrdertotheaddressallotherRMCDepartmentsthenhadIorCoughlin. Regardless,that3/14/12
grievancegoesontodemonstrateJudgeNashHolmesproIoundlackoIrespectIororknowledgeoIthedictatesoINRS178.405,orthelegalprinciples,in
general,relatedtoreIrainingIromproceedingwithprosecutionswherethecompetencyoItheaccusedisindoubtinthemindoIthetrieroIIact. Further,the
SBN'sBarCounselPatrickKing(whom,again,managedtojustinthelastcoupleweeksindicatethathewasunawarethatJudgeWilliamGardnerandJudge
LindaGardnerarebrotherandsister,orevenrelated,despiteKingreceivingIromtheRMC'sJudgeNashHolmesaboxoImaterialsthatincludedmultiple
hearingsinthecriminaltrespassproseuctionoICoughlinthatJudgeWilliamGardner(thenRMCAdministrativeJudge,whomadmittedto"atleastonemeeting"
whereinheandtheotherRMCJudgesdiscussedCoughlin,alongwithChieIMarshalRoper,onlyIorJudgeGardnertothenattempttosaywithastraightIace
thathe"wasnotsurewhetherhewas"awareoIthisorthat,orhadanyknowledgeoIthegrievanceJudgeNashHolmesIiledagainstCoughlinwiththeSBN
(despitethat3/14/12lettertotheSBNbyJudgeNashHolmesexpresslypurportingtobewrittenonbehalIoIherselIandALLtheotherRMCJudges,whose"Iull
cooperation"sheassuresshecandelivertotheSBNinseekingtodiscreditCoughlinandinsodoingassisttheCityoIRenoinaddressingthemultiplewrongIul
arrestsoICoughlinintheprecedingmonths.
Regardless,thecommunicationsbetweentheWashoeCountyPublicDeIenderandtheRMC,includingMs.TonginiandJudgeNashHolmes,andwhatexactly
JudgeWilliamGardnerwasmadeawareoI,andwhathepassedIromhissister,JudgeLindaGardner,ontoJudgeNashHolmes,andwhatJudgeNashHolmes
passedontoBarCounselKingisnowoImaterialrelevance,andbringsintoplaytheissueoItheleveloIcandorwithopposingcounselKingexhibitsinhis
4/19/12correspondencwithCoughlinwhenhepurportstoonlyhaverecievedJudgeLindaGardner'sApril2009OrderIorSanctionson3/15/12(andthat"5" in
the"15" looksshaky,Pat),wherinKingwrote:"It was sent to me by the clerk of the court at my request, pursuant to my investigation." Which Clerk of Court, Mr.
King? Clerk of Court Orduna Hastings? Then there is Judge Elliot dismissing Coughlin's lawsuit against Washoe Legal Services, then incarcerating Coughlin between April
19th and April 26th, 2012 (during which time Richard G. Hill and Casey Baker filed their Motion for Attorney's Fees of $40,050 incident to the appeal of a summary eviction
in CV11-03628, which Coughlin's former co-worker Judge Flanagan awarded Baker and Hill, after Judge Flanagan refused to recuse himself even where Coughlin pointed out
the necessity of his so doing. Then Judge Elliot denied Coughlin's appeal of RMC Judge Howard's conviction of Coughlin for "petty larceny of a candy bar and some cough
drops" in 11 CR 22176 (the sole basis for the current temporary suspension of Coughlin's law license, incident to a trial where the Reno City Attorney Pamela Roberts offered
perjured testimony from Wal-Mart's Thomas Frontino and RSIC Officer Kameron Crawford that Crawford was justified in conducting a custodial arrest and search incident thereto
for an alleged misdemeanor offense, occurring after 7 pm, outside the presence of the officer, in light of Coughlin failure to provide the officer his driver's license. City
Attorney Roberts had been provided by the RSIC a video tape showing Coughlin providing Crawford his driver's license, and Coughlin's booking inventory sheet lists his drivers
license (despite Officer Crawfords sworn testimony that Coughlin did not have one on his person at the time, even where Wal-Mart's video shows Crawford copying down
Coughlin's information off the driver's license Coughlin provided to Offier Crawford, and where Wal-Mart admits that it did not effect a citizen's arrest of Coughlin, and therefore
NRS 178.1255 required an application of the exclusionary rule to any partial package of "cough drops" found in Coughlin's pockets upon a search incident to arrest (and even that
is not all that necessary to prove Coughlin's innocence given that the RSIC Officer and Wal-Mart's Frontino testified incorrectly that the receipt for the $83.82 worth of groceries
that Coughlin selected and paid after his allegely consuming a "candy bar and some cough drops" while shopping, did, in fact have an entry for that exact UPC of Duract Cough
Melts ("cough drops"), contrary to the sworn testimony of both Wal-Mart's Frontino and the RSIC's Crawford). But none ofthat mattered much to Judge Elliot, as he denied
Coughlin's appeal based on some civil statute related to a litigant being required to pay for a transcript up front, even where, in criminal matters, the RMC is required to transmit
the record on appeal and order the production fo the transcripts within 10 days of the filing of a Notice of Appeal, pursuant to NRS 189.010-030, regardless of whether the
criminal defendant pays for the transcript up front. See CR12-1018 for other instances of teh RMC and its "exclusive trancriptionist" Pam Longoni perpetuating a fraud on the
public (the RMC indicates Longoni is the only transcriptionist they will allow, and demand that she be paid up front....Longoni hung up on Coughlin multiple times and otherwise
prejudiced Coughlin's appeal by refusing to prepare his transcript even where Coughlin would pay up front for the transcripts, in CR11-2064. Judge Elliot then dismissed
Coughlin's appeal of the criminal trespass conviction by Judge William Gardner in CR12-1262 where the RMC and Lisa Wagner failed to file the 6/28/12 Notice of Appeal Coughlin
has confirmation that the RMC and City Attorney Hazlett-Stevens recieved, though both maintain a dubious position counter to such irrefutable proof.
Additionally,oneoItheaspectsoIRichardG.Hill'sgrievancewiththeSBNagainstCoughlin,memorializedinNG12-0204(oneoIthethreegreivancesIormingMr.KingsSCR105
SBNv.CouglinPetition)allegessomesortoI"ghostwriting"onCoughlin'spartIoraIormerclientoICoughlin'sJohnGessin. Thisisplainlynottrue,thoughsomeconIusion
mayhavearisengiventheIactthatataboutthetimeGessinandCouglinpartedways,GessinapparentlypaidIorandsignedupIoranE-Ilexaccount(apparentlynon-attorneysmay
doso?). Hill'sallegationsrespectingGessinarebaselessandironicgiventheIactthatCoughlinIiledNoticeoIAppearanceasGessin'sattorneyinvariousmatters,andevensent
GessinacorrespondencewhereinhewarnsGessinthathewillnottolerateanyappearanceoIghostwriting(whatcananattorneydowhenaclientpayshimmoney,draItsoINRCP
60(b)MotionsareworkedupextensivelyoveraperiodoItime,thentheclientdecideshewantstopartways,andtakeswithhimthosedraIts? FileaNoticeoIAppearancesothere
isatleastsomepapertrial?). ItwouldbehelpIultoaddressingHill'sallegationsvisavis"ghostwriting"IorGessiniItheSecondJudicialDistrictCourtwouldpresentorallowIor
inspectionanythingitmayhavetendingtoshedlightonsuchallegations.
HereisonecorrespondenceCoughlinsentthenclientJohnGessinreIutingtheallegationsthatHillmadetotheSBNinhisattached1/14/12grievanceagainstCoughlin(attachedto
theSBNKing's2/14/12lettertoCoughlin):
"Subject:NOTICESOFAPPEARANCES
John,Letmeknowwhatsgoingon,igotanewtemporaryaddressandphonenumber.theresissomeghostwritingtaboos,so...iIyouwant
metowithdrawthatsIine,whatever,itsallgood
ZachCoughlin,Esq."
Further,inher10412orderin11TR26800,1udgeNashHolmescontinuestorefusetoallowCoughlintoappealafinalappealableorderconvictinghimof"summary
criminalcontempt",eventhough1udgeHolme'sOrderspecificallyreliesuponallegedconduct,andanessentialelementthereof,notoccuringinhere"immediate
presence",andwherethereisnoAffidavitbyherMarshal(1udgeNashHolmesstatesontherecordin11TR26800thatanRMCMarshal(apparentlyMarshalHarley)
followedCoughlinintotherestroomduringabreakintheTrial1udgeNashHolmesbegrudinglygrantedCoughlin(thoughsheorderedhimtoleavehisyellownotepadin
thecourtroom?)whereuponMarshalHarleyplayedPeepingTomthroughabathroomstallandallegestohavespiedCoughlin"dissassemblingasmartphone",which1udge
NashHolmestookasanopportunitytofind"byclearandconvicing"evidencethatCoughlin"lied""underoath"inresponsetoherimpromptu,suasponte,interrogation
ofCoughlinimmediatelyfollowingthatbathroombreak(andsoonafterRMCMarshalHarley(whoviolatedthe"courthousesanctuary"dictatesagainstservingCoughlin
1udgeFlanagan'sOrdertoShowCausefora3/23/12HearingonRichardG.Hill'sMotionintheevictionappealinCV11-03628whileCoughlinandCityAttorneyOrmaas
wherehagglingoverpleadetailsimmediatelypriortothetrafficcitationtrialin11TR26800(incidenttoCoughlinbeingtoldtoleaveHill'sofficeuponarrivingtheirto
retrievehiskeys,wallet,anddriver'slicense,andclient'sfileuponbeingreleasedfromthreedaysinjailincidenttoacriminaltrespasscomplaintHillsignedagainst
Coughlin,whichtheRPDcommittedmisconductinsubjectingCoughlintoacustodialarrestfor,especiallyinlightofthevideotapedadmissionofSargentLopezandthe
matrialspresentedinCoughlin'srecentfilingsin61901and11CR26405). RMCMarshalHarleytookituponhimselftoaidWCSODeputyMacheninfilingafalse
AffidavitofServiceinHarley'shandingCoughlin,onbehalfofHill,adocumentHillpaidtheWCSOtoserveonCoughlin(anhowunseemlyandbullyingtoattemptto
serveitatthetrafficcitationtrial,appearanceofimpartialityandimproprietybedamned,Caplow,regardless.). AndCityAttorneyOrmaasmayhavebeenwhispering
inHarley'searsgivenherapparentconcernorherresponsestoCoughlinaskingher,shortlybeforethetrialcommenced,ifsheplannedtofollowuponorinanyway
documenttheadmissionstoacceptingbribesfromRichardHillmadebytheofficereffectingthecustodialcriminaltrespassarrest,RPDOfficerChrisCarter,1r.(whom
willapparentlyattestthathewasjesting,thoughitsnotclearwhatisfunnyaboutarrestinganattorneyfortrespassathisformerhomelawofficewheretheWCSOadmits
itliedinfilinganAffidavitofServiceattestingtohaving"personallyserved"CoughlinsuchanEvictionOrder.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
1471E.9thSt.
Reno,NV89512
From:PatrickKnvbar.org
Subject:RE:Mr.King'sassertioninhis3/16/12letter
Date:Thu,19Apr201221:29:100000
April 19, 2012

Zach Coughlin

Dear Mr. Coughlin,

A screening panel of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Panel met on Tuesday April 10, 2011 to address the grievances filed against you. The panel directed me to
proceed to a formal disciplinary hearing. As such, I will be preparing a formal Complaint.

I understand from the e-mail below, that you do not believe you should have been found guilty of the theft at Wal-Mart and that you should not have been found in
contempt of Court. However, it must concern you that you were found in contempt of Court by more than one Judge in two different trials. You wanted to know how I learned of or
obtained a copy of Judge Gardners Order after trial that was filed in 2009. It was sent to me by the clerk of the court at my request, pursuant to my investigation.

It would help me and perhaps yourself, if you would respond and explain why you were convicted of theft and why you were held in contempt of Court. You may
be well served to explain what remedial measures you are taking to make sure you do not repeat the conduct complained about. I cannot give you legal advice. However I can suggest you
cooperate with Bar counsels investigation and that you respond specifically to the allegations contained in Judge Holmes and Richard Hills grievance letters to the office of Bar
Counsel.

Patrick King

Dear Bar Counsel,
One thing that I am not sure I have ever pointed out, is that my then live in girlfriend of over 4 years stole about 2 months worth of my portion of our rent from me (our arrangement was I would give
her the money, she would forward it on to the landlord) in the period between May-July 2011. I sacrificed a great deal and paid lots of her tuition, and she broke up with me and moved out on or
around May 18th, 2011, about 3 days after we hosted her entire family for her graduation from UNR. I did not know about her st ealing my portion of the rent or failing to pay her own portion until
August 2011, as the landlord was on an extended vacation and failed to communicate any deficiency in the rent until mid-August, 2011, and the eviction in RJC REV2011-001708 from my former home
law office ensued within less than a week of his communicating this deficiency. He and his counsel, Richard G. Hill, Esq. and Casey Baker pursued a No Cause Notice of Eviction because there was a
wealth of support for me contention that habitability issues, fix and deduct, and the landlord's failure to cure, in addition t o personal property damage done by the landlord's landscaping crew and a
provision in the lease holding the landlord liable for such, indicated it would "be the path of least resistance" to simply seek a No Cause Eviction. The only problem in their attempt to circumvent the
law (even though they still threatened to seek back rent in another forum after getting their No Cause, summary eviction) was t he fact that the Lease Agreement specifically allowed for me to have a
commercial law office there, and NRS 40.253 makes impermissible a summary eviction against a commercial tenant unless the non-payment of rent is Notice, which, of course Baker and Hill chose not to
do....and it was about the time that Hill started to understand that his "wrong site surgery" for his neurosurgeon landlord cli ent might subject Hill and his firm to some malpractice liability, that Hill started
writing letters to bar counsel attempting to start some grievance on behalf of Gessin (whom Hill did not find so objectionable when Gessin was Hill's client and Hill was milking over $20K from Gessin) for
Anyway, I deny guilt on each an every allegation made against me by Hill, Judge Nash Holmes, and whoever else has filed a grievance or complaint and also with respect to any criminal charge against
me, including that which resulted in a conviction in 11 CR 22176, which, I think will ultimately reveal was replete with prosecutorial misconduct, lying by the Wal-Mart loss prevention associate, and lying
by the two RSIC police officers, in additional to abuse of discretion and other errors by Judge Howard.
I am writing to report that I did not receive Mr. King's 3/16/12 letter until a substantial time after it was sent. The postmark on that 3/16/12 letter from Assistant Bar Counsel King (please see attached
picture of the letter and envelope) indicates it was mailed 3/16/12, and the letter indicates it was not faxed to me (despite my numerous written requests that such a practice be done in consideration of
the problems I have encountered in the USPS violations of the Federal Torts Claims Act and incident to the domestic violence I have been subjected to, in FV12-00188 and FV12-00187, which included
interference with my mail).
I timely filed an Official Change of Address with the USPS. Additionally, I made numerous appearances at both the Golden Valley USPS Station and the Downtown Reno Post Office in and attempt to
make every diligent effort to receive my mail. I have been threatened by and lied to by the supervisors of the Golden Valley Station USPS Station. I had a hearing related to a landlord tenant dispute
on 3/15/12 (which makes Judge Nash Holmes assertion, in her 3/14/12 letter that I was living in my car at that time rather suspect, given my home law office was located at the property which was the
subject of that hearing and which I was still located at on 3/14/12...of course, Judge Nash Holmes provides no attribution for such hearsay in her extremely reckless assertion) in RJC REV2012-00374 (the
matter for which Gayle Kern sent a property manager who lacked even a law license to litigate on her behalf, or on that of the HOA which Kern has now decided to appear for, despite her being listed a
the PTTHOA Resident Agent for sometime and despite Kern being a named party in the lawsuit in RJC Rev2012-000374.
My point is, I did not receive Mr. King's mailing of 3/16/12, in a timely manner, and as such, I am requesting more time to respond to it. Additionally, I note that Mr. King, in that 3/16/12 letter, writes
"I am enclosing with this letter copies of a grievance letter, from the Municipal Court and a copy of an Order from District court....I will make available for your review and inspection the supporting
documents and audio recordings."
However, as I have previously written, Mr. King has not made "available for (my) review and inspection the supporting documents and audio recordings". I wish to have a copy of all such "supporting
documents and audio recordings", and failing a copy being provided, I wish to be allowed the access to conduct a "review and inspection" of "the supporting documents and audio recordings" that Mr.
King promised to afford me. At no time has Mr. King ever allowed me such access. In addition, Mr. King now informs me that he has opened a grievance on behalf of Judge Linda M. Gardner, incident
to a Order for Sanctions she entered in April 2009. Mr. King has refused to indicate to me who submitted this Order for Sancti ons or otherwise provided it to Bar Counsel as a Complaint or Grievance or
otherwise. I believe someone necessarily must file the complaint or grievance. Further, I believe I am entitled to know whom that is, and when such was filed. Additionally, Mr. King has, so failed to
provide a copy or any access to any purported complaint by the City of Reno Marshal's division incident to my accessing justice, or attempting to, on March 22nd, 2012. I am again requesting that I be
so provided as much.
I filed an Official USPS Change of Address on March 12, 2012, in anticipation of a change of address incident to a landlord tenant hearing set for March 15th, 2012, and further, in response to hostility,
retaliation, lies, and threats made by the USPS Golden Valley Station supervisors Buck Hyde, Terri James, and a "Ms." Passot. Some mail, like Mr. King's 3/16/12 letter to me, was eventually forwarded
to me (Mr. King's letter has 3 different yellow stickers affixed, one atop the other, on it by the USPS), however, some mail, l ike several Orders of the Reno Municipal Court, were not forwarded on to me,
but rather, apparently, returned to the Reno Municipal Court. Nonesuch Orders were returned to the RMC in time for Judge Nash Holmes 3/14/12 letter to Mr. King, as such, I have no idea what Judge
Nash Holmes is referring to when she describes difficulty contacting me (the attempts by Judge Nash Holmes and the RMC apparent ly did not included either email or fax or a phone call, however....).
There has been little rhyme or reason as to what mailings the USPS simply returned to the sender (such as a mailing from the RMC dated 3/14/12) and which mailings it ultimately forwarded on to me (at
my then PO BOX 60952, please note, I have a new PO BOX, that I intened to keep for a substantial period of time, it is PO BOX 3961, Reno 89505...), such as a 3/13/12 mailing from the Reno Justice
Court, which was forwarded on to my then PO BOX 60952 (albeit that envelope has 3 yellow stickers stacked atop each other as well, the farthest one down indicating a forwarding date of 3/21/12, then
next sticker indicating a hold, and the final sticker atop the stack indicating a forwarding date of 3/28/12....).
I stayed in a weekly motel for an extended period of time following my November 2011 No Cause eviction from my former home law office, and there was difficulties in filing a Change of Address incident
to that given that the Address being changed from was permanently assigned to a business, a motor lodge. Further, some problem cause Bank of America to temporarily deny my attempts to change my
address on file online, and rather require that I mail Bank of America a signed letter requesting as much, all the way to Flori da. That resulted in delays in filing an online Change of Address with the
USPS, given the USPS demands the online changes be made with one's own debit card, and that they debit card bare the same billi ng address as the location one is filing a change of address from, or
else, the USPS, will process such a request, but it will add 7-10 days to tohe processing time. I chose that option given mai lign a letter to Bank of America in Florida would have taken just as long.
IN the interim I went to the Golden Valley USPS Station and explained these circumstances and the supervisor, beyond calling me a "squatter" in advance of the hearing in RJC REv2011-000374 (and
refusing to divulge whom had been providing information to them resulting in such a prejudicial view of my tenancy at 1422 E. 9th St. #2, Reno 89512), informed me that while my Change of Address to
my then PO Box 60952 was being processed, my mail would be held at the Golden Valley Station and that I could retrieve it there for the next 7-10 days. When I returned in the following days, a
supervisor named Buck Hyde literally assaulted me, and he and two other supervisors there, Terri James and "Ms. Passot" informed me they were "Feds" and didn't have to put up with any crap from an
attorney related to state laws like NRS 118A.190, though they couldn't cite specifically to any section of Title 39 of U.S. Code justifying their refusal to allow me a mailbox key to my former home law
office at 1422 E. 9th St. #2.
Sincerely,
RE:pleaseemailmethematerialsproducedbyecomm/K.Odom/dispatchtapes
Zach Coughlin, Esq., PO BOX 3961, RENO, NV, 89505, tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949 667 7402; ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com Nevada Bar No: 9473
Sent: Fri11/02/127:40PM
To: Leslie,Jim(jlesliewashoecounty.us);odomkreno.gov(odomkreno.gov);beechlerkreno.gov(beechlerkreno.gov);renodirectreno.gov(renodirectreno.gov);
kadlicjreno.gov(kadlicjreno.gov);zyoungda.washoecounty.us(zyoungda.washoecounty.us)
Mr.Leslie,oIcourseyoucontinuetoprevaricate. PleasegetmesomethinginwritingregardingyouutterIailuretopropoundanyoIthematerials,response,or
documentationreceivedinconnectionwiththesubpoenaoI10312,thatyouroIIiceservedonECOMM'sKellyOdom,whichyouadmittedtobeingcompletely
unawareoItoday(actually,youindictedacompletelackoIconcernIorsuchmatters)...especiallygiventhematerialrelevanceinthiscaseRCR2011-063341oI
whatwascommunicatedbetweenECOMM/EmergencyDispatchandtheRPD,especiallygiventhearrestingoIIicerhere,NickDuralde'swiIe,JessicaDuraldeis
adispatcherwhowasondutywithECOMMduringthearrest,andespeciallyconsideringthatECOMMandtheRPDwereinvolvedinthewrongIularrestoI
Coughlinon1/14/12Iorthe"misuseoIemergencyserviceswherenoemergencyorperceivedemergencyexists"asECOMM,includingKariannBeechler,have
indicatedthatanycomplaintoIanemergencyorIearoIpolicemisconductorreportthereoIisnotsomethingthatECOMMconcernsitselIwith(similarly,and
complaintregardingECOMMorIearoIanemergencyattendantthereto)....
IhaveatrialresumingonNovember19th,2011. Also,Ms.BeechlerandMs.Odom,willyoupleaseagreetoshowingupattheStateBaroINevadaon
November14th,2012at9amtotestiIyinthedisciplinarymatterwhereinthe"misuse"/ECOMMarrestisamaterialissue?
PleaseemailmethematerialsproducedinresponsetothesubpoenaoI10312inmycaseRCR2012-063341tothisaddress/
Thanks,
ZachCoughlin
1471E.9thSt.
Reno,NV89512

Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 12:13 AM
To: Leslie, Jim; Gray, Linda; Tibbals, Leslie; Dogan, Biray
Subject: please email me the materials produced by ecomm/K. Odom/ dispatch tapes

Dear Mr. Leslie,

Please email me the materials produced by ecomm/K. Odom (in response to your subpoena of 10 3 12, surely you have review these materials given your stated
intention on 9 5 12 to jam me into a conclusion of trial on 10 15 12, at which time you anticipated "calling no witnesses" and "being able to wrap this thing up in
less than an hour, Your Honor..."

So, please send me the materials propounded by ECOMM/the RPD/ K. Odom/ Emergency Communications, etc., along with an inventory of what fails are
included therein (to the extent the attachment file name don't make that obvious. The nice thing about the audio files that ECOMM produced to you is they
are such small files. For instance, the 911 recordings propounded earlier (2 calls be Goble, one by Coughlin) are each only about 200 kb in size...My hotmail
accepts up to 25 mb files at a time, and to the extent you have anything larger than that (pretty doubtful, beyond the large vi deo files I have given to you) it
really should be no trouble for you to digitially transmit (and it is so cute how you have developed this "hand-off transmittal " jibberish/garbage to make an
attempt to excuse your transparent refusal to be held accountable to the 1's and 0's of a digital transmission (but you do leave yourself exposed to a claim that
you have failed to maintain a client's file...by your indication that you wish to ("because there is just no time to put a cd i n the computer and click "attach" and
add an .avi file to an email") do a "hand-off transmittal", at which point you purport to be handing over the only copies your office has of things like the
materials propounded by ECOMM/K. Odom.

Please get this done today, or a continuance will be in order.

Oh, if you are so busy, Jim, perhaps some of your staff could do the emailing and the clicking of the "attachment" button, etc. , etc.

Jim, I haven't heard anything substantive from Biray Dogan in months depsite my numerous written inquiries. You claim to be responsible for his work as his
supervisor....yet, I also remember you putting a "gag order" on Joe Goodnight, preventing him from even speaking when appearing on my behalf in court (truly
an odd sight/lack of sound). Have you placed a similar "no speach or communication" embargo on Mr. Dogan? How does that r elate to Dogan and your
professional responsibilities?

I am still waiting to get a copy of anything, anything at all that your office has to support your contention, made under oath, that it noticed me in any way on
the August 6th, 2012 "combo hearing", which the record reflects I failed to appear at, which has not subjected me to certain bail revocation consequences.
Ms. Gray, you will recall our conversations in that regard, and the statements you made, which conflict sharply with those made under oath by Mr. Leslie.
Please go ahead and send me any such documentation or explanation, and be prepared to speak to these discrepancies at my bar hearing on November 14th,
2012, 9 am, at the State Bar of Nevada's Offices at 9200 Double R. Blvd., Reno, NV, all of you.

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin

RE:Coughlin:Petitlarcenycase
Sent: Thu11/01/121:10PM
To: Leslie,Jim(jlesliewashoecounty.us);odomkreno.gov(odomkreno.gov);complaintsnvbar.org(complaintsnvbar.org);IIlahertydlpId.com(IIlahertydlpId.com)
DearJim,
Havenoideawhatyoumeanabouta"ridingyourbutt"comment...Jim,youunderstandthatIilesthatareonacd/dvd,aredigitalinnature,
yougetthat,right? PleasesendmethoseIilesinaccordancewithJudgeSIerrazza'sOctober22nd,2012Order,already. Also,Jim,you
haveadutytomaintainacopyoIaIormerclient'sIile,andhereyouadmittoseekingtoshirkthatduty,Ibelieve,Iortheevenmore
impermissiblepurposesIhavedetailedpreviously.
From:Jlesliewashoecounty.us
Subject:Coughlin:Petitlarcenycase
Date:Thu,1Nov201219:38:030000
Mr. Coughlin:

In response to your several argumentative phone calls today in which you stated at least once I am riding your butt and in which you keep demanding that we digitally transmit materials
that are in hard form, if you have a dispute about the discovery/file materials or my conduct, set a hearing with the court and I will hand them to you in the presence of the judge since you are
refusing to take receipt of them or sign an inventory.

If you set a hearing, please note that I generally am not available Tuesday or Thursday mornings but will make all reasonable effort. Otherwise, I typically have RJC cases in the afternoons.

I noticed you copied the State Bar on one or more of the emails. I wonder if you would prefer to have the Bar involved in monitoring the hand-off of materials?

James B. Leslie, Esq.
Chief Deputy Public Defender
Washoe County Public Defenders Office
350 South Center Street
Fifth Floor
Reno, NV 89509
1-800-762-8031
youviolatedNRS178.405
Direct Dial: 775-337-4828
Fax: 775-337-4856
Email: jleslie@washoecounty.us

The contents of this communication and all accompanying documents and attachments contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, are legally privileged, and are intended for use and review only by the party sending same and the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, use or taking any action reliant on said contents are CONFIDENTIAL and strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at 775-337-4800 to
arrange return of the original transmittal. Thank you.

Sent: Fri10/12/125:39AM
To: hsotelotmcc.edu;renodirectreno.gov;rjcwebwashoecounty.us;stuttlewashoecounty.us
DearMr.Sotelo,
PLeasegoaheadandgetmetheaudiooItheJuly5th,2012unnoticedbailhearingwhereinKeithLoomisappearedwithme(itwasalsoanarraignmentIortheJuly3rd,2012arrest.
YourSeptember30th,MotiontoWithdrawviolatedNevadalaw. Ineedthataudioin12CR12420andIalsowantyoutogettheaudioIromtheassociatedprotectionorder
hearinginRJCRCP2012-000287,MilanKrebsv.ZachCoughlin.
Pleasegetthattomerightawayorprovidemewiththe$70itwouldcostmetodoit. Further,Iwantallthepolicereportsandorrecordsinanywayconnectedtothe"10visits"by
theRPDtoNorthwindApartments,andIdon'thavethe$25subpoenaIees,andIalsowantSargentDye,OIIicerWeaver,SargentOliverMiller,LieutenantBrown,SargentBradshaw,
andtheEmergencyDispatchandRPDcustodiansoIrecordsservedwithsubpoenasandIorsubpoenaducestecumstobesentoutdemandingallmediarecordingsanddocumentation
inanywayconnectedtoZachCoughlin,includingdispatchrecordingsandlogs,and911calls. PleasedothisrightawayMr.Sotelo,andorprovidemewiththeIeesandcosts
necessaryIormetodoitinyourstead.FURTHER,PLEASEINDICATESPECIFICALLYWHATEXACTLYYOUFEELCOUGHLINWASDOINGORMIGHTDOTHATWAS
SOOBJECTIONABLEORREPUGNANT,ANDINDICATEWHYYOURTHROWINGCOUGHLINUNDERTHEBUSASYOUDIDISNOTTANTAMOUNTTO
MISCONDUCTANDORLIBEL.
FW:respectfullysubmitted
1.ThepracticeandproceedingsinthemunicipalcourtmustconIorm,asnearlyaspracticable,tothepracticeandproceedingsoIjusticecourtsinsimilarcases.An
appealperIectedtransIerstheactiontothedistrictcourtIortrialanew,unlessthemunicipalcourtisdesignatedasacourtoIrecordasprovidedinNRS5.010.Themunicipalcourt
mustbetreatedandconsideredasajusticecourtwhenevertheproceedingsthereoIarecalledintoquestion.
2.EachmunicipaljudgeshallchargeandcollectsuchIeesprescribedin NRS4.060thatarewithinthejurisdictionallimitsoIthemunicipalcourt.
178.405-Suspensionoftrialorpronouncementofjudgmentwhendoubtarisesastocompetenceofdefendant;
noticeofsuspensiontobeprovidedtootherdepartments.
178.405 SuspensionoItrialorpronouncementoIjudgmentwhendoubtarisesastocompetenceoIdeIendant;noticeoIsuspensiontobeprovidedtootherdepartments.
1. AnytimeaIterthearrestoIadeIendant,including,withoutlimitation,proceedingsbeIoretrial,duringtrial,whenuponconvictionthedeIendantisbroughtupIor
judgmentorwhenadeIendantwhohasbeenplacedonprobationorwhosesentencehasbeensuspendedisbroughtbeIorethecourt,iIdoubtarisesastothecompetenceoIthe
deIendant,thecourtshallsuspendtheproceedings,thetrialorthepronouncingoIthejudgment,asthecasemaybe,untilthequestionoIcompetenceisdetermined.
2. IItheproceedings,thetrialorthepronouncingoIthejudgmentaresuspended,thecourtmustnotiIyanyotherdepartmentsoIthecourtoIthesuspensioninwriting.
Uponreceivingsuchnotice,theotherdepartmentsoIthecourtshallsuspendanyotherproceedingsrelatingtothedeIendantuntilthedeIendantisdeterminedtobecompetent.
|1911Cr.Prac.536;A1919,416;1919RL7386;NCL11184|(NRSA1967,1449;1981,1656;1991,1003;2003,1018;2007,186)
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Sent: Thu10/11/123:54PM
To: renodirectreno.gov;kadlicjreno.gov;rjcwebwashoecounty.us;zyoungda.washoecounty.us;bdoganwashoecounty.us;jlesliewashoecounty.us;
jboslerwashoecounty.us
6attachments
20120605101513NorthwindmanagerhandymanattacksIromgolIcart6512.mp4(3.1MB),landlordtenantlawmanualIorpoliceinminnesota.pdI(735.1KB),
Policemanual-IinalasadoptedbyState'sAttorney.pdI(263.7KB),trespasscriminalcivilevictdion.pdI(69.8KB),6812Iaxtonorthwindwithpagenumbers.pdI
(50.7KB),northwindIax6412habitabilityretaliationetc.pdI(45.8KB)
ZachCoughlin
RE: Coughlin: RCR11-063341 (Petit Larceny) and RCR12-067980 (Resisting) and RCR2012-065630 (misue oI
911)
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlinhotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 10/11/12 6:31 PM
To: jlesliewashoecounty.us; enovakwashoecounty.us; ltibbalswashoecounty.us;
cIortierwashocounty.us; jgoodnightwashoecounty.us; bdoganwashoecounty.us;
jboslerwashoecounty.us; lgraywashoecounty.us; lcarlsonwashoecounty.us; rjcwebwashoecounty.us;
renodirectreno.gov; coplogicrpdreno.gov; davidcnvbar.org; tsusichnvdetr.org; patrickknvbar.org;
nvscclerknvcourts.nv.gov
Outlook Active View
9 attachments (total 6.3 MB)
subpoenas and subpoena duces tecums to serve Ior client Coughlin redcuced Iile size.pdIDownload
police report coughlin 9 7 11 against RPD Duralde Rosa - Copy.htmBlocked
police report coughlin REPORTING RPD DURALDE ROSA BARNES DURIO ETC OF 9 7 11.pdIDownload
zc 1 8 12 reno police department online police report burglary durden etc.htmBlocked
20120605101513 Northwind manager handy man attacks Irom golI cart 6 5 12.mp4Download
RMC transcripts on appeal Iailure to pepare Pam Longoni cr12-1018.pdIDownload
Download all as zip
Dear WCPD, WCDA, and Reno Police Department,
Please consider this communication to be the Iiling oI a police report.
You guys take action during a pending Competency Evaluation all the time...see Goodnight setting the Trial Ior
May aIter the 2/27/12 Order Ior Competency Evaluation that Dogan procured aIte, upon inIormation and belieI,
apparently violating my attorney client privilege with DDA Young and the RMC/Judge Nash Holmes (and a
signed letter by Judge Nash Holmes the the State Bar oI Nevada dated March 12th, 2012 admits to
correspondence and or communications between the WCPD and RMC/Judge Nash Holmes concerning
Coughlin, to which the WCPD has steadIastly reIused to provide any answers to Coughlin's questions).
Mr. Leslie, that's the the thing, though. You are still collecting a salary base, in part, on your being listed as my
attorney oI record. For the time being, you have a duty to represent me. You Iailed to subpoena anybody in
this case...Goodnight managed to scare Templeton and Dawson into showing on July 16th, 2012 (that was a
Trial date, Jim, despite your blundering characterization oI it on the tape/transcripts oI your abominable
"eIIorts" at representation at the Hearing on the Motion to Suppress and the Trial (August 29th, and September
5th, 2012).

Please copy me via Iax and email on any and all Iilings with the court in any oI the matters the WCPD appears
Ior me on. Mr. Leslie, you maintain you have a supervisory capacity that has allowed you to chime in Irom the
cheap seats in eIIorts to throw me under the bus and play CYA, in matters and hearings where Dogan or
1/15
Goodnight were appearing...but then you Iail to actually IulIill any oI the duties attendant to such an
arrangement when I request a copy oI my Iile Irom you in RCR2012-065630 (not to mention the July 31st, 2012
Motion to Amend Complaint by DDA Young, or Dogan's utter Iailure to communicate with me in any way
whatsoever...clearly you have imposed a 'gag order' on Dogan similar to the one you imposed on Goodnight at a
hearing in RCR2011-063341, and I have the Court's audio Irom all those hearings, Jim, and it ain't good Ior you
what's one them, know wot I mean? Dogan and Goodnight will Iind unavailing any deIenses the seek to assert
to the eIIect that "Jim Leslie made me do it". GOODNIGHT, I HAVE REQUEST, IN WRITING, AN
EXPLANATION FROM YOU FOR YOUR SUDDEN DISAPPEARANCE MINUTES PRIOR TO THE JULY
16TH, 2012 TRIAL DATE, AND THE RESPONSES YOU HAVE PROVIDED SO FAR HAVE BEEN
INCOMPLETE. PLEASE RESPOND COMPLETELY, IN WRITING. MR. DOGAN, SIMILARLY, I HAVE
REQUESTED REPONSES FROM YOU, IN WRITING, AS TO THE EXTENT AND CONTENT OF YOUR
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RMC, JUDGE NASH HOLMES, KEITH LOOMIS, ETC., ETC. WHILE,
FOR A TIME, YOU SEEMED TO 'GET IT' THAT YOU WERE BEING USED (AND JIM LESLIE
TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN
THE RMC/JUDGE NASH HOLMES, AND THE WCPD IN ANY WAY RELATED TO ME....) YOUR
RESPONSES TO FAR HAVE BEEN INCOMPLETE AS WELL. PLEASE RESPOND TO MY INQUIRIES,
IN WRITING AND CEASE FAILING TO RECOGNIZE MY INVIOLABLE RIGHT TO CONDUCT
DISCOVERY AND SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTATION. I DO NOT WANT THE WCPD
INFORMALLY REQUESTING INFORMATION OR FOR WITNESSES TO APPEAR.. THIS NO
TOURNAMENT, DANIEL-SON, THIS FOR REAL. I WANT REAL SUBPOENAS, AND SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUMS SERVED ON THE INDIVIDUALS WHOM I HAVE REQUESTED THE BE SERVED
ON. NOT EVERY DIME OF YOUR BUDGET SHOULD GO TO YOUR SALARIES.
Please provide me by email and Iax a copy oI my Competency Evaluation and any other documentation
submitted therewith, incident to the September 5th, 2012 Order Ior Competency Evaluation.
Mr. Goodnight, please explain your actions in setting Trial dates, despite my express indication that you reIrain
Irom doing so, during the pendency oI the Order Ior Competency Evaluation (you Iiled Requests Ior
Submission on May 3rd, 2011, and set a Trial date Ior May 7th, 2012, despite the Iact that Judge Elliot's Order
in CR12-0376 did not remand jurisdiction back to the RJC until it was Iile stamped on May 9th, 2012. What
occurred at the May 7th, 2012 "Trial" date, wherein you appeared utterly unprepared to go Iorward with Trial
(you admitted some things that day, vis a vis your Iailure to even view certain exculpatory videos that were
provided to you that is on par with the public deIenders who Iell asleep at trial...."Weekend at Bernie's" indeed.
Weekend at Jeremy's.
Mr. Goodnight, what ocuredat the May 7th, 2012 Trial, in camera, ought be indicative to you oI the rationale
behind the dictates oI NRS 178.405. Now, iI I get arrested, pre-trial services cites to some expulsion Irom
Mental Health Court as a basis Ior denying me an OR. My being in jail Irom July 3rd, 2012 to July 21st, 2012
resulted in my being prevented Irom challengeing a $40,050 attorney's Iees award against me personally, and
that extended incarceration was based largely upon pre-trial services citing to the MCH situation, which
involved negligence and misconduct on Goodnight and the WCPD's part (I'm looking at you JenniIer Rains) in
Iailing to counter the lies told by Reno Biondo and Sharon Dollarhide). Please address the inaccuracies
contained in the RJC Iiled in all three matters, including, but not limited to, the libelous writings by Reno
Biondo, covering up the MCH's breach oI the contract entered into with me in May 2012 (see my earlier written
correspondence to you in this regard, complete with that MCH Contract, and the list oI prohibited medications,
which did not include the medication I was subsequently removed Irom the MCH Ior taking...which was private
inIormation, until Dogan violated my HIPAA rights, with Jeremy Bosler and Chris Fortier's blessing, some may
say, intentionally in an attempt to discredit me and play CYA Iurther Ior the WCPD, in addition to Bosler's
2/15
impermissible Iaxing to the RMC materials Irom Lake's Crossing that exceeded the scope oI any authorization
Keith Loomis may have coerced out oI me incident to the July 5th, 2012 unnoticed bail hearing in RMC
12CR12420 (charge underpinning that custodial arrest has been dropped). Bosler Iaxed materials that exceed
the limited authorization to provide the text only oI the Competency Evaluations conducted by Lake's Crossing,
including letters Irom Dr. Nieghbors and others that were not part oI the Competency Evaluation and included
in a Jim Leslie-style attempt to throw one's client under the bus, period.
Jim, you know Iull well that I have been clear to you that I wish to testiIy at Trial and at the Hearing on the
Motion to Suppress, and Iurther, that I wish to retain all rights I have with respect to limiting the scope and
placement oI such testimony (order oI presentation, etc.) and the all concomitant rights to have the State's
witnesses impeached with the excuplatory video and audio evidence the WCPD was provided, which I have
declared to you, under penalty oI perjury, was Iilmed or recorded by me and has not be doctored or altered in
any way...though I have sought an indication Irom you with respect to the extent that "snippets" oI the various
video or audio may be utilized at the Suppression Hearing or Trial, to which you scoIIed that my wondering
such a thing was indicative oI my lack oI Iitness to be an attorney, as you Ieel that only the State should be
allowed to selectively choose what it puts into evidence or uses to reIresh witness recollection or impeach
testimony, a constant theme throughout the Jim Leslie deIense playbook. The State has been provided all those
exculpatory media materials, Mr. Leslie. Please provide some legal citation Ior you contention that it would be
impermissible to introduce or utilize only selected portions oI such media where the State clearly has an ability
to utilize any portions thereoI that it may so choose.
I believe, Mr. Leslie that you have duty to seek to correct the injustice perpetuated the Hearing on the Motion to
Suppress where you deprived me oI my right to testiIy, including, but not limited to, your bright line reIusal to
utilize any oI the excuplatory media (to show witness bias, Ior impeachment, or to reIresh witness recollection,
such at DDA Young showing Duralde portions oI his police report but not introducing it into evidence, etc.) or
seek their introduction.
PLEASE HAVE THE ATTACHED SUBPOENAS AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUMS SERVED. Nicole
Watson and Lucy Byington and Austin Lichty (and I provide Leslie with Licthy's license plate number, so
subpoena his address Irom the DMV) are students at McQueen High School in Reno, Nevada, so, shouldn't be
too hard to track them down. Court Iilings show the the WCPD has addresses Ior Templeton and Dawson, and
Leslie made indication that the WCPD has Nicole Watson's address, yet only listed her telephone number in a
court Iiling listing witnesses the deIense intends to call, an act which imperiled the ability the actually call her,
given the State's anticipated objection based upon a lack oI providing an address Ior her where the WCPD has
one. The 911 dispatch records and call logs and the call records Irom the iPhone allegedly belonging to Goble
will reveal the cellular number oI "UFC Guy", the one assailant whose name Leslie Iailed to elicit testimony
direct to, despite alleged victim Goble indicating that that early twenties something male individuals was "the
most physically aggressive with Coughlin" and that it would have be rather reasonable Ior Coughlin to Ieel
attacked and threatened by that individual.
Further, I DEMAND TO BE PROVIDED THE MATERIALS PRODUCED BY AT&T OR ANY OTHER
CELL CARRIER VIS A VIS YOUR PURPORTED REQUEST FOR THE CALL RECORDS/INDICIA OF
OWNERSHIP OF THE IPHONE OF ONE CORY GOBLE, 24, OF RENO, NEVADA (including materials
relative to Goble's inconsistent testimony vis a vis the ownership oI the iPhone and the manner and time at
which he came to possess, it. Please have Goble's brother, Ryan Goble, served a subpoena and Subpoena Duces
Tecum in that regard, as Goble has, in his Witness Statement and testimony as trial made inconsistent assertions
3/15
as to how he got the iPhone and when). Also, Goble's sworn testimony that he had, as oI the day he was
testiIying, not heard anything oI some man oIIering the iPhone up to the denizens oI the skate park or about any
attacks on Coughlin (and a classic moment occurred when Leslie made a hearsay objection on behalI oI the
State incident to Leslie's own question regarding a immunity Irom prosecution aIIorded Goble Ior the June 5th,
2012 lit cigarette assault and battery upon Coughlin by Goble, AND SPEAKING OF THAT, PLEASE
SUBPOENA THE YOUNG WOMAN DRIVING THE LEXUS, WHOSE LICENSE PLATE APPEARS ON
THE VIDEO PROVIDE OF THAT ASSAULT AND BATTERY AND HER SUBSEQUENT TRASH
TALKING, WHICH WAS SLURRED).
I WANT A COPY OF ANY AND ALL CALLS AND DISPATCH TAPES OR RECORDINGS IN ANY WAY
RELATED TO ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN TO OR FROM EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES, THE
RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT (WHETHER THE CALLS BETWEEN COUGHLIN AND LIEUTENANT
BROWN OR SARGENT OLIVER MILLER, SARGENT ZACH THEW OR ANYONE ELSE. FURTHER, I
WANT THE 911 CALL AND DISPATCH REPORTS INCIDENT TO THE JANUARY 12TH, 2012
CUSTODIAL ARREST OF COUGHLINS FOR JAYWALKING, WHEREIN RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ.
CALLED THE POLICE AND SIGNED A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST COUGHLIN FOR
TRESPASSING. Further, I want a deIense prepared that Iocuses on the Witness Bias and motives oI the Reno
Police Department and the retaliatory arrests and prosecutions and discriminatory enIorcement oI the criminal
law, particularly where my police reports and requests Ior police response to various matters have gone
unresponded to (the May 2012 calls and communications at GSR with RPD OIIicer Look about the theIt oI my
Gary Fisher Mountain bike, wherein OIIicer Look reIused to take action, despite his being a process server Ior a
civil TPO procured by Hill, which Hill has signed a sworn Declaration indicating he sought at the RPD"s
direction (and the RPD, in Sargent Oliver Miller, Sargent Dye, and OIIicer Alan Weaver has demonstrated an
intent and actions designed to institute Iraudulent charges against Coughlin (vis a vis the Milan Krebs TPO,
which Leslie and Dogan have reIused to gather the audio Irom in RJC RCP2012-000287 despite its clear
material relevance and utility, especially vis a vis subpoeaning Krebs and interviewing him incident to the
deIense in RCR2012-067980 (and you better hurry, Jim, as Kreb's availability may be limited iI he is sent back
into military service overseas). PLEASE PROVIDE ME A COPY OF THE HEARING ON KREB'S TPO
BEFORE JUDGE ALBRIGHT. Further PLEASE, FOR THE SAME PURPOSES, GATHER ANY AND ALL
DOCUMENTATION, CALL RECORDINGS OR RECORDS, DISPATCH LOGS OR RECORDINGS,
WITNESS STATEMENTS ETC INCIDENT TO THE SEPTEMBER 18-25TH HARASSMENT OF
COUGHLIN BY THE RPD AT SUPERIOR MINI STORAGE, INCLUDING THAT BY SARGENT OLIVER
MILLER AND OFFICER WEAVER, AS well as a call to law enIorcement requesting a response similar to that
shown by the RSIC Police to Wal-Marts urgent pleas Ior help incident to an alleged theIt oI a candy bar that has
Iormed the basis Ior a now 4 month long suspension oI Coughlin's law license, where a Northwest Reno 7/11
convereted apprxoimately $1.50 Irom Coughin incident to advertising one price Ior gasoline, then charging
another...The RPD reIused to investigate or responde, much less appear to violate the 7/11 managers Fourth
Amendment rights. Similarly subpoena the OIIicer's whom reponded to Coughlin 911 calls incident to the
assault and battery by Cory Goble on or about jUne 5th, 2012, as well as reports by Coughlin and any police
records incident thereto with respect to the October 4th, 2011 theIt oI Coughlin's mountain bike, and Richard G.
Hill and Matthew J. Merliss's trespass into Coughlin's Iormer home law oIIice on November 13th, 2011, in
addition to Hill's video taped conIession to his contactor, Phil Stewart having apparently stolen Coughlin's
ladder Ior a period oI time.PLEASE MAKE NOTE OF THE CURIOUS APPEARANCE OF RPD SARGENT
BRADSHAW THROUGHOUT ALL THESE MATTERS AND MAKE INQUIRY RESPECTING ANY
CONNECTION SHE MAY HAVE TO RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ. SIMILARLY, PLEASE PROVIDE ME
(VIA EMAIL AND A CD) A COPY OF THE AUDIO FROM THE JULY 5TH, 2012 ARRAIGNMENT AND
IMPROMPTU BAIL HEARING IN RMC 12CR12420 WHEREIN WITNESS BIAS, MOTIVE, AND RPD
ANIMUS AGAINST COUGHLIN RELEVANT TO THE THREE MATTERS THE WCPD IS CURRENTLY
APPEARING ON COUGHLIN'S BEHALF FOR IS CLEARLY REVEALED. PLEASE SUBPOENA ANY AN
4/15
ALL POLICE REPORTS FILED BY COUGHLIN (INCLUDING ANY WHERE COUGHLIN'S LAST NAME
IS MISPELLED CUOGHLIN), INCLUDING THE REPORTS FILED AGAINST NORTHWINDS
APARTMENTS FOR THEIR ATTEMPTED BREAK INS AND TRESPASSES TO COUGHLIN'S RENTALS
THERE, AND THE TRESPASSES, ATTEMPTED TRESPASSES, AND ATTEMPTED BREAK INS BY
OFFICER WEAVER AND NEVADA COURT SERVICES UPON COUGHLIN'S RENTAL THERE AS
WELL. Also, include the Iailed responses by the RPD to the domestic violence against Coughlin detailed in :
FV12-00188 ZACHARY COUGHLIN VS. LAURA FORESHEE (DM), and FV12-00187). OH, AND THE
FAILURE TO RESPOND THE THE POLICE REPORT FILED BY COUGHLIN DETAILING TH
DECEMBER 12TH, 2012 BURGLARY OF APPROXIMATELY $8,000 OF PROPERTY FROM
COUGHLIN'S FORMER LAW OFFICE, DURING A PERIOD IN WHICH RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ. WAS
APPLYING AN UNLAWFUL RENT DISTRAINT UPON COUGHLIN'S PERSONATLY AND CLIENT'S
FILES AND WHERE VIDEO DRIVERS LOADED ONTO COUGHLIN'S HARD DRIVES ON DECEMBER
6TH, 2012 WARRANT AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE EXTENT TO WHICH HILL VIOLATED
COUGHLIN'S PRIVACY RIGHTS AND OR OPPOSING COUNSEL'S FILES IN TRAIPSING THROUGH
COUGHLIN'S LAW OFFICE AND ALLEGEDLY ACCESSING OR ATTEMPTING TO COPY HARD
DRIVES. FURTHER, A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE EXTENT TO WHICH RICHARD G.
HILL, ESQ. FILED A FALSE POLICE REPORT AND OR COMMITTED PERJURY DURING THE
CRIMINAL TRESPASS TRIAL OF COUGHLIN INCIDENT TO THE NOVEMBER 13TH, 2011 ARREST
BY RPD CHRIS CARTER (AND AN INVESITGATION AND COMPLAINT AGAINST RPD OFFICER
CHRIS CARTER, JR. IS HEREBY FILED, PLEASE PLACE A COPY OF THIS IN HIS EMPLOYMENT
FILE AND INVESTIGATE AS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH CARTER VIOLATED NRS 199.
SOMETHING ABOUT MISCONDUCT IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY OR FALSE STATEMENTS IN HIS
POLICE REPORT WHERE HE PURPORTS THAT HE AND SARGENT LOPEZ IDENTIFIED
THEMSELVES AS RPD OR ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW BEFORE THE LANDLORD
APPARENTLY KICKED IN THE DOOR TO THE QUASI-BASEMENT AT COUGHLIN'S FORMER LAW
OFFICE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT SARGENT LOPEZ MAY HAVE ADMITTED ON VIDEO THAT
NEITHER SHE NOR CARTER IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AS LAW ENFORCEMENT IN ANY WAY
PRIOR TO THE DOOR BEING KICKED DOWN BY THE LANDLORD. DESPITE RICHARD G. HILL'S
PERJURED TESTIMONY IN THAT REGARD AT THE JUNE 18TH, 2012 TRIAL IN THAT MATTER (SEE
ATTACHED TRANSCRIPT BY PAM LONGONI, WHICH MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE ACCURATELY
AND FAITHFULLY TRANSCRIBED GIVEN RECENT ALLEGATIONS BY OTHER AGAINST LONGONI
AND THE FAILURE OF SHE AND THE RMC TO FOLLOW NRS 189.030 INCIDENT TO THE WAL-
MART CONVICTION OF COUGHLIN IN 11 CR 22176 AND SUBSEQUENTLY FAILED APPEA (Judge
Elliot's Order cites the Iailure to point to sections oI a transcript that was the RMC's responsibility to have
produced within 10 days oI Coughlin's December 13th, 2011 Iiling oI a Notice oI Appeal)L IN CR11-2064). I
WANT A COPY, I DON'T WANT LESLIE PRETENDING TO HAVE OBTAINED THE AUDIO AND
MAKING "AN EXECUTIVE DECISION" THAT IS WAS NOT RELEVANT OR USEFUL (Jim, you really
need to come up with another go to move, you use that one way too much.).
Further, I wish to Iile a police report against City oI Reno Marshal Harley Ior what were purportedly Ialse
statements made to RMC Judge Nash Holmes leading to my arrest on February 27th, 2012. Judge Nash Holmes
in her presentation in court on March 12th, 2012 indicates that Harley, apparently, Iollowed Coughlin into the
restroom at the RMC and peered into a stall, purporting to witness Coughlin "disassemble his smartphone" or
recording device (and summary contempt Iindings Ior conduct allegedly occurring outside the court's presence
require and aIIidavit, and here, Marshal Harley needs to submit and AIIidavit and explain his misconduct and or
lies, as does Marshal Deighton, Deputy Hodge, Trish Beckman, Mary Kandaras, Biray Dogan, and any other
individuals connected to the actions taken against Coughlin in connection with that February 27th, 2012 arrest
upon the suspension oI the traIIic citation Trial in 11TR26800. The purported search incident to arrest oI
Coughlin's HTC G2 smart phone, his Samsung Ilip phone, and a micro sd card (the data was wiped Irom the
5/15
smartphone and the micro sd card upon these items Iinally being returned to Coughlin some 37 days later... and
it was impermissible Ior the smartphone and data card to be booked into property on February 27th, 2012 at the
Washoe County Detention Center, only to be retrieved the Iollowing day by the City oI Reno Marshals and
returned to the RMC...that is not a search incident to arrest, it is not close enough in time to the arrest, it
occurred aIter the property was already booked into property at the WCDC and there was not risk oI spoliation
oI "evidence", particulary where neither Marshal Harley, Judge Nash Holmes, nor City Attorney Allison Ormaas
has been required to say much oI anything on the record to establish the probable cause Ior conducting such an
unlawIul search indicent to arrest, or the rationale Ior such an arrest anyway, beyond a seemingly pretexutal
Iinding that Coughlin committed "summary criminal contempt", made one second aIter Coughlin uttered the
testimony: "Sargent Tarter lied when he said that...." and made just minutes aIter Coughlin's return Irom a
restroom break where Judge Nash Holmes ordered the City oI Reno Marshals to accompany Coughlin into the
restroom, and upon returing Judge Nash Holmes immediately, sua sponte, began interrogating Coughlin and
attempting to coerece consent Irom Coughlin to an impermissible violation oI Coguhlin's Fourth and FiIth
Amendment rights, and where Judge Nash Holmes later made the erronoues and complete unsupported by
speciIic Iacts or evidence Iinding that Coughlin "lied" or "probably lied" with respect to questioning by Judge
Nash Holmes as to whether Coughlin was recording the proceeding. WCSO Patricia Beckman provide
Coughin a handwritten note at the WCDA indicating, but unsigned that "per Judges Orders, contact RMC
Marshal Dayton (Deighton, sic)" in response to Coughlin's point questionings regarding the chain oI custody
and possession oI the the smartphone and micro sd card booked into Coughlin's personal property by the
WCDC staII on February 27th, 2012, and apparently retrieve the Iollowing day by the City oI Reno Marshalls,
an impermissible attempt at conducting a search incident to arrest Ior "summary criminal contempt" that was in
no way, at least on paper, related to any actions by Coughlin conscerning any purported "recording" or
"recording devices" but rather, perhaps pretexually, to Coughlin's "persisting in lines oI inquiry aIter being
admonished by the Court to cease doing so" and other Iairly innocuous sounding allegations that apparently
warranted a summary 5 day incarceration oI then attorney Coughlin, despite his indication that his client's
interests may be prejudiced by the lack oI any stay at all, and where $100 in bail was retained by the RMC,
despite Coughlin not being released a day early as agreed to. That February 27th, 2012 Status ConIerence in
RCR2012-065630, occurring outside Dogan's client's presence, which started at approximately 3:00 pm aIter
Judge Nash Holmes was Iinally located by her assistant...and curiously close in time to the clandestine February
27th, 2012 Status ConIerence between WCPD Biray Dogan and DDA Zach Young (which Coughlin had been
provided notice, in writing, on February 24th, 2012, to the eIIect that that Status ConIerence in that matter
RCR2012-065630 was continued to March 29th, 2012 in light oI a scheduling conIlict with Coughlin's RMC
traIIic citation Trial (incident to RPD Sargent Tarter's November 15th, 2011 order Ior some other oIIicer who
wasn't even there that Tarter called in just to write the ticket, strangely, upon Tarter telling Coughlin to leave
Richard G. HIll, Esq.'s oIIicer, where Coughlin had gone seeking his state issued driver's license, wallet, keys,
and client's Iiled upon being release Irom 3 days in custody incident to a custodial trespass arrest ov November
13th, 2011 by RPD Chris Carter, whom lied in his police report regarding whether Coughlin indicated a
resistance to leaving the premises aIter being told to, or given a warning (and Carter's lies are conIirmed by the
very video tapes oI the interactions that Richard G. HIll propounded to the Reno City Attorney's OIIice, not that
that stopped Chris Hazlett-Stevens Irom suborning HIll's perjury, similar to Pamela Roberts suborning the
perjury oI RSIC OIIicer Kameron CrawIord incident to the Wal-Mart candy bar petty larceny Trial on
November 30th, 2011 (where Coughlin was denied a continuance even where HIll was applying an unlawIul
rent distraint to excuplatory videos belong in to Coughlin revealing an express retaliatory intent by Wal-Mart
managers and AP Associates prior to the September 9th, 2011 petty larceny arrest oI Coughlin by OIIicer
CrawIord, Ior conduct allegedly occuring aIter 7pm, outside the oIIicer's presence. CrawIord had to lie at Trial
in testiIying that Coughlin Iailed to produce his driver's license, to get around the statutory prohibition Ior
making such a custodial arrest Ior a misdemeanor (CrawIord wasn't able to Iudge the value oI the item quite like
old RPD Nicholas Duralde did incident to an arrest on August 20th, 2011 Ior the alleged petty larceny oI an
iPhone that Cory Goble has testiIied in RCR20110-063341 was over three years old at the time oI the arrest and
6/15
purchased Ior $300 new in June 2008...RPD Duralde made smug retaliatory statements to Coughlin with respect
to the misconduct he was committing (pretextual overcharging to get around the Fourth Amendment and NRS
dictates against custodial arrests Ior conduct occuring aIter 7 pm and not in the oIIicer's presence).
Mr. Leslie, you recently wrote: "Finally, at this point, aIter having again reviewed the documents and evidence
in the petit larceny case as well as having again reviewed your various emails communications, demands,
threats, and suggestions (including those with merit and those lacking merit), it is my intention iI I continue to
be your attorney that upon resumption oI petit larceny trial I will call upon you to decide whether or not you
will testiIy (to date, despite my repeated eIIorts, you have evaded providing a straight answer to that question
and have even evaded my attempts to help prepare you Ior testimony should you decide to testiIy). II you do
not clearly state your desire to testiIy, then the presumption will be that you wish to rely on your FiIth
Amendment right not to be compelled to testiIy and upon that presumption you will not be called as a witness
Ior your deIense. Other than you, I anticipate no deIense witnesses at this point in time, although I continued to
give that question consideration and re-evaluation on an ongoing basis along with review and re-review oI the
Iile and testimony thus Iar adduced.

Any dates prior to the 10/22/12 competency hearing in your case with Mr. Dogan will also need to be reset to a
date on or aIter 10/22/12, since, as noted above, no court action can be taken pending the oIIicial court
determination oI competency."
Jim, you have been provided plenty oI reasons to get those witnesses served subpoenas and to zealously
advocate, with reasonable diligence and competency, yet you continue to appear to be doing your "Weekend at
Jeremy's" routine, please cease that approach. And your characterizations oI your "attempts to help" me prepare
Ior Trial or to testiIy (no real eIIorts vis a vis the Suppression Hearing, huh?) are laughable...iI by "help you
prepare" you mean "stormed out oI meetings and hung up phone calls like a mid-career Diana Ross-style diva"
then, uh, yeah, I guess you could say you "help" a scintilla or two, oh and don't Iorget to credit yourselI Ior
managing not to utilize incredibly strong exculpatory evidence, or material witnesses, or the reams oI excellent
legal analysis and research I have provided you....iI you consider that "help", that is. Get those subpoenas and
subpoena duces tecum serve, please, Mr. Leslie.
The WCPD has a duty to continue representing me during this time, and that includes all the Rules oI
ProIessional Conduct, you may want to go through them with a Iine tooth comb as you are making this really,
really easy Ior me...practically like taking candy Irom a baby, and I would preIer to see the WCPD provide at
least adequate representation here, rather stubbornly persist in its current course oI conduct.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Tel 775 338 8118
Fax 949 667 7402
From: Jlesliewashoecounty.us
7/15
Subject: Coughlin: RCR11-063341 (Petit Larceny) and RCR12-067980 (Resisting)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:45:03 0000
Mr. Coughlin:

Please take note that in your petit larceny case the competency hearing has been moved Irom 10/15/12 to
10/22/12 at 10:00 a.m. and the trial in that petit larceny case has been reset to 11/19/12 at 8:30 a.m.

Please also take note that in your resisting case, the misdemeanor pretrial hearing is reset Ior 10/22/12 at 10 a.m.
We are resetting the pretrial hearing on the 12-067980 case to coincide with the 10/22/12 10 a.m. competency
hearing, since under law we cannot hold an earlier pretrial in that case until competency in the petit larceny case
is determined by the court upon the Lakes report.

We are also sending regular mail notiIication oI these date changes in addition to this email notiIication.
The reason Ior the change oI dates is that I am unavailable on 10/15/12.

Additionally, given your repeated complaints and repeated expressions oI lack oI satisIaction about the
perIormance oI any and all attorneys assigned to you, and given that the Ieedback we are receiving Irom Lakes
Crossing is that you are legally competent and are able to assist and cooperate with counsel, should you so
choose, it is my intention to ask the court on 10/22/12 to relieve our oIIice and permit you to selI-represent.
Please note that as a courtesy to you I had the resumption oI trial in the petit larceny case pushed out past the
competency hearing, so that iI you are permitted to selI-represent you will have intervening time to prepare Ior
resumption oI trial, receive any materials Irom our oIIice that are appropriate to a selI-representation hand-oII,
and pursue any motions you deem appropriate against the state`s case prior to resumption oI trial.

II, however, you oppose selI-representation, I will ask the court to cease entertaining any and all Iurther
complaints by you against counsel, since by opposing selI-representation you will have decided to remain
represented by your assigned counsel. Since Lakes reports that you are competent and able to interact with
counsel like a normal person, assuming you voluntarily choose to so conduct yourselI, there are no remaining
excuses Ior your behavior and certainly no excuses based on mental inability, deIiciency, or incompetency.

Finally, at this point, aIter having again reviewed the documents and evidence in the petit larceny case as well as
having again reviewed your various emails communications, demands, threats, and suggestions (including those
with merit and those lacking merit), it is my intention iI I continue to be your attorney that upon resumption oI
petit larceny trial I will call upon you to decide whether or not you will testiIy (to date, despite my repeated
eIIorts, you have evaded providing a straight answer to that question and have even evaded my attempts to help
prepare you Ior testimony should you decide to testiIy). II you do not clearly state your desire to testiIy, then
the presumption will be that you wish to rely on your FiIth Amendment right not to be compelled to testiIy and
upon that presumption you will not be called as a witness Ior your deIense. Other than you, I anticipate no
deIense witnesses at this point in time, although I continued to give that question consideration and re-
evaluation on an ongoing basis along with review and re-review oI the Iile and testimony thus Iar adduced.

Any dates prior to the 10/22/12 competency hearing in your case with Mr. Dogan will also need to be reset to a
date on or aIter 10/22/12, since, as noted above, no court action can be taken pending the oIIicial court
determination oI competency.

Thank you,

James B. Leslie, Esq.
8/15
ChieI Deputy Public DeIender
Washoe County Public DeIender`s OIIice
350 South Center Street
FiIth Floor
Reno, NV 89509
1-800-762-8031
Direct Dial: 775-337-4828
Fax: 775-337-4856
Email: jlesliewashoecounty.us

The contents oI this communication and all accompanying documents and attachments contain
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, are legally privileged, and are intended Ior use and review only by the
party sending same and the intended recipient. II you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that
any disclosure, copying, distribution, use or taking any action reliant on said contents are CONFIDENTIAL and
strictly prohibited. II you received this communication in error, please immediately notiIy us at 775-337-4800
to arrange return oI the original transmittal. Thank you.

rom: zachcoughlinhotmail.com
To: bdoganwashoecounty.us; jboslerwashoecounty.us; jlesliewashoecounty.us
Subject: misue oI 911 case
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:20:22 -0700
Mr. Dogan,

Oh, look at that, there is the MHC contract with Coughlin that Iails to exclude the medication Coughlin was
taking and which the MHC and Biondo cited as their rationale Ior expelling Coughlin, libelling him, in Iact.
Not that old JenniIer Rains was going to advocate anything about that? I have no idea what the purpose oI
even having an attorney there is? And Judge Elliot was really thrown Ior a loop when Biray mentioned a
"social worker" on staII at the WCPD, in that transcript oI the April 27th, 2011 Hearing that I Iinally gots my
hands on.

I am curious to hear yoru theory oI the case (whether the charge be resisting or obstructing arrest or whatever it
was Young sought to amend the Complaint to (something more in line with a '"erious crime" vis a vis a SCR
111(6) analysis, or iI the charge remaisn misue oI emergency services. Please provide me with any novel legal
research you culled Ior this case. Additionally, yoru were already provided these videos, but here they are
again, videos oI both arrests made or ordered by Sargent SiIre (who gets $185K a year and about our age,
Biray) within a 36 hour period oI each other, with an intervening pullover by OIIicer Duralde and 5 other RPD
personnel late at night aIter Coughlin bonded out on the custodial arrest Ior jaywalking on January 12th, 2012.
Biray, some people might say that DDA Young has used you, the WCDA OIIice has used you, the RMC and
9/15
Judge Nash Holmes have used you, and perhpas even that Mr. Bosler and Mr. Leslie are using you. Maybe you
like it. Maybe you like being used. Maybe you like being pushed around. Maybe you love it. Maybe that is
what you are good at.

Biray, please tell me how true any oI the Iollowing strikes you as being:

SCR 111(6): "DeIinition oI 'serious crime. The term 'serious crime means (1) a Ielony and (2) any crime less
than a Ielony a necessary element oI which is, as determined by the statutory or common-law deIinition oI the
crime, improper conduct as an attorney, interIerence with the administration oI justice, Ialse swearing,
misrepresentation, Iraud, willIul Iailure to Iile an income tax return, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation,
theIt, or an attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation oI another to commit a 'serious crime.

Coughlin's WCPD, Biray Dogan, Esq. and DDA Young, in the RJC prosecution Ior "misuse oI emergency
services" (911 calls), when considering their lack oI candor to the tribunal, Iairness to opposing counsel (given
Coughlin Iiled a Notice oI Appearance and has the right to represent himselI, and is an attorney), DDAYoung's
repeated instances oI violating NRS with respect to all matters being stayed upon an Order Ior Competency
Evaluation being entered against a party, such a Coughlin, and the Iailure oI Dogan to alert Coughlin to, or
provide any copy oI (depsite Coughlin's repeated written demands) the July 31st, 2012 Motion to Amend
Complaint (that, upon Judge SIerrazza querrying DDA Young as to whether the DA even needed seek an Order
allowing it to so amend such a Complaint, responded that the DA did not, but that he was just seeking one "Ior
purposes oI keeping the record 'clean'", whatever in the world that means. When viewed with Dogan, Young and
Leslie's attempts to shuIIle Coughlin on through the MSC process (DDA Young indicated, to Judge SIerrazza,
on the record, while attempting to check oI the MSC box minutes beIore the Start oI the August 29th, 2012
iPhone petty larceny Trial, that he anticipated the MSC "only taking a couple minutes, at most" and Ielt it was
Coughlin's "obstructionist" and "diIIicult" attitude oI "non-compliance" that was preventing him Irom eIIecting
his stated goal. DDA Young clearly subscribes to the RPD Ron Rosa/Nick Duralde school oI "How's that
runnin' Ior ya" style retaliation, intimidation, and misconduct.
Most troubling about Dogan and DDA Young's apparent conspiracy to get an Order Ior Competency Evaluation
against Coughlin during their clandestine MSC oI 2/27/12 (which, again, Coughlin was noticed, in writing, had
been continued out to March 29th, 2012), including impermissible communications to the RMC and Judge Nash
Holmes (who arguably violated NRS by continuing on with the traIIic Trial just minutes aIter being made aware
oI the 2/27/12 Order Ior Competency Evaluation in the RJC by Dogan and, perhaps, by DDA Young as well, is
Dogan's Iailure to inIorm Coughlin oI DDA Young's RPC 3.8 violating Motion to Amend Criminal Complaint,
wherein DDA Young seeks to alter the charge to one that would invoke a mandatory SCR 111 Petition in light
oI SCR 111(6)'s deIinition oI a "serious crime" and the "statutory or common law deIinition" oI the crime Ior
which DDA Young, though lacking "probable cause" suIIicient to satisIy his RPC 3.8 duty, sought to have so
amended to an "obstructing or resisting a public oIIicer" charge, which oI course Iits squarely in the "serious
crime" deIinition set Iorth in SCR 111(6). So, no, Judge SIerrazza, Coughlin was not "over-lawyering it" on
August 29th, 2012 during the "only take a minute at most" MSC Dogan and DDA Young (and Leslie) sought to
10/15
slip past Judge SIerrazza right beIore the big iPhone petty larceny trial that may well decide whether Coughlin
can ever practice law again (including as a patent attorney beIore the USPTO). Coughlin, on the record, risked
going to jail when he indicated that what Dogan has just said with respect to whether Coughlin objected to the
State's so amending the Complaint was not what Coughlin had indicated to his counsel, in RCR2012-065630
Irom a gross misdemeanor "misuse oI 911" charge to a misdemeanor "obstructing and resisting a public oIIicer
charge". Coughlin responded to Judge SIerrazza's incredulity at his objecting to amending to a lesser charge
(Coughlin indicated doing so, however counter-intuitive, "may somehow inure" to his beneIit), then Judge
SIerrazza indicated Coughlin "deIinitely" was "over-lawyering it"...but then Peter J. went Peter J., likely sensing
an attempt to pull the wool over one's eyes, and because "game recognize game, real recognize real"...Judge
SIerrazza decided to not countenance Dogan and Young attempts to lead the RJC and Coughlin blindly (and in a
MSC that "should only last a minute or two at most" per DDA Young) through their tired, tacky, hackneyed,
sordid little plan. There is a reason Judge SIerrazza is oIten mentioned as the best oI all the Iine RJC Judges by
long time local attorneys. Dogan and Young, despite being well aware oI the September 5th, 2012 Order Ior
Competency Evaluation still have Iailed to vacate the Motion Hearing set Ior October 2nd, 2012 in that regard.

Maybe old Zach Young gonna give his buddy Biray Dogan a job picking up his dry cleaning or somethin' when
Dogan's get disbarred on account oI the primrose path he got led on down by ol' nice ol' Zach Young, whom is
the "nice" and "Iair" one compared to Halstead and...remember saying that B-Town? He nicin' you into bar
grievances and sticky wickets a plenty.
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Tel 775 338 8118
Fax 949 667 7402
respectIully submitted
Sent: Fri 6/08/12 4:41 PM
To: weaverareno.gov; barnesmreno.gov
6 attachments
20120605101513 Northwind manager handy man attacks Irom golI cart 6 5 12.mp4 (3.1 MB) , landlord tenant
law manual Ior police in minnesota.pdI (735.1 KB) , Policemanual-
IinalasadoptedbyState'sAttorney.pdI (263.7 KB) ,trespass criminal civil evictdion.pdI (69.8 KB) , 6 8 12
Iax to northwind with page numbers.pdI (50.7 KB) , northwind Iax 6 4 12 habitability retaliation etc.pdI (45.8
KB)
Dear OIIicer Weaver and OIIicer Barnes,
I am respectIully submitting this supplementary material to the police report I submitted to you in person on
June 6, 2012 regarding the assault I was the victim oI at the hands oI maintenance staII member Luke oI
Northwind Apartments on June 5th, 2012, and the attempts at unlawIul entry committed by Northwind Manager
Dwayne Jakob on or about June 4, 2012.
I am attaching an article you may Iind oI interest regarding the intersection oI landlord tenant law and police
work, vis a vis criminal/civil matters and the Iine distinctions that sometimes arise. I didn't see anything in
there on OIIicer Weavers Iine hypothetical regarding entry without permission when a burglary may be
11/15
occurring. That situation probably does not come up that oIten because hardly anybody but the police would be
brave enough to enter such a dangerous situation.
I appreciate the brave service both oI you provide. I am attaching this materials just because they are interesting
to me and may be to you and in no way wish Ior so attaching these to be interpreted as a criticism oI either oI
your police work.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
Nevada court services attack and attempted break in
Sent: Fri 6/22/12 9:34 AM
To: weaverareno.gov
NCA and northerns mgmt tried to break again on June 14th.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The Iirst nationwide 4G network.
NCAA and Dwayne jakob
Sent: Fri 6/22/12 9:36 AM
To: weaverareno.gov
Keep turning light oII attempting break in malicious abuse oI process claiming color oI law
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The Iirst nationwide 4G network.

This incident has been reported to the
Reno Police Department
and is pending approval Reno Police Department
455 E. 2nd Street
Reno, NV 89502
775-334-2175
General InIormation
Incident Type Harassment
Temporary Report Number T11005956
Report Date 09/07/2011 09:36 PM
Reporting Person InIormation
Name cuoghlin, zach
Home Address 121 river rock Street, Reno, NV 89501, US
Home Phone 775-338-8118
12/15
Email zachcoughlinhotmail.com
Race Unknown
Sex Male
DOB 09/01/1977
Incident InIormation
Incident Location 1 North center Street, Reno, NV 89501
Incident Time (start) 09/02/2011 09:15 PM
Incident Time (end) 09/02/2011 09:55 PM
Location Type Vacant, Empty Lot
Incident Description I was battered by OIIicer Nick Duralde on 8/20/11 at approx 11:30pm. He touched my
penis, bare skins on his hands several Iingers touched my penis during his SITA. Duralde also slammed my
head down into the top oI the trunk oI his police car.
I was arrested that night, however, OIIicer Duralde reIused to arrest any oI the 3 individuals who assaulted and
battered me on the bridge leading to the Siena, Iurther he reIused to collect identities oI the other 2 main
assailants in addition to one, Cory Goble. These young men tried to steal my bike and my dog and one
attempted to reach into my short's pocket and take something. The acted in the context oI a mob oI young skater
youth surrounding me on the bridge and backing me up very near the oncoming one way traIIic and reIused my
please to let me move with them back to the saIer skate plaze, considering my dog, bike, and the oncomign
traIIic, and their mob like behaviour. There were approximately 20 skater youths surrounding me until OIIicer
Duralde showed up and started up with his penis touching and rights trampling act. Rob Dawson was with one
oI these main assailants on 9/2/11 Ior which Durio and Barnes cite R112471302
on 9/2/11 I was assaulted and battered by a hispanic woman, approx. 20 yo, whom OIIicer Barnes interviewed,
aIter I called 911 when I again came across her on the street at 1 N. Center St. skate plaze. Barnes admitted to
me that the assailant admitted Ilicking my baseball cap oII my head. Barnes admitted that he Iailed to ask the
assailant iI she hit me in the back oI my head as I was retreating Irom her onslaught oI verbal threats and
aggresive gesticulations. Barnes said "no, I didn't ask her, it doesn't matter anyways". Further, also in the same
skate plaze on 9/2/11 Rob Dawson, 20 oI Reno made verbal threats to me and assaulted me with a deadly
weapon, a skate board cocked back and check swung very hard 2 Ieet Irom me repeatedly. I jumped back
several Ieet repeatedly.
Person InIormation
No 1
Name Cuoghlin, Zach
Employer Name zachcoughlinhotmail.com
Home Address 121 river rock Street, reno, NV 89501, US
Home Phone 775-338-8118
Print This Report
Close Window
13/15
This incident has been reported to the
and is pending approval Reno Police Department
455 E. 2nd Street
Reno, NV 89502
775-334-2175
General InIormation
Incident Type Residential Burglary
Tracking Number T12000219
Report Date 01/08/2012 01:35 AM
Reporting Person InIormation
Name Coughlin, Zach
Home Address 1422 East 9th Street, 2, Reno, NV 89512, US
Home Phone 775-229-6737
Employer Name Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Work Address 121 River Rock Street, reno, NV 89501, US
Work Phone 775-338-8118
Race Unknown
Sex Male
DOB 09/01/1976
Incident InIormation
Incident Location 121 river rock Street, Reno, NV 89501
Incident Time (start) 12/12/2011 01:25 AM
Incident Time (end) 01/08/2012 01:25 AM
Location Type Retail Store
Method oI Entry Unknown
Incident Description i also want to report a Trespass by Joel Durden, process server Ior Nevada Court Services
on or about October 20th, 2011. Mr. Durden and an associate Irom Nevada Court Services assaulted my law
practice and trespassed behind the back gate into the back yard to bang on back room windows. You guys Ielt it
necessary to do a custodial arrest on me Ior trespass, well, how about Ior them? See attached pleading. Casey
Baker, Esq. reported the burglary oI approx 12 12 11 to me in an email on 12 14 11, see attached pleading.
Also, richard hill, esq. withheld my State oI Nevada driver's license Irom November 15th, 2011 to November
22nd 2011 and contributed to the Ialse arrest against me Ior trespass Irom November 12, 2011, lying to OIIicer
Carter and Lopez about whether his oIIice had sent me a bill Ior the Iull rental value oI the property Ior
November 2011. OIIicer Carter indicated that Richard Hill, Esq. pays him a lot oI money and thereIore, OIIicer
Carter arrests who Richard HIll says to and does what Richard Hill tells him to do.
Also, I was arrested on August 20th, 2011, wrongIully and am hereby complaining oI the lies Nate Zarate told,
OIIicer Duralde touching my penis and conducting an impermissible search prior to a search incident to arrest,
OIIicer Rosa attempting to extort a consent to an impermissible search by threatening to deIame me to the State
Bar oI Nevada, etc. etc.
Property InIormation
14/15
No 1
Type Camera/Photo Equipment
Subtype Auto Winder For Camera
How Many 21
Market Value ($) 8000.00
Property Description please see attachments Ior detailes
15/15
1.ThepracticeandproceedingsinthemunicipalcourtmustconIorm,asnearlyaspracticable,tothepracticeandproceedingsoIjusticecourtsinsimilarcases.An
appealperIectedtransIerstheactiontothedistrictcourtIortrialanew,unlessthemunicipalcourtisdesignatedasacourtoIrecordasprovidedinNRS5.010.Themunicipalcourt
mustbetreatedandconsideredasajusticecourtwhenevertheproceedingsthereoIarecalledintoquestion.
2.EachmunicipaljudgeshallchargeandcollectsuchIeesprescribedin NRS4.060thatarewithinthejurisdictionallimitsoIthemunicipalcourt.
178.405-Suspensionoftrialorpronouncementofjudgmentwhendoubtarisesastocompetenceofdefendant;
noticeofsuspensiontobeprovidedtootherdepartments.
178.405 SuspensionoItrialorpronouncementoIjudgmentwhendoubtarisesastocompetenceoIdeIendant;noticeoIsuspensiontobeprovidedtootherdepartments.
1. AnytimeaIterthearrestoIadeIendant,including,withoutlimitation,proceedingsbeIoretrial,duringtrial,whenuponconvictionthedeIendantisbroughtupIor
judgmentorwhenadeIendantwhohasbeenplacedonprobationorwhosesentencehasbeensuspendedisbroughtbeIorethecourt,iIdoubtarisesastothecompetenceoIthe
deIendant,thecourtshallsuspendtheproceedings,thetrialorthepronouncingoIthejudgment,asthecasemaybe,untilthequestionoIcompetenceisdetermined.
2. IItheproceedings,thetrialorthepronouncingoIthejudgmentaresuspended,thecourtmustnotiIyanyotherdepartmentsoIthecourtoIthesuspensioninwriting.
Uponreceivingsuchnotice,theotherdepartmentsoIthecourtshallsuspendanyotherproceedingsrelatingtothedeIendantuntilthedeIendantisdeterminedtobecompetent.
|1911Cr.Prac.536;A1919,416;1919RL7386;NCL11184|(NRSA1967,1449;1981,1656;1991,1003;2003,1018;2007,186)
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Sent: Thu10/11/123:54PM
To: renodirectreno.gov;kadlicjreno.gov;rjcwebwashoecounty.us;zyoungda.washoecounty.us;bdoganwashoecounty.us;jlesliewashoecounty.us;
jboslerwashoecounty.us
6attachments
ZachCoughlin
OrderdissolvingprotectionorderKrebsv.CoughlinreNorthwindApartments
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
To:weaverareno.gov;barnesmreno.gov
Subject:respectIullysubmitted
Date:Fri,8Jun201216:41:49-0700
DearOIIicerWeaverandOIIicerBarnes,
IamrespectIullysubmittingthissupplementarymaterialtothepolicereportIsubmittedtoyouinpersononJune6,2012regardingthe
assaultIwasthevictimoIatthehandsoImaintenancestaIImemberLukeoINorthwindApartmentsonJune5th,2012,andtheattemptsat
unlawIulentrycommittedbyNorthwindManagerDwayneJakobonoraboutJune4,2012.
IamattachinganarticleyoumayIindoIinterestregardingtheintersectionoIlandlordtenantlawandpolicework,visaviscriminal/civil
mattersandtheIinedistinctionsthatsometimesarise. Ididn'tseeanythinginthereonOIIicerWeaversIinehypotheticalregardingentry
withoutpermissionwhenaburglarymaybeoccurring. ThatsituationprobablydoesnotcomeupthatoItenbecausehardlyanybodybut
thepolicewouldbebraveenoughtoentersuchadangeroussituation.
IappreciatethebraveservicebothoIyouprovide. Iamattachingthismaterialsjustbecausetheyareinterestingtomeandmaybetoyou
andinnowaywishIorsoattachignthesetobeinterpretedasacriticismoIeitheroIyourpolicework.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
Sent: Wed10/10/1211:53AM
To: coplogicrpdreno.gov;dispatchreno.gov;037nor2acg.com;037nor4acg.com
1attachment
Idemandmysummaryevictionhearing,beforeajurybasedupon62812noticeandmyfaxedTenantsAnswerof
63012i
rjcrcp2012-000287OrderIorCoughlintogetpropertywithcivilstandbyrpdkrebsnorthwind.pdI(176.5KB)
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Sent: Wed10/10/125:38AM
To: stuttlewashoecounty.us;kstancilwashoecounty.us;rjcwebwasoecounty.us;037nor2acg.com;037nor4acg.com;nevcsnevcs.com;chansenwashoecounty.us;
renodirectreno.gov;rjcwebwashoecounty.us;cwoodwashoecounty.us;williamhornelawIirm.com;pilbinIoag.nv.gov;tsegerblomasm.state.nv.us
DearMr.TuttleandSupervisor,CivilDivisionStancilandSupervisoroItheCivilDivisionatSparksJusticeCourtHansen,
Mr.Hansen,IbelieveIamentitledtoahearinginyourcourt. Iwouldlikeone. MayIhaveadate. Mr.TuttleandMs.Stancil,I
believeIamentitledtoseveralhearingsinyourcourt,mayIhavesuchandadateandtimeIorthem?
IamwritingtodemandrespectIullymyhearingincidenttotheNOticeservedonmyrentalatNorthwindApartments1680SkyMountin
Driveunit29onJune28th,2012. Ibelievethetenant'saIIidavitIIiledinresponsetothat5daynoticeshouldbegivenabrandnewcase
number,thoughthedesignationbyncsthatitwasan"AmendedNOtice"pursuanttoisisisisisisisisisitisasiItheisthe6/14/12one(the
oneR.WrayliedabouteIIecting"personalservice"onmeoI,whichgotmearrestedjustbeIoreIwastoIaxtotheRJC,bynoon,aTenant's
AnswerorMOtiontoDismissIorIailuretostateacauseoIactionordeIicienyoIserviceoIprocessorsomething(Iarguablyneedn'thave
evenIiledanythingintheRJCwherethe6/14/12noticelistedSparksJusticeCourt.
Oh,itgetsbetter...NevadaCourtsservicesIiledaLandlord'sAIIidavitattestingtohaverentedCoughlina"dwelling"whichisdeIinedasa
"sleepingplaceorresidence"inNRS118A...andpursuedanevictionunderNRS118A...citingabreachbyCoughlinIorallegedlyusingthe
unit29Ioraresidenceorsleepingplace,insteadoIpursuingNRS40.760orNRS118.475evictionremedies(which,bytheway,mayresult
intheSheriIIevictingCoughlinorIorcinghimtoquitanyallegeduseoIUnit29asa"dwellingplaceorresidence",butYOUWILLNOT
THATUNDERTHOSESTATUTESCOUGHLINWOULDBEALLOWED,UNDERTHELAWTOCONINUTESTORINGAND
ACCESSINGHISPROPERTYTHERE!!!!CAN'THAVEITBOTHWAYSALLTHETIME,GUYS. Oh,also,whointhehellsigned
theLandlord'saIIidavit? ThereisnotextualindicationoIwhomthesolitaryletteroIa"signature"belongsto....maybebecauseitwould
beaNRCP11violationIoracorporationtoappear"prose",especiallywhererepresentedbysomeonecommittingtheunauthoriedpractice
oIlaw?
R.WraymadesomeinterestingstatementsonthevideooIthe6/28/12arrestIilmedbyCoughlin,especiallyconcerningCoughlin's
contentionthatWrayandNOrthwind'sDwaneJakob'sattemptstobreakandenterandtrespassintoUnit29constituted"personallyserving"
Coughlina5dayUnlawIulDetainerNoticeon6/14/12. IINCSdidnot"personallyserve"Coughlin,thenCoughlinwouldhavehaduntil
June28th,2012atnoonattheearliest(andarguablyuntilthecloseoIbusinessat5pmon6/28/12toIilearesponse(ieTenant'sAnsweror
MOtiontoDismiss,etc),inSparksJusticeCourtOREVENinREnoJusticeCourt. Coughlinwasarrestedat10:30amon6/28/12,
thereby,undercoloroIlaw,theWCSO,NCSandNOrthwindandJakobIraudulentlypreventedCoughlinIromIiling(iIhedidnotalready
previously,espeicallyinthe6/13/12IaxesthataremysteriouslyunaccountedIorinrJCIiles)aTenan'tsResponse(tEnan'tsanswer,or
Tenant'sAFIidavitorMotiontoDismiss,etc.).
So,R.WrayandNCS,itskindoIabigdealthatyouliedabouteIIectingpersonalserviceon6/14/12oIthe5daynotice.
CoughlinhasthreediIIerentversionoIthatnoticeor"DeclarationoISrevicebyLicensePRocessSErver"R.Wray. inone,atimeoI9:23
(presumablyam,butthatisnotcircled,norispm)on6/14/12islisted,andarubberstampindicating"r.wray",isthere,alongwitha
hadnwritten"reg#r-043948"isthere. thatDeclarationindicatesthatR.WRay"personallyserved"theparteynamed,Coughlin. Oddly,
thisIirstversion(andallthreeoItheseareintheRJCIileinrev2012-001048)insteadoI"jenniIerChandler"beingin,Iguess,thesignature
lineIorthe"agent"oIthelandlrod(andshealwaysjustplacesa"rubberstamp"oIhernameanyways..",insteadoIJenniIerChandler,onthe
one6/14/125dayNOtice(andallversionsoIthisnoticehavechecksonbox3and6,whichread"3.Recieveda5daynoticeoIpossible
unlawIuldetinerIorIailuretocomplywiththerentalagreement....6.RemainedinpossesionoIthepremisessubjecttotheprovisionoI
Chpater118AoItheNRSaIterhavingIailedtoperIormthebasicorcontractualobligationsimposeduponyoubythatChapter,namey
(SEEATTAChed)" thoughthe"attachedjustseemstoincludeacopyoIthe"RentalAgreement"withnorealindicationoIhow
CoughlinwasinviolationoIit,andnoindicationoIwhyNOrthwindsIeelsCoughlinremainedinviolationthereoIdespiteCoughlin's
writtencommunicationsindicatingthathewasnotinbreach. Anyways,ratherthaarubberstampindicating"jenniIerChandler"onthat
one5daynotice,theonewhereWRayactuallyaIIixeshisactualsignature,Iollowbyahandwrittr-043948(hislicensedprocesssever
number), thespotusuallybaringthe"JenniIerChandler"rubberstampisinsteadtakenupbyasignaturebyNevadaCourtServicesresient
notarypublicHBCedomio....AGain,thereisnotimelistedonthatIirstversionoItheNOticeorwhichincludedsatthebottomthe
"DeclarationoIService...."
InthesecondversionoIthe"noticeoIUnlawIuldetainer..."servedonJune14th,2012,inhis"DeclarationoIServicebyLicneseprocess
Server"(which,arguablyinovkesthe"penaltyoIperjurydicateoINRS53.045...)WrayagainstdeclareshepersonallyservedCoughlin,
withatimeoI9:23indicated,andarubberstampoI"R.Wray"onthesignatureline,withahandwritten "REg#R-043948"(andthat
versionwasIaxedbytheSparksJusticeCourttotheRenoJusticeCourtonJune28th,2012at11:05am,(ina13pageIax,manypagesoI
whicharenotintheRJCIile,thoughthatIaxdoesincludedtheheaderIromtheIaxIromCoughlintothe"SparksJusticeCourton62612
at12:00pm,whichwasa10pageIax,andtheversiooIthe6/14/125daynoticewithDeclartionoIServicebyr.WrayindicatingatimeoI
9:23ispage6oI10oICoguhlin'sIaxtotheSparksJusticeCouer(accordingtotheIaxhearders)whilealsobeingpage12oItehJune28th,
2012IaxIromtheSparksJusticecourttotheRenoJusticeCourt.rightaboutthemomentCoughlinwasbeingplacedinWCSODeputy
MachensquadorpatrolvehicleIortransprottothejail,whereCoughlinwouldbeIorcedtoIorkoversomemorebail,etc.,etc.
INtheThirdversionoIthe"DeclarationoIService"onthesameJune14th,2012"NOTICEOFUNLAWFULDETAINERFORFAILURE
TOVACATEPREMISES..ThisthirdversionoIhis6/14/12DeclarationoIServicebyLicensedPRocessServeR.Wrayhasthetypical
"jenniIerchandler"rubberstampIortheNOticehalIoIthepage,andhasarubberstampIor"?R.wray",alongwithaclearlydiIIert
handwrirtnnoteoI"reg#r043"(obviously,asideIromthehandwriting"analysis"thehandwrittnnumbericalindicationoItheprocess
servicernumberistruncatedonthisthirdversionby3numbers). Additionalythisthirdversionindicatesitwas"personallyserved"at
12:54pm.
WhyallthediIIerentversions? why,iIpersonallyservicewaseIIectat9:23am,woudR.Wrayneedtoreturnanddoitagain,allIorUnit
29,nminyouonly(alltheotherDeclartionsoIServiceIromthatdateoI6/14/12,ieIorunits45and71,indicatethatWraymerelyposted
tehnoticetotherentedproperty(andthereIorewouldentail3moredaysIromailingtoget"construtivenotice"underNRCP6(e)andNRCP
5(b)(2),whichlandlord'slikeNorthwindsjusthate.
ThenthereistheIactthatNCSsnuckintotheIilelaterawholenothertypeoInotice,oneunderNRS40.760...which,oIcourse,changes
everything..
OFcourse,Wraydidnot"personallyserve"Coughlin. WrayattemptstomakesomehalI-bakedargumentabouthowheslid(aIterIailing
inhisattemptstobreakandenterandtrespassintoUnit29on6/14/29)the5dayUDNoticeintoacrackinthedooroItherental,and
perceiveditto"move"aIterheletgooIit,thereby,apparently,entitlinghimtoassertthatheeIIected"personalservice"upontenantZach
Coughlin,or,apparently,otherwisecompliedwithNRCP5,andthereIorecutshortthetimeIorCoughlintorespondasatenantandsecurea
hearing(ratherthanbeincarceratedaIterhavingunknownviolentsoundingIigures(IlashbackstootherinteractionswithNevadaCourt
Services)bangingonhisdoors,reIusingtoindentiIythemselves,thenultimatelytakingachainsaw(orsawz-all)toametaldoortoa
conIinedwindowlessrental.
NRS40.400makesNRCPtheapplicableruleshere,notJCRCP,norJCRRT:
RULE5.SERVICEANDFILINGOFPLEADINGSANDOTHERPAPERS
Rule
DraItersNote
Commentary
(a)Service:WhenRequired.Exceptasotherwiseprovidedintheserules,everyorderrequiredbyitstermstobeserved,everypleading
subsequenttotheoriginalcomplaintunlessthecourtotherwiseordersbecauseoInumerousdeIendants,everypaperrelatingtodiscovery
requiredtobeserveduponapartyunlessthecourtotherwiseorders,everywrittenmotionotherthanonewhichmaybeheardexparte,and
everywrittennotice,appearance,demand,oIIeroIjudgment,designationoIrecordonappeal,andsimilarpapershallbeserveduponeachoI
theparties.NoserviceneedbemadeonpartiesindeIaultIorIailuretoappearexceptthatpleadingsassertingneworadditionalclaimsIor
relieIagainstthemshallbeservedupontheminthemannerprovidedIorserviceoIsummonsinRule4.
|Asamended;eIIectiveSeptember27,1971.|
(b)Same:HowMade.
(1)Wheneverundertheserulesserviceisrequiredorpermittedtobemadeuponapartyrepresentedbyanattorney,theserviceshallbe
madeupontheattorneyunlessthecourtordersthatservicebemadeupontheparty.
(2)Serviceunderthisruleismadeby:
(A)Deliveringacopytotheattorneyorthepartyby:
(i)handingittotheattorneyortotheparty;
(ii)leavingitattheattorneysorpartysoIIicewithaclerkorotherpersonincharge,oriIthereisnooneincharge,leavingitina
conspicuousplaceintheoIIice;or
(iii)iItheoIIiceisclosedorthepersontobeservedhasnooIIice,leavingitatthepersonsdwellinghouseorusualplaceoIabodewith
somepersonoIsuitableageanddiscretionresidingthere.
(B)Mailingacopytotheattorneyorthepartyathisorherlastknownaddress.Servicebymailiscompleteonmailing;provided,however,
amotion,answerorotherdocumentconstitutingtheinitialappearanceoIapartymustalso,iIservedbymail,beIiledwithinthetime
allowedIorservice;andprovidedIurther,thataItersuchinitialappearance,servicebymailbemadeonlybymailingIromapointwithinthe
StateoINevada.
(C)IItheattorneyorthepartyhasnoknownaddress,leavingacopywiththeclerkoIthecourt.
(D)DeliveringacopybyelectronicmeansiItheattorneyorthepartyservedhasconsentedtoservicebyelectronicmeans.Serviceby
electronicmeansiscompleteontransmissionprovided,however,amotion,answerorotherdocumentconstitutingtheinitialappearanceoIa
partymustalso,iIservedbyelectronicmeans,beIiledwithinthetimeallowedIorservice.Theservedattorneysorpartysconsent
toservicebyelectronicmeansshallbeexpresslystatedandIiledinwritingwiththeclerkoIthecourtandservedontheotherpartiestothe
action.ThewrittenconsentshallidentiIy:
(i)thepersonsuponwhomservicemustbemade;
(ii)theappropriateaddressorlocationIorsuchservice,suchastheelectronic-mailaddressorIacsimilenumber;
(iii)theIormattobeusedIorattachments;and
(iv)anyotherlimitsonthescopeordurationoItheconsent.
AnattorneysorpartysconsentshallremaineIIectiveuntilexpresslyrevokedoruntiltherepresentationoIapartychangesthrough
entry,withdrawal,orsubstitutionoIcounsel.Anattorneyorpartywhohasconsentedtoservicebyelectronicmeansshall,within10days
aIteranychangeoIelectronic-mailaddressorIacsimilenumber,serveandIilenoticeoIthenewelectronic-mailaddressorIacsimile
number.
(3)ServicebyelectronicmeansunderRule5(b)(2)(D)isnoteIIectiveiIthepartymakingservicelearnsthattheattemptedservicedidnot
reachthepersontobeserved.
(4)ProoIoIservicemaybemadebycertiIicateoIanattorneyoroItheattorneysemployee,orbywrittenadmission,orbyaffidavit,or
otherprooIsatisIactorytothecourt.FailuretomakeprooIoIserviceshallnotaIIectthevalidityoIservice"
InthelegalworkdraItedandIiledbyanon-attorney,acriminalviolationinNCS'sandJeIIChandler'scommittingtheauthorizedpracticeoI
law(whathappenstopeopledoingplasticsurgerywithoutalicense? jailtime,lotsoIit...becausesomethingcouldgobadly,badlywrong
andpeoplecouldgethurt...likeCoughlingothurt,damaged,arrested,Iinanciallydestroyed,etc.,etc.here. thinskullplaintiII,
consequentialdamagesWinchellvSchiII2008caseseaIood,storageplacelostbusinessandlostproIits$300Kdamages,etc.. whilein
jailCoughlinwaspreventedIromIilinginmattersthatultimatelywoundupwitha$40,050judgmentagainstCoughlin,andthere'smore,
IorwhichNOrthwind,andNCS,ChandlerandWRay,andperhaps,someothers,willbeliable.). Inthe"AIIidavitoILandlordIor
Breach"IiledonJune27th,2012by,well,whoknows,givenitjustsays"Lanldord"andhaswhatappearstobeahandwritten"S"inthe
signatureline...but,letssayitwasIiledbyJeIIChandler,whomcrossedthebarandarguedbeIoreJudgePearsononJuly31st,2011in
REv2012-001048onbehalIoIhis"client'NorthwindApartments,AssociatesLLC(seeacg-ampi.com,doingbusinessin10states,kinda
seemsliketheycouldaIIordandattorneyratherthandestroyourcommunitywithhackpretendlawyerswhoplaydressasaSheriIIand
bullypeopelwhileattemptingtobreakandenterandtrespass...andthenRPDAlanWeaverandSArgentOliverMiller,andWCSODeputy
JohnMachenandDeputyGomezchipinsomeSoldalv.CookCountyviolating1983violationsaswell....puke,puke.puke...INthe
"AIIidavitoILandlordIorBreach"thatChandlerdraItedandIiled,hewrote,atparagraph4."himandnationsurrenderoIthepremiseswas
tohavetakenplaceonorbeIoreJune13,2012.Thatlegalnoticehasbeenservedonthetenant'sinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoINRS
chapter40.280asamendedon6/14/12."
Chandler'sAIIidavitoILandlordIorBreachdemonstratesalackoIcandortothetribunal,whichwouldbeproIessionalmisconducttoreport
totheSBN,but,Chadleraintalawyer,so,andwhatareyagoin'tado? DDAYound? DDAKandaras,isn'tthatyourjurisdiction?
Thatisacriminallawviolation,right,unauthorizedpracticeoIlaw...andinthatJune27th,2012AIIidavitoILandlordChandlersneakily
lists"N/a"intheblankIorthe"originalperiodoIis(blank)terminating onoIorrtransIerringtoa periodictenancyonthatdate. A
copyoIthewrittenrentalagreement,iIany,isattachedhereto."....UponinIormationandbelieI,chandlerIailedtoinlcudeacopyoIthe
RentalAgreementinatleastoneoItheseNOrthwindIiles(notsureiIitwasintheoneIorunit29,rev2012-001048,butitwoudlmake
sense,asNorthwind'seggswereallinthatbasketinasense.) Anyways,theRentalAGreementmakescleartheperiodisnot"n/a"...why
wouldChandlerdothat? CoudlitbethatNRS40.253hasdiIIeratentlawsIortenancieswheretherentisreservedbyaperiodoI1week
orless? CoughlinpaidIoronemonth'srentupIrontatthetimetheRenalAgreementwassigned. Also,seeisthecraigslistadCoughlin
respondedtoplacedbyNorthwind,andincorporatedintoan"RentalAgreement",alongwithverbalindications,arguably,underNRS
118A.160(whichonlyappliesto"dwellingplaces",buttheLandlord'sAIIidavitinidcatesthisrentalwas,inparagraph2such,asitstates
"2. ThatyoraIIiant isrentedacertaindwellingorapartmenttoZachCoughlin,locatedat1680skymountaindr...#29,Reno,NV
on5/4/12IoranoriginalperiodoIN/aterminatingonortransIerrintoaperiodictenancyonthatdate. acopyoIthewrittenrental
agreemetiIany,isattachedhereto.".. ChandlerseemstowanttotakeadvantegoINRS40.253(2)'squickieserviceapproachIorweekto
weekrentals,whichunit29,byvirtueoIthetermsoItheRentalAgreement,clearlywasnot. ashimandhimandhimthisbutthenewthe
signaturesiswrittenintheamountoI$75isduenolaterthantheIirstoIlateaItertheIoreverymonthlateisaskedBobLoblawclearlythis
wasaperiodictenancyoImonthtomonthIorvarietyIurtheroneprovisionandthisoneisrentalagreementshaswritten30daysnoticeto
vacateisrequiredorrentalwillberesponsiblethenextmonthsrentcoveredChandlertendstoonecharacterizethisasaweektoweekor
lesstypetenancytotakeadvantageoIthelessonsservicerequirementsthereandIoundinNRS40.253(1)-(2):
Further,theRentalAgreementisnotnecessarilylimitedtothedocumentthatNOrthwindApartmentspurportstobethe"GARAGE/
CARPORTRENTALAGREEMENT"astheirexistsnolimitationinthatdocumentthataIIirmativelydisclaimsanyincorporationoI
statementsbythenManageDeedeCall(whommysteriouslydisappeareduponcurrentManagerDwayneJakobshowingup)orincorporated
intotheRentalAgreementorLeasebyvirtueoItheadvertisementsthatNorthwindsheldouttothepubliconCraigslist,whichishow
CoughlinlearnedoItheiroIIer,uponwhichCoughlincalledthenManagerDeedeCallandmetwithherinperson. AttachedinExhibit1
istheCraigslistadthatNorthwindswasrunningatthetime,anditread:
"$75OneSizeCarGarageForRent(NorthwestReno,NV)
Date:2012-04-02,10:02AMPDT
Replyto:seebelow
WelcometoNorthwindApartments.WeoIIerstorageunitstonon-NorthwindResidents! Ifyouneedmorestorage,weoIIergaragesto
rentIor$75permonth.TheyareaIullsizesinglecargarage.Most publicstorageswouldchargeover$150dollarsIorthesamesize!Our
communityislocatedinnorthwestReno,right
oIIoIMcCarran. Pleasecallusat(775)747-9200orcomeby.Wearelocatedat1680SkyMountainDriveinNorthwestReno."
ANDITGETSBETTER:ThethingaboutNRS40.760isthatitspecificallyindicatesthatitdoesnotapplyto"garages". And
Judgesdon'tlegislateIromthebench,theyjustapplythelawaswritten,sopeoplecandependonnoticeprovidedbyprecedentand
publishedlaws.TodootherwiseisjudicialmisconductarguablyrequiringaComplaintwiththeJudicialDisciplineCommission.
FurtherCoughlinaskedandthenManagerDeedeCall(sheislistedasthemanageronthe"RENTALAGREEMENT"oIMay4th,2012,
anditbearshersandCoguhlin'ssignature,numerousquestionsvisavistheuseoItherental,andclearly,DeedeCallgaveCoughlin
permission(andactually,Calldidnotindicateany"specialpermission"tousetherentalsIorsomethingotherthanparkingacarwas
necessarytoobtainanyways,andnoonehasestablishedthatCoughlindidnotusetherentalsIorparkinganyways,andanyFourth
AmendmentviolatingtrespassandvideoingoICoughlin'srentalsisnotadmissibleanyways. Soldalv.CookCo.
CHAPTER40-ACTIONSANDPROCEEDINGSINPARTICULARCASESCONCERNINGPROPERTYSUMMARYPROCEEDINGS
FOROBTAININGPOSSESSIONOFREALPROPERTY,RECREATIONALVEHICLEORMOBILEHOME
NRS40.253UnlawIuldetainer:SupplementalremedyoIsummaryevictionandexclusionoItenantIordeIaultinpaymentoIrent.
NRS40.280ServiceoInoticestoquit;prooIrequiredbeIoreissuanceoIordertoremove.
NRS40.400RulesoIpractice.
CHAPTER108-STATUTORYLIENS
LIENSOFOWNERSOFFACILITIESFORSTORAGE
NRS108.475 UseoIstoragespaceIorresidenceprohibited;eviction;natureoIIacility;eIIectoIissuanceoIdocumentoI
titleIorproperty.
CHAPTER118A-LANDLORDANDTENANT:DWELLINGS
CHAPTER197-CRIMESBYANDAGAINSTTHEEXECUTIVEPOWEROFTHISSTATE
NRS197.090 Interferingwithpublicofficer.
NRS197.100 Influencingpublicofficer.
NRS197.110 Misconductofpublicofficer.
NRS197.120 FalseimpersonationoIpublicoIIicer;intrusionintoandrefusaltosurrenderpublicoffice.
NRS197.130 Falsereportbypublicofficer.
NRS197.140 Publicofficermakingfalsecertificate.
NRS197.160 Fraudulentlypresentingclaimtopublicofficer.
NRS197.180 Wrongfulexerciseofofficialpower.
NRS197.190 Obstructingpublicofficer.

ThearrestoICoughlinatNorthwindsApartmentsonJune28th,2012bythesameWCSODeputyMachenwhoIiledaIalseaIIidavit
attestingtohave"personallyserved"CoughlintheSummaryEvictionORderIromCoughlin'sIormerhomelawoIIiceonNovember1st,
2011,wheninreality,MachenjustpostedtheOrdertothedoorwhennobodywashome(andthereIorecommittedtrespassundercoloroI
law,asheIailedtocomplywithNRCP5(b)(2)(madeapplicabletolandlordtenantmattersbyNRS40.400)andNRCP6(e).
So,WCSOMachenarrestedCoughlinIoraviolationoINRS197.190:
NRS197.190 ObstructingpublicoIIicer. Everypersonwho,aIterduenotice,shallreIuseorneglecttomakeorIurnishanystatement,reportor
inIormationlawIullyrequiredoIthepersonbyanypublicoIIicer,orwho,insuchstatement,reportorinIormationshallmakeanywillIullyuntrue,misleadingor
exaggeratedstatement,orwhoshallwillIullyhinder,delayorobstructanypublicoIIicerinthedischargeoIoIIicialpowersorduties,shall,wherenoother
provisionoIlawapplies,beguiltyoIamisdemeanor.
YetDDAchargedCoughlinintheCriminalComplaintinRJCRCR2012-067980withadiIIerentcrime,NRS199.280:
"NRS:CHAPTER199-CRIMESAGAINSTPUBLIC1USTICE
OTHEROFFENSES
NRS199.280 ResistingpublicoIIicer.
Apersonwho,inanycaseorunderanycircumstancesnototherwisespeciallyprovidedfor,willIullyresists,delaysorobstructsapublicoIIicerindischarging
orattemptingtodischargeanylegaldutyoIhisorheroIIiceshallbepunished:
1. WhereaIirearmisusedinthecourseoIsuchresistance,obstructionordelay,orthepersonintentionallyremoves,takesorattemptstoremoveor
takeaIirearmIromthepersonoI,ortheimmediatepresenceoI,thepublicoIIicerinthecourseoIsuchresistance,obstructionordelay,IoracategoryCIelonyas
providedinNRS193.130.
2. Whereadangerousweapon,otherthanaIirearm,isusedinthecourseoIsuchresistance,obstructionordelay,orthepersonintentionallyremoves,
takesorattemptstoremoveortakeaweapon,otherthanaIirearm,IromthepersonoI,ortheimmediatepresenceoI,thepublicoIIicerinthecourseoIsuch
resistance,obstructionordelay,IoracategoryDIelonyasprovidedinNRS193.130.
3. WherenodangerousweaponisusedinthecourseoIsuchresistance,obstructionordelay,Ioramisdemeanor."
WhythechangeIromDDAYoung? Itcouldn'tbebecuaseNRS199.280ismoredamagingtoCoughlin'slawlicense,inlightoISCR111(6),thanwouldbea
simplelittleNRS197.190charge,couldit? IsthatpermissiblewheretheWCDAandWCSOhaveavestedinterestindiscreditinganddemolishingCoughlinin
lightoIallegationoImisconductbybothoIthoseoIIiceswithrespecttoitstreatmentoICoughlin,inadditiontomisconductagainstCoughlinbytheWCDC?
NevadaSupremeCourtRule111(6):"6. DeIinitionoIseriouscrime. Thetermseriouscrimemeans(1)aIelonyand(2)anycrimelessthana
IelonyanecessaryelementoIwhichis,asdeterminedbythestatutoryorcommon-lawdeIinitionoIthecrime,improperconductasanattorney,interferencewith
theadministrationofjustice,falseswearing,misrepresentation,Iraud,willIulIailuretoIileanincometaxreturn,deceit,bribery,extortion,misappropriation,".
ConvictionsoIa"seriouscrime"requireBarCounseltoIileaSCR111Petitionagainsttheattorney.
CouldtherebeanycleardemonstrationoItheretaliatoryanimusagainstCoughlinbytheWashoeCountyDistrictAttorney'sOIIice? Areprosecutorspaidto
playoutgrudgesandsanctionmisconductbylocallawenIorcement? Ratherthanjusta"resisting"charge,DDAYoungandtheWCDAwanttotrytoglomon
a"Ialseswearing"and"inteIerringwiththeadministrationoIjustice"claim,evenwheretheknowoIthe6/26/12writtencorrespondencebyCoughlintoboththe
SparksandRenoJusticeCourtsandtheCivilDivisionoItheWashoeCountySheriII'sOIIice. EnoughisEnough. Thisprosecutorialmisconductmustnot
stand.
But,reallyCoughlinisherebycomplainingtothelandlord,pursuanttoNS118A.510oIaviolationoIthecriminallawbyonewhoisarguablyan"agent"oIthe
landlord(notmakingabriberyallegationhere,tobeclear,though):
NRS 197.200 Oppressionundercolorofoffice.
1. AnoIIicer,orapersonpretendingtobeanoIIicer,whounlawIullyandmaliciously,underpretenseorcoloroIoIIicialauthority:
(a)Arrestsordetainsapersonagainstthepersonswill;
(b)Seizesorleviesuponanothersproperty;
(c)DispossessesanotheroIanylandsortenements;or
(d)Doesanyactwherebytheperson,propertyorrightsoIanotherpersonareinjured,
commitsoppression.
2. AnoIIicerorpersoncommittingoppressionshallbepunished:
(a)WherephysicalIorceortheimmediatethreatoIphysicalIorceisused,IoracategoryDIelonyasprovidedin NRS193.130.
(b)WherenophysicalIorceorimmediatethreatoIphysicalIorceisused,Ioragrossmisdemeanor.
Further, this is an oIIicil written complaint against WCSO Deputy MachenandGomez,pleaseplaceacopyoIthisComplaintintheiremploymentandpersonnel
Iiles, and please do the same with respect to RPD OIIicer Alan Weaver, Sargent Dye, Sargent Oliver Miller, and OIIicer WelchIortheirgrossmisdemeanor,
consisting oIdoingthatwhichisthedomainoItheSheriIIunderNRS40.760inconectionwiththematteratSuperiorMiniStorageonoraroundSeptember21st,
2012 under the Iollowing law, in light oI teh language in NRS 40.760 and NRS 108.475, whichImadetheRPDawareoIatthetime,andSoldalv.CookCo.
Couldn't be too much oI a budget crunch when local law enIorcement acts the way they do,veritablygoadingcivilrightstenant'srightattorney'sintosuing
them through their reckless and tacky behavior: NRS 197.180 Wrongful exercise of official power. Any person who willIully takesupon
himselIorherselItoexerciseoroIIiciateinanyoIIiceorplaceoIanother,withoutbeinglawIullyauthorizedthereto,isguiltyoIagrossmisdemeanor.
Also,unerNRS118A.510,IamcomplainingoItheIollowingviolationsoIcriminallawonNorthwind'sbehalI:
NRS 197.120 Falseimpersonationofpublicofficer;intrusionintoandrefusaltosurrenderpublicoffice. EverypersonwhoshallIalsely
personateorrepresentanypublicoIIicer,orwhoshallwillIullyintrudeintoapublicoIIicetowhichthepersonhasnotbeendulyelectedorappointed,orwho
shallwillIullyexerciseanyoItheIunctionsorperIormanyoIthedutiesoIsuchoIIicer,withouthavingdulyqualiIiedthereIor,asrequiredbylaw,orwho,having
beenanexecutiveoradministrativeoIIicer,shallwillIullyexerciseanyoItheIunctionsoIoIIiceaIterhisorherrighttodosohasceased,orwrongIullyreIuseto
surrendertheoIIicialsealoranybooksorpapersappertainingtosuchoIIice,uponthedemandoIhisorherlawIulsuccessor,shallbeguiltyoIagross
misdemeanor.
|1911C&P67;RL6332;NCL10016|
NRS 197.130 Falsereportbypublicofficer. EverypublicoIIicerwhoshallknowinglymakeanyIalseormisleadingstatementinany
oIIicialreportorstatement,undercircumstancesnototherwiseprohibitedbylaw,shallbeguiltyoIagrossmisdemeanor.
NEvadaCourtServicesregularlyattemptstomisleadtenant'sintothinkingtheactwithcoloroIlaw. FromJoelDurdenbarkingatmeinhisSheriIIlook-a-likegetupthatheisan
"oIIiceroIthecourt"andIrom"CourtServices"tohavingtheword"Court"intheirname,etc.,etc.NEvadCourtServicesimpersonatespublicoIIicers. Additionally,Machen's
policereportisIalsetotheextentthatitIailstoindicatethat,atleastatsomepoint,MachenandorDeputyGomezreIusedtoidnetiIythemslevs. Theydon'tknowwhatsomeoneis
doinginsidewhentheypurportto"knockandannounce"andthemustreasonablybeexpectedtoassumeonecouldhavenotheardtheirinitialannouncingtheiridnetiIy(whether
becausetheyhadheadphonesor,wereinthebathroom,whatever...andMachenandhiscowboypartnerGomezreIusedtoidentiIythemselvesinresponseto arequestthattheydo
sobyCoughlin,andsimilarlyreIusedtoslidethroughthedooranypaperworkorwarrantdescribingthepurposeoItheirvisit.
WCSOisthatMachem'sAIIidavitoIServiceindicatesthathe"personallyserved"me,whichkindoIremindsmeoIallthatrobo-signing
andMERSIraudIcomeacrossinmydayjob(anddoyouwonderhowmanyattorneysintheIoreclosuredeIensegameIaminconstant
contactwithwhoarewatchingandwitnessthepotentialRICOviolationsthiswritingmentions?),whichincludesbeingaIoreclosure
deIenseattorney. Sowhichisit? DidMachem"personallyserve"metheSummaryEvictionOrder? RichardG.Hill,Esq.likesto
arguethatIwas"served"incompliancewithalltimerelatedrulesbecauseitwasdoneinthe"usualcustomandpracticeoItheWCSO.
What,exactly,isthe"usualcustomandpracticeoItheWCSO? Ihearalotaboutthis"within24hours"stuII. So,IgohuntingIorsome
blackletterlawtosupportwhatthoseattheRJCandinthecluelesscommunityatlarge(whichoItenincludesNevadaLegalServicesand
WashoeLegalServices,thepeopleyouguyshadsuchtroubleactuallyservinginthelawsuitsIIiled,whichmayhaveactuallyhelped
improvedlegalservicesinthiscommunity,iItheywerenotdismissedduetoinsuIIiciencyoIserviceoIprocess,evenwheretheIFP
requiredtheWCSOtoservedthedeIendants....). Anyway,backtothe"within24hours"phraseology:"
ThiswholebusinessaboutThecourtmaythereuponissueanorderdirectingthesheriIIorconstableoIthecountytoremovethetenant
within24hoursaIterreceiptoItheorder...isinapplicabletothissituation,whereanOrderGrantingSummaryEvictionwassignedby
October27th,2011.ThatlanguageisonlyIoundinsituationsinapplicabletothecurrentone.NRS40.253(3)(b)(2),andNRS40.253(5)(a)
aretheonlysectionsoINRS40wherethiswithin24hourslanguageoccurs,andthosesituationsonlyapplywhere,in:
40.253(3)(b)(2):3. Anoticeservedpursuanttosubsection1or2must:...(b)Advisethetenant:,.(2)ThatiIthecourtdetermines
thatthetenantisguiltyoIanunlawIuldetainer,thecourtmayissueasummaryorderIorremovaloIthetenantoranorderprovidingIorthe
nonadmittanceoIthetenant,directingthesheriIIorconstableoIthecountytoremovethetenantwithin24hoursaIterreceiptoItheorder
and,
40.253(5)(a):5. Uponnoncompliancewiththenotice: (a)ThelandlordorthelandlordsagentmayapplybyaIIidavit
oIcomplaintIorevictiontothejusticecourtoIthetownshipinwhichthedwelling,apartment,mobilehomeorcommercialpremisesare
locatedortothedistrictcourtoIthecountyinwhichthedwelling,apartment,mobilehomeorcommercialpremisesarelocated,whichever
hasjurisdictionoverthematter.ThecourtmaythereuponissueanorderdirectingthesheriIIorconstableoIthecountytoremovethetenant
within24hoursaIterreceiptoItheorder.ThewaythesesummaryevictionproceedingsarebeingcarriedoutinRenoJusticeCourt
presentlyshockstheconscienceandviolatesNevadalaw.ThereisnotbasisIoreIIectuatingalockoutthewayWCSO'sDeputyMachemdid
inthiscase.Theabovetwosectionscontainingthewithin24hoursoIreceiptlanguageareinapplicable,asthosesituationsdonot
invokethepresentcircumstances,wheretheTenantdidIileanAIIidavitanddidcontestthismattertoadegreenotoItenseen.Torequire
Nevada'stenantstogetupandgetoutwithin24hoursoIreceiptoItheorder(whatdoesthatevenmean?TheuseoItermslike
rendition,rendered,noticeoIentry,pronounced,isabsenthere,andthisreceiptoItheorderlanguageis
somethingrarelyIoundelsewhereinNevadalaw-seeattachedDMVstatutorycitations,andinemploymentlawlitigationswhereonemust
IileaComplaintwithin90daysoIreceiptoIaRightToSueLetter,asituationwhichIollowsNRCP5(b),andNRCP6(e)inimputing
receiptoIsuchaletter,whenactualreceiptisnotshown,byapplyingaconstructivenoticestandardthatreliesuponthedaysIor
mailingextensionoItimeIoritemsservedinthemailing,etc.).InAbrahamv.WoodsHoleOceanographicInstitute,553F.3d114(1stCir.
2009),therecorddidnotreIlectwhentheplaintiIIreceivedhisright-to-sueletter.TheletterwasissuedonNovember24,2006.Thecourt
calculatedthatthe90-dayperiodcommencedonNovember30,2006,basedonthreedaysIormailingaIterexcludingSaturdaysand
Sundays.InordertobringaclaimundereitherTitleVIIortheADA,aplaintiIImustexhaustadministrativeremediesandsuewithin90
daysoIreceiptoIarighttosueletter.See42U.S.C.2000e-5(I)(1).SeeBaldwinCountyWelcomeCenterv.Brown,466U.S.147,148
n.1,104S.Ct.1723,80L.Ed.2d196(1984)(grantingplaintiIIanadditionalthreedaysIormailingpursuanttoRule6).
Further,despitewhattheinaccuratehandoutsoINevadaLegalServicesmaysayaboutthis24hoursandtheapplicabilityoIthe
JCRCPtocaseslikethese,NRS40.400Rulesofpractice,holdsthat:TheprovisionsoINRS,NevadaRulesoICivilProcedureand
NevadaRulesoIAppellateProcedurerelativetocivilactions,appealsandnewtrials,soIarastheyarenotinconsistentwiththeprovisions
oINRS40.220to40.420,inclusive,applytotheproceedingsmentionedinthosesections.AssuchNRCP6(a),(e)appliestotheOrderoI
SummaryEvictionthatWCSODeputyMachemalleged,underpenaltyoIperjury,thathe"personallyserved"uponmeonNovember1,
2011. ThatisaliebyMr.Machem,unless"personallyserved"isdeIinedinaratherimpersonalwayandorMachemandIhavetotally
diIIerentunderstandingoIthedeIinitionoI"personallyserved",whichmaybethecase. Or,perhapstheSheriII'sOIIiceisbusyand
doesn'twanttowaitaroundto"personallyserve"everytenantitwishestoevict. Fine,thenjustusethe"mailitandallowthreedays"rule
inNRCP6(e)...thelandlord'smightnotlikeit,buttheycanusethatIrustrationasanincentivenottojumptolitigatingeverydisagreement
abouthabitabilitythatatenantbringstothem. Youmaynotrealizehowridiculoussomelandlord'sget. Inmycase,IoIIeredtoIix
basicthingsthatclearlyimplicatedthehabitabilityrulesinNRS118A.290andtheCaliIornianneurosurgeon,BeverlyHillHighSchool
graduatelandlordbalkedandcomplainedthenhiredandattorneyIourdaysintoadispute.....atwhichpointtherulesagainstcontacting
representedpartiespreventedmuchinthewayoIrealsettlementdiscussion,particularlywhereopposingcounselhascontinuously
demonstratedacompleteindiIIerencetopursuingsettlement(whywouldheattherateshebillshoursat?). Ijustdon'tthinkthe
SheriII'sOIIiceneedstosullyitsimageordamagethecitizentenantsoIWashoeCountyinthenameoIpleasingpeoplelikeDr.Matt
MerlissorRichardG.Hill,Esq.
IamherebycomplainingtoNorthwindApartmentsoIaviolationoIthecriminallawbyoneoIitsagentsR.Wrayandotherprocessservers
withNCS(Oh,andRPDOIIicerWeaveralsothreatenedtouse"hydraulicexplosives"togainentrytooneoImythreerentalsatNorthwind,
thoughnoexigentcircumstanceexistedandthoughhelackedawarrant. IhavepreviouslycomplainedoILouCadia,MilanKrebs,both
NorthwindMaintenancePersonnel,andNorthwindPropertyManagerorApartmentManagerDwayneJakobattempttobreakandenterinto
myrentals(whyisitwhenRichardG.Hill,Esq.callstheRPDandallegesIamtrespassing,IgetsubjecttoacustodialarrestandHillgets
theStateBaroINevadatotrytoprosecutemeIor"breakinganentering",eventhoughWCSOMachenliedinhisAIIidavitoIServicein
RJCrev2011-0010708,andtheCourthadIailedtoreturntomeatthetimeoIarrestthe$2,275itwasn'tpermittedtorequireIdepositina
"rentescrow"accountintheIirstplace,andwhereHillandhiscontractorarecaughtonvideoadmittingtohavingremovemyladderIrom
theIormerlawoIIice(inavideooIDecember23rd,2011...whydoesn'ttheRPDarrestHillandPhilStewartIorlarcenyoImyladder? Do
IhavetobeWal-MartorRichardG.HillorNorthwindsApartments(ie,rich,connected)togettheRPDtoenIorcethelawwhenIcomplain
oIaviolation?
NRS40.280Serviceofnoticestoquit;proofrequiredbeforeissuanceofordertoremove.
1.ExceptasotherwiseprovidedinNRS40.253,thenoticesrequiredbyNRS40.251to40.260,inclusive,maybeserved:
(a)Bydeliveringacopytothetenantpersonally,inthepresenceofawitness;
(b)IIthetenantisabsentIromthetenantsplaceofresidenceorIromthetenantsusualplaceofbusiness, byleavingacopywithapersonofsuitableageanddiscretion
ateitherplaceandmailingacopytothetenantatthetenantsplaceofresidenceorplaceofbusiness;or
(c)IItheplaceoIresidenceorbusinesscannotbeascertained,orapersonofsuitableageordiscretioncannotbefoundthere,bypostingacopyinaconspicuousplaceonthe
leasedproperty,deliveringacopytoapersonthereresiding,ifthepersoncanbefound,andmailingacopytothetenantattheplacewheretheleasedpropertyissituated.
2.Serviceuponasubtenantmaybemadeinthesamemannerasprovidedinsubsection1.
3. Beforeanordertoremoveatenantisissuedpursuanttosubsection5oINRS40.253,alandlordshallIilewiththecourtaprooIoIserviceoIanynoticerequiredbythatsection.
BeforeapersonmayberemovedasprescribedinNRS40.290to40.420,inclusive,alandlordshallfilewiththecourtproofofserviceofanynoticerequiredpursuantto
NRS40.255.Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinsubsection4,thisproofmustconsistof:
(a)Astatement,signedbythetenantandawitness,acknowledgingthatthetenantreceivedthenoticeonaspeciIieddate;
(b)AcertiIicateoImailingissuedbytheUnitedStatesPostalService;or
(c)TheendorsementoIasheriII,constableorotherprocessserverstatingthetimeandmanneroIservice.
4.IIserviceoIthenoticewasnotdeliveredinpersontoatenantwhoserentisreservedbyaperiodoI1weekorlessandthetenancyhasnotcontinuedIormorethan45days,prooI
oIservicemustinclude:
(a)AcertiIicateoImailingissuedbytheUnitedStatesPostalServiceorbyaprivatepostalservicetothelandlordorthelandlordsagent;or
(b)TheendorsementoIasheriIIorconstablestatingthe:
(1)TimeanddatetherequestIorservicewasmadebythelandlordorthelandlordsagent;
(2)Time,dateandmanneroItheservice;and
(3)FeespaidIortheservice."
|
NRS118A.430 FailureoItenanttocomplywithrentalagreementorperIormbasicobligations:TerminationoIrentalagreement.
1. Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinthischapter,iIthetenantIailstocomplywiththerentalagreementorIailstoperIormhisorherbasicobligationsunderthischapter,
thelandlordmaydeliverawrittennoticetothetenantspeciIyingtheactsandomissionsconstitutingthebreachandthattherentalagreementwillterminateasprovidedinthissection.
IIthebreachisremediableandthetenantdoesnotadequatelyremedythebreachorusehisorherbesteIIortstoremedythebreachwithin5daysaIterreceiptoIthenotice,oriIthe
breachcannotberemedied,thelandlordmayterminatetherentalagreement.
2. IIthetenantisnotreasonablyabletoremedythebreach,thetenantmayavoidterminationoItherentalagreementbyauthorizingthelandlordtoenterandremedythe
breachandbypayinganyreasonableexpensesordamagesresultingIromthebreachortheremedythereoI.
NorthwindsandNCSIailedtocomplywithNRS118A.430(1)(totheextentitevenappliesher)inthatinnowaydidit"deliverawrittennoticetothetenantspecifying
theactsandomissionsconstitutingthebreach". Northwindssimplywrote"seeattached",aIterparagraph6oIteh6/14/12Notice,which
reads"6.RemainedinposssessionoIthepremisessubjecttotheprovisionsoIChapter118AoItheNRSaIterhavingIailedotperIromthe
basicorcontractualobligationsimposeduponyoubythatChapter,namely:(SEEATTACHED)"andthenNCS,atmost,includeacopyoI
the"RentalAgreement"withitsIilingoIthisNoticetotheRJC,whichinnowayspeciIieswhataspectoIthatRentalAgreementCoughlin
ispurportedlyinbreachoI,orwhatIactssupportssuchanallegation.
AnyOrderheisvoidorsubjectoa NRCP60bsetasidebasedupontheIraudoINCSandWrayinlyingwherehedeclares(underpenalty
oIperjury)tohave"personallyserved"Coughlinthe5daynotieon6/14/12,andunderNRCP60b4voidIorlackoIjurisdictionwhereNCS
IailedtospeciIyintheLanldord'sAIIidavitallthatrequiredunderNRS40.253.andIorsomanyotherreasons,suchat118Adoesnotapply
iItherentalisdeemedtobenote"dwelling",andthatanillegallockoutisnotavailableeveniICoughlinisruledtohavebeen"usingasa
residence"therental,shouldtherentalbea"storageIacility"whichCityoIRenoCodeEnIorcementdoesnotviewittobe...andFurther,by
Northwindsveryowndescriptives,itisagarage,onetheyheldouttothepublicIormorethanmere"parkingacar",andassuch,under
NRS40.760and108.4733,108.475andNRS40.760arenotevenavailabletoNorthwind. They. Are. Stuck. DealWithIt.
NRS 108.4733 Facilitydefined. Facilitymeansrealpropertydividedintoindividualstoragespaces.Thetermdoesnotincludeagarageorstorageareainaprivateresidence.
NRS 108.4746 Storagespacedefined. StoragespacemeansaspaceusedIorstoringpersonalproperty,whichisrentedorleasedtoanindividualoccupantwhohasaccesstothespace.
NRS 108.475 Useofstoragespaceforresidenceprohibited;eviction;natureoffacility;effectofissuanceofdocumentoftitleforproperty.
1. ApersonshallnotuseastoragespaceataIacilityIoraresidence.TheowneroIsuchaIacilityshallevictanypersonwhousesastoragespaceattheIacilityasaresidenceinthemannerprovidedIorin NRS
40.760.
NRS 108.4755 Contentsofrentalagreement.
1. Eachrentalagreementmustbeinwritingandmustcontain:
(a)Aprovisionprintedinasizeequaltoatleast10-pointtypethatstates,ITISUNLAWFULTOUSEASTORAGESPACEINTHISFACILITYASARESIDENCE.
MISCELLANEOUSPROVISIONS
NRS 40.760 Summary eviction of person using facility for storage as residence.
1. WhenapersonisusingastoragespaceataIacilityasaresidence,theownerortheownersagentshallserveorhaveservedanoticeinwritingwhichdirectsthepersontoceaseusingthestoragespaceasaresidenceno
laterthan24hoursaIterreceivingthenotice. Thenoticemustadvisethepersonthat:
(a) NRS108.475 requirestheownertoaskthecourttohavethepersonevictediIthepersonhasnotceasedusingthestoragespaceasaresidencewithin24hours;and
(b)Thepersonmaycontinuetousethestoragespacetostorethepersonspersonalpropertyinaccordancewiththerentalagreement.
2. IIthepersondoesnotceaseusingthestoragespaceasaresidencewithin24hoursaIterreceivingthenoticetodoso,theowneroItheIacilityortheownersagentshallapplybyaIIidavitIorsummary
evictiontothejusticeoIthepeaceoIthetownshipwhereintheIacilityislocated.TheaIIidavitmustcontain:
(a)ThedatetherentalagreementbecameeIIective.
(b)Astatementthatthepersonisusingthestoragespaceasaresidence.
(c)Thedateandtimethepersonwasservedwithwrittennoticetoceaseusingthestoragespaceasaresidence.
(d)AstatementthatthepersonhasnotceasedusingtheIacilityasaresidencewithin24hoursaIterreceivingthenotice.
3. UponreceiptoIsuchanaIIidavitthejusticeoIthepeaceshallissueanorderdirectingthesheriIIorconstableoIthecountytoremovethepersonwithin24hoursaIterreceiptoItheorder.ThesheriIIorconstable
shallnotremovethepersonspersonalpropertyIromtheIacility.
4. ForthepurposesoIthissection:
(a)Facilitymeansrealpropertydividedintoindividualstoragespaces.Thetermdoesnotincludeagarageorstorageareainaprivateresidence.
(b)StoragespacemeansaspaceusedIorstoringpersonalproperty,whichisrentedorleasedtoanindividualoccupantwhohasaccesstothespace.
(AddedtoNRSby1989,213;A 2011,1830)
Nevada Process Server Licensing Requirements
It is required that all process servers are licensed and 21, or over, two-years experience as a process server and insurance against liability to third persons with limits of no less then $200,000.
No bonding is required. However, applicants must deposit $750 upon submitting their application to pay for a background investigation, the maximum an applicant can be charged for a
background check is $1500. Applicants must also pass a written application and may be required to pass an oral exam as well. Licenses are issued by the Nevada Private Investigators
Licensing Board. Nevada is the most expensive state in the nation to get licensed. [Nevada Revised Statutes 648.110 and 648.135]
"NRS40.253UnlawIuldetainer:SupplementalremedyoIsummaryevictionandexclusionoItenantIordeIaultinpaymentoIrent.
1.Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinsubsection10,inadditiontotheremedyprovidedinNRS40.2512and40.290to40.420,inclusive,whenthetenantoIanydwelling,apartment,
mobilehome,recreationalvehicleorcommercialpremiseswithperiodicrentreservedbythemonthoranyshorterperiodisindeIaultinpaymentoItherent,thelandlordorthe
landlordsagent,unlessotherwiseagreedinwriting,mayserveorhaveservedanoticeinwriting,requiringinthealternativethepaymentoItherentorthesurrenderoIthe
premises:
(a)AtorbeIorenoonoItheIiIthIulldayIollowingthedayoIservice;or
(b)IIthelandlordchoosesnottoproceedinthemannersetIorthinparagraph(a)andtherentisreservedbyaperiodoI1weekorlessandthetenancyhasnotcontinuedIormore
than45days,atorbeIorenoonoItheIourthIulldayIollowingthedayoIservice.
Asusedinthissubsection,dayoIservicemeansthedaythelandlordorthelandlordsagentpersonallydeliversthenoticetothetenant.IIpersonalservicewasnotso
delivered,thedayoIservicemeansthedaythenoticeisdelivered,aIterpostingandmailingpursuanttosubsection2,tothesheriIIorconstableIorserviceiItherequestIor
serviceismadebeIorenoon.IItherequestIorservicebythesheriIIorconstableismadeaIternoon,thedayoIserviceshallbedeemedtobethedaynextIollowingthedaythat
therequestismadeIorservicebythesheriIIorconstable.
2.Alandlordorthelandlordsagentwhoservesanoticetoatenantpursuanttoparagraph(b)oIsubsection1shallattempttodeliverthenoticeinpersoninthemannersetIorth
inparagraph(a)oIsubsection1oINRS40.280.IIthenoticecannotbedeliveredinperson,thelandlordorthelandlordsagent:
(a)ShallpostacopyoIthenoticeinaconspicuousplaceonthepremisesandmailthenoticebyovernightmail;and
(b)AIterthenoticehasbeenpostedandmailed,maydeliverthenoticetothesheriIIorconstableIorserviceinthemannersetIorthinsubsection1oINRS40.280.ThesheriIIor
constableshallnotacceptthenoticeIorserviceunlessitisaccompaniedbywrittenevidence,signedbythetenantwhenthetenanttookpossessionoIthepremises,thatthelandlordor
thelandlordsagentinIormedthetenantoItheprovisionsoIthissectionwhichsetIorththelawIulproceduresIorevictionIromashort-termtenancy.Uponacceptance,thesheriII
orconstableshallservethenoticewithin48hoursaItertherequestIorservicewasmadebythelandlordorthelandlordsagent.
3.Anoticeservedpursuanttosubsection1or2must:
(a)IdentiIythecourtthathasjurisdictionoverthematter;and
(b)Advisethetenant:
(1)OIthetenantsrighttocontestthematterbyIiling,withinthetimespeciIiedinsubsection1IorthepaymentoItherentorsurrenderoIthepremises,anaIIidavitwiththecourt
thathasjurisdictionoverthematterstatingthatthetenanthastenderedpaymentorisnotindeIaultinthepaymentoItherent;
(2)ThatiIthecourtdeterminesthatthetenantisguiltyoIanunlawIuldetainer,thecourtmayissueasummaryorderIorremovaloIthetenantoranorderprovidingIorthe
nonadmittanceoIthetenant,directingthesheriIIorconstableoIthecountytoremovethetenantwithin24hoursaIterreceiptoItheorder;and
(3)That,pursuanttoNRS118A.390,atenantmayseekrelieIiIalandlordunlawIullyremovesthetenantIromthepremisesorexcludesthetenantbyblockingorattemptingtoblock
thetenantsentryuponthepremisesorwillIullyinterruptsorcausesorpermitstheinterruptionoIanessentialservicerequiredbytherentalagreementorchapter118AoINRS.
4.IIthetenantIilessuchanaIIidavitatorbeIorethetimestatedinthenotice,thelandlordorthelandlordsagent,aIterreceiptoIaIile-stampedcopyoItheaIIidavitwhichwas
Iiled,shallnotprovideIorthenonadmittanceoIthetenanttothepremisesbylockingorotherwise.
5.Uponnoncompliancewiththenotice:
(a)ThelandlordorthelandlordsagentmayapplybyaIIidavitoIcomplaintIorevictiontothejusticecourtoIthetownshipinwhichthedwelling,apartment,mobilehomeor
commercialpremisesarelocatedortothedistrictcourtoIthecountyinwhichthedwelling,apartment,mobilehomeorcommercialpremisesarelocated,whicheverhasjurisdiction
overthematter.ThecourtmaythereuponissueanorderdirectingthesheriIIorconstableoIthecountytoremovethetenantwithin24hoursaIterreceiptoItheorder.TheaIIidavit
muststateorcontain:
(1)Thedatethetenancycommenced.
(2)TheamountoIperiodicrentreserved.
(3)TheamountsoIanycleaning,securityorrentdepositspaidinadvance,inexcessoItheIirstmonthsrent,bythetenant.
(4)Thedatetherentalpaymentsbecamedelinquent.
(5)ThelengthoItimethetenanthasremainedinpossessionwithoutpayingrent.
(6)TheamountoIrentclaimeddueanddelinquent.
(7)AstatementthatthewrittennoticewasservedonthetenantinaccordancewithNRS40.280.
(8)AcopyoIthewrittennoticeservedonthetenant.
(9)AcopyoIthesignedwrittenrentalagreement,iIany.
(b)ExceptwhenthetenanthastimelyIiledtheaIIidavitdescribedinsubsection3andaIile-stampedcopyoIithasbeenreceivedbythelandlordorthelandlordsagent,and
exceptwhenthelandlordisprohibitedpursuanttoNRS118A.480,thelandlordorthelandlordsagentmay,inapeaceablemanner,provideIorthenonadmittanceoIthetenantto
thepremisesbylockingorotherwise.
6.UpontheIilingbythetenantoItheaIIidavitpermittedinsubsection3,regardlessoItheinIormationcontainedintheaIIidavit,andtheIilingbythelandlordoItheaIIidavit
permittedbysubsection5,thejusticecourtorthedistrictcourtshallholdahearing,aIterserviceoInoticeoIthehearingupontheparties,todeterminethetruthIulnessandsuIIiciency
oIanyaIIidavitornoticeprovidedIorinthissection.IIthecourtdeterminesthatthereisnolegaldeIenseastotheallegedunlawIuldetainerandthetenantisguiltyoIanunlawIul
detainer,thecourtmayissueasummaryorderIorremovaloIthetenantoranorderprovidingIorthenonadmittanceoIthetenant.IIthecourtdeterminesthatthereisalegaldeIense
astotheallegedunlawIuldetainer,thecourtshallreIusetogranteitherpartyanyrelieI,and,exceptasotherwiseprovidedinthissubsection,shallrequirethatanyIurtherproceedings
beconductedpursuanttoNRS40.290to40.420,inclusive.TheissuanceoIasummaryorderIorremovaloIthetenantdoesnotprecludeanactionbythetenantIoranydamagesor
otherrelieItowhichthetenantmaybeentitled.IItheallegedunlawIuldetainerwasbaseduponsubsection5oINRS40.2514,thereIusalbythecourttograntrelieIdoesnotpreclude
thelandlordthereaIterIrompursuinganactionIorunlawIuldetainerinaccordancewithNRS40.251.
7.Thetenantmay,uponpaymentoItheappropriateIeesrelatingtotheIilingandserviceoIamotion,Iileamotionwiththecourt,onaIormprovidedbytheclerkoIthecourt,to
disputetheamountoIthecosts,iIany,claimedbythelandlordpursuanttoNRS118A.460or118C.230Iortheinventory,movingandstorageoIpersonalpropertyleItonthe
premises.ThemotionmustbeIiledwithin20daysaIterthesummaryorderIorremovaloIthetenantortheabandonmentoIthepremisesbythetenant,orwithin20daysaIter:
(a)ThetenanthasvacatedorbeenremovedIromthepremises;and
(b)AcopyoIthosechargeshasbeenrequestedbyorprovidedtothetenant,
whicheverislater.
8.UpontheIilingoIamotionpursuanttosubsection7,thecourtshallscheduleahearingonthemotion.Thehearingmustbeheldwithin10daysaItertheIilingoIthemotion.The
courtshallaIIixthedateoIthehearingtothemotionandorderacopyserveduponthelandlordbythesheriII,constableorotherprocessserver.Atthehearing,thecourtmay:
(a)Determinethecosts,iIany,claimedbythelandlordpursuanttoNRS118A.460or118C.230andanyaccumulatingdailycosts;and
(b)OrderthereleaseoIthetenantspropertyuponthepaymentoIthechargesdeterminedtobedueoriInochargesaredeterminedtobedue.
9.AlandlordshallnotreIusetoacceptrentIromatenantthatissubmittedaIterthelandlordorthelandlordsagenthasservedorhadservedanoticepursuanttosubsection1iI
thereIusalisbasedontheIactthatthetenanthasnotpaidcollectionIees,attorneysIeesorothercostsotherthanrent,areasonablechargeIorlatepaymentsoIrentordishonored
checks,orasecurity.Asusedinthissubsection,securityhasthemeaningascribedtoitinNRS118A.240.
10.ThissectiondoesnotapplytothetenantoIamobilehomelotinamobilehomeparkortothetenantoIarecreationalvehiclelotinanareaoIamobilehomeparkinthisState
otherthananareadesignatedasarecreationalvehiclelotpursuanttotheprovisionsoIsubsection6oINRS40.215.
(AddedtoNRSby1967,195;A1969,263,575;1973,1085;1975,1202;1977,418,1346;1979,1398,1879;1985,229;1987,1239;1989,1082,1232;1991,113;1995,1851;1997,
3511;1999,981;2009,1966;2011,235,1489)
NRS40.254UnlawIuldetainer:SupplementalremedyoIsummaryevictionandexclusionoItenantIromcertaintypesoIproperty.ExceptasotherwiseprovidedbyspeciIicstatute,in
additiontotheremedyprovidedinNRS40.251andinNRS40.290to40.420,inclusive,whenthetenantoIadwellingunitwhichissubjecttotheprovisionsoIchapter118AoINRS,
partoIalow-renthousingprogramoperatedbyapublichousingauthority,amobilehomeorarecreationalvehicleisguiltyoIanunlawIuldetainer,thelandlordisentitledtothe
summaryproceduresprovidedinNRS40.253exceptthat:
1.Writtennoticetosurrenderthepremisesmust:
(a)BegiventothetenantinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoINRS40.280;
(b)AdvisethetenantoIthecourtthathasjurisdictionoverthematter;and
(c)AdvisethetenantoIthetenantsrighttocontestthenoticebyIilingwithin5daysanaIIidavitwiththecourtthathasjurisdictionoverthematterthatthetenantisnotguiltyoI
anunlawIuldetainer.
2.TheaIIidavitoIthelandlordorthelandlordsagentsubmittedtothejusticecourtorthedistrictcourtmustcontain:
(a)Thedatewhenthetenancycommenced,thetermoIthetenancy,and,iIany,acopyoItherentalagreement.
(b)Thedatewhenthetenancyorrentalagreementallegedlyterminated.
(c)ThedatewhenthetenantbecamesubjecttotheprovisionsoINRS40.251to40.2516,inclusive,togetherwithanysupportingIacts.
(d)Thedatewhenthewrittennoticewasgiven,acopyoIthenoticeandastatementthatnoticewasservedinaccordancewithNRS40.280.
(e)AstatementthattheclaimIorrelieIwasauthorizedbylaw.
3.IIthetenantisIoundguiltyoIunlawIuldetainerasaresultoIthetenantsviolationoIanyoItheprovisionsoINRS453.011to453.552,inclusive,exceptNRS453.336,the
landlordisentitledtobeawardedanyreasonableattorneysIeesincurredbythelandlordorthelandlordsagentasaresultoIahearing,iIany,heldpursuanttosubsection6
oINRS40.253whereinthetenantcontestedtheeviction.
(AddedtoNRSby1985,227;A1989,1084,1234;1991,115;1995,1853;2001,1065;2003,561)"
IWOULDLIKETOKNOWWHYTHEFILEINRJCREV2012-001048HASMY6PAGEFAXOFJUNE30TH,2012(ANDPLEASE
NOTETHELIMITEDORSPECIALAPPEARANCENATUREOFTHATFILINGINTHENOTEATTHEBOTTOMOFTHEFIRST
PAGE....YETITISNOTFILESTAMPED,ANDIWASNEVERCALLED,ORFAXED,ORNOTIFIEDINANYWAY
CONCERNINGTHESCHEDULINGOFMYCONSTITUTIONALLYGUARANTEEDHEARINGBEFOREASUMMARYEVICTION
ORSTATUSOFMYIFPREQUEST.
MYPOSITIONISTHATIAMENTITLEDTOASUMMARYEVICTIONHEARINGONUNIT29ANDTHATITISLONG
OVERDUE. PLEASELETMEKNOWWHENTHATHEARINGCANTAKEPLACE. IDONOTBELIEVEANYJUDGE
CURRENTLYHASJURISDICTIONONIT,ANDTHATTHENEWCASE,WITHANEWCASENUMBERSHOULDBE
"RANDOMLYASSIGNED"
FurtherintheRenojusticecourtIileIorrjcrev2012-001048isatenantaIIidavitanddeclarationIromCoughlinIaxedtothecourtonJune30,2012containsixpagesitisunclearwhy
CoughlinwasnotgrantedasummaryevictionhearingasrequiredbylawandCoughlinisherebydemandingoneandajurytrialwhichheisentitledtoonepursuantthe19Seventies
theCourtdecisionandFRCPrule30a.m.thatCoughlinisrequestingonepriortothetimesetIorhearingthat'srightIolksweregoingtoajurytrialwhenNevadacourtservices
servedanamendedevictionnoticeonJune28CoughlinthereandhadIivedaystoIileIoranevictionsummaryevictionhearingandhedidsoonJune30justIortheRenoPD
managedcommitanotherwrongIularrestoICoughlinIurthertherewasCountyjailIailedtotransIerCoughlinIortheJuly5hearingonCoughlin'smotiontosetasidetheoriginalJune
27orderhowevertheJune27orderinthiscasewasextinguishedbythatpostingoIanamendedlockoutnoticethereIoreandeightit'snotIilestampbutitshouldbebytheReno
justicecourtthesixpageIaxbyCoughlinonJune30,2012,thoughKarenStancilappearstohavehandwritteninthecasenumberRJCrev2012-001048
PLEASENOTEIAMUSINGAUDIODICTATIONTRANSCRIPTIONSOFTWAREFORTHISCORRESPONDENCEANDITMIGHTHAVESOMEERRORS,WHICH
COULDGREATLYALTERTHEMEANING,ASIDON'THAVETIMETOCORRECTTHEMRIGHTNOW.
additionalyTHEREWASSEVERALFAXESTOTHERJCCIVILDIVISIONBYCOUGHLINONORABOUTJUNE13TH,2012,ANDCOUGHLINREQUESTSACOPYOF
THOSEORSOMEINDICATIONOFWHYTHEYWERENOTFILEDANDCOUGHLINWILLCHECKHISOWNRECORDSINTHATREGARDWHENHEHAS
TIME...HOWEVER,TOTHEEXTENTONEOFTHOSEFILINGSWASATENANT'SAFFIDAVITDIRECTEDTOWARDSUNIT29,LOTSOFPROCEDURAL
IMPLICATIONSWILLSTEM.
NORTHWINDAPARTMENT
ASSOCLLC
1031XPRESS
NORTHWINDLLC
110110THAVENE STE
550
BELLEVUE,WA 98004
Description Summary
FictitiousFirmName-Counter
74040
04/01/199712:00:00AMExpirationDate:04/01/2002
BusinessName:NORTHWINDAPARTMENTSOwners:NORTHWINDAPARTMENTASSOCIATES,LLC
sFirmName-Counter-109351
FilingInIormation
FilingNumber
109351
FilingDate
03/16/200612:00:00AM
ExpirationDate
03/16/2011
BusinessInIormation
BusinessName
RENOREDBOOK
OwnerInIormation
Owner/CorporateName
JEFFREYGCHANDLERu
FictitiousFirmName-Counter
104085
12/08/200412:00:00AMExpirationDate:12/08/2009
BusinessName:BOTTSCANDYCOMPANYOwners:JENNIFERVCHANDLER,CINDYRVANDERZIEL
HimandhimandhimandhimmotionasetoIsocietyevictionorderoIthenumberoIbasesoneitwentunopposedand
hundredPolkcaseCoughlinwinsinthatregardtothenoticeoIhearingbytheRenojusticecourtisdatedJuly31,
2012arenotasoIthehearingonJuly21,2012statedJuly24,2012andhimnoticesonwhatthehearingislimited
toquoteyoumayappearonthedatashowcausewhythecourtshouldorshouldnotgrantmotiontostaytheeviction
orderinthemotionIorexpeditedrelieIIollowinglegallotcoverageutilityshutoII.IIyouthe.Mustbeprepared
toprovidetestimonialdocumentaryevidencethecourtwhichtorturepositioniIheIailedtoappearkarmic
renovationwouldIormadismisscase.Withwhatthenoticedoesnotsayisthatthehearingwilladdressthemotion
tosetasideevictionorderCoughlinIiledonJuly24,2012andthatwhichandIorwhichnowherequestthecourtto
ruleinhisIavororatleastprovidehearingorattheveryandIororattheveryleastrequireNorthwindand/or
theirqualiIiedattorneysorwhoevertoIileanoppositionsomethingunderoIexplainingwhytheirarethree
separatenoticesIorherthreeseparateprocessaIIidavitsoIserviceIortheJune14,2012personalserviceoIa
Iive-dayunlawIuldetaineraIIidavitbyRobertRayoINevadacourtservicesthat'srightthere'sthreeseparateones
andCoughlin'spossessionnowandtheybeardiIIerentthingsaswellisn'tthatinterestinghalIaddtothatthe
IactthatNevadacourtservicesagreedwithCoughlin'sassessmentthatitsoriginalonJune14noticeoIunlawIul
detainerIailuretovacatepremiseswasineIIectiveandthatitlistedthewrongIorumisorcourtIorthetenantto
IileatenantatsearchenginesaIIidavitasrequiredbylawunder40.253that'snotsomethingthejudgepiercing
canexcisedIromthelaworlegislateIromthebenchoutoIexistencethatisalaw.TheRenojusticecourtdoesnot
havejurisdictionwiththenoticelastSparksjusticecourttheIugitivedocumentIorthelandlordtoIileit
landlord'saIIidavitandthentomanagetogetCoughlinarrestedbaseduponavoidorderthatshouldneverissued
judgeShraderparticularlywheresupervisoroIthesyllabledivisionKarenStancilwasalertedandwellinadvance
byCoughlinthroughphonecallsandmid-JuneinthatJune26oIwrittencorrespondencetothecourtthatincludedin
theIileontheleItsideoIthecorrespondenceandwheretheSparksjusticecourtitselIIaxtheRenojusticecourt
thataIaxalertingittotheproblematicaspectsoItheJune14noticeCoughlinwasarrestedhewenttojailhe
paidbailhedidtimeincurredmassivedamagesit'sappallingIorjudgepiercingtoignoreallthiswhilealso
sanctioningtheunauthorizedpracticeoIlawbyJeIIChandlerNevadacourtserviceswhodressupliketheyare
SheriII'sandmanagedtothewordcourtintotheirnameandbangonpeoplestoreandleaveoIItheNevadapartso
muchsothatitanditseemsasthoughtheyareactuallyactingwithcoloroIlawinthescreeningyoutocomeout
oIyourhouseandbangonthedoorpartedsoundsliketheyarecostoItheSheriIIandhavetodoexactlywhatyou
said.ThoseIewwhodon'tNevadacourtserviceshassomethinguptheirsleeveintheIormoIattemptingtobreakand
enterandone'sresidenceorsexserviceoIprocessbyasNevadacourtserviceshasdonetoCoughlinonnumerous
occasionssometimescapturedonvideotapeIurtherNevadacourtservicesistrespassedonnumerousoccasionslike
oIIicepropertyCoughlinhoweveristheonlyonewho'sarrestedandconvictedtrespassingandhadreportedrehashes
patenttrademarkoIIiceandhadimpacthisabilitytopracticehischosenproIessionIorwhichhehastodoeshavea
lawlicenseandactuallydidthatalotIour.Furtherthere'sinitialconIlictinthejudgepiercingworktothe
districtattorneysoIIiceIirst12yearsoIhiscareerandtheWashoeCountySheriIIandpotentiallyWashoeCounty
DistrictAttorney'sOIIicemayhaveitengagesthemisconductinconnectionwiththeapproximately10diIIerent
incarcerationsCoughlinspacethisyearmostallconnectedonewhereanotherTotheWay,Renojusticecourthandles
landlord-tenantmattersorIailstoapplythelawaswrittenandcreatedbytheassemblytheSenatei.e.the
legislatureNevadaandCarsonCitytobeclearNevadacourtservicesrecognizethevalidityoICoughlin'sargument
thatwhenheannouncedtothemonJune28atapproximately10AMto10:45AMiswhereCoughlinpointedoutthatthe
theJune14noticelistedSparksjusticecourtthatNevadacourtservicesrespondedbyservingintheamended
declarationoIservicebylicenseprocessserveronJune28therebyvitiateinanyorderlockoutorderrescinding
andwavingitetc.etc.June28,2012IaxIromtheSparksjusticecourttotheRenojusticecourtcontainsaIax
CoughlinsenttheSparksjusticecourtonJune26thatat12PMnoonoIthatdatethatIactionCoughlinwas10pages
theIactsIromtheSparksjusticecourttheRenojusticecourtwasapparently13pagesnonumberoIthosepagesare
notincludedintheIileoIthismatterandtheRenojusticecourtbacktothethreediIIerentnoticesoIunlawIul
detainereitherstampedbywwhichdoesn'tcountbythewayoneneedstosignsomethingattorneysdon'tgetastamp
thingsandIilethemandthenlateronclaimtheydidn'tcommitcommitmisconductorherperjuryorrule11
violationmerelybecauseitissignsomethingNevadacourtservicescontinuestojustputstampsinsteadoIactual
signaturesandthat'sanappropriateandundertheAikencaseisinNevadaandsummaryoIproceedingsthetechnical
aspectsoInoticeanddueprocessrequirementsmustbestrictlyadheredtonotrunoutwiththebathwaterbyjudge
Pearsonbecauseheeitherdoesn'tlikeoII-lineorthinksCoughlindoesn'tdeservedueprocessoIthelawarticle
protectionbecauseCoughlin'sanattorneyyouknowCoughlin'snotalicenseattorneycurrentlyneedsnotableto
makeattorneymoneyordoattorneythingsorevencommittheunauthorizedpracticeoIlawwithimpunitylikeNevada
courtservicesbecauseknowCoughlinyouknowoICoughlinwastodosotheStateBarwouldIindittobeacontempt.
FurtherjudgePearson'sorderIorsummaryevictionoIJuly31isvoidinseveralrespectsoneitpurportsruleone
units2971whenunit71isnotproperlybeIorethecourtunit71hasitsowncasenumbersoIrev2012-0067and
rev2012-001082(themultiplictyisdueto,ashere,THERJCshortcuttingdueprocessaspectsoItheprocess,
whererin"Orders"byJudgespaidquiteabitoImoneyarenothingmorethanhandwrittennotesonCoughlin'sown
Iilings...SomeoIthosesuch"noteORders"byJudgeSchroederresulteinconIusingvisaviswhetherCoguhlin's
IFP'sweregranted,andnecessitatedtheIilingoIcompanioncasesIorunits45and71inrev2012-0067andrev201-
0068inrev2012-001082andrev2012-00183. TosimplymakeCoughlinscapegoatedallmedicineblamehimIortakingoI
regardlesstheJuly31orderbyjudgePearsoninrev2012001048purportsruleonmattersnotnoticedintheJuly
24noticespeciIicallyinthatorderwhichreadsthecourtIindsevictionwasappropriatemotiontostayeviction
orderdeniedmotiontosetasideevictionorderdeniesmotiontocontestpersonalpropertyliendeniedmotionon
illegallockoutdeniedtenanthavealwayspropertyremovedis2971by5PMonAugust5,2012onlyabouthalIoIthat
orderwasproperlybeIorethecourtnoticelitigantsthatI'mwhatwasnoticetothelitigantsintheJuly24notice
wasthatthehearingwouldbelimitedtothemotiontostayevictionorderinamotionIorexpeditedrelieI
IollowingillegallockoututilityshutoIIhowevertheorderwentontoruleonmattersnon-thereandnoticed
includingthemotiontosetasidetheevictionorderthemotiontocontestpersonalpropertylienandthatmatters
relatedtothepropertyoIaunitnoteveninvolvedinacasenumberunit71IurtherthererequiredCoughlinahub
AllispropertyremovedevenearlierthanthelawrequiresgiventhataIterthe30dayplanunderNRS118A.460the
landlordmaynotdisposeoIthepropertyuntil14daysoIpassIrommailingtothetenantlastknownaddressa
certiIiedletter.SothereandagainjudgePearsonisviolatingthelawinIailingtoapplyevenlytoCoughlinin
Iacthe'sattemptingtoexCiseprotectionsaccordedandCoughlinunderNevada'slandlordtenantlawwhichisthe
mostpro-landlordlawsetoIlawsinthecountrybutthat'snotgoodenoughIorjudgepiercinghewantstocuteven
moreprotectionsoutoIitwhenitcomestoCoughlinandthereasoningbehindthatisnotclearthoughCoughlinhas
hadsomeissueswithWashoeCountyDistrictAttorney'sOIIicethisyearinjudgePearsondidspendtheIirst12
yearsoIhiscareerthere.
AttachedinexhibitaarethethreediIIerentJune14declarationsoIservicebylicenseprocessserverRobert(orRyan?) Wray..That'sright,Coughlinhasinhispossessionthree
diIIerentNOticeoIUDdated6/14/12andeither"stamped"with"R.Way"oractuallycontainingahandwrittensignaturebyR.Wray(thoughtheoneactuallysignedlacksatime
indication,andtheyalllacka"manneroIservice"oranyotherparticularbeyondIalselyattestingtohavebeen"personallyserved". WRayandNORthwindsmanagerattemptedto
breakand enterintounit29inhopesoIeIIecting"personalservice"uponCoughlininaunitthathadnotwindowsandthathadthedoorclosedandlockedandorbarred. Thatisa
criminalactandCoughlinisnowagainherebycomplainingaboutittothelandlrod,sohaveIunreadingNRS118A.510'sandNRS118A.390andI'llseeyouinCourt,andWRay,
youshouldprobablyselIreporttotheprocessserverlicensingbodyandhopeIorthebest. CheckoutthevideoIothe6/28/12arrestwhereintheWCSO'sGomezandMachentell
Chandlerto"letusdothetalking,JeII",thenChandler,dressedupinanoutIitandwithacompanynameintendedtoconnotecoloroIlawtypeauthority,purportstotrespassCoughlin
Iromthewholeplace,ie,theentirepremisesat1680SkyMountainDr.,depsitCoughlinstillhaving,atthetime,one,andperhapstwovalidleases,tounits45and71. Further,the
WashoeCountyDetentionCenterorjailtookatenan'tsaIIidavitIromCoughlinonoraoroundJuly15th,2012Iorunits45andanotherIorunit71andduetoCoughlin'sindigency,
thejaillibraryindicateitwouldbeIiledwiththerjc....WAsit? LITIGATIONHOLDNOTIETOTHEJAILANDTHERJC.
To: chansen@washoecounty.us
Subject: Reno eviction noticed for Sparks Justice Court
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:10:14 -0700
Dear Civil Supervisor Hansen
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
DearSparksJusticeCourt,
IcalledandreceivedpermissiontoIilethisbyIax...IamindigentandrequestaIeewaiver,andIailingthat,anopportunitytocureanyIilingIeedeIiciency.
To: sheriffweb@washoecounty.us; lstuchell@washoecounty.us; kstancil@washoecounty.us; chansen@washoecounty.us; milllerr@reno.gov
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:58:36 -0700
I have received (though not personally served) what appears to be an eviction notice (5 day unlawful detainer?) for rentals located at 1680 Sky Mountain Drive, Reno,
89523, but the notice indicates that I must file a Tenant's Answer with the Sparks Justice Court.
Am I mistaken in viewing this matter to be outside the jurisdiction of the Sparks Justice Court, and rather, a matter to be handled in Reno Justice Court?
Given Sparks Justice Court is open 5 days a week (closes at noon on Fridays) and Reno Justice Court has 4 judicial days a week, the deadline for filing a special
appearance (to contest jurisdiction) and or a Tenant's Answer of Affidavit is difficult to measure.
I spoke with a Reno Police Department who identified himself as Sargent Miller last week and he indicated the WCSO planned to come effectuate an eviction on this
date, June 26, 2012. I believe that would be premature, as Nevada Landlord Tenant law provides for filing a Tenant's Answer or Affidavit by noon after the
fifth full day (judicial days) and Fridays in Sparks Justice Court are not full days in that sense, and regardless, Sparks Justice Court, I believe, is not the appropriate
forum where, as here, the situs is located in Reno (Ward 1-nap?)
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
tel 775 338 8118
fax 949 667 7403
Civil Division
630 Greenbrae Drive
Sparks, Nevada 89431
(775)353.7603 Phone
(775)352.3004 Fax
Civil Department Supervisor
Chris Hansen
chansen@washoecounty.us
The Civil Division of Sparks Justice Court is made up of three major functions:
Civil
Civil Complaints for damages in excess of $5000 or if a suit involves a breach of contract, punitive damages, an action to obtain possession of property, a writ of
restitution, or other like actions, legal counsel is suggested for these types of actions.
Evictions
An act or process of legally dispossessing a person of land or rental property.
Small Claims
An action filed in order to obtain a monetary judgment. Claims must not exceed $5000. A small claims action may be filed with the Sparks Justice Court if one of the
following applies to the defendant:
1. They reside within the boundaries of the Sparks Township;
2. They are employed within the boundaries of the Sparks Township; and/or,
3. They do business within the boundaries of the Sparks Township.
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE FW: Reno eviction noticed for Sparks Justice Court
From: Zach Coughlin(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 9/21/12 2:36 PM
To: stuttle@washoecounty.us; millero@reno.gov; jmachen@washoecounty.us; brownk@reno.gov; renodirect@reno.gov; lstuchell@washoecounty.us; kadlicj@reno.gov; christensend@reno.gov;
mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us; apminfo@acg.com; apminfo@yahoo.com; superior.storage@yahoo.com; 037nor4@acg.com; info@acg-apmi.com; chansen@washoecounty.us; kstancil@washoecounty.us
Download all as zip
Dear Sirs and Madams,

Please accept this as a LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL MATERIALS, RECORDINGS, DOCUMENTATION, OR OTHER MATERIALS IN ANY WAY
RELATED TO ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN AND HIS TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, EMERGENCY SERVICES, ET AL WITHIN THE PAST COUPLE YEARS WITHIN BOTH CIVIL
AND CRIMINAL CASES, MATTERS, AND INCIDENTS AND WITHIN ANY OTHER SETTINGS.

Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402

To: kbrown@nvbar.org; milllerr@reno.gov; millerr@reno.gov; stuttle@washoecounty.gov; rsilva@washoecounty.us; stuttle@washoecounty.us; jamchen@washoecounty.us; 037nor4@acg.com; info@acg-
apmi.com; rjcweb@wasoecounty.us; jboles@callatg.com; apminfo@acg.com
Subject: FW: Reno eviction noticed for Sparks Justice Court
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 17:21:54 -0700
NOrthwindandNevadaCourtServicesservedand"amended5daynoticeoIunlawIuldetaineronJuly29th,2012"...givingmeIivedaystogetmystuIIoutoI
unit29(theonethesubjectoIJudgeSchroeer'sEvictionOrder,whichwaseIIectivelyrescindedbytheirservinganew5dayunlawIuldetainernotice....)aswell
asunits71and45...whiciharetwounitstowhichistillhavevalideleaseagreements,ie,IcannotbetrespassingIoraccessingthem(theRenoPDhasindicated
theywillarrestmeIorcriminaltrespassIoraccessinganyunitsinthecomplex,includingthosetowhichIstillhaveavalidpossessoryorpropertyinterest,in
violationoI42usc1983).
whydoesSargentMillerhavetogivemeahardtime? Isn'titenoughIorhimtohavehis"Denzel"goodlooksandamuchhigherpayingjobthanIwillever
have? Whatupwitthat?
NorthwindandNevadaCourtServices(whichispracticingevictionlawwithoutalicense)screwedupandput"SparksJusticeCourtonGreenbrae"astheplace
IorthetenanttoIileaTenan'tsAnswerorAIIidavit. DoingsowillmaketheRJCOrderbyJudgeSchroedernullandvoid(KarenStancil,ChieICivilClerkat
RJCadmitsthis,butreally,theIaultlieswithNCSandNorthwind,notthecommittedproIessionalattheRJC).
Hotmail Active View 2 attachments (total 1164.6 KB)
coughlin ...pdf
Download (78.3 KB)
combined ...pdf
Download (1086.2 KB)
LITIGATIONHOLDNOTICECONCERNINGANYRECORDSYOUHAVEMADEINVOLVINGMEINANY
WAYORANYDOCUMETNATIONFW:RenoevictionnoticedforSparks1usticeCourt
TheNoticemustidentiIytheCourtwithjurisdiction.NRS40.253(3)(a). ONecannotbetrespassinginaplacwewheretheyhaveavalidreasonIorbeingoralawIulrighttobe.
NRS207.200,RMC8.10.040.
In
Aikins v. Andrews, 91Nev.746,542P.2d734(1975),theSupremeCOUliconstruedthe
predecessorstatutetoNRS40.2516tomeanthatthealternativeIive(5)daynoticemustbegiven
6
beIorethetenantscanbedispossedandaleasecanbevalidlyterminated.Thecourtstatedthatthis
Iive(5)daynoticerequirement"...neithercanbewavednorneglected."91Nev.at748.
ttp://www.constitution.org/ussc/506-056a.htm
U.S.SupremeCourt
SOLDALv.COOKCOUNTY,506U.S.56(1992)
506U.S.56 SOLDAL,ETUX.v.COOKCOUNTY,ILLINOISETAL.
CERTIORARITOTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHE
SEVENTHCIRCUIT
No.91-6516
ArguedOctober5,1992
DecidedDecember8,1992
Sent: Wed10/10/1212:54AM
To: kstancilwashoecounty.us;rjcwebwashoecounty.us;milleroreno.gov;weaverareno.gov;renodirectreno.gov;jmachenwashoecounty.us
2attachments
coughlinvnorthwind16TenantsAIIidavitDeclarationOtherPrivateHousingotherthannonpaymentoIrent.pdI(76.3KB),combinednorthwindvcoughlineviction
Iilings.pdI(1058.4KB)
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
To:kbrownnvbar.org;milllerrreno.gov;millerrreno.gov;stuttlewashoecounty.gov;rsilvawashoecounty.us;stuttlewashoecounty.us;jamchenwashoecounty.us;
037nor4acg.com;inIoacg-apmi.com;rjcwebwasoecounty.us;jbolescallatg.com;apminIoacg.com
Subject:FW:RenoevictionnoticedIorSparksJusticeCourt
Date:Mon,2Jul201217:21:54-0700
unit29(theonethesubjectoIJudgeSchroeer'sEvictionOrder,whicLIhwaseIIectivelyrescindedbytheirservinganew5dayunlawIuldetainernotice....)as
wellasunits71and45...whiciharetwounitstowhichistillhavevalideleaseagreements,ie,IcannotbetrespassingIoraccessingthem(theRenoPDhas
indicatedtheywillarrestmeIorcriminaltrespassIoraccessinganyunitsinthecomplex,includingthosetowhichIstillhaveavalidpossessoryorproperty
interest,inviolationoI42usc1983).
NRS207.200,RMC8.10.040.
InAikins v. Andrews, 91Nev.746,542P.2d734(1975),theSupremeCOUliconstruedthe

6
U.S.SupremeCourt
506U.S.56SOLDAL,ETUX.v.COOKCOUNTY,ILLINOISETAL.
SEVENTHCIRCUIT
No.91-6516
ArguedOctober5,1992
While evictionproceedingswerepending,TerracePropertiesandMargaretHaleIorciblyevictedpetitioners,theSoldalIamily,andtheirmobilehomeIroma
TerraceProperties'mobilehomepark.AtHale'srequest,CookCounty,Illinois,SheriII'sDepartmentdeputieswerepresentattheeviction.Althoughtheyknew
thattherewasnoevictionorderandthatTerraceProperties'actionswereillegal,thedeputiesreIusedtotakeMr.Soldal'scomplaintIorcriminaltrespassor
otherwiseinterIerewiththeeviction.Subsequently,thestatejudgeassignedtothependingevictionproceedingsruledthattheevictionhadbeenunauthorized,and
thetrailer,badlydamagedduringtheeviction,wasreturnedtothelot.PetitionersbroughtanactionintheFederalDistrictCourtunder42U.S.C.1983,claiming
thatTerracePropertiesandHalehadconspiredwiththedeputysheriIIstounreasonablyseizeandremovetheirhomeinviolationoItheirFourthandFourteenth
Amendmentrights.ThecourtgranteddeIendants'motionIorsummaryjudgment,andtheCourtoIAppealsaIIirmed.Acknowledgingthatwhathadoccurredwas
a"seizure"intheliteralsenseoItheword,thecourtreasonedthatitwasnotaseizureascontemplatedbytheFourthAmendmentbecause,interalia,itdidnot
invadepetitioners'privacy.
Held:
TheseizureandremovaloIthetrailerhomeimplicatedpetitioners'FourthAmendmentrights.Pp.61-72.
(a)A"seizure"oIpropertyoccurswhen"thereissomemeaningIulinterIerencewithanindividual'spossessoryinterestsinthatproperty."United
Statesv.Jacobsen,466U.S.109,113.ThelanguageoItheFourthAmendment-whichprotectspeopleIromunreasonablesearchesandseizuresoI
"theirpersons,houses,papers,andeIIects"-cutsagainstthenovelholdingbelow,andthisCourt'scasesunmistakablyholdthattheAmendment
protectspropertyevenwhereprivacyorlibertyisnotimplicated.See,e.g.,ibid.;Katzv.UnitedStates,389U.S.347,350.ThisCourt's"plainview"
decisionsalsomakeuntenablethelowercourt'sconstructionoItheAmendment.IItheAmendment'sboundariesweredeIinedexclusivelybyrightsoI
privacy,"plainview"seizures,ratherthanbeingscrupulouslysubjectedtoFourthAmendmentinquiry,Arizonav.Hicks,480U.S.321,326-327,
wouldnotimplicatethatconstitutionalprovisionatall.ContrarytotheCourtoIAppeals'|506U.S.56,57| position,theAmendmentprotectsseizureeven
thoughnosearchwithinitsmeaninghastakenplace.See,e.g.,Jacobsen,supra,at120-125.Alsocontrarytothatcourt'sview,Grahamv.Connor,490
U.S.386,doesnotrequireacourt,whenitIindsthatawrongimplicatesmorethanoneconstitutionalcommand,tolookatthedominantcharacteroI
thechallengedconducttodetermineunderwhichconstitutionalstandarditshouldbeevaluated.Rather,eachconstitutionalprovisionisexaminedin
turn.See,e.g.,Hudsonv.Palmer,468U.S.517.Pp.61-71.
(b)TheinstantdecisionshouldnotIomentawaveoInewlitigationintheIederalcourts.Activitiessuchasrepossessionsorattachments,iIthey
involveenteringahome,intrudingonindividuals'privacy,orinterIeringwiththeirliberty,wouldimplicatetheFourthAmendmentevenontheCourt
oIAppeals'ownterms.AndnumerousseizuresoIthistypewillsurviveconstitutionalscrutinyon"reasonableness"grounds.Moreover,itisunlikely
thatthepolicewilloItenchoosetoIurtheranenterpriseknowingthatitiscontrarytothelaw,orproceedtoseizepropertyintheabsenceoI
objectivelyreasonablegroundsIordoingso.Pp.71-72.
942F.2d1073,reversedandremanded.
WHITE,J.,deliveredtheopinionIoraunanimousCourt.
JohnL.StainthorparguedthecauseandIiledbrieIsIorpetitioners.
KennethL.GillisarguedthecauseIorrespondents.WithhimonthebrieIwereJackO'Malley,ReneeG.GoldIarb,andKennethT.McCurry.|*|
| Footnote*|JamesD.Holzhauer,TimothyS.Bishop,JohnA.Powell,StevenR.Shapiro,HarveyM.Grossman,andAlanK.ChenIiledabrieIIorthe
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnionetal.asamicicuriaeurgingreversal.
RichardRuda,CarterG.Phillips,MarkD.Hopson,andMarkE.HaddadIiledabrieIIortheNationalLeagueoICitiesetal.asamicicuriaeurgingaIIirmance.
JUSTICEWHITEdeliveredtheopinionoItheCourt.
I
EdwardSoldalandhisIamilyresidedintheirtrailerhome,whichwaslocatedonarentedlotintheWillowayTerracemobile|506U.S.56,58| homeparkinElk
Grove,Illinois.InMay1987,TerraceProperties,theowneroIthepark,andMargaretHale,itsmanager,IiledanevictionproceedingagainsttheSoldalsinan
Illinoisstatecourt.UndertheIllinoisForcibleEntryandDetainerAct,Ill.Rev.Stat.,ch.110,9-101etseq.(1991),atenantcannotbedispossessedabsenta
judgmentoIeviction.ThesuitwasdismissedonJune2,1987.AIewmonthslater,inAugust1987,theownerbroughtasecondproceedingoIeviction,claiming
nonpaymentoIrent.ThecasewassetIortrialonSeptember22,1987.
RatherthanawaitjudgmentintheirIavor,TerracePropertiesandHale,contrarytoIllinoislaw,chosetoevicttheSoldalsIorciblytwoweekspriortothe
scheduledhearing.OnSeptember4,HalenotiIiedtheCookCounty'sSheriII'sDepartmentthatshewasgoingtoremovethetrailerhomeIromthepark,and
requestedthepresenceoIsheriIIdeputiestoIorestallanypossibleresistance.Laterthatday,twoTerracePropertiesemployeesarrivedattheSoldals'home
accompaniedbyCookCountyDeputySheriIIO'Neil.TheemployeesproceededtowrenchthesewerandwaterconnectionsoIIthesideoIthetrailerhome,
disconnectthephone,tearoIIthetrailer'scanopyandskirting,andhookthehometoatractor.Meanwhile,O'NeilexplainedtoEdwardSoldalthat"`hewasthere
toseethat|Soldal|didn'tinterIerewith|Willoway's|work.'"BrieIIorPetitioner6.
Bythistime,twomoredeputysheriIIshadarrivedatthescene,andSoldaltoldthemthathewishedtoIileacomplaintIorcriminaltrespass.TheyreIerredhimto
deputyLieutenantJones,whowasinHale'soIIice.JonesaskedSoldaltowaitoutsidewhileheremainedclosetedwithHaleandotherTerraceProperties
employeesIorover20minutes.AItertalkingtoadistrictattorneyandmakingSoldalwaitanotherhalIhour,JonestoldSoldalthathewouldnotaccepta
complaintbecause"ìtwasbetweenthelandlordandthetenant...|and|theyweregoingtogoaheadandcontinuetomove|506U.S.56,59| outthetrailer.'"Id.,at8.
1Throughoutthisperiod,thedeputysheriIIsknewthatTerracePropertiesdidnothaveanevictionorderandthatitsactionswereunlawIul.Eventually,andinthe
presenceoIanadditionaltwodeputysheriIIs,theWillowayworkerspulledthetrailerIreeoIitsmooringsandtoweditontothestreet.Later,itwashauledtoa
neighboringproperty.
OnSeptember9,thestatejudgeassignedtothependingevictionproceedingsruledthattheevictionhadbeenunauthorized,andorderedTerracePropertiesto
returntheSoldals'hometothelot.Thehome,however,wasbadlydamaged.
|2|
TheSoldalsbroughtthisactionunder42U.S.C.1983,allegingaviolationoI
theirrightsundertheFourthandFourteenthAmendments.TheyclaimedthatTerracePropertiesandHalehadconspiredwithCookCountydeputysheriIIsto
unreasonablyseizeandremovetheSoldals'trailerhome.TheDistrictJudgegranteddeIendants'motionIorsummaryjudgmentonthegroundsthattheSoldals
hadIailedtoadduceanyevidencetosupporttheirconspiracytheoryand,thereIore,theexistenceoIstateactionnecessaryunder1983.
|3|
TheCourtoIAppealsIortheSeventhCircuit,construingtheIactsinpetitioners'Iavor,acceptedtheircontentionthattherewasstateaction.However,itwenton
toholdthat|506U.S.56,60| theremovaloItheSoldals'trailerdidnotconstituteaseizureIorpurposesoItheFourthAmendmentoradeprivationoIdueprocessIor
purposesoItheFourteenth.
Onrehearing,amajorityoItheSeventhCircuit,sittingenbanc,reaIIirmedthepaneldecision.
|4|
Acknowledgingthatwhathadoccurredwasa"seizure"inthe
literalsenseoItheword,thecourtreasonedthat,becauseitwasnotmadeinthecourseoIpubliclawenIorcement,andbecauseitdidnotinvadetheSoldals'
privacy,itwasnotaseizureascontemplatedbytheFourthAmendment.942F.2d1073,1076(1991).InterpretingpriorcasesoIthisCourt,theSeventhCircuit
concludedthat,absentinterIerencewithprivacyorliberty,a"puredeprivationoIproperty"isnotcognizableundertheFourthAmendment.Id.,at1078-1079.
Rather,petitioners'propertyinterestswereprotectedonlybytheDueProcessClausesoItheFiIthandFourteenthAmendments.
|5|
WegrantedcertioraritoconsiderwhethertheseizureandremovaloItheSoldals'trailerhomeimplicatedtheirFourthAmendmentrights,503U.S.918(1992),
andnowreverse.
|6|
|506U.S.56,61|
II
TheFourthAmendment,madeapplicabletotheStatesbytheFourteenth,Kerv.CaliIornia,374U.S.23,30(1963),providesinpertinentpartthatthe"rightoI
thepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,papers,andeIIects,againstunreasonablesearchesandseizures,shallnotbeviolated...."
A"seizure"oIproperty,wehaveexplained,occurswhen"thereissomemeaningIulinterIerencewithanindividual'spossessoryinterestsinthatproperty."United
Statesv.Jacobsen,466U.S.109,113(1984).Inaddition,wehaveemphasizedthat"attheverycore"oItheFourthAmendment"standstherightoIamanto
retreatintohisownhome."Silvermanv.UnitedStates,365U.S.505,511(1961).SeealsoOliverv.UnitedStates,466U.S.170,178-179(1984);Wymanv.
James,400U.S.309,316(1971);Paytonv.NewYork,445U.S.573,601(1980).
AsaresultoIthestateactioninthiscase,theSoldals'domicilewasnotonlyseized,itliterallywascarriedaway,givingnewmeaningtotheterm"mobile
home."WeIailtoseehowbeingunceremoniouslydispossessedoIone'shomeinthemannerallegedtohaveoccurredherecanbeviewedasanythingbuta
seizureinvokingtheprotectionoItheFourthAmendment.WhethertheAmendmentwasinIact|506U.S.56,62| violatedis,oIcourse,adiIIerentquestionthat
requiresdeterminingiItheseizurewasreasonable.ThatinquiryentailstheweighingoIvariousIactors,andisnotbeIoreus.
TheCourtiIAppealsrecognizedthattherehadbeenaseizure,butconcludedthatitwasaseizureonlyina"technical"sense,notwithinthemeaningoIthe
FourthAmendment.ThisconclusionIollowedIromanarrowreadingoItheAmendment,whichthecourtconstruedtosaIeguardonlyprivacyandliberty
interests,whileleavingunprotectedpossessoryinterestswhereneitherprivacynorlibertywasatstake.Otherwise,thecourtsaid,
"aconstitutionalprovisionenactedtwocenturiesago|would|makeeveryrepossessionandevictionwithpoliceassistanceactionableunder-oIall
things-theFourthAmendment|,which|wouldbothtrivializetheamendmentandgratuitouslyshiItalargebodyoIroutinecommerciallitigationIrom
thestatecourtstotheIederalcourts.Thattrivializing,thisshiIt,canbepreventedbyrecognizingthediIIerencebetweenpossessoryandprivacy
interests."942F.2d,at1077.
BecausetheoIIicershadnotenteredSoldal'shouse,rummagedthroughhispossessions,or,intheCourtoIAppeals'view,interIeredwithhislibertyinthecourse
oItheeviction,theFourthAmendmentoIIerednoprotectionagainstthe"gravedeprivation"oIpropertythathadoccurred.Ibid.
WedonotagreewiththisinterpretationoItheFourthAmendment.TheAmendmentprotectsthepeopleIromunreasonablesearchesandseizuresoI"their
persons,houses,papers,andeIIects."Thislanguagesurelycutsagainstthenovelholdingbelow,andourcasesunmistakablyholdthattheAmendmentprotects
propertyaswellasprivacy.
|7|
Thismuch|506U.S.56,63| wasmadeclearinJacobsen,supra,whereweexplainedthattheIirstClauseoItheFourthAmendment
"protectstwotypesoIexpectations,oneinvolving"searches,"theother"seizures."A"search"occurswhenanexpectationoIprivacythatsocietyis
preparedtoconsiderreasonableisinIringed.A"seizure"oIpropertyoccurswherethereissomemeaningIulinterIerencewithanindividual's
possessoryinterestsinthatproperty."466U.S.,at113(Iootnoteomitted).
Seealsoid.,at120;Hortonv.CaliIornia,496U.S.128,133(1990);Arizonav.Hicks,480U.S.321,328(1987);Marylandv.Macon,472U.S.463,469(1985);
Texasv.Brown,460U.S.730,747-748(1983)(STEVENS,J.,concurringinjudgment);UnitedStatesv.Salvucci,448U.S.83,91,n.6(1980).Thus,having
concludedthatchemicaltestingoIpowderIoundinapackagedidnotcompromiseitsowner'sprivacy,theCourtinJacobsendidnotputanendtoitsinquiry,as
wouldberequiredundertheviewadoptedbytheCourtoIAppealsandadvocatedbyrespondents.Instead,adheringtotheteachingsoIUnitedStatesv.Place,462
U.S.696(1983),itwentontodeterminewhethertheinvasionoItheowners'"possessoryinterests"occasionedbythedestructionoIthepowderwasreasonable
undertheFourthAmendment.Jacobsen,supra,at124-125.InPlace,althoughweIoundthatsubjectingluggagetoa"dogsniII"didnotconstituteasearchIor
FourthAmendmentpurposesbecauseitdidnotcompromiseanyprivacyinterest,takingcustodyoIPlace'ssuitcasewasdeemedanunlawIulseizure,Iorit
unreasonablyinIringed"thesuspect'spossessoryinterestinhisluggage."462U.S.,at708.8Althoughlackingaprivacycomponent,thepropertyrightsinboth
instancesnonethelesswerenot|506U.S.56,64| disregarded,butratherwereaIIordedFourthAmendmentprotection.
RespondentsrelyprincipallyonprecedentssuchasKatzv.UnitedStates,389U.S.347(1967),Warden,MarylandPenitentiaryv.Hayden,387U.S.294(1967),
andCardwellv.Lewis,417U.S.583(1974),todemonstratethattheFourthAmendmentisonlymarginallyconcernedwithpropertyrights.ButthemessageoI
thosecasesisthatpropertyrightsarenotthesolemeasureoIFourthAmendmentviolations.TheWardenopinionthusobserved,citingJonesv.UnitedStates,
362U.S.257(1960),andSilvermanv.UnitedStates,365U.S.505(1961),thatthe"principal"objectoItheAmendmentistheprotectionoIprivacy,ratherthan
property,andthat"thisshiItinemphasisIrompropertytoprivacyhascomeaboutthroughasubtleinterplayoIsubstantiveandproceduralreIorm."387U.S.,at
304.TherewasnosuggestionthatthisshiItinemphasishadsnuIIedoutthepreviouslyrecognizedprotectionIorpropertyundertheFourthAmendment.Katz,in
declaringviolativeoItheFourthAmendmenttheunwarrantedoverhearingoIatelephoneboothconversation,eIIectivelyendedanylingeringnotionsthatthe
protectionoIprivacydependedontrespassintoaprotectedarea.InthecourseoIitsdecision,theKatzCourtstatedthattheFourthAmendmentcanneitherbe
translatedintoaprovisiondealingwithconstitutionallyprotectedareasnorintoageneralconstitutionalrighttoprivacy.TheAmendment,theCourtsaid,protects
individualprivacyagainstcertainkindsoIgovernmentalintrusion,"butitsprotectionsgoIurther,andoItenhavenothingtodowithprivacyatall."389U.S.,at
350.
AsIorCardwell,apluralityoIthisCourtheldinthatcasethattheFourthAmendmentdidnotbartheuseinevidenceoIpaintscrapingstakenIromandtire
treadsobservedonthedeIendant'sautomobile,whichhadbeenseizedinaparkinglotandtowedtoapolicelockup.Gatheringthisevidencewasnotdeemedto
beasearch,IornothingIromthe|506U.S.56,65| interioroIthecarand"nopersonaleIIects,whichtheFourthAmendmenttraditionallyhasbeendeemedtoprotect"
weresearchedorseized.417U.S.,at591(opinionoIBLACKMUN,J.).NomeaningIulprivacyrightswereinvaded.ButthisleIttheargument,pressedbythe
dissent,thattheevidencegatheredwastheproductoIawarrantless,andhenceillegal,seizureoIthecarIromtheparkinglotwherethedeIendanthadleItit.
However,thepluralitywasoItheviewthat,because,underthecircumstancesoIthecase,therewasprobablecausetoseizethecarasaninstrumentalityoIthe
crime,FourthAmendmentprecedentpermittedtheseizurewithoutawarrant.Id.,at593.Thus,boththepluralityanddissentingJusticesconsideredthe
deIendant'sautodeservingoIFourthAmendmentprotectioneventhoughprivacyinterestswerenotatstake.TheydiIIeredonlyinthedegreeoIprotectionthat
theAmendmentdemanded.
TheCourtoIAppealsappearedtoIindmorespeciIicsupportIorconIiningtheprotectionoItheFourthAmendmenttoprivacyinterestsinourdecisioninHudson
v.Palmer,468U.S.517(1984).There,astateprisoninmatesued,claimingthatprisonguardshadenteredhiscellwithoutconsentandhadseizedanddestroyed
someoIhispersonaleIIects.Weruledthataninmate,becauseoIhisstatus,enjoyedneitherarighttoprivacyinhiscellnorprotectionagainstunreasonable
seizuresoIhispersonaleIIects.Id.,at526-528,andn.8;id.,at538(O'CONNOR,J.,concurring).Whateverelsethecaseheld,itisoIlimiteduseIulnessoutside
theprisoncontextwithrespecttothecoverageoItheFourthAmendment.
WethusareunconvincedthatanyoItheCourt'spriorcasessupportstheviewthattheFourthAmendmentprotectsagainstunreasonableseizuresoIpropertyonly
whereprivacyorlibertyisalsoimplicated.Whatismore,our"plainview"decisionsmakeuntenablesuchaconstructionoItheAmendment.Suppose,Ior
example,thatpoliceoIIicerslawIullyenterahouse,byeithercomplyingwiththewarrantrequirementorsatisIyingoneoIitsrecognizedexceptions-|506U.S.56,
66| e.g.,throughavalidconsentorashowingoIexigentcircumstances.IItheycomeacrosssomeiteminplainviewandseizeit,noinvasionoIpersonalprivacy
hasoccurred.Horton,496U.S.,at133-134;Brown,supra,at739(opinionoIREHNQUIST,J.).IItheboundariesoItheFourthAmendmentweredeIined
exclusivelybyrightsoIprivacy,"plainview"seizureswouldnotimplicatethatconstitutionalprovisionatall.Yet,IarIrombeingautomaticallyupheld,"plain
view"seizureshavebeenscrupulouslysubjectedtoFourthAmendmentinquiry.Thus,intheabsenceoIconsentorawarrantpermittingtheseizureoItheitemsin
question,suchseizurescanbejustiIiedonlyiItheymeettheprobable-causestandard,Arizonav.Hicks,480U.S.321,326-327(1987),9andiItheyare
unaccompaniedbyunlawIultrespass,Horton,496U.S.,at136-137.10Thatisbecause,theabsenceoIaprivacyinterestnotwithstanding,"|a|seizureoIthe
article...wouldobviouslyinvadetheowner'spossessoryinterest."Id.,at134;seealsoBrown,460U.S.,at739(opinionoIREHNQUIST,J.).Theplain-view
doctrine"merelyreIlectsanapplicationoItheFourthAmendment'scentralrequirementoIreasonablenesstothelawgoverningseizuresoIproperty."Ibid.;
Coolidgev.NewHampshire,403U.S.443,468(1971);id.,at516(WHITE,J.,concurringanddissenting).
TheCourtoIAppealsunderstandablyIounditnecessarytoreconcileitsholdingwithourrecognitionintheplain-viewcasesthattheFourthAmendmentprotects
propertyassuch.Insodoing,thecourtdidnotdistinguishthiscaseonthegroundthattheseizureoItheSoldals'hometookplaceina|506U.S.56,67| noncriminal
context.Indeed,itacknowledgedwhatisevidentIromourprecedents-thattheAmendment'sprotectionappliesinthecivilcontextaswell.SeeO'Connorv.
Ortega,480U.S.709(1987);NewJerseyv.T.L.O.,469U.S.325,334-335(1985);Michiganv.Tyler,436U.S.499,504-506(1978);Marshallv.Barlow's,
Inc.,436U.S.307,312-313(1978);Camarav.MunicipalCourtoISanFrancisco,387U.S.523,528(1967).11
NordidtheCourtoIAppealssuggestthattheFourthAmendmentappliedexclusivelytolawenIorcementactivities.Itobserved,Iorexample,thatthe
Amendment'sprotectionwouldbetriggered"byasearchorotherentryintothehomeincidenttoanevictionorrepossession,"942F.2d,at1077.12Instead,the
courtsoughttoexplainwhytheFourthAmendmentprotectsagainstseizuresoIpropertyintheplain-viewcontext,butnotinthiscase,asIollows:
"|S|eizuresmadeinthecourseoIinvestigationsbypoliceorotherlawenIorcementoIIicersarealmostalways,asintheplainviewcases,the
culminationoIsearches.Thepolicesearchinordertoseize,anditisthesearch|506U.S.56,68| andensuingseizurethattheFourthAmendment,byits
reIerenceto"searchesandseizures,"seekstoregulate.SeizuremeansonethingwhenitistheoutcomeoIasearch;itmaymeansomethingelsewhen
itstandsapartIromasearchoranyotherinvestigativeactivity.TheFourthAmendmentmaystillnominallyapply,but,preciselybecausethereisno
invasionoIprivacy,theusualrulesdonotapply."Id.,at1079(emphasisinoriginal).
WehavediIIicultywiththispassage.ThecourtseeminglyconstruestheAmendmenttoprotectonlyagainstseizuresthataretheoutcomeoIasearch.Butour
casesaretothecontrary,andholdthatseizuresoIpropertyaresubjecttoFourthAmendmentscrutinyeventhoughnosearchwithinthemeaningoIthe
Amendmenthastakenplace.See,e.g.,Jacobsen,466U.S.,at120-125;Place,462U.S.,at706-707;Cardwell,417U.S.,at588-589.13Moregenerally,an
oIIicerwhohappenstocomeacrossanindividual'spropertyinapublicareacouldseizeitonlyiIFourthAmendmentstandardsaresatisIied-Iorexample,iIthe
itemsareevidenceoIacrimeorcontraband.CI.Paytonv.NewYork,|506U.S.56,69| 445U.S.,at587.WearealsopuzzledbythelastsentenceoItheexcerpt,
wherethecourtannouncesthatthe"usualrules"oItheFourthAmendmentareinapplicableiItheseizureisnottheresultoIasearchoranyotherinvestigative
activity"preciselybecausethereisnoinvasionoIprivacy."Fortheplain-viewcasesclearlystatethat,notwithstandingtheabsenceoIanyinterIerencewith
privacy,seizuresoIeIIectsthatarenotauthorizedbyawarrantarereasonableonlybecausethereisprobablecausetoassociatethepropertywithcriminal
activity.TheseizureoItheweaponsinHorton,Iorexample,occurredinthemidstoIasearch,yetweemphasizedthatitdidnot"involveanyinvasionoI
privacy."496U.S.,at133.Inshort,ourstatementthatsuchseizuresmustsatisIytheFourthAmendmentandwillbedeemedreasonableonlyiItheitem's
incriminatingcharacteris"immediatelyapparent,"id.,at136-137,isatoddswiththeCourtoIAppeals'approach.
TheCourtoIAppeals'eIIortisbothinterestingandcreative,but,atbottom,itsimplyreassertstheearlierthesisthattheFourthAmendmentprotectsprivacy,but
notproperty.Weremainunconvinced,andseenojustiIicationIordepartingIromourpriorcases.Inourview,thereasonwhyanoIIicermightenterahouseor
eIIectuateaseizureiswhollyirrelevanttothethresholdquestionwhethertheAmendmentapplies.Whatmattersistheintrusiononthepeople'ssecurityIrom
governmentalinterIerence.ThereIore,therightagainstunreasonableseizureswouldbenolesstransgressediItheseizureoIthehousewasundertakentocollect
evidence,veriIycompliancewithahousingregulation,eIIectanevictionbythepolice,oronawhim,Iornoreasonatall.Aswehaveobservedonmorethanone
occasion,itwouldbe"anomaloustosaythattheindividualandhisprivatepropertyareIullyprotectedbytheFourthAmendmentonlywhentheindividualis
suspectedoIcriminalbehavior."Camara387U.S.,at530;seealsoO'Connor,480U.S.,at715;T.L.O.,469U.S.,at335.|506U.S.56,70|
TheCourtoIAppealsalsostatedthat,eveniI,contrarytoitspreviousrulings,"thereissomeelementortinctureoIaFourthAmendmentseizure,itcannotcarry
thedayIortheSoldals."942F.2d,at1080.RelyingonourdecisioninGrahamv.Connor,490U.S.386(1989),thecourtreasonedthatitshouldlookatthe
"dominantcharacteroItheconductchallengedinasection1983case|to|determinetheconstitutionalstandardunderwhichitisevaluated."942F.2d,at1080.
BelievingthattheSoldals'claimwasmoreakintoachallengeagainstthedeprivationoIpropertywithoutdueprocessoIlawthanagainstanunreasonableseizure,
thecourtconcludedthattheyshouldnotbeallowedtobringtheirsuitundertheguiseoItheFourthAmendment.
ButweseenobasisIordolingoutconstitutionalprotectionsinsuchIashion.CertainwrongsaIIectmorethanasingleright,and,accordingly,canimplicatemore
thanoneoItheConstitution'scommands.Wheresuchmultipleviolationsarealleged,wearenotinthehabitoIidentiIying,asapreliminarymatter,theclaim's
"dominant"character.Rather,weexamineeachconstitutionalprovisioninturn.See,e.g.,Hudsonv.Palmer,468U.S.517(1984)(FourthAmendmentand
FourteenthAmendmentDueProcessClause);Ingrahamv.Wright,430U.S.651(1977)(EighthAmendmentandFourteenthAmendmentDueProcessClause).
Grahamisnottothecontrary.ItsholdingwasthatclaimsoIexcessiveuseoIIorceshouldbeanalyzedundertheFourthAmendment'sreasonablenessstandard,
ratherthantheFourteenthAmendment'ssubstantivedueprocesstest.WewereguidedbytheIactthat,inthatcase,bothprovisionstargetedthesamesortoI
governmentalconductand,asaresult,wechosethemore"explicittextualsourceoIconstitutionalprotection"overthe"moregeneralizednotionoI`substantive
dueprocess.'"490U.S.,at394-395.Surely,GrahamdoesnotbarresortinthiscasetotheFourthAmendment'sspeciIicprotectionIor"houses,papers,|506U.S.56,
71| andeIIects,"ratherthanthegeneralprotectionoIpropertyintheDueProcessClause.
III
RespondentsareIearIul,aswastheCourtoIAppeals,thatapplyingtheFourthAmendmentinthiscontextinevitablywillcarryitintoterritoryunknownand
unIoreseen:routinerepossessions,negligentactionsoIpublicemployeesthatinterIerewithindividuals'righttoenjoytheirhomes,andthelike,thereby
IederalizingareasoIlawtraditionallytheconcernoItheStates.Forseveralreasons,wethinktheriskisexaggerated.Tobegin,ourdecisionwillhavenoimpact
onactivitiessuchasrepossessionsorattachmentsiItheyinvolveentryintothehome,intrusiononindividuals'privacy,orinterIerencewiththeirliberty,because
theywouldimplicatetheFourthAmendmentevenontheCourtoIAppeals'ownterms.ThiswastrueoItheTenthCircuit'sdecisioninSpecht,withwhich,aswe
previouslynoted,theCourtoIAppealsexpressedagreement.
MoresigniIicantly,"reasonablenessisstilltheultimatestandard"undertheFourthAmendment,Camara,supra,at539,whichmeansthatnumerousseizuresoI
thistypewillsurviveconstitutionalscrutiny.Asistrueinothercircumstances,thereasonablenessdeterminationwillreIlecta"careIulbalancingoIgovernmental
andprivateinterests."T.L.O.,supra,at341.Assuming,Iorexample,thattheoIIicerswereactingpursuanttoacourtorder,asinSpechtv.Jensen,832F.2d1516
(CA101987),orFuentesv.Shevin,407U.S.67,(1972),and,asoItenwouldbethecase,ashowingoIunreasonablenessontheseIactswouldbealaborioustask
indeed.CI.Simmsv.Slacum,3Cranch300,301(1806).Hence,whilethereisnoguaranteeagainsttheIilingoIIrivoloussuits,hadtheejectioninthiscase
properlyawaitedthestatecourt'sjudgment,itisquiteunlikelythattheIederalcourtwouldhavebeenbotheredwitha1983actionallegingaFourthAmendment
violation.|506U.S.56,72|
Moreover,wedoubtthatthepolicewilloItenchoosetoIurtheranenterpriseknowingthatitiscontrarytothelaw,orproceedtoseizepropertyintheabsenceoI
objectivelyreasonablegroundsIordoingso.Inshort,ourreaIIirmanceoIFourthAmendmentprinciplestodayshouldnotIomentawaveoInewlitigationinthe
Iederalcourts.
IV
Thecomplainthereallegesthatrespondents,actingundercoloroIstatelaw,dispossessedtheSoldalsoItheirtrailerhomebyphysicallytearingitIromits
Ioundationandtowingittoanotherlot.Takingtheseallegationsastrue,thiswasno"gardenvariety"landlord-tenantorcommercialdispute.TheIactsalleged
suIIicetoconstitutea"seizure"withinthemeaningoItheFourthAmendment,Iortheyplainlyimplicatetheinterestsprotectedbythatprovision.ThejudgmentoI
theCourtoIAppealsis,accordingly,reversed,andthecaseisremandedIorIurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.
Soordered.
Footnotes
|1|Jones'statementwaspromptedbyadistrictattorney'sadvicethatnocriminalchargescouldbebroughtbecause,underIllinoislaw,acriminalactioncannotbe
usedtodeterminetherightoIpossession.SeeIll.Rev.Stat.ch.110,9-101etseq.(1991);Peoplev.Evans,163Ill.App.3d561,114Ill.Dec.662,516N.E.2d817
(1stDist.1987).
|2|TheSoldalsultimatelywereevictedpercourtorderinDecember1987.
|3|Title42U.S.C.1983providesthat:
"Everypersonwho,undercoloroIanystatute,ordinance,regulation,customorusage,oIanyState...subjects,orcausestobesubjected,anycitizenoI
theUnitedStates...tothedeprivationoIanyrights,privileges,orimmunitiessecuredbytheConstitutionandlaws,shallbeliabletothepartyinjured
inanactionatlaw,suitinequity,orotherproperproceedingIorredress."
|4|Thecourtreiteratedthepanel'sconclusionthataconspiracymustbeassumedonthestateoItherecordand,thereIore,thatthecasemustbetreatedinits
currentposture"asiIthedeputysheriIIsthemselvesseizedthetrailer,disconnecteditIromtheutilities,andtoweditaway."942F.2d1073,1075(CA71991)(en
banc).
|5|Thecourtnotedthat,inlightoItheexistenceoIadequatejudicialremediesunderstatelaw,aclaimIordeprivationoIpropertywithoutdueprocessoIlawwas
unlikelytosucceed.Id.,at1075-1076.SeeParrattv.Taylor,451U.S.527(1981).Inanyevent,theSoldalsdidnotclaimaviolationoItheirproceduralrights.
Asnoted,theSeventhCircuitalsoheldthatrespondentshadnotviolatedtheSoldals'substantivedueprocessrightsundertheFourteenthAmendment.Petitioners
assertthatthiswaserror,but,inviewoIourdispositionoIthecase,weneednotaddressthequestionatthistime.
|6|Under42U.S.C.1983,theSoldalswererequiredtoestablishthattherespondents,actingundercoloroIstatelaw,deprivedthemoIaconstitutionalright,in
thisinstance,theirFourthandFourteenthAmendmentIreedomIromunreasonableseizuresbytheState.SeeMonroev.Pape,|506U.S.56,61| 365U.S.167,184
(1961).RespondentsrequestthatweaIIirmonthegroundthattheCourtoIAppealserredinholdingthattherewassuIIicientstateactiontosupporta1983action.
TheallegedinjurytotheSoldals,itisurged,wasinIlictedbyprivatepartiesIorwhomthecountyisnotresponsible.Althoughrespondentsdidnotcross-petition,
theyareentitledtoaskustoaIIirmonthatgroundiIsuchactionwouldnotenlargethejudgmentoItheCourtoIAppealsintheirIavor.TheCourtoIAppeals
Ioundthat,becausethepolicepreventedSoldalIromusingreasonableIorcetoprotecthishomeIromprivateactionthattheoIIicersknewwasillegal,therewas
suIIicientevidenceoIconspiracybetweentheprivatepartiesandtheoIIicerstoIoreclosesummaryjudgmentIorrespondents.Wearenotinclinedtoreviewthat
holding.SeeAdickesv.S.H.Kress&Co.,398U.S.144,152-161(1970).
|7|InholdingthattheFourthAmendment'sreachextendstopropertyassuch,wearemindIulthattheAmendmentdoesnotprotectpossessoryinterestsinall
kindsoIproperty.See,e.g.,Oliverv.UnitedStates,466U.S.170,176-177(1984).Thiscase,however,concernsahouse,whichtheAmendment'slanguage
explicitlyincludes,asitdoesaperson'seIIects.
|8|PlacealsoIoundthattodetainluggageIor90minuteswasanunreasonabledeprivationoItheindividual's"libertyinterestinproceedingwithhisitinerary,"
whichalsoisprotectedbytheFourthAmendment.462U.S.,at708-710.
|9|When"operationalnecessities"exist,seizurescanbejustiIiedonlessthanprobablecause.480U.S.,at327.ThatinnowayaIIectsouranalysis,Ioreventhen
itisclearthattheFourthAmendmentapplies.Ibid;seealsoUnitedStatesv.Place,462U.S.696,at703(1983).
|10|OIcourse,iIthepoliceoIIicers'presenceinthehomeitselIentailedaviolationoItheFourthAmendment,noamountoIprobablecausetobelievethatan
iteminplainviewconstitutesincriminatingevidencewilljustiIyitsseizure.Horton,496U.S.,at136-137.
|11|ItistruethatMurray'sLesseev.HobokenLand&ImprovementCo.,18How.272(1856),castsomedoubtontheapplicabilityoItheAmendmentto
noncriminalencounterssuchasthis.Id.,18How.at285.ButcasessincethattimehaveshedadiIIerentlight,makingclearthatFourthAmendmentguarantees
aretriggeredbygovernmentalsearchesandseizures"withoutregardtotheusetowhich|houses,papers,andeIIects|areapplied."Warden,MarylandPenitentiary
v.Hayden,387U.S.294,301(1967).Murray'sLessee'sbroadstatementthattheFourthAmendment"hasnoreIerencetocivilproceedingsIortherecoveryoI
debt"arguablyonlymeantthatthewarrantrequirementdidnotapply,aswassuggestedinG.M.LeasingCorp.v.UnitedStates,429U.S.338,352(1977).
Whateveritsproperreading,wereaIIirmtodayourbasicunderstandingthattheprotectionagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizuresIullyappliesinthecivil
context.
|12|ThiswastheviewexpressedbytheCourtoIAppealsIortheTenthCircuitinSpechtv.Jensen,832F.2d1516(1987),remandedonunrelatedgrounds,853
F.2d805(1988)(enbanc),withwhichtheSeventhCircuitexpresslyagreed.942F.2d,at1076.
|13|TheoIIicersinthesecaseswereengagedinlawenIorcement,andwerelookingIorsomethingthatwasIoundandseized.Inthisbroadsense,theseizures
weretheresultoI"searches,"butnotintheFourthAmendmentsense.ThattheCourtoIAppealsmighthavebeensuggestingthattheplain-viewcasesare
explainablebecausetheyalmostalwaysoccurinthecourseoIlawenIorcementactivitiesreceivessomesupportIromthepenultimatesentenceoIthequoted
passage,wherethecourtstatesthattheword"seizure"mightloseitsusualmeaning"whenitstandsapartIromasearchoranyotherinvestigativeactivity."Id.,at
1079(emphasisadded).And,intheIollowingparagraph,itobservesthat,"|o|utsideoIthelawenIorcementarea,theFourthAmendmentretainsitsIorceasa
protectionagainstsearches,becausetheyinvadeprivacy.ThatiswhywedeclinetoconIinetheamendmenttothelawenIorcementsetting."Id.,at1079-1080.
EveniIthecourtmeantthatseizuresoIpropertyinthecourseoIlawenIorcementactivities,whethercivilorcriminal,implicateinterestssaIeguardedbythe
FourthAmendment,butthatpurepropertyinterestsareunprotectedinthenon-law-enIorcementsetting,wearenotinaccord,asindicatedinthebodyoIthis
opinion.|506U.S.56,73|
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
To:chansenwashoecounty.us
Subject:RenoevictionnoticedIorSparksJusticeCourt
Date:Tue,26Jun201209:10:14-0700
DearCivilSupervisorHansen
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
To:sheriIIwebwashoecounty.us;lstuchellwashoecounty.us;kstancilwashoecounty.us;chansenwashoecounty.us;milllerrreno.gov
Date:Tue,26Jun201207:58:36-0700
DearSparksJusticeCourt,WCSO,RPD,andRenoJusticeCourt.
Ihavereceived(thoughnotpersonallyserved)whatappearstobeanevictionnotice(5dayunlawIuldetainer?)Iorrentalslocatedat1680SkyMountainDrive,Reno,89523,butthe
noticeindicatesthatImustIileaTenant'sAnswerwiththeSparksJusticeCourt.
AmImistakeninviewingthismattertobeoutsidethejurisdictionoItheSparksJusticeCourt,andrather,amattertobehandledinRenoJusticeCourt?
GivenSparksJusticeCourtisopen5daysaweek(closesatnoononFridays)andRenoJusticeCourthas4judicialdaysaweek,thedeadlineIorIilingaspecialappearance(to
contestjurisdiction)andoraTenant'sAnsweroIAIIidavitisdiIIiculttomeasure.
IspokewithaRenoPoliceDepartmentwhoidentiIiedhimselIasSargentMillerlastweekandheindicatedtheWCSOplannedtocomeeIIectuateanevictiononthisdate,June26,
2012. Ibelievethatwouldbepremature,asNevadaLandlordTenantlawprovidesIorIilingaTenant'sAnswerorAIIidavitbynoonaItertheIiIthfullday(judicialdays)and
FridaysinSparksJusticeCourtarenotfull daysinthatsense,andregardless,SparksJusticeCourt,Ibelieve,isnottheappropriateIorumwhere,ashere,thesitusislocatedinReno
(Ward1-nap?)
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
tel7753388118
Iax9496677403
CivilDivision
630GreenbraeDrive
Sparks,Nevada89431
(775)353.7603Phone
(775)352.3004Fax
CivilDepartmentSupervisor
ChrisHansen
chansenwashoecounty.us
TheCivil DivisionoISparksJusticeCourtismadeupoIthreemajorIunctions:
Civil
CivilComplaintsIordamagesinexcessoI$5000oriIasuitinvolvesabreachoIcontract,punitivedamages,anactiontoobtainpossessionoIproperty,awrit oIrestitution,orother
likeactions,legalcounselissuggestedIorthesetypesoIactions.
mycarwassearchedincidenttoaroutinetrafficcitationbyOfficerWeaver,whothreatenedtodoitagainlast
week
Evictions
AnactorprocessoIlegallydispossessingapersonoIlandorrentalproperty.
SmallClaims
AnactionIiledinordertoobtainamonetaryjudgment. Claimsmustnotexceed$5000.AsmallclaimsactionmaybeIiledwiththeSparksJusticeCourtiIoneoItheIollowing
appliestothedeIendant:
1. TheyresidewithintheboundariesoItheSparksTownship;
2. TheyareemployedwithintheboundariesoItheSparksTownship;and/or,
3. TheydobusinesswithintheboundariesoItheSparksTownship.
Sent: Mon10/01/124:45AM
To: hsotelotmcc.edu;kadlicjreno.gov;sooudibreno.gov;coplogicrpdreno.gov;renodirectreno.gov
DearCityoIRenoCityAttorney'sOIIiceandRenoPoliceDepartment,
Search incident to routine traffic citation. Aroutine

traIIiccitationmaynotbeusedasthebasisIorthe
searchoIanentirevehicleincidenttoarrest.
Knowles
v. Iowa
,525U.S.113,114(1998)(stopoImotoristIor
speedingdidnotauthorizeasearchoIthevehicle
incidenttoarresteventhoughstatelawauthorizedlaw
enIorcementoIIicertoplacesuspectunderarrestIor
suspectedviolationoIanytraIIicormotorvehicle
equipmentlaw).
AnyargumentthatthearrestwasIor"disturbingthepeace"isdeIeatedbytheIactthat,one,thatchargewasdropped(butnotbeIoreCoughlinspent20daysin
jailonitsustainingmassivelosses,includingIinancial,associatedwithhisconIinementandbeingpreventedIromIilinglegaldocuments),andalsowhere,the
allegedcrimedidnotoccurintheoIIicer'spresence.
Pleaseremit$150,000.00tomewithin15daysoIyourreceiptoIthislitigationdemandletter.
LITIGATIONHOLDNOTICEUPDATEREGARDINGSEPTEMBER21,2012RPDMISCONDUCTAT
SUPERIORSELFSTORAGE,OFFICERWEAVERSARGENTMILLER
PleaseplaceacopyoIthisIormalwrittencomplaintinOIIicerWeaver'spersonnelandemplomentIile,whichwillbesubpoenedsomeday,nodoubt,andwill
revealwhetherornotyoucompliedwiththisrequest.
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Sent: Sun9/23/124:39PM
To: hsotelotmcc.edu;stuttlewashoecounty.us;rjcwebwasoecounty.us;renodirectreno.gov;nvrenopdcoplogic.com;superior.storageyahoo.com
7attachments
92111policereportandsupplementcoughlinSuperiorStorageLLC.pdI(45.0KB),complainttobarcounselregardingevictionunauthorizedpracticeoIlaw.pdI(97.3
KB),landlordtenantlawmanualIorpoliceinminnesota.pdI(735.1KB),Landlords,Tenants,andPoliceCivilLiability.pdI(69.8KB),VeriIiedComplaintIorIllegal
LockoutAgainstSuperiorStorageLLC92212CoughlinvSuperiorStorageLLCetal.pdI(1856.5KB),IailureoIcourtclerktomaintainproperrecords.pdI(28.8KB),
k8k.Resignation,suspension,orremoval.clerksoIcourt.pdI(50.2KB)
DearRenoDirect,
PleaseupdattheattachedpolicereportoI972011toincludethecorrectspellingoImyname:ZachCoughlin,ie,notCuoghlin,andmycorrectbirthdate
9/27/76,ratherthanthe9/1/77listedandknowthatthispolicereportrelatestothecurrentlypendingcriminalmatterinRJC2011-063341. Further,pleasebe
awarethatyourRPDOIIicersareconstantlyharrassingme,asthreemoreshowedupyesterdayat92212duringtheverylimitedtimeIwasaccordedtoremove
mypersonalty(Iwasgivenuntil9pmonbothFridayandSaturdaytodoso,however,whenIwentonFridayadiIIerentlockwasontheunit,andonSaturday
whenIwent,SuperiorMiniStorage'sMattGrantcalledthepolicewhileIwastherejustshortlyaIterIobtainedaconIirmationIromherregardingmypermission
tobethereuntil9pm. Withoutevenaskingmetoleave,MattGrantcalledtheRPD(perhapsthe"myownpersonalcop"shereIerredtowhensheindicatedshe
wascallingthepoliceon9/21/12)and,apparentlydispatchagreedtosendoutSargentO.Miller,JudgeWelch,er,OIIicerWelch,andanotherunidenItiIiedoIIice
withoutevenasking,orperhapswithoutcaringaIterasking,whetherGranthadeventoldmetoleave. IleItuponbeingthreatenedwitha criminaltrespass
arrestbySargentMiller(whomhas,alongwithLtn.Brown,threatenedtodothatinthepast,evenwhereIhadavalid,outstandingleaseatNorthwinds
ApartmentscircaJune/July2012,butultimately,madethedecisiontohaveOIIicerWeavershoveadisturbingthepeacecomplaintandTPOapplicationunder
NorthwindApartment'smaintenanceman,MilanKreb'snoseonJuly3rd,2012(inRJCRCP2012-000287incidenttotheevictionsinRJC's2012-001048,2012-
001068,and,whereuponIspent18daysinjailduetoRenoCityAttorneyJillDrakeviolatingtherulesoIproIessionalconductinarguingIoratenIoldcashbail
onlybailincrease,notsupportableunderNevadalawonthebasisoI'IorthepublichealthandsaIety"(theBenchBookoI2008and2010supplementsmakes
clearthatbailisIoronereasonandonereasononly,andthatisnotit).
No, HenrySotelo,I didnotwellknowthataboutthetrespasschargebeingdismissedbecausethewitnessdidnotappearinthematteryouarecollecting$7K

amonthtoappeartoberepresentingmeandothercriminalindigentson,inRMC12CR12420. PleaseprovidemetheaudiooIthe hearing/Trialon
September4th,2012. PleaseprepareaMotiontoDismissbasedupontheinsuIIiciencyoItheinIormationpledinthecomplaint. OIIicerWeavercameand
harrassedmeagainonFriday,threateningtochargemewith"Iailuretosecureaload"againandthenseekingtoinIluenceaprivatepersontoIileanother
speciouscriminalcomplaintagainstme,andatthispointyouarebecoming complicitinhismisconduct,Iwouldimagine,insomepeople'seyesgivenyou
repeatedIailure todoanyadvocacyonmybehalI,whilecontinuingtodraw acheckIromthesameplaceasWeaverand SargentO.Miller
YouneedtoIileaMotionToShowCauseagainsttheCityoIRenoIorevenpleadingthecriminaltrespasscomplaint,butitisuseIulthatyouhaveadmittedin
writingthattheyonly dismissedIorthewitnessIailing toappear,pleaseseekthathavethatwitnessheldincontemptiIpermissible(ispent20days injail,
wasevicted,missedcourtdeadlienswhileinjailcostingmeover$40,000becausedeniedbyjailstaIIabilitytoIiledocument andtheywouldnottransportme
tomyevictionhearingon July5th,2011inREV2012-001048). ItwascompletelyinappropriatewhereIstillhadleasesthere,somuchsothatEVENthe
RPDwouldn'tmakeanarrestIorit.
IdoIinditinterestingthattheCityoIRenomanagestosendoutacodeenIorcementoIIicertopickupalittle"citationmoney"bothaNorthwindsandat
SuperiorStorageLLC,which,Iguess,somemightseeasasortoIimpermissibletokenoIthelandlordsgratiIicationIortheRPDhelpingthemsubvertthelawIul
evictionprocessIwasdenied.
Further,theWashoeCountyDetenctionCenterreIusedtotransportmetomysummaryevictionproceedingonJuly5th,2012,andIsubmittedkiteswith
handwrittenTenant'sAnswersthatapparentlywerenotIiledintheRJC,thenhadanonlawyerappearincourtonNorthwindsbehalI,passthebar,andmake
argumentstothecourt,allinviolationoINRCP11. NothinginNRS40orNRS118Aletsan"agentoIthelandlord"doanythingbeyondpostaneviction
notice,muchlessdoasNevadaCourtServciesJeIIChandlerdidanddraItpleadings(choosingbetweennoticesandNRS40.760isatechnicalbitoIlegal
analysis,andJudgePearsonmadeCoughlinpayIorthemalpracticeoIChandlerandNCS,evenwherethereevensopracticingwasacriminallawviolation,the
unauthorizedpracticeoIlaw.
Sincerley,
ZachCoughlin
Date:Sun,23Sep201207:30:05-0700
Subject:Re:LITIGATIONHOLDNOTICEUPDATEREGARDINGSEPTEMBER21,2012RPDMISCONDUCTATSUPERIORSELFSTORAGE,OFFICERWEAVER
SARGENTMILLER
From:hsotelotmcc.edu
Zach,
TheTrespasscharge,asyouwellknow,wasdismissedonthelasttrialdatebecausethewitnessesdidnotappear. IthenarguedtheMotiontoDismisstheTraIIiccharge.Thatis
nowonholdpendingtheresultsoIyourRenoJusticeCourtCompetencyHearing.ThusthatleavesonlytheTraIIiccase.
Obviously,wearenotinagreementasto howtoproceedwithyourcase. Theattorney-clientrelationshiphasbrokendown. YouarestillaccusingmeoIconspiring

againstyouandyouhaveputmeona"litigationhold". ThusIcannolongerrepresentyouadequately.
OnFri,Sep21,2012at4:33PM,ZachCoughlinzachcoughlinhotmail.com~wrote:
DearMr.Sotelo, etal,
LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE REGARDING ALL MATERIALS IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH ANYTING CONNECTED WITH ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.
Whatchargesarestillpending? Isthecriminaltrespasschargestillpending? WasthecriminaltrespasschargeComplaint everIilestampedin

RMC12CR12420? Pleasecopymeoneachandeverything Iiledstampedinthiscase,andallothermaterials. Additionally,YOUAREON
ALITIGATIONHOLDNOTICEWITHRESPECTTOANYTHINGANDEVERYTHINGYOUHAVEORHAVEACCESSTOIN
CONNECTIONWITHTHISCASE,ORANYOTHERMATTERINVOLVINGMEINANYWAYVISAVISTHERMCORYOUR
EMPLOYER,or,totheextentyouareanindependentcontractor,thatwhichconcernsyourbusinesspartnersorassociates.
Thisisamisdemeanorcase,oneinvolvingacustodialarrestandasearchoImyvehicle(andBighornTowingdemandedmoneytheywerenot
entitledtoIormyvehicle,andtheyareallthewayoverinSparks,whyusethem?). YouseemtowishtocharacterizethismatterasatraIIic
citation,moreakintoaparkingticket,however,onedoesnotspend nearly 20daysinjail (duringwhichtheWCDCdeniedmeinmyattempts
toarrangemyaIIairsandaccessjustice,incidenttowhichIsustaineda$40,050judgmentagainstmyselI,personallyandwaspreventedIromseeking
relieIIrom,soplease,WCDCCONSIDERTHISALITIGATIONHOLDNOTICEWITHALLMATERIALSINCIDENTTHERETOASWELL)
Ioraparkingticketoradministrativecitation. Thiscaseinvolvesamisdemeanorarrest,Iaceit. Youseemtobewillingtomakethemisconduct
oIothersyourproblem,whichIdon'tunderstand. Igetit,yourarecompanyguyandall,butyouaretakingitabitIar,no? Nextthingyouare
goingtobegettingallKeithLoomisoncriminalindigentdeIendantsandsmirkingatthemabouthow"yourjobisgone"whensomesinglemother
withababyispleadingIoranORsoshedoesn'tloseherjoboversomejaywalkingarrestorsomethingridiculouslikethat,LoomisreIusingtoeven
argueIoranORreleaseorsomesimilarposition. PullthevideooIthevarioustimesIwasbroughintovideocourtwhileinjailIromJuly3rd
thorughJuly21st,2012. IwasharassedagaintodaybyOIIicerWeaver,whomisreallydistinguishinghimselI,alongwithSargentO.Miller.
Soldalv.CookCo. SameRPDwhoarrestedandretaliatedagainstmeat NorthwindsApartmentbetweenJune5th,2012throughAugust
2012,alongwithLieutenantBrownandSargentDye,threateningmewithcriminaltrespassarrestsevenwhereIstillhadvalidleasesatNorthwinds
Apartments,andthereIore,"alawIulrighttobethere"underNRS207.200. Pushingsomemaintenancemanintosigninga"disturbingthe
peace"criminalComplaint(andOIIicerWeaverwastryingtopullthistrickagainatSuperiorSelIStoragetoday)doesnotabsolvetheCityoIReno
orRPDIorliabilityIorwrongIularrest(theold,"hey,thatguysignedthecriminalComplaint,we,theRPD,justmadethearrestbasedonit"thing
won'twork,askWheelerv.Coss). But,theRPDmusthavethoughtIwasontosomethingbecause,atNorthwinds,itIailedtoIollowthroughon
SargentMillerandLt.Brown'spromisestoarrestmeIorcriminaltrespass. EnterOIIicerWeaverwithhisphenomenaldisplayoIjudgementand
"concern"IorCoughlin,andtheJuly3rd,2012arrestIor"disturbingthepeace","prooIoIinsurance"(despiteSargentDyeandOIIicerWeaver
admittingthatCoughlinproducedprooIoIvalid,currentinsurancevia apdIdisplayedona5inchsmartphonescreenpriortothecustodialarrest),
and"Iailuretosecurealoadonatruck",whichOIIicerWeaverwasagaintodaythreateningtoarrestCoughlin,inIullviewoIthe5otherRPD
personelwhowere,yetagain,seekingtoIormsomesortoIlandlordevictionconsultingserviceprovidingtheunauthorizedpracticeoIlaw.
That'saprettycompetitiveIield,justaskNevadaCourtServices.
Pleaseconsider Wheelerv.Coss.
PleaseacceptthiswritingasanupdatetomyrecentLITIGATIONHOLDNOTICEStoincludetheRPDmisconductthismorningatSuperiorSelI
Storage,againinviolationoISoldalv.CookCo.,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldalv.CookCounty
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
INEEDACCESSTOMYPROPERTYTODAY,IMMEDIATELY,OTHERWISEIWILLINCURVAST
CONSEQUENTIALDAMAGES
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax 9496677402
Nevada Court Services in backyard visible at 20 second mark SAM_0028.avi
.
--
HenrySotelo,Esq.Coordinator/InstructorParalegal/LawProgramTruckeeMeadowsCommunityCollegeRedMountainBuilding,207P7000DandiniBlvd.Reno,
NV 89512
Sent: Sun9/23/121:56PM
To: superior.storageyahoo.com;derektahoequarterly.com;dougtahoequarterly.com;milleroreno.gov;renodirectreno.gov;coplogicrpdreno.gov;kadlicjreno.gov;
weaverareno.gov;brownkreno.gov
5attachments
92111policereportandsupplementcoughlinSuperiorStorageLLC.pdI(45.0KB),complainttobarcounselregardingevictionunauthorizedpracticeoIlaw.pdI(97.3
KB),landlordtenantlawmanualIorpoliceinminnesota.pdI(735.1KB),Landlords,Tenants,andPoliceCivilLiability.pdI(69.8KB),VeriIiedComplaintIorIllegal
LockoutAgainstSuperiorStorageLLC92212CoughlinvSuperiorStorageLLCetal.pdI(1856.5KB)
DearSuperiorStorageLLCa/k/aSuperiorMiniStorage,andRenoDirect
Pleaserespondviaemail,inwriting,providingmeyour"permission"tobeontheproperty,today,immediately(althoughImaintainIhavealawIulrighttobe
there)andassurancesthatyouwillnotseektohavemearrestedIorcriminaltrespass.Yesterdayyou
IdoIinditinterestingthattheCityoIRenomanagestosendoutacodeenIorcementoIIicertopickupalittle"citationmoney"bothaNorthwindsandat
SuperiorStorageLLC,which,Iguess,somemightseeasasortoIimpermissibletokenoIthelandlordsgratiIicationIortheRPDhelpingthemsubvertthelawIul
evictionprocessIwasdenied.
DearRenoDirect,
PleaseupdattheattachedpolicereportoI972011toincludethecorrectspellingoImyname:ZachCoughlin,ie,notCuoghlin,andmycorrectbirthdate
9/27/76,ratherthanthe9/1/77listedandknowthatthispolicereportrelatestothecurrentlypendingcriminalmatterinRJC2011-063341.Further,pleasebe
awarethatyourRPDOIIicersareconstantlyharrassingme,asthreemoreshowedupyesterdayat92212duringtheverylimitedtimeIwasaccordedtoremove
FW:Soldalv.CookCountyFW:VerifiedComplaintforIllegalLockoutattached
mypersonalty(Iwasgivenuntil9pmonbothFridayandSaturdaytodoso,however,whenIwentonFridayadiIIerentlockwasontheunit,andonSaturday
whenIwent,SuperiorMiniStorage'sMattGrantcalledthepolicewhileIwastherejustshortlyaIterIobtainedaconIirmationIromherregardingmypermission
tobethereuntil9pm.Withoutevenaskingmetoleave,MattGrantcalledtheRPD(perhapsthe"myownpersonalcop"shereIerredtowhensheindicatedshe
wascallingthepoliceon9/21/12)and,apparentlydispatchagreedtosendoutSargentO.Miller,JudgeWelch,er,OIIicerWelch,andanotherunidenItiIiedoIIice
withoutevenasking,orperhapswithoutcaringaIterasking,whetherGranthadeventoldmetoleave.IleItuponbeingthreatenedwithacriminaltrespassarrest
bySargentMiller(whomhas,alongwithLtn.Brown,threatenedtodothatinthepast,evenwhereIhadavalid,outstandingleaseatNorthwindsApartments
circaJune/July2012,butultimately,madethedecisiontohaveOIIicerWeavershoveadisturbingthepeacecomplaintandTPOapplicationunderNorthwind
Apartment'smaintenanceman,MilanKreb'snoseonJuly3rd,2012(inRJCRCP2012-000287incidenttotheevictionsinRJC's2012-001048,2012-001068,and
,whereuponIspent18daysinjailduetoRenoCityAttorneyJillDrakeviolatingtherulesoIproIessionalconductinarguingIoratenIoldcashbailonlybail
increase,notsupportableunderNevadalawonthebasisoI'IorthepublichealthandsaIety"(theBenchBookoI2008and2010supplementsmakesclearthatbail
isIoronereasonandonereasononly,andthatisnotit).
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
PhoneandFax9496677402
Sent: Sat9/22/126:27PM
To: renodirectreno.gov;aclunvaclunv.org
1attachment
VeriIiedComplaintIorIllegalLockoutAgainstSuperiorStorageLLC92212CoughlinvSuperiorStorageLLCetal.pdI(1856.5KB)
Landlordgetthesub-lesseeoutevenIasterthanthealreadywarpspeedsummaryevictionprocessinNevada,CityoIRneo(likeinNorthwindsApartmentsmatter)getsanothercode
violationrevenueevent...CoughlingetstomovehisstuIIyetagain,andtheRPDgettocontinueintheirlongrunninggameoIkickthecanwiththe(suspended)attorney. Almost
everyonewins....
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
To:milleroreno.gov;weaverareno.gov;brownkreno.gov;superior.storageyahoo.com;kadlicjreno.gov;christensendreno.gov;aclunvaclunv.org
Subject:Soldalv.CookCountyFW:VeriIiedComplaintIorIllegalLockoutattached
Date:Sat,22Sep201216:17:21-0700
DearLieutenantBrown,SargentMiller,andOIIicerDye,
SargentMiller,alongwithOIIicerWelchand,IbelievetwootheroIIicerswhosenamesIdidnotgettoday,toldmeImustleavethepremisesat7750W.4thSt.,
Reno89523,SuperiorMiniStorageorIaceacriminaltrespassarrest. Yesterday,IreportedtotheRenoPoliceDepartmentthetrespasstomychattelsand
invasionoIprivacyagainstmypersonaltybyMattGrantoISuperior,yettheRPDtooknoaction. TheRPDhasconsistently"playedIavorites"ratherthan
enIorcethelawwhereitiswithinitsjurisdictiontodoso,andhasIurtherconsistentlyactedoutsideoIitsjurisdiction,inviolationoISoldalv.CookCountyand
42USCSec.1983inreIusingtoenIorcethelawwheredoingsoiswithinitsjurisdictionandwhere,arguably,theRPDisrequiredto,allincidenttoaretaliatory
animusagainstmewhileassertingpretexutalbasisIorviolatingmyrights(18daysinjailcustodialarrestIor"Iailuretosecurealoadtoone'struck),arguingIora
bailincreaseoIaIactoroIten(cashrequiredIorbail-wise)based,inpartupon"IailuretoshowprooIoIinsurance"whereOIIicerWeaverandSargentDyeadmit
tohavingseenprooIoImycarinsurance,thoughIailingtoacceptitasitwasonapdIonmysmartphone'sscreenversusaprintedcard. Thereisnothingin
thestatutesorlawthatallowsIorsuchareIusaltoackowledgemyIormoIprooIoIinsurance.
InsomerespectsIactuallycould,atleastpartially,believetheseRPDpersonnelbelievetheyaredoingtheirjob,however,Ithinkthat,withsometrainingand
education,theRPDmaybemademorewellawareoItheenormoussocialcostattendanttowrongIulevictionsandoIwhatabullying,menacing,malevolentrole
theRPDiscurrentlytakinginoverextendinglandlordrightsinastatewherethelaw,andhowitisappliedinourJusticeCourts,isalreadyamongstthe5-10
mostprolandlordstatesinourcountry. So,iIyouaretellingyourselIyouarethe"goodguys"here,Imustdisagree. ConsiderthecosttoMattGrantand
SuperiorbybeingIorcedtopursueacivilremedy(andtheattachedVeriIiedComplaintIorIllegalLockoutisprovidedtosetIorththeIactualand legalbasis
IorassertingthatIwouldnotbeincommittingcriminaltrespassundereitherRMC8.10.040orNRS207.200givenIhavealawIulrighttogotothosetwounits
asSuperior,regardlessoIwhetherthetenanthasactuallyabandondedhislease(Ihavenotbeenprovidedanythinginwritingtosuggestthat,SuperiorreIusesto
providemeacopyoItheLeasewithSwansonthatallegedlymakesexpliciltyclear,andwheresuchatermisnotunenIorceableunderNevadalaw,the
propositionthatthereisanabsolutebartosubleasingorthatthelandlord'sreIusaltoallowoneisnotconditioneduponareasonabilitystandard,orthatOIIicer
WelchisabletotakemoneyoutoIsomepoorJudge'smouthbyholdingaSummaryEvictionHearingintheSuperiorMiniStorageOIIice,exparte,outsidemy
presence,andthentorenderhisLockoutOrdertomeintheparkinglotminuteslaterwithanaddedendumthatIamto"removeall"my"propertytodayorbe
arrestedIorcriminaltrespassIorleavinganyoIyourpropertyatSuperiorwhetherornotyoupersonallysetIootonthepropertyornot". Iwouldthinkmaybe
thatismoreoIanuisancecrimetodumpabunchoIpropertysomewherewithoutanylawIulright,maybelittering,butIhadnotthoughtoIitastrespass,though
IadmititisacreativeapplicationoIthelaw. IjustwishtheRPDwouldusesomeoIthatcreativityandinitiative inawaythatmightbeneIitNevada's
Tenants,whomarenot,Iassureyou,abunchoIdegeneratementalcasesquatters. ThearepeoplejustlikeyouandmeandtheconsequencesoItheirnotbeing
aIIordedthenoticeanddueprocessaccordedthemunderlawisIargreatertothemandourcommunityingeneralthanwouldresultIrommakingpoorMattGrant
andSuperiorStorageactuallypursuetheexcruciatinglylongcivilremedyprocessoI,Idon'tknow,postingaNoticeoIBreachNoticeottheTenant's/Sub-
Lessee'sdoor,waitingthreedays,goingtoahearingiItheTenant'sevenbotherstocontestit,winningatthehearinginprobably90oIcaseseventhoughthe
actualstandardonlyrequirestheTenantshowthatthelandlordhasnotprovenitscaseisa"slamdunk",andthenhavingtheSheriIIperIormalockout. Itsa
costoIdoingbusiness. Weallhavethem,andSuperiorisnodiIIerent. Thesecostsareimportant,astheyencouragepartiestosettleandbehave
reasonably. Throwingtenant'sinjailIor20daysbaseduponDistrubingthepeacecomplaintsOIIicerWeavermanuIacturesIorthemisnotpermissible.
ItsapproachinganattorneyenteringapactwithhisIriendtorigaslipandIallscenario. Itsnobueno.
Pleaseletmeknowassoonaspossible,viaemail,inwritingastowhether,andiIyes,whenImayreturntotheSuperiorpremisesabsenttheimpermissiblethreat
oIcriminalprosecution,madeundercoloroIlawbytheRenoPD.
Incidentally,IbelievesuchmattersarewithinthejurisdictionoItheSheriIIunderNRS108.475andNRS40.470,thoughitseamsthattheRPDmaybecorrect
heretosuggestitistrespassingiIonehasnotcolorablerighttobethere,andthereIoreitsnota
PleaseconsiderwhyitisthatMattGrantandSuperiorhadIourmoreRPDSargentandOIIicersutilizevaluableCityresourcestoday. Grantadmitsshecalled
thepolicebecauseshebelieveCoughlinwastakingphotographsandorvideooIthecontentsoIadiIIerenttenantortwosunits,onesthathadthedoorswideopen
exposingthecontentstoanyonewalkingby. Grantclearlywishedtoavoidanyevidencebeinggatheredtosuggestthatothertenant'saredoingjustthesortoI
thingthatsheallegedCoughlinisdoingandwhichsheassertspresentedsuchandutter"emergency"astoallowhertoenterCoughlin'srentalsunnoticed,and
despiteCoughlinexpressindicationthathewasnotgrantingheraccesstodoso,andwheresheIurtherviolatedtrespasslaws,Coughlin'sprivacyrights,and
perhapssomeotherlawsrelatedtotouchingandlookingthroughone'spersonaltyandvideotapingit,withinone'srentalwherenopermissionwasprovided.
GrantcanassertCoughlinlackedpermissionto,allegedly,videotapetheopentothepubliccontentsoIanothertenant'sunit,however,Coughlindidnotwalk
intotheunit,reIusetoleaveorcasedoingsoaIterbeingtoldnotto,thenproceedtoopenboxandvideotapethecontents. TotheextenttheRPDsanctiosn
suchconductwhilealsothreateningCoughlinwithcriminaltrespasscustodialarrestwhereCoughlinhasprovidedevidenceoIandassertedacolroclaimthatheis
lawIullyentitledtobethereatSuperior,thentheRPDviolatesSoldalv.CookCounty,inmyopinion. But,Icouldbewrong.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
To:superior.storageyahoo.com;derektahoequarterly.com
Subject:VeriIiedComplaintIorIllegalLockoutattached
Date:Sat,22Sep201212:08:10-0700
Pleaseletmeknowyourattorney'snameiIyouhaveoneandprovidehimmycontactinIormation.
LITIGATIONHOLDNOTICE:YOUAREREQUIREDANDPLACEONNOTICETOMAINTAINTHELEASEAGREEMENTBETWEENSUPERIORSTORAGELLCAND
DEREKSWANSON,DOUGSWANSONOROR TAHOEQUARTERLYANDANYTHINGRELATEDTOTHELEASEAGREEMENTBETWEENDEREKSWANSON,
TAHOEQUARTERLYANDORZACHCOUGHLIN
Soldalv.CookCountyFW:VerifiedComplaintforIllegalLockoutattached
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
To: milleroreno.gov;weaverareno.gov;brownkreno.gov;superior.storageyahoo.com;kadlicjreno.gov;christensendreno.gov;aclunvaclunv.org
1attachment
VeriIiedComplaintIorIllegalLockoutAgainstSuperiorStorageLLC92212CoughlinvSuperiorStorageLLCetal.pdI(1856.5KB)
DearLieutenantBrown,SargentMiller,andOIIicerDye,
SargentMiller,alongwithOIIicerWelchand,IbelievetwootheroIIicerswhosenamesIdidnotgettoday,toldmeImustleavethepremisesat7750W.4thSt.,
Reno89523,SuperiorMiniStorageorIaceacriminaltrespassarrest. Yesterday,IreportedtotheRenoPoliceDepartmentthetrespasstomychattelsand
invasionoIprivacyagainstmypersonaltybyMattGrantoISuperior,yettheRPDtooknoaction. TheRPDhasconsistently"playedIavorites"ratherthan
enIorcethelawwhereitiswithinitsjurisdictiontodoso,andhasIurtherconsistentlyactedoutsideoIitsjurisdiction,inviolationoISoldalv.CookCountyand
42USCSec.1983inreIusingtoenIorcethelawwheredoingsoiswithinitsjurisdictionandwhere,arguably,theRPDisrequiredto,allincidenttoaretaliatory
animusagainstmewhileassertingpretexutalbasisIorviolatingmyrights(18daysinjailcustodialarrestIor"Iailuretosecurealoadtoone'struck),arguingIora
bailincreaseoIaIactoroIten(cashrequiredIorbail-wise)based,inpartupon"IailuretoshowprooIoIinsurance"whereOIIicerWeaverandSargentDyeadmit
tohavingseenprooIoImycarinsurance,thoughIailingtoacceptitasitwasonapdIonmysmartphone'sscreenversusaprintedcard. Thereisnothingin
thestatutesorlawthatallowsIorsuchareIusaltoackowledgemyIormoIprooIoIinsurance.
InsomerespectsIactuallycould,atleastpartially,believetheseRPDpersonnelbelievetheyaredoingtheirjob,however,Ithinkthat,withsometrainingand
education,theRPDmaybemademorewellawareoItheenormoussocialcostattendanttowrongIulevictionsandoIwhatabullying,menacing,malevolentrole
theRPDiscurrentlytakinginoverextendinglandlordrightsinastatewherethelaw,andhowitisappliedinourJusticeCourts,isalreadyamongstthe5-10
mostprolandlordstatesinourcountry. So,iIyouaretellingyourselIyouarethe"goodguys"here,Imustdisagree. ConsiderthecosttoMattGrantand
SuperiorbybeingIorcedtopursueacivilremedy(andtheattachedVeriIiedComplaintIorIllegalLockoutisprovidedtosetIorththeIactualand legalbasis
IorassertingthatIwouldnotbeincommittingcriminaltrespassundereitherRMC8.10.040orNRS207.200givenIhavealawIulrighttogotothosetwounits
asSuperior,regardlessoIwhetherthetenanthasactuallyabandondedhislease(Ihavenotbeenprovidedanythinginwritingtosuggestthat,SuperiorreIusesto
providemeacopyoItheLeasewithSwansonthatallegedlymakesexpliciltyclear,andwheresuchatermisnotunenIorceableunderNevadalaw,the
propositionthatthereisanabsolutebartosubleasingorthatthelandlord'sreIusaltoallowoneisnotconditioneduponareasonabilitystandard,orthatOIIicer
WelchisabletotakemoneyoutoIsomepoorJudge'smouthbyholdingaSummaryEvictionHearingintheSuperiorMiniStorageOIIice,exparte,outsidemy
presence,andthentorenderhisLockoutOrdertomeintheparkinglotminuteslaterwithanaddedendumthatIamto"removeall"my"propertytodayorbe
arrestedIorcriminaltrespassIorleavinganyoIyourpropertyatSuperiorwhetherornotyoupersonallysetIootonthepropertyornot". Iwouldthinkmaybe
thatismoreoIanuisancecrimetodumpabunchoIpropertysomewherewithoutanylawIulright,maybelittering,butIhadnotthoughtoIitastrespass,though
IadmititisacreativeapplicationoIthelaw. IjustwishtheRPDwouldusesomeoIthatcreativityandinitiative inawaythatmightbeneIitNevada's
Tenants,whomarenot,Iassureyou,abunchoIdegeneratementalcasesquatters. ThearepeoplejustlikeyouandmeandtheconsequencesoItheirnotbeing
aIIordedthenoticeanddueprocessaccordedthemunderlawisIargreatertothemandourcommunityingeneralthanwouldresultIrommakingpoorMattGrant
andSuperiorStorageactuallypursuetheexcruciatinglylongcivilremedyprocessoI,Idon'tknow,postingaNoticeoIBreachNoticeottheTenant's/Sub-
Lessee'sdoor,waitingthreedays,goingtoahearingiItheTenant'sevenbotherstocontestit,winningatthehearinginprobably90oIcaseseventhoughthe
actualstandardonlyrequirestheTenantshowthatthelandlordhasnotprovenitscaseisa"slamdunk",andthenhavingtheSheriIIperIormalockout. Itsa
costoIdoingbusiness. Weallhavethem,andSuperiorisnodiIIerent. Thesecostsareimportant,astheyencouragepartiestosettleandbehave
reasonably. Throwingtenant'sinjailIor20daysbaseduponDistrubingthepeacecomplaintsOIIicerWeavermanuIacturesIorthemisnotpermissible.
ItsapproachinganattorneyenteringapactwithhisIriendtorigaslipandIallscenario. Itsnobueno.
Pleaseletmeknowassoonaspossible,viaemail,inwritingastowhether,andiIyes,whenImayreturntotheSuperiorpremisesabsenttheimpermissiblethreat
oIcriminalprosecution,madeundercoloroIlawbytheRenoPD.
Incidentally,IbelievesuchmattersarewithinthejurisdictionoItheSheriIIunderNRS108.475andNRS40.470,thoughitseamsthattheRPDmaybecorrect
heretosuggestitistrespassingiIonehasnotcolorablerighttobethere,andthereIoreitsnota
PleaseconsiderwhyitisthatMattGrantandSuperiorhadIourmoreRPDSargentandOIIicersutilizevaluableCityresourcestoday. Grantadmitsshecalled
thepolicebecauseshebelieveCoughlinwastakingphotographsandorvideooIthecontentsoIadiIIerenttenantortwosunits,onesthathadthedoorswideopen
exposingthecontentstoanyonewalkingby. Grantclearlywishedtoavoidanyevidencebeinggatheredtosuggestthatothertenant'saredoingjustthesortoI
thingthatsheallegedCoughlinisdoingandwhichsheassertspresentedsuchandutter"emergency"astoallowhertoenterCoughlin'srentalsunnoticed,and
despiteCoughlinexpressindicationthathewasnotgrantingheraccesstodoso,andwheresheIurtherviolatedtrespasslaws,Coughlin'sprivacyrights,and
perhapssomeotherlawsrelatedtotouchingandlookingthroughone'spersonaltyandvideotapingit,withinone'srentalwherenopermissionwasprovided.
GrantcanassertCoughlinlackedpermissionto,allegedly,videotapetheopentothepubliccontentsoIanothertenant'sunit,however,Coughlindidnotwalk
intotheunit,reIusetoleaveorcasedoingsoaIterbeingtoldnotto,thenproceedtoopenboxandvideotapethecontents. TotheextenttheRPDsanctiosn
suchconductwhilealsothreateningCoughlinwithcriminaltrespasscustodialarrestwhereCoughlinhasprovidedevidenceoIandassertedacolroclaimthatheis
lawIullyentitledtobethereatSuperior,thentheRPDviolatesSoldalv.CookCounty,inmyopinion. But,Icouldbewrong.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
To:superior.storageyahoo.com;derektahoequarterly.com
Subject:VeriIiedComplaintIorIllegalLockoutattached
LITIGATIONHOLDNOTICEUPDATEREGARDINGSEPTEMBER21,2012RPDMISCONDUCTAT
SUPERIORSELFSTORAGE,OFFICERWEAVERSARGENTMILLER
Date:Sat,22Sep201212:08:10-0700
Pleaseletmeknowyourattorney'snameiIyouhaveoneandprovidehimmycontactinIormation.
LITIGATIONHOLDNOTICE:YOUAREREQUIREDANDPLACEONNOTICETOMAINTAINTHELEASEAGREEMENTBETWEENSUPERIORSTORAGELLCAND
DEREKSWANSON,DOUGSWANSONOROR TAHOEQUARTERLYANDANYTHINGRELATEDTOTHELEASEAGREEMENTBETWEENDEREKSWANSON,
TAHOEQUARTERLYANDORZACHCOUGHLIN
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Sent: Fri9/21/124:33PM
To: hsotelotmcc.edu;kadlicjreno.gov;sooudibreno.gov;renodirectreno.gov;lstuchellwashoecounty.us;pkellywashoecounty.us;brownkreno.gov
DearMr.Sotelo, etal,
LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE REGARDING ALL MATERIALS IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH ANYTING CONNECTED WITH ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.
Whatchargesarestillpending? Isthecriminaltrespasschargestillpending? WasthecriminaltrespasschargeComplaint everIilestampedinRMC12CR

12420? Pleasecopymeoneachandeverything Iiledstampedinthiscase,andallothermaterials. Additionally,YOUAREONALITIGATIONHOLD
NOTICEWITHRESPECTTOANYTHINGANDEVERYTHINGYOUHAVEORHAVEACCESSTOINCONNECTIONWITHTHISCASE,ORANY
OTHERMATTERINVOLVINGMEINANYWAYVISAVISTHERMCORYOUREMPLOYER,or,totheextentyouareanindependentcontractor,that
whichconcernsyourbusinesspartnersorassociates.
Thisisamisdemeanorcase,oneinvolvingacustodialarrestandasearchoImyvehicle(andBighornTowingdemandedmoneytheywerenotentitledtoIormy
vehicle,andtheyareallthewayoverinSparks,whyusethem?). YouseemtowishtocharacterizethismatterasatraIIiccitation,moreakintoaparking
ticket,however,onedoesnotspend nearly 20daysinjail (duringwhichtheWCDCdeniedmeinmyattemptstoarrangemyaIIairsandaccessjustice,
incidenttowhichIsustaineda$40,050judgmentagainstmyselI,personallyandwaspreventedIromseekingrelieIIrom,soplease,WCDCCONSIDERTHISA
LITIGATIONHOLDNOTICEWITHALLMATERIALSINCIDENTTHERETOASWELL)Ioraparkingticketoradministrativecitation. Thiscase
LITIGATIONHOLDNOTICE
involvesamisdemeanorarrest,Iaceit. YouseemtobewillingtomakethemisconductoIothersyourproblem,whichIdon'tunderstand. Igetit,yourare
companyguyandall,butyouaretakingitabitIar,no? NextthingyouaregoingtobegettingallKeithLoomisoncriminalindigentdeIendantsandsmirking
atthemabouthow"yourjobisgone"whensomesinglemotherwithababyispleadingIoranORsoshedoesn'tloseherjoboversomejaywalkingarrestor
somethingridiculouslikethat,LoomisreIusingtoevenargueIoranORreleaseorsomesimilarposition. PullthevideooIthevarioustimesIwasbrough
intovideocourtwhileinjailIromJuly3rdthorughJuly21st,2012. IwasharassedagaintodaybyOIIicerWeaver,whomisreallydistinguishinghimselI,
alongwithSargentO.Miller. Soldalv.CookCo. SameRPDwhoarrestedandretaliatedagainstmeat NorthwindsApartmentbetweenJune5th,
2012throughAugust2012,alongwithLieutenantBrownandSargentDye,threateningmewithcriminaltrespassarrestsevenwhereIstillhadvalidleasesat
NorthwindsApartments,andthereIore,"alawIulrighttobethere"underNRS207.200. Pushingsomemaintenancemanintosigninga"disturbingthe
peace"criminalComplaint(andOIIicerWeaverwastryingtopullthistrickagainatSuperiorSelIStoragetoday)doesnotabsolvetheCityoIRenoorRPDIor
liabilityIorwrongIularrest(theold,"hey,thatguysignedthecriminalComplaint,we,theRPD,justmadethearrestbasedonit"thingwon'twork,askWheeler
v.Coss). But,theRPDmusthavethoughtIwasontosomethingbecause,atNorthwinds,itIailedtoIollowthroughonSargentMillerandLt.Brown's
promisestoarrestmeIorcriminaltrespass. EnterOIIicerWeaverwithhisphenomenaldisplayoIjudgementand"concern"IorCoughlin,andtheJuly3rd,
2012arrestIor"disturbingthepeace","prooIoIinsurance"(despiteSargentDyeandOIIicerWeaveradmittingthatCoughlinproducedprooIoIvalid,current
insurancevia apdIdisplayedona5inchsmartphonescreenpriortothecustodialarrest),and"Iailuretosecurealoadonatruck",whichOIIicerWeaverwas
againtodaythreateningtoarrestCoughlin,inIullviewoIthe5otherRPDpersonelwhowere,yetagain,seekingtoIormsomesortoIlandlordeviction
consultingserviceprovidingtheunauthorizedpracticeoIlaw. That'saprettycompetitiveIield,justaskNevadaCourtServices.
Pleaseconsider Wheelerv.Coss.
PleaseacceptthiswritingasanupdatetomyrecentLITIGATIONHOLDNOTICEStoincludetheRPDmisconductthismorningatSuperiorSelIStorage,again
inviolationoISoldalv.CookCo.,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldalv.CookCounty
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Nevada Court Services in backyard visible at 20 second mark SAM_0028.avi
.
To: milleroreno.gov;brownkreno.gov;renodirectreno.gov;rjcwebwasoecounty.us;jgoodnightwashoecounty.us;jmachenwashoecounty.us;
jgomezwashoecounty.us;apminIoyahoo.com;aclunvaclunv.org;apminIoacg.com;037nor4acg.com;037nor2acg.com;jlesliewashoecounty.us;
zyoungda.washoecounty.us
14attachments
Iilings.pdI(1058.4KB),northwindIax6412habitabilityretaliationetc.pdI(45.8KB),unlawIuldetainerwarningNorthwindIorunit45june5thbyrwraystampedat
1254pmand.pdI(432.4KB),northwindprooIoIserviceIor29oIjune14andjune5rwraynoticeoIunlawIuldetainer.pdI(1401.6KB),supplementtotenantsmotion
todismissnorthwindinsparksjusticecourt.pdI(98.3KB),data-2012-6-29-15-56-59northwindrpdmillercivilcriminalmatterdance.3gp(325.4KB),northwindv
coughjlincombinedIorrjcjudgeschamersvacatesummaryevictionmotionaIIidavit,amendedmotionandproposedorder.pdI(130.9KB),IMAG0309amendednotice
Iorunit29on62812northwindvitiatingearlierevictionorderoI62712.jpg(1717.3KB),6812Iaxtonorthwindwithpagenumbers.pdI(50.7KB),
20120605101513NorthwindmanagerhandymanattacksIromgolIcart6512-20120728-105853.mp4(3.1MB),northwindloucadiamilankrebsadmittingdwayne
triedtoliItdoorup6512.mp4(498.1KB),policereportsIiledbyCoughlinregardingNorthwindApartments.htm(32.1KB),VIDEO0009northwindyoucan'ttrespsass
meIromthewholeplacepre7212probably.mp4(4.2MB)
Date:Mon,2Jul201217:21:54-0700
NRS207.200,RMC8.10.040.
In
Aikins v. Andrews, 91Nev.746,542P.2d734(1975),theSupremeCOUliconstruedthe
6
U.S.SupremeCourt
SEVENTHCIRCUIT
No.91-6516
ArguedOctober5,1992
Held:
I
|2|
|3|
|4|
|5|
andnowreverse.
|6|
|506U.S.56,61|
II
|7|
350.
III
Iederalcourts.
IV
Soordered.
Footnotes
(1stDist.1987).
banc).
context.
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Date:Tue,26Jun201209:10:14-0700
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Date:Tue,26Jun201207:58:36-0700
(Ward1-nap?)
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
tel7753388118
Iax9496677403
CivilDivision
630GreenbraeDrive
Sparks,Nevada89431
(775)353.7603Phone
(775)352.3004Fax
Close
ChrisHansen
Civil
Evictions
SmallClaims
--ForwardedMessageAttachment--
Print
YourOnlinePoliceReportT12004553HasBeenSubmitted
From:
NvRenoPdcoplogic.com
****DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL****
****THIS IS AN UN-MONITORED MAIL BOX****
Your online report has been successfully received and the
tracking number is T12004553.
You will be notified via email of any problems with your
report. Once your report is approved, it will be issued
a case number and you will receive a PDF copy as an attachment
in your email within approximately ten business days.
Thank you for using our online reporting system and please
contact us with any suggestions you have for improving our
system.
Online Officer
YourOnlinePoliceReportT12004554HasBeenSubmitted
From:
(NoSubject)
system.
Online Officer
YourOnlinePoliceReport120103420HasBeenApproved
From:
Sent: Mon6/11/124:10PM
1attachment
report-120103420-0.pdI(71.4KB)
Your report has been approved report and the permanent number of the case is
120103420.
the delicate information in his report has been replaced for *** to support isolation in this email.
Thank you for using our online reporting system and please contact us with any suggestions you have for improving our system.
Online Officer
YourOnlinePoliceReport120103420HasBeenApproved
From:
1attachment
report-120103420-1.pdI(70.9KB)
Your report has been approved supplemental report and the permanent number of the case is
120103420.
Thank you for using our online reporting system and please contact us with any suggestions you have for improving our system.
Online Officer
To: milleroreno.gov;brownkreno.gov;kadlicjreno.gov;sooudibreno.gov;hsotelotmcc.edu
6attachments
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Date:Fri,8Jun201216:41:49-0700
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
Subject: LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE FW: Reno eviction noticed Ior Sparks Justice Court
Sent: Fri 9/21/12 2:36 PM
To: stuttlewashoecounty.us; milleroreno.gov; jmachenwashoecounty.us; brownkreno.gov;
renodirectreno.gov; lstuchellwashoecounty.us; kadlicjreno.gov; christensendreno.gov;
mkandarasda.washoecounty.us; apminIoacg.com; apminIoyahoo.com; superior.storageyahoo.com;
037nor4acg.com; inIoacg-apmi.com; chansenwashoecounty.us; kstancilwashoecounty.us
Outlook Active View
2 attachments (total 1164.6 KB)
coughlin v northwind 16TenantsAIIidavitDeclarationOtherPrivateHousing other than nonpayment oI
rent.pdIDownload
combined northwind v coughlin eviction Iilings.pdIDownload
Download all as zip
Dear Sirs and Madams,

Please accept this as a LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE OF ALL MATERIALS, RECORDINGS, DOCUMENTATION, OR OTHER MATERIALS
IN ANY WAY RELATED TO ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN AND HIS TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS
WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, EMERGENCY SERVICES, ET AL WITHIN THE PAST COUPLE
YEARS WITHIN BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES, MATTERS, AND INCIDENTS AND WITHIN
ANY OTHER SETTINGS.

Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Tel 775 338 8118
Fax 949 667 7402

From: zachcoughlinhotmail.com
To: kbrownnvbar.org; milllerrreno.gov; millerrreno.gov; stuttlewashoecounty.gov;
rsilvawashoecounty.us; stuttlewashoecounty.us; jamchenwashoecounty.us; 037nor4acg.com;
inIoacg-apmi.com; rjcwebwasoecounty.us; jbolescallatg.com; apminIoacg.com
Subject: FW: Reno eviction noticed Ior Sparks Justice Court
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 17:21:54 -0700
NOrthwind and Nevada Court Services served and "amended 5 day notice oI unlawIul detainer on July 29th,
2012"...giving me Iive days to get my stuII out oI unit 29 (the one the subject oI Judge Schroeer's Eviction
Order, which was eIIectively rescinded by their serving a new 5 day unlawIul detainer notice....) as well as units
71 and 45...whicih are two units to which i still have valide lease agreements, ie, I cannot be trespassing Ior
accessing them (the Reno PD has indicated they will arrest me Ior criminal trespass Ior accessing any units in
1/11
the complex, including those to which I still have a valid possessory or property interest, in violation oI 42 usc
1983).

why does Sargent Miller have to give me a hard time? Isn't it enough Ior him to have his "Denzel" good looks
and a much higher paying job than I will ever have? What up wit that?

Northwind and Nevada Court Services (which is practicing eviction law without a license) screwed up and put
"Sparks Justice Court on Greenbrae" as the place Ior the tenant to Iile a Tenan'ts Answer or AIIidavit. Doing so
will make the RJC Order by Judge Schroeder null and void (Karen Stancil, ChieI Civil Clerk at RJC admits this,
but really, the Iault lies with NCS and Northwind, not the committed proIessional at the RJC).
The Notice must identiIy the Court with jurisdiction. NRS 40.253(3)(a). ONe cannot be trespassing in a placwe
where they have a valid reason Ior being or a lawIul right to be. NRS 207.200, RMC 8.10.040.

In
Aikins v. Andrews, 91 Nev. 746, 542 P.2d 734 (1975), the Supreme COUli construed the
predecessor statute to NRS 40.2516 to mean that the alternative Iive (5) day notice must be given
6
beIore the tenants can be dispossed and a lease can be validly terminated. The court stated that this
Iive (5) day notice requirement " ... neither can be waved nor neglected." 91 Nev. at 748.

U.S. Supreme Court
SOLDAL v. COOK COUNTY, 506 U.S. 56 (1992)
506 U.S. 56 SOLDAL, ET UX. v. COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 91-6516
Argued October 5, 1992
Decided December 8, 1992
While eviction proceedings were pending, Terrace Properties and Margaret Hale Iorcibly evicted petitioners, the
Soldal Iamily, and their mobile home Irom a Terrace Properties' mobile home park. At Hale's request, Cook
County, Illinois, SheriII's Department deputies were present at the eviction. Although they knew that there was
no eviction order and that Terrace Properties' actions were illegal, the deputies reIused to take Mr. Soldal's
complaint Ior criminal trespass or otherwise interIere with the eviction. Subsequently, the state judge assigned
to the pending eviction proceedings ruled that the eviction had been unauthorized, and the trailer, badly
damaged during the eviction, was returned to the lot. Petitioners brought an action in the Federal District Court
under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that Terrace Properties and Hale had conspired with the deputy sheriIIs to
unreasonably seize and remove their home in violation oI their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The
court granted deIendants' motion Ior summary judgment, and the Court oI Appeals aIIirmed. Acknowledging
2/11
that what had occurred was a "seizure" in the literal sense oI the word, the court reasoned that it was not a
seizure as contemplated by the Fourth Amendment because, inter alia, it did not invade petitioners' privacy.
Held:
The seizure and removal oI the trailer home implicated petitioners' Fourth Amendment rights. Pp. 61-72.
(a) A "seizure" oI property occurs when "there is some meaningIul interIerence with an individual's possessory
interests in that property." United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 . The language oI the Fourth
Amendment - which protects people Irom unreasonable searches and seizures oI "their persons, houses, papers,
and eIIects" - cuts against the novel holding below, and this Court's cases unmistakably hold that the
Amendment protects property even where privacy or liberty is not implicated. See, e.g., ibid.; Katz v. United
States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 . This Court's "plain view" decisions also make untenable the lower court's
construction oI the Amendment. II the Amendment's boundaries were deIined exclusively by rights oI privacy,
"plain view" seizures, rather than being scrupulously subjected to Fourth Amendment inquiry, Arizona v. Hicks,
480 U.S. 321, 326 -327, would not implicate that constitutional provision at all. Contrary to the Court oI
Appeals' |506 U.S. 56, 57| position, the Amendment protects seizure even though no search within its meaning
has taken place. See, e.g., Jacobsen, supra, at 120-125. Also contrary to that court's view, Graham v. Connor,
490 U.S. 386 , does not require a court, when it Iinds that a wrong implicates more than one constitutional
command, to look at the dominant character oI the challenged conduct to determine under which constitutional
standard it should be evaluated. Rather, each constitutional provision is examined in turn. See, e.g., Hudson v.
Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 . Pp. 61-71.
(b) The instant decision should not Ioment a wave oI new litigation in the Iederal courts. Activities such as
repossessions or attachments, iI they involve entering a home, intruding on individuals' privacy, or interIering
with their liberty, would implicate the Fourth Amendment even on the Court oI Appeals' own terms. And
numerous seizures oI this type will survive constitutional scrutiny on "reasonableness" grounds. Moreover, it is
unlikely that the police will oIten choose to Iurther an enterprise knowing that it is contrary to the law, or
proceed to seize property in the absence oI objectively reasonable grounds Ior doing so. Pp. 71-72.
942 F.2d 1073, reversed and remanded.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion Ior a unanimous Court.
John L. Stainthorp argued the cause and Iiled brieIs Ior petitioners.
Kenneth L. Gillis argued the cause Ior respondents. With him on the brieI were Jack O'Malley, Renee G.
GoldIarb, and Kenneth T. McCurry. |*|
| Footnote *| James D. Holzhauer, Timothy S. Bishop, John A. Powell, Steven R. Shapiro, Harvey M.
Grossman, and Alan K. Chen Iiled a brieI Ior the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging
reversal.
Richard Ruda, Carter G. Phillips, Mark D. Hopson, and Mark E. Haddad Iiled a brieI Ior the National League oI
Cities et al. as amici curiae urging aIIirmance.
JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion oI the Court.
I
Edward Soldal and his Iamily resided in their trailer home, which was located on a rented lot in the Willoway
Terrace mobile |506 U.S. 56, 58| home park in Elk Grove, Illinois. In May 1987, Terrace Properties, the owner
oI the park, and Margaret Hale, its manager, Iiled an eviction proceeding against the Soldals in an Illinois state
court. Under the Illinois Forcible Entry and Detainer Act, Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 110, # 9-101 et seq. (1991), a tenant
cannot be dispossessed absent a judgment oI eviction. The suit was dismissed on June 2, 1987. A Iew months
later, in August 1987, the owner brought a second proceeding oI eviction, claiming nonpayment oI rent. The
case was set Ior trial on September 22, 1987.
Rather than await judgment in their Iavor, Terrace Properties and Hale, contrary to Illinois law, chose to evict
the Soldals Iorcibly two weeks prior to the scheduled hearing. On September 4, Hale notiIied the Cook County's
SheriII's Department that she was going to remove the trailer home Irom the park, and requested the presence oI
sheriII deputies to Iorestall any possible resistance. Later that day, two Terrace Properties employees arrived at
the Soldals' home accompanied by Cook County Deputy SheriII O'Neil. The employees proceeded to wrench
3/11
the sewer and water connections oII the side oI the trailer home, disconnect the phone, tear oII the trailer's
canopy and skirting, and hook the home to a tractor. Meanwhile, O'Neil explained to Edward Soldal that "`he
was there to see that |Soldal| didn't interIere with |Willoway's| work.'" BrieI Ior Petitioner 6.
By this time, two more deputy sheriIIs had arrived at the scene, and Soldal told them that he wished to Iile a
complaint Ior criminal trespass. They reIerred him to deputy Lieutenant Jones, who was in Hale's oIIice. Jones
asked Soldal to wait outside while he remained closeted with Hale and other Terrace Properties employees Ior
over 20 minutes. AIter talking to a district attorney and making Soldal wait another halI hour, Jones told Soldal
that he would not accept a complaint because "ìt was between the landlord and the tenant ... |and| they were
going to go ahead and continue to move |506 U.S. 56, 59| out the trailer.'" Id., at 8. 1 Throughout this period,
the deputy sheriIIs knew that Terrace Properties did not have an eviction order and that its actions were
unlawIul. Eventually, and in the presence oI an additional two deputy sheriIIs, the Willoway workers pulled the
trailer Iree oI its moorings and towed it onto the street. Later, it was hauled to a neighboring property.
On September 9, the state judge assigned to the pending eviction proceedings ruled that the eviction had been
unauthorized, and ordered Terrace Properties to return the Soldals' home to the lot. The home, however, was
badly damaged. |2| The Soldals brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging a violation oI their rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. They claimed that Terrace Properties and Hale had conspired
with Cook County deputy sheriIIs to unreasonably seize and remove the Soldals' trailer home. The District
Judge granted deIendants' motion Ior summary judgment on the grounds that the Soldals had Iailed to adduce
any evidence to support their conspiracy theory and, thereIore, the existence oI state action necessary under
1983. |3|
The Court oI Appeals Ior the Seventh Circuit, construing the Iacts in petitioners' Iavor, accepted their contention
that there was state action. However, it went on to hold that |506 U.S. 56, 60| the removal oI the Soldals' trailer
did not constitute a seizure Ior purposes oI the Fourth Amendment or a deprivation oI due process Ior purposes
oI the Fourteenth.
On rehearing, a majority oI the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, reaIIirmed the panel decision. |4|
Acknowledging that what had occurred was a "seizure" in the literal sense oI the word, the court reasoned that,
because it was not made in the course oI public law enIorcement, and because it did not invade the Soldals'
privacy, it was not a seizure as contemplated by the Fourth Amendment. 942 F.2d 1073, 1076 (1991).
Interpreting prior cases oI this Court, the Seventh Circuit concluded that, absent interIerence with privacy or
liberty, a "pure deprivation oI property" is not cognizable under the Fourth Amendment. Id., at 1078-1079.
Rather, petitioners' property interests were protected only by the Due Process Clauses oI the FiIth and
Fourteenth Amendments. |5|
We granted certiorari to consider whether the seizure and removal oI the Soldals' trailer home implicated their
Fourth Amendment rights, 503 U.S. 918 (1992), and now reverse. |6| |506 U.S. 56, 61|
II
The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, Ker v. CaliIornia, 374 U.S. 23, 30
(1963), provides in pertinent part that the "right oI the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
eIIects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... ."
A "seizure" oI property, we have explained, occurs when "there is some meaningIul interIerence with an
individual's possessory interests in that property." United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984). In
addition, we have emphasized that "at the very core" oI the Fourth Amendment "stands the right oI a man to
retreat into his own home." Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961). See also Oliver v. United
States, 466 U.S. 170, 178 -179 (1984); Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 316 (1971); Payton v. New York, 445
U.S. 573, 601 (1980).
As a result oI the state action in this case, the Soldals' domicile was not only seized, it literally was carried
away, giving new meaning to the term "mobile home." We Iail to see how being unceremoniously dispossessed
oI one's home in the manner alleged to have occurred here can be viewed as anything but a seizure invoking the
protection oI the Fourth Amendment. Whether the Amendment was in Iact |506 U.S. 56, 62| violated is, oI
course, a diIIerent question that requires determining iI the seizure was reasonable. That inquiry entails the
4/11
weighing oI various Iactors, and is not beIore us.
The Court iI Appeals recognized that there had been a seizure, but concluded that it was a seizure only in a
"technical" sense, not within the meaning oI the Fourth Amendment. This conclusion Iollowed Irom a narrow
reading oI the Amendment, which the court construed to saIeguard only privacy and liberty interests, while
leaving unprotected possessory interests where neither privacy nor liberty was at stake. Otherwise, the court
said,
"a constitutional provision enacted two centuries ago |would| make every repossession and eviction with police
assistance actionable under - oI all things - the Fourth Amendment|, which| would both trivialize the
amendment and gratuitously shiIt a large body oI routine commercial litigation Irom the state courts to the
Iederal courts. That trivializing, this shiIt, can be prevented by recognizing the diIIerence between possessory
and privacy interests." 942 F.2d, at 1077.
Because the oIIicers had not entered Soldal's house, rummaged through his possessions, or, in the Court oI
Appeals' view, interIered with his liberty in the course oI the eviction, the Fourth Amendment oIIered no
protection against the "grave deprivation" oI property that had occurred. Ibid.
We do not agree with this interpretation oI the Fourth Amendment. The Amendment protects the people Irom
unreasonable searches and seizures oI "their persons, houses, papers, and eIIects." This language surely cuts
against the novel holding below, and our cases unmistakably hold that the Amendment protects property as well
as privacy. |7| This much |506 U.S. 56, 63| was made clear in Jacobsen, supra, where we explained that the Iirst
Clause oI the Fourth Amendment
"protects two types oI expectations, one involving "searches," the other "seizures." A "search" occurs when an
expectation oI privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is inIringed. A "seizure" oI property
occurs where there is some meaningIul interIerence with an individual's possessory interests in that property."
466 U.S., at 113 (Iootnote omitted).
See also id., at 120; Horton v. CaliIornia, 496 U.S. 128, 133 (1990); Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 328
(1987); Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 469 (1985); Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 747 -748 (1983)
(STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment); United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 91 , n. 6 (1980). Thus, having
concluded that chemical testing oI powder Iound in a package did not compromise its owner's privacy, the Court
in Jacobsen did not put an end to its inquiry, as would be required under the view adopted by the Court oI
Appeals and advocated by respondents. Instead, adhering to the teachings oI United States v. Place, 462 U.S.
696 (1983), it went on to determine whether the invasion oI the owners' "possessory interests" occasioned by
the destruction oI the powder was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Jacobsen, supra, at 124-125. In
Place, although we Iound that subjecting luggage to a "dog sniII" did not constitute a search Ior Fourth
Amendment purposes because it did not compromise any privacy interest, taking custody oI Place's suitcase was
deemed an unlawIul seizure, Ior it unreasonably inIringed "the suspect's possessory interest in his luggage." 462
U.S., at 708 . 8 Although lacking a privacy component, the property rights in both instances nonetheless were
not |506 U.S. 56, 64| disregarded, but rather were aIIorded Fourth Amendment protection.
Respondents rely principally on precedents such as Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Warden,
Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967), and Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (1974), to
demonstrate that the Fourth Amendment is only marginally concerned with property rights. But the message oI
those cases is that property rights are not the sole measure oI Fourth Amendment violations. The Warden
opinion thus observed, citing Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960), and Silverman v. United States, 365
U.S. 505 (1961), that the "principal" object oI the Amendment is the protection oI privacy, rather than property,
and that "this shiIt in emphasis Irom property to privacy has come about through a subtle interplay oI
substantive and procedural reIorm." 387 U.S., at 304 . There was no suggestion that this shiIt in emphasis had
snuIIed out the previously recognized protection Ior property under the Fourth Amendment. Katz, in declaring
violative oI the Fourth Amendment the unwarranted overhearing oI a telephone booth conversation, eIIectively
ended any lingering notions that the protection oI privacy depended on trespass into a protected area. In the
course oI its decision, the Katz Court stated that the Fourth Amendment can neither be translated into a
provision dealing with constitutionally protected areas nor into a general constitutional right to privacy. The
5/11
Amendment, the Court said, protects individual privacy against certain kinds oI governmental intrusion, "but its
protections go Iurther, and oIten have nothing to do with privacy at all." 389 U.S., at 350 .
As Ior Cardwell, a plurality oI this Court held in that case that the Fourth Amendment did not bar the use in
evidence oI paint scrapings taken Irom and tire treads observed on the deIendant's automobile, which had been
seized in a parking lot and towed to a police lockup. Gathering this evidence was not deemed to be a search, Ior
nothing Irom the |506 U.S. 56, 65| interior oI the car and "no personal eIIects, which the Fourth Amendment
traditionally has been deemed to protect" were searched or seized. 417 U.S., at 591 (opinion oI BLACKMUN,
J.). No meaningIul privacy rights were invaded. But this leIt the argument, pressed by the dissent, that the
evidence gathered was the product oI a warrantless, and hence illegal, seizure oI the car Irom the parking lot
where the deIendant had leIt it. However, the plurality was oI the view that, because, under the circumstances oI
the case, there was probable cause to seize the car as an instrumentality oI the crime, Fourth Amendment
precedent permitted the seizure without a warrant. Id., at 593. Thus, both the plurality and dissenting Justices
considered the deIendant's auto deserving oI Fourth Amendment protection even though privacy interests were
not at stake. They diIIered only in the degree oI protection that the Amendment demanded.
The Court oI Appeals appeared to Iind more speciIic support Ior conIining the protection oI the Fourth
Amendment to privacy interests in our decision in Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984). There, a state prison
inmate sued, claiming that prison guards had entered his cell without consent and had seized and destroyed
some oI his personal eIIects. We ruled that an inmate, because oI his status, enjoyed neither a right to privacy in
his cell nor protection against unreasonable seizures oI his personal eIIects. Id., at 526-528, and n. 8; id., at 538
(O'CONNOR, J., concurring). Whatever else the case held, it is oI limited useIulness outside the prison context
with respect to the coverage oI the Fourth Amendment.
We thus are unconvinced that any oI the Court's prior cases supports the view that the Fourth Amendment
protects against unreasonable seizures oI property only where privacy or liberty is also implicated. What is
more, our "plain view" decisions make untenable such a construction oI the Amendment. Suppose, Ior example,
that police oIIicers lawIully enter a house, by either complying with the warrant requirement or satisIying one
oI its recognized exceptions - |506 U.S. 56, 66| e.g., through a valid consent or a showing oI exigent
circumstances. II they come across some item in plain view and seize it, no invasion oI personal privacy has
occurred. Horton, 496 U.S., at 133 -134; Brown, supra, at 739 (opinion oI REHNQUIST, J.). II the boundaries
oI the Fourth Amendment were deIined exclusively by rights oI privacy, "plain view" seizures would not
implicate that constitutional provision at all. Yet, Iar Irom being automatically upheld, "plain view" seizures
have been scrupulously subjected to Fourth Amendment inquiry. Thus, in the absence oI consent or a warrant
permitting the seizure oI the items in question, such seizures can be justiIied only iI they meet the probable-
cause standard, Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 -327 (1987), 9 and iI they are unaccompanied by unlawIul
trespass, Horton, 496 U.S., at 136 -137. 10 That is because, the absence oI a privacy interest notwithstanding,
"|a| seizure oI the article ... would obviously invade the owner's possessory interest." Id., at 134; see also
Brown, 460 U.S., at 739 (opinion oI REHNQUIST, J.). The plain-view doctrine "merely reIlects an application
oI the Fourth Amendment's central requirement oI reasonableness to the law governing seizures oI property."
Ibid.; Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 468 (1971); id., at 516 (WHITE, J., concurring and
dissenting).
The Court oI Appeals understandably Iound it necessary to reconcile its holding with our recognition in the
plain-view cases that the Fourth Amendment protects property as such. In so doing, the court did not distinguish
this case on the ground that the seizure oI the Soldals' home took place in a |506 U.S. 56, 67| noncriminal
context. Indeed, it acknowledged what is evident Irom our precedents - that the Amendment's protection applies
in the civil context as well. See O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987); New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325,
334 -335 (1985); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 504 -506 (1978); Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307,
312 -313 (1978); Camara v. Municipal Court oI San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 528 (1967). 11
Nor did the Court oI Appeals suggest that the Fourth Amendment applied exclusively to law enIorcement
activities. It observed, Ior example, that the Amendment's protection would be triggered "by a search or other
entry into the home incident to an eviction or repossession," 942 F.2d, at 1077. 12 Instead, the court sought to
6/11
explain why the Fourth Amendment protects against seizures oI property in the plain-view context, but not in
this case, as Iollows:
"|S|eizures made in the course oI investigations by police or other law enIorcement oIIicers are almost always,
as in the plain view cases, the culmination oI searches. The police search in order to seize, and it is the search
|506 U.S. 56, 68| and ensuing seizure that the Fourth Amendment, by its reIerence to "searches and seizures,"
seeks to regulate. Seizure means one thing when it is the outcome oI a search; it may mean something else when
it stands apart Irom a search or any other investigative activity. The Fourth Amendment may still nominally
apply, but, precisely because there is no invasion oI privacy, the usual rules do not apply." Id., at 1079
(emphasis in original).
We have diIIiculty with this passage. The court seemingly construes the Amendment to protect only against
seizures that are the outcome oI a search. But our cases are to the contrary, and hold that seizures oI property are
subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny even though no search within the meaning oI the Amendment has taken
place. See, e.g., Jacobsen, 466 U.S., at 120 -125; Place, 462 U.S., at 706 -707; Cardwell, 417 U.S., at 588 -589.
13 More generally, an oIIicer who happens to come across an individual's property in a public area could seize it
only iI Fourth Amendment standards are satisIied - Ior example, iI the items are evidence oI a crime or
contraband. CI. Payton v. New York, |506 U.S. 56, 69| 445 U.S., at 587 . We are also puzzled by the last
sentence oI the excerpt, where the court announces that the "usual rules" oI the Fourth Amendment are
inapplicable iI the seizure is not the result oI a search or any other investigative activity "precisely because there
is no invasion oI privacy." For the plain-view cases clearly state that, notwithstanding the absence oI any
interIerence with privacy, seizures oI eIIects that are not authorized by a warrant are reasonable only because
there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity. The seizure oI the weapons in Horton,
Ior example, occurred in the midst oI a search, yet we emphasized that it did not "involve any invasion oI
privacy." 496 U.S., at 133 . In short, our statement that such seizures must satisIy the Fourth Amendment and
will be deemed reasonable only iI the item's incriminating character is "immediately apparent," id., at 136-137,
is at odds with the Court oI Appeals' approach.
The Court oI Appeals' eIIort is both interesting and creative, but, at bottom, it simply reasserts the earlier thesis
that the Fourth Amendment protects privacy, but not property. We remain unconvinced, and see no justiIication
Ior departing Irom our prior cases. In our view, the reason why an oIIicer might enter a house or eIIectuate a
seizure is wholly irrelevant to the threshold question whether the Amendment applies. What matters is the
intrusion on the people's security Irom governmental interIerence. ThereIore, the right against unreasonable
seizures would be no less transgressed iI the seizure oI the house was undertaken to collect evidence, veriIy
compliance with a housing regulation, eIIect an eviction by the police, or on a whim, Ior no reason at all. As we
have observed on more than one occasion, it would be "anomalous to say that the individual and his private
property are Iully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected oI criminal
behavior." Camara 387 U.S., at 530 ; see also O'Connor, 480 U.S., at 715 ; T.L.O., 469 U.S., at 335 . |506 U.S.
56, 70|
The Court oI Appeals also stated that, even iI, contrary to its previous rulings, "there is some element or tincture
oI a Fourth Amendment seizure, it cannot carry the day Ior the Soldals." 942 F.2d, at 1080. Relying on our
decision in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), the court reasoned that it should look at the "dominant
character oI the conduct challenged in a section 1983 case |to| determine the constitutional standard under
which it is evaluated." 942 F.2d, at 1080. Believing that the Soldals' claim was more akin to a challenge against
the deprivation oI property without due process oI law than against an unreasonable seizure, the court
concluded that they should not be allowed to bring their suit under the guise oI the Fourth Amendment.
But we see no basis Ior doling out constitutional protections in such Iashion. Certain wrongs aIIect more than a
single right, and, accordingly, can implicate more than one oI the Constitution's commands. Where such
multiple violations are alleged, we are not in the habit oI identiIying, as a preliminary matter, the claim's
"dominant" character. Rather, we examine each constitutional provision in turn. See, e.g., Hudson v. Palmer,
468 U.S. 517 (1984) (Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause); Ingraham v.
Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) (Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause). Graham is
7/11
not to the contrary. Its holding was that claims oI excessive use oI Iorce should be analyzed under the Fourth
Amendment's reasonableness standard, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process test.
We were guided by the Iact that, in that case, both provisions targeted the same sort oI governmental conduct
and, as a result, we chose the more "explicit textual source oI constitutional protection" over the "more
generalized notion oI `substantive due process.'" 490 U.S., at 394 -395. Surely, Graham does not bar resort in
this case to the Fourth Amendment's speciIic protection Ior "houses, papers, |506 U.S. 56, 71| and eIIects,"
rather than the general protection oI property in the Due Process Clause.
III
Respondents are IearIul, as was the Court oI Appeals, that applying the Fourth Amendment in this context
inevitably will carry it into territory unknown and unIoreseen: routine repossessions, negligent actions oI public
employees that interIere with individuals' right to enjoy their homes, and the like, thereby Iederalizing areas oI
law traditionally the concern oI the States. For several reasons, we think the risk is exaggerated. To begin, our
decision will have no impact on activities such as repossessions or attachments iI they involve entry into the
home, intrusion on individuals' privacy, or interIerence with their liberty, because they would implicate the
Fourth Amendment even on the Court oI Appeals' own terms. This was true oI the Tenth Circuit's decision in
Specht, with which, as we previously noted, the Court oI Appeals expressed agreement.
More signiIicantly, "reasonableness is still the ultimate standard" under the Fourth Amendment, Camara, supra,
at 539, which means that numerous seizures oI this type will survive constitutional scrutiny. As is true in other
circumstances, the reasonableness determination will reIlect a "careIul balancing oI governmental and private
interests." T.L.O., supra, at 341. Assuming, Ior example, that the oIIicers were acting pursuant to a court order,
as in Specht v. Jensen, 832 F.2d 1516 (CA10 1987), or Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 , (1972), and, as oIten
would be the case, a showing oI unreasonableness on these Iacts would be a laborious task indeed. CI. Simms v.
Slacum, 3 Cranch 300, 301 (1806). Hence, while there is no guarantee against the Iiling oI Irivolous suits, had
the ejection in this case properly awaited the state court's judgment, it is quite unlikely that the Iederal court
would have been bothered with a 1983 action alleging a Fourth Amendment violation. |506 U.S. 56, 72|
Moreover, we doubt that the police will oIten choose to Iurther an enterprise knowing that it is contrary to the
law, or proceed to seize property in the absence oI objectively reasonable grounds Ior doing so. In short, our
reaIIirmance oI Fourth Amendment principles today should not Ioment a wave oI new litigation in the Iederal
courts.
IV
The complaint here alleges that respondents, acting under color oI state law, dispossessed the Soldals oI their
trailer home by physically tearing it Irom its Ioundation and towing it to another lot. Taking these allegations as
true, this was no "garden variety" landlord-tenant or commercial dispute. The Iacts alleged suIIice to constitute
a "seizure" within the meaning oI the Fourth Amendment, Ior they plainly implicate the interests protected by
that provision. The judgment oI the Court oI Appeals is, accordingly, reversed, and the case is remanded Ior
Iurther proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Footnotes
|1| Jones' statement was prompted by a district attorney's advice that no criminal charges could be brought
because, under Illinois law, a criminal action cannot be used to determine the right oI possession. See
Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, # 9-101 et seq. (1991); People v. Evans, 163 Ill.App. 3d 561, 114 Ill.Dec. 662, 516 N.E.2d
817 (1st Dist. 1987).
|2| The Soldals ultimately were evicted per court order in December 1987.
|3| Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides that:
"Every person who, under color oI any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, oI any State ... subjects,
or causes to be subjected, any citizen oI the United States ... to the deprivation oI any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding Ior redress."
|4| The court reiterated the panel's conclusion that a conspiracy must be assumed on the state oI the record and,
8/11
thereIore, that the case must be treated in its current posture "as iI the deputy sheriIIs themselves seized the
trailer, disconnected it Irom the utilities, and towed it away." 942 F.2d 1073, 1075 (CA7 1991) (en banc).
|5| The court noted that, in light oI the existence oI adequate judicial remedies under state law, a claim Ior
deprivation oI property without due process oI law was unlikely to succeed. Id., at 1075-1076. See Parratt v.
Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981). In any event, the Soldals did not claim a violation oI their procedural rights. As
noted, the Seventh Circuit also held that respondents had not violated the Soldals' substantive due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioners assert that this was error, but, in view oI our disposition oI the
case, we need not address the question at this time.
|6| Under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Soldals were required to establish that the respondents, acting under color oI
state law, deprived them oI a constitutional right, in this instance, their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
Ireedom Irom unreasonable seizures by the State. See Monroe v. Pape, |506 U.S. 56, 61| 365 U.S. 167, 184
(1961). Respondents request that we aIIirm on the ground that the Court oI Appeals erred in holding that there
was suIIicient state action to support a 1983 action. The alleged injury to the Soldals, it is urged, was inIlicted
by private parties Ior whom the county is not responsible. Although respondents did not cross-petition, they are
entitled to ask us to aIIirm on that ground iI such action would not enlarge the judgment oI the Court oI Appeals
in their Iavor. The Court oI Appeals Iound that, because the police prevented Soldal Irom using reasonable Iorce
to protect his home Irom private action that the oIIicers knew was illegal, there was suIIicient evidence oI
conspiracy between the private parties and the oIIicers to Ioreclose summary judgment Ior respondents. We are
not inclined to review that holding. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 -161 (1970).
|7| In holding that the Fourth Amendment's reach extends to property as such, we are mindIul that the
Amendment does not protect possessory interests in all kinds oI property. See, e.g., Oliver v. United States, 466
U.S. 170, 176 -177 (1984). This case, however, concerns a house, which the Amendment's language explicitly
includes, as it does a person's eIIects.
|8| Place also Iound that to detain luggage Ior 90 minutes was an unreasonable deprivation oI the individual's
"liberty interest in proceeding with his itinerary," which also is protected by the Fourth Amendment. 462 U.S.,
at 708 -710.
|9| When "operational necessities" exist, seizures can be justiIied on less than probable cause. 480 U.S., at 327 .
That in no way aIIects our analysis, Ior even then it is clear that the Fourth Amendment applies. Ibid; see also
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 , at 703 (1983).
|10| OI course, iI the police oIIicers' presence in the home itselI entailed a violation oI the Fourth Amendment,
no amount oI probable cause to believe that an item in plain view constitutes incriminating evidence will justiIy
its seizure. Horton, 496 U.S., at 136 -137.
|11| It is true that Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272 (1856), cast some doubt
on the applicability oI the Amendment to noncriminal encounters such as this. Id., 18 How. at 285. But cases
since that time have shed a diIIerent light, making clear that Fourth Amendment guarantees are triggered by
governmental searches and seizures "without regard to the use to which |houses, papers, and eIIects| are
applied." Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 301 (1967). Murray's Lessee's broad
statement that the Fourth Amendment "has no reIerence to civil proceedings Ior the recovery oI debt" arguably
only meant that the warrant requirement did not apply, as was suggested in G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States,
429 U.S. 338, 352 (1977). Whatever its proper reading, we reaIIirm today our basic understanding that the
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures Iully applies in the civil context.
|12| This was the view expressed by the Court oI Appeals Ior the Tenth Circuit in Specht v. Jensen, 832 F.2d
1516 (1987), remanded on unrelated grounds, 853 F.2d 805 (1988) (en banc), with which the Seventh Circuit
expressly agreed. 942 F.2d, at 1076.
|13| The oIIicers in these cases were engaged in law enIorcement, and were looking Ior something that was
Iound and seized. In this broad sense, the seizures were the result oI "searches," but not in the Fourth
Amendment sense. That the Court oI Appeals might have been suggesting that the plain-view cases are
explainable because they almost always occur in the course oI law enIorcement activities receives some support
Irom the penultimate sentence oI the quoted passage, where the court states that the word "seizure" might lose
9/11
its usual meaning "when it stands apart Irom a search or any other investigative activity." Id., at 1079 (emphasis
added). And, in the Iollowing paragraph, it observes that, "|o|utside oI the law enIorcement area, the Fourth
Amendment retains its Iorce as a protection against searches, because they invade privacy. That is why we
decline to conIine the amendment to the law enIorcement setting." Id., at 1079-1080. Even iI the court meant
that seizures oI property in the course oI law enIorcement activities, whether civil or criminal, implicate
interests saIeguarded by the Fourth Amendment, but that pure property interests are unprotected in the non-law-
enIorcement setting, we are not in accord, as indicated in the body oI this opinion. |506 U.S. 56, 73|

Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Tel 775 338 8118
Fax 949 667 7402

To: chansenwashoecounty.us
Subject: Reno eviction noticed Ior Sparks Justice Court
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:10:14 -0700
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Tel 775 338 8118
Fax 949 667 7402
Dear Sparks Justice Court,
I called and received permission to Iile this by Iax...I am indigent and request a Iee waiver, and Iailing that, an
opportunity to cure any Iiling Iee deIiciency.
To: sheriIIwebwashoecounty.us; lstuchellwashoecounty.us; kstancilwashoecounty.us;
chansenwashoecounty.us; milllerrreno.gov
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:58:36 -0700
I have received (though not personally served) what appears to be an eviction notice (5 day unlawIul detainer?)
Ior rentals located at 1680 Sky Mountain Drive, Reno, 89523, but the notice indicates that I must Iile a Tenant's
10/11
Answer with the Sparks Justice Court.
Am I mistaken in viewing this matter to be outside the jurisdiction oI the Sparks Justice Court, and rather, a
matter to be handled in Reno Justice Court?
Given Sparks Justice Court is open 5 days a week (closes at noon on Fridays) and Reno Justice Court has 4
judicial days a week, the deadline Ior Iiling a special appearance (to contest jurisdiction) and or a Tenant's
Answer oI AIIidavit is diIIicult to measure.
I spoke with a Reno Police Department who identiIied himselI as Sargent Miller last week and he indicated the
WCSO planned to come eIIectuate an eviction on this date, June 26, 2012. I believe that would be premature,
as Nevada Landlord Tenant law provides Ior Iiling a Tenant's Answer or AIIidavit by noon aIter the IiIth Iull
day (judicial days) and Fridays in Sparks Justice Court are not Iull days in that sense, and regardless, Sparks
Justice Court, I believe, is not the appropriate Iorum where, as here, the situs is located in Reno (Ward 1-nap?)
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
tel 775 338 8118
Iax 949 667 7403
Civil Division
630 Greenbrae Drive
(775)353.7603 Phone
(775)352.3004 Fax
Chris Hansen
The Civil Division oI Sparks Justice Court is made up oI three major Iunctions:
Civil
Civil Complaints Ior damages in excess oI $5000 or iI a suit involves a breach oI contract, punitive damages, an
action to obtain possession oI property, a writ oI restitution, or other like actions, legal counsel is suggested Ior
these types oI actions.
Evictions
An act or process oI legally dispossessing a person oI land or rental property.
Small Claims
An action Iiled in order to obtain a monetary judgment. Claims must not exceed $5000. A small claims action
may be Iiled with the Sparks Justice Court iI one oI the Iollowing applies to the deIendant:
They reside within the boundaries oI the Sparks Township;
They are employed within the boundaries oI the Sparks Township; and/or,
They do business within the boundaries oI the Sparks Township.
11/11
hereisthatcitationyouaskedfor
Sent: Fri9/21/121:21AM
To: hsotelotmcc.edu;jlesliewashoecounty.us;lstuchellwashoecounty.us;hazlett-stevenscreno.gov
HiGuys,
TheRPDandWCSOarrestreports,incidentreports,911calls,dispatchlogsandcalls,andinternalmemorandumareallrequestedbyme,andanyrelevancy
objectdionsyoumayhave,are, nhopeIully,addressedherein. rjcrcp2012-000287containsMilanKrebsTPOapplication,whichreIerencesserveralpolice
reportsheIiled,apparently,involvingme,thsoemycrossexaminationoIhimtheretouchedonthosematterssomewhat.
TheRPDincidentreportsandKrebsTPOapplicationandtheaudiooI theTPOhearingisrelevant,andthetestimonyoIKrebsemployerintheevictionmatterrjcrev2012-0001048
isrelevant,itgoestowitnessbias,motive,retaliation,andcreidibility.
VI.ParticularTypesoIEvidence
E.EvidenceIromPriorProceeding
2.RequisitesIorAdmissibility
a.InGeneral
TopicSummaryCorrelationTableReIerences
917.Motiveandopportunityforcross-examination
West'sKeyNumberDigest
West'sKeyNumberDigest,CriminalLawk544West'sKeyNumberDigest,Evidencek578
A.L.R.Library
AdmissibilityinevidenceoIdepositionasagainstonenotapartyattimeoIitstaking,4A.L.R.3d1075
WhatConstitutesSimilarMotiveIorPurposesoIRule804(b)(1)oIFederalRulesoIEvidence,ExceptingSuchTestimonyFromHearsayRuleiIPartyAgainstWhomSuchTestimony
isOIIeredhadOpportunityand"SimilarMotive"toDevelopTestimony,138A.L.R.Fed.367
UndertheFederalRulesoIEvidence,andtheUniIormRulesoIEvidence,theIormertestimonyoIanunavailablewitnessisadmissibleiIthepartyagainstwhomthetestimonyisnow
oIIered, or in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunityand similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.|FN1|
This cross-examination requirement operates to screen out those statements which, although made under oath, were not subject to the scrutiny oIa party interested in thoroughly
testingtheirvalidity.|FN2|TherequirementthattrialcounselhaveasuIIicientopportunitytotestthetestimonyoIanunavailablewitnessbycross-examinationisordinarilysatisIied
byshowingasimilarityoIpartiesandissues.|FN3|
TherequirementoIameaningIulopportunitytocross-examineisnotsatisIiedwherethepartyagainstwhomthetestimonyisoIIeredhadneithertheopportunity|FN4|norasimilar
motive|FN5|tocross-examinethewitnessatapreviousdeposition.TheIormertestimonywill
beadmittediIthemotivationtocross-examinewassimilar,|FN6|andIormertestimonywillbeexcludediIthemotivationwasnotsimilar.|FN7|Opportunityandmotivationtocross-
examinethedeponentintheIirstinstancearetheimportantIactors,ratherthantheactualextentoIcross-examination.|FN8|Sinceparties,attimes,Iortacticalorotherreasons,may,
as with a live witness at trial, choose not to cross-examine,|FN9| actual cross-examination at the prior hearing or trial is not required; it is necessary merely that the party against
whomthetestimonyissoughttobeoIIeredhadanadequateopportunityandmotivetoexercisetherightoIcross-examination.|FN10|However,mereopportunitytocross-examine
thewitnessisnotenough;theremustalsobeaperceivedrealneedorincentivetothoroughlycross-examineatthetimeoIthedeposition.|FN11|
CUMULATIVESUPPLEMENT
Cases:
Cross-examination, and thus conIrontation, has been accomplished, in context oI determining admissibilityat trial oI an unavailable witness's preliminary hearing testimony, where
thedeIendanthashadtheopportunitytocross-examinewitnessatpreliminaryhearing,probingintoareassuchasbiasandtestingtheveracityoIthetestimony,andthisisparticularly
soincaseswherethedeIendantwasrepresentedbythesamecounselatthepreliminaryhearingandattrial.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.6.Com.v.Wholaver,989A.2d883(Pa.2010).
ENDOFSUPPLEMENT]
|FN1|Fed.R.Evid.804(b)(1);UniIormRulesoIEvidence804(b)(1).
|FN2|U.S.v.Pizarro,717F.2d336,14Fed.R.Evid.Serv.1(7thCir.1983).
|FN3|Skyersv.U.S.,619A.2d931(D.C.1993).
|FN4|U.S.v.Feldman,761F.2d380,18Fed.R.Evid.Serv.1,84A.L.R.Fed.649(7thCir.1985);Hewittv.Hutter,432F.Supp.795,1Fed.R.Evid.Serv.916(W.D. Va.1977),
judgmentaII'd,574F.2d182(4thCir.1978).
|FN5|U.S.v.Feldman,761F.2d380,18Fed.R.Evid.Serv.1,84A.L.R.Fed.649(7thCir.1985).
|FN6|Dykesv.RaymarkIndustries,Inc.,801F.2d810,21Fed.R.Evid.Serv.953(6thCir.1986);Clayv.Johns-ManvilleSalesCorp.,722F.2d 1289,14Fed.R. Evid.Serv.1205
(6thCir.1983);Murrayv.ToyotaMotorDistributors,Inc.,664F.2d1377,9Fed.R.Evid.Serv.1128(9thCir.1982);MatteroIJohns-Manville/AsbestosisCases,93F.R.D.853,10
Fed.R.Evid.Serv.961(N.D.Ill.1982).
|FN7|U.S.v.Feldman,761F.2d380,18Fed.R.Evid.Serv.1,84A.L.R.Fed.649(7thCir.1985);Baylorv.JeIIersonCountyBd.oIEduc.,733F.2d1527,17Ed.LawRep.500,15
Fed.R.Evid.Serv.1324(11thCir.1984);MatteroISterlingNav.Co.,
Ltd.,444F.Supp.1043(S.D.N.Y.1977).
|FN8|DeLuryeav.WinthropLaboratories,aDiv.oISterlingDrug,Inc.,697F.2d222,12Fed.R.Evid.Serv.515(8thCir.1983);Hendrixv.Raybestos-Manhattan,Inc.,
776F.2d1492,19Fed.R.Evid.Serv.903,3Fed.R.Serv.3d1169(11thCir.1985).
|FN9|Peoplev.Nucci,162A.D.2d725,557N.Y.S.2d422(2dDep't1990).
|FN10|DeLuryeav.WinthropLaboratories,aDiv.oISterlingDrug,Inc.,697F.2d222,12Fed.R.Evid.Serv.515(8thCir.1983);Hendrixv.Raybestos-Manhattan,Inc.,
776F.2d1492,19Fed.R.Evid.Serv.903,3Fed.R.Serv.3d1169(11thCir.1985);InreRelatedAsbestosCases,543F. Supp.1142,11Fed.R. Evid.Serv.889(N.D.
Cal.1982);Com.v.Canon,373Mass.494,368N.E.2d1181(1977);Peoplev.Nucci,162A.D.2d725,557N.Y.S.2d422(2dDep't1990).
An exception to the rule against hearsay permitting the admission oI prior testimony when a witness is unavailable does notrequire the deIendant to have actually
conductedacross-examination;instead,itonlyrequiresthatheorshebegivenanopportunitytoquestionthewitness,and,byrequiringanopportunitytocross-examine,
the exception aIIords protection to the deIendant's constitutional right to conIront witnesses. StouIIer v.State, 2006 OKCR 46, 147 P.3d245 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006),
cert.denied,127S.Ct.2060,167L.Ed.2d787(U.S.2007).
a.InGeneral
918.Motiveandopportunityforcross-examinationDeterminationofsimilarityofmotivetocross-examine
A.L.R.Library
AdmissibilityoruseincriminaltrialoItestimonygivenatpreliminaryproceedingbywitnessnotavailableattrial,38A.L.R.4th378
IndeterminingwhetherthepartyagainstwhomtheevidenceisoIIeredhadasimilarmotivetodevelopthetestimony,acourtmustevaluatenotonlythesimilarityoItheissuesbut
alsothepurposeIorwhichthetestimonyisgiven.|FN1|Accordingly,inassessingthesimilarityoImotive,thecourtmustconsiderwhetherthepartyresistingtheoIIeredtestimonyat
apendingproceedinghadatapriorproceedinganinterestoIsubstantiallysimilarintensitytoproveordisprovethesamesideoIasubstantiallysimilarissue.|FN2|Circumstancesor
IactorswhichinIluencemotivetodeveloptestimonyinclude:(1)thetypeoIproceedinginwhichthetestimonyisgiven;|FN3|(2)trialstrategy;(3)thepotentialpartiesorIinancial
stakes;and(4)thenumberoIissuesandparties.TheseIactorsmaydiIIergreatlyincivilandcriminalcasesinvolvingthesamedeIendant,andmay,inacriminaltrial,prohibitthe
admission,againstthedeIendant,oIadepositionpreviouslytakeninaciviltrialinvolvingthesamedeIendant.|FN4|
ForthepurposeoIadmittingthepriortestimonyoIanunavailablewitness,thedeIendant'sinterestsandmotiveIorcross-examinationinbothproceedingsneednotbeidentical,only
similar.|FN5|Thatis,a"similarmotive"doesnotmean"identicalmotive."|FN6|
StatecourtshaveapproachedtheissueoIwhetheracriminaldeIendant'smotivetocross-examineawitnessatthepreliminaryhearingwassimilartothemotiveheorshewouldhave
hadtocross-examine,indiIIerentways,thewitnessattrial.|FN7|Accordingtooneview,deIenseattorneysalwayshavesimilarmotivestocross-examineatpreliminaryhearingsand
trials.|FN8|OthercourtsholdthatthemotivesoIthedeIenseattorney,atpreliminaryhearingsandtrials,mustbecomparedonacase-by-casebasis.|FN9|
Cases:
AdeIendant'sinterestandmotiveinimpeachingawitness'stestimonyatasecondproceedingneedonlybesimilar,notidentical,tohisinterestataIirstproceedingIorthetestimony
IromtheIirstproceedingtobeadmissibleintheseconduponthewitness'sunavailabilityunderexceptiontothedeIendant'sconstitutionallyguaranteedrightoIconIrontation.People
v.Valencia,43Cal.4th268,74Cal.Rptr.3d605,180P.3d351(2008),cert.denied,129S.Ct.198,172L.Ed.2d158(2008).
A deIendant's interest and motive at a second proceeding is not dissimilar to his interest at a Iirst proceeding, within meaning oI statute governing admission oI prior testimony oI
unavailable witnesses under exception to a deIendant's constitutionally guaranteed right oI conIrontation, simply because events occurring aIter the Iirst proceeding might have led
counseltoalterthenatureandscopeoIcross-examinationoIthewitnessincertainparticulars.People
v.Valencia,43Cal.4th268,74Cal.Rptr.3d605,180P.3d351(2008),cert.denied,129S.Ct.198,172L.Ed.2d158(2008).
DeIendantontrialIorIelonymurderhadanopportunityandsimilarmotivetocrossexamineatthepreliminaryhearingawitnesswhowasunavailableIortrial,suchthatadmissionoI
witness'spreliminary-hearingtestimonywasadmissibleattrialundertheexceptiontothehearsayruleIorastatementoIanunavailablewitness;purposeoIthepreliminaryhearing
wastodeterminewhethertherewasprobablecausetobelievethatdeIendantcommittedanoIIense,deIendant'smotiveIorcrossexaminingwitnesswastoshowthatdeIendantdidnot
rapeandmurdervictim,anddeIendant'smotiveattriallikewisetoshowthathewasnotguiltyoIrapingandmurderingvictim.NMRA,Rules5302(C),11804(A)(5),(B)(1).
Statev.Lopez,2011-NMSC-035,258P.3d458(N.M.2011).
ENDOFSUPPLEMENT]
Both the Sixth Amendment's conIrontation clause and the rules oI evidence bar admission oI previous testimony oI an unavailable witness, unless the deIendant had a prior
opportunityandsimilarmotivetocross-examinethewitness.Statev.Benn,161Wash.2d256,165P.3d1232(2007),petitionIorcert.Iiled(U.S.Jan.7,2008).
|FN2|U.S.v.DiNapoli,8F.3d909,38Fed.R.Evid.Serv.277,138A.L.R.Fed.739
(2dCir.1993);Peoplev.Seijas,36Cal.4th291,30Cal.Rptr.3d493,114P.3d742(2005).
ThepreliminaryhearingtestimonyoIanattemptedmurdervictim,whodiedinanunrelatedhomicidebeIoretrial,wasadmissible;thedeIendanthadasimilarinterestand
similar motives Ior cross-examining the victim at the preliminary hearing, that is, challenging the witness's credibility and discrediting his account oI shooting, even iI
counselwasnotthenawareoIthevictim'sillegaldrugactivities.Peoplev.Harris,37Cal.4th310,33Cal.Rptr.3d509,118P.3d545(2005),cert.denied,547U.S.1065,
126S.Ct.1655,164L.Ed.2d411(2006).
|FN3|U.S.v.DiNapoli,8F.3d909,38Fed.R.Evid.Serv.277,138A.L.R.Fed.739(2dCir.1993).
Astotheuse,incivilcase,oIIormertestimonyincriminalcase,see908.
AstotherightoIaccusedtoreproduceIormertestimony,see907.
|FN5|Peoplev.Harris,37Cal.4th310,33Cal.Rptr.3d509,118P.3d545(2005),cert.denied,547U.S.1065,126S.Ct.1655,164L.Ed.2d411(2006).
|FN6| People v. Harris, 37 Cal. 4th 310, 33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 509, 118 P.3d 545 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1065, 126 S. Ct. 1655,164 L. Ed. 2d 411 (2006);State v.
DeSantiago,149Wash.2d402,68P.3d1065(2003).
|FN7|Rodriguezv.State,711P.2d410(Wyo.1985).
|FN8|Statev.Brooks,638P.2d537(Utah1981).
a.InGeneral
919.Motiveandopportunityforcross-examinationIncriminalproceedings
A.L.R.Library
AdmissibilityoruseincriminaltrialoItestimonygivenatpreliminaryproceedingbywitnessnotavailableattrial,38A.L.R.4th378
TheuseoIaIormerwitness'testimonyisnotviolativeoItheaccused'sconstitutionalrighttobeconIrontedwithwitnessesagainsthimorheriI,atthepreliminaryhearing
orIormertrial,theaccusedhadbeenaccordedanadequateopportunitytocross-examinesuchwitness.|FN1|AcourtwillnotimputetoadeIendantwhoIleesbeIoretrial
knowledgethatheorshewaivedhisorherrighttocross-examinewitnessesagainsthimorher.|FN2|
The requirement that the party against whom the evidence is to be admitted must have been able to conduct cross-examination at the Iormer proceeding is generally
satisIiediItheIormertestimonycomesIromanotherhearingoIthesamecriminalproceeding,suchasbeIoreagrandjuryiIthehearsaytestimonyisoIIeredagainstthe
government,|FN3| or Irom a prior trial oI the same criminal deIendant.|FN4| A preliminary hearing aIIords a constitutionally adequate opportunity to cross-examine
opposingwitnesses,especiallywhereextensivecross-examinationisconductedbythesamecounselwhorepresentedthedeIendantattrial,andthehearingisconducted
beIoreajudicialtribunalequippedtoprovideajudicialrecordoIthehearing.|FN5|TranscriptsoIpriorstateprosecutionshavebeenexcludedIromIederalprosecutions
onthegroundthattheIederalgovernmenthadnoopportunitytocross-examineinthestateproceedings.|FN6|
AdeIendantisnotentitled,undertheConIrontationClause,toacross-examinationthatiseIIectiveinwhateverwayandtowhateverextentdeIensemightwish.|FN7|IIa
partyagainstwhomthetestimonyisnowoIIeredistheoneagainstwhomthetestimonywasoIIeredpreviously,nounIairnessisapparentinrequiringthepartytoaccept
hisorherownpriorconductoIcross-examinationordecisionnottocross-examine.Consequently,thecourt'sinquiryIocusesnotontheextentoIcross-examinationat
theIormerproceedingbutonwhethertheparty'shandlingoIthetestimonywasmeaningIulinlightoIthecircumstanceswhichprevailedwhentheIormertestimonywas
oIIered.|FN8|
Cases:
DeIendant's right to conIront witnesses at trial in capital murder prosecution was not violated simply because prosecution witness,at in limine hearing to determine
whetherhecouldinvokeprivilegeagainstselI-incriminationIorpurposesoItrial,testiIiedonbothdirectandcross-examinationthathehadtoldthetruthatpreliminary
hearing,thoughwitness'spreliminaryhearingtestimonywasadmittedattrialbecauseoIhisunavailabilityasresultoIassertingtheprivilege;witness'sanswertogeneral
questioncallingIorhisratiIicationoIhispreliminaryhearingtestimonyhadnoimpactondeIendant'sconIrontationrights.Peoplev.Williams,43Cal.4th584,75Cal.
Rptr.3d691,181P.3d1035(2008),cert.denied,129S.Ct.1000,173L.Ed.2d298(2009).
TestimonyoIwitness,wholivedtwomilesIromvictim'shouse,IrompriorcapitalmurdertrialwasadmissibleatIourthtrial,sincewitnesswasunavailableIortrial,issues
wereunchanged,deIendanthadprioropportunitytocross-examineher,andhertestimonyrevealedprobativeandrelevantIactsIorjury.Murrayv.State,3So. 3d1108
(Fla.2009).
DeIendantontrialIorIelonymurderhadanopportunityandsimilarmotivetocrossexamineatthepreliminaryhearingawitnesswhowasunavailableIortrial,suchthat
admissionoIwitness'spreliminary-hearingtestimonywasadmissibleattrialundertheexceptiontothehearsayruleIorastatementoIanunavailablewitness;purposeoI
the preliminary hearing was to determine whether there was probable cause to believe that deIendant committed an oIIense, deIendant's motive Ior cross examining
witnesswastoshowthatdeIendantdidnotrapeandmurdervictim,anddeIendant'smotiveattriallikewisetoshowthathewasnotguiltyoIrapingandmurderingvictim.
NMRA,Rules5302(C),11804(A)(5),(B)(1).Statev.Lopez,2011-NMSC-035,258P.3d458(N.M.2011).
Cross-examination, and thus conIrontation, has been accomplished, in context oI determining admissibility at trial oI an unavailable witness's preliminary hearing
testimony, where the deIendant has had the opportunity to cross-examine witness at preliminary hearing, probing into areas such as bias and testing the veracity oI the
testimony,andthisisparticularlysoincaseswherethedeIendantwasrepresentedbythesamecounselatthepreliminaryhearingandattrial.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.6.
Com.v.Wholaver,989A.2d883(Pa.2010).
ENDOFSUPPLEMENT]
|FN1|U.S.v.Davis,551F.2d233,1Fed.R.Evid.Serv.833(8thCir.1977);Statev.Browder,507So.2d1040(Ala.Crim.App.1987);Peoplev.Brock,38Cal.3d180,
211Cal.Rptr.122,695P.2d209(1985);Alstonv.U.S.,383A.2d307(D.C.1978);Stearsmanv.State,237Ind.149,143N.E.2d81(1957);Statev.Brown,181Kan.
375,312P.2d832(1957);Com.v.SiegIriedt,402Mass.424,522N.E.2d970(1988);Peoplev.Sinclair,327Mich.686,42N.W.2d786(1950);Meyersv.State,112Neb.
149,198N.W.871(1924);Aesophv.State,102Nev.316,721P.2d379(1986);Peoplev.Hayes,110A.D.2d1035,489N.Y.S.2d19(4thDep't1985);Statev.Prince,270
N.C.769,154S.E.2d897(1967);Statev.Swiden,62S.D.208,252N.W.628(1934);Fisherv.Com.,217Va.808,232S.E.2d798(1977);Pettitv.Rhay,62Wash.2d
515,383P.2d889(1963).
|FN2|U.S.v.Deeb,13F.3d1532,38Fed.R.Evid.Serv.1087(11thCir.1994).
|FN3|U.S.v.Henry,448F.Supp.819,3Fed.R.Evid.Serv.340(D.N.J.1978).
|FN4|U.S.v.Pizarro,717F.2d336,14Fed.R.Evid.Serv.1(7thCir.1983);U.S.v.Davis,551F.2d233,1Fed.R.Evid.Serv.833(8thCir.1977).
AdeIendanthadanadequateopportunityandsimilarmotive,inaIirsttrial,todevelopawitness'stestimonybydirect,cross,orredirectexamination,aswouldwarrant
theadmissionoIthatpriortestimonyatretrialinwhichthewitnesswasunavailable;cross-examinationintheIirsttrialmadeaseriouseIIorttoundermineanddiscredit
thewitness'stestimony,mattersindisputeattheIirsttrialwereessentiallyidenticaltothoseindisputeatretrial,andtheimportanceoIthosematterstotheoutcomeoI
bothproceedingswasthesame.U.S.v.Mejia,376F.Supp.2d460(S.D.N.Y.2005).
|FN5|CaliIorniav.Green,399U.S.149,90S.Ct.1930,26L.Ed.2d489(1970).
ThetestimonyoIawitnessatasuppressionhearing,atwhichacapitalmurderdeIendantsoughttosuppressawitness'spre-trialidentiIicationoIhimandanyresultingin-
courtidentiIications,wasadmissibleattrialundertheexceptiontotheruleagainsthearsayIorIormertestimonywhenthedeclarantisunavailable,asdeIensecounselhad
asimilarmotiveatbothproceedingsinhiscross-examinationoIthewitness,thatis,heneededtoshoweitherthatthewitnesswas mistakeninheridentiIication,orthat
shewasbiasedinsomeway,andthesuppressionhearingwasaIull-Iledgedhearing,inthattheprosecutorpresentedthewitness'stestimonyatthesuppressionhearingto
placethedeIendantatthemurderscene,andheusedhertestimonytoaccomplishthesameobjectiveattrial.Bertrandv.State,363Ark.422,214S.W.3d822(2005).
|FN6|U.S.v.Barrett,766F.2d609,18Fed.R.Evid.Serv.1170(1stCir.1985).
|FN7|Com.v.SiegIriedt,402Mass.424,522N.E.2d970(1988).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a capital murder deIendant's motion to bar Irom admission prior testimony oI a crime scene technician in the
deIendant'sre-trial,asthedeIendanthadanopportunityattheIirsttrialtocross-examinethe
technician,themotiveandIocusoIthatcross-examinationwasthesameasthatwhichwouldhaveguidedthecross-examinationathisre-trial,theIactthatthedeIendant's
convictions were reversed based on prior counsel's ineIIectiveness in Iailing to investigate certain evidence did not provide a basis Ior concluding that counsel's cross-
examinationoIthetechnicianattheIirsttrialwasnecessarilydeIicient,andthetechnician'stestimonywasnecessarytostate'scase.Peoplev.Sutherland,223Ill.2d187,
307Ill.Dec.524,860N.E.2d178(2006),asmodiIiedondenialoIreh'g,(Dec.4,2006)andcert.denied,128S.Ct.70,169L.Ed.2d55(U.S.2007).
|FN8|U.S.v.Pizarro,717F.2d336,14Fed.R.Evid.Serv.1(7thCir.1983).
ForthepurposeoIadmittingpriortestimonyoIanunavailablewitness,thedeIendant'sinterestandmotiveIorcross-examinationatasecondproceedingis
notdissimilartohisorherinterestataIirstproceeding,simplybecauseeventsoccurringaItertheIirstproceedingmighthaveledcounseltoalterthenature
andscopeoIcross-examinationoIthewitnessincertainparticulars.Peoplev.Harris,37Cal.4th310,33Cal.Rptr.3d509,118P.3d545(2005),cert.denied,
547U.S.1065,126S.Ct.1655,164L.Ed.2d411(2006).
FordiscussionoItheaccused'srighttoconIrontwitnesses,generally,seeAm.Jur.2d,CriminalLaw1072.
|FN9|Scottv.State,272Ark.88,612S.W.2d110(1981);Rodriguezv.State,711P.2d410(Wyo.1985).
ParticularTypesoIEvidence
2.Testimony,inGeneral
a.InGeneral
1364.Effectofwitnesses'credibility,generally
A.L.R.Library
NecessityoI,andprejudicialeIIectoIomitting,cautionaryinstructiontojuryastoreliabilityoI,orIactorstobeconsideredinevaluating,eyewitnessidentiIicationtestimonystate
cases,23A.L.R.4th1089
UseoIdrugsasaIIectingcompetencyorcredibilityoIwitness,65A.L.R.3d705
Forms
Am.Jur.PleadingandPracticeForms,Evidence176,177,179(FactorstobeconsideredinascertainingorevaluatingcredibilityoIwitnesses)
The IactIinder is Iree to determine the credibility oI the witnesses.|FN1| More speciIically, a trier oI Iact has the power to accept or reject, in whole or in part, a witness's
testimony.|FN2|
AtrieroIIactisIreetobelieveordisbelieveanexpertwitness.|FN3|
When the testimony oI a witness is not believed, the trier oI Iact may simply disregard it; normally, the discredited testimony is not considered a suIIicient basis Ior drawinga
contraryconclusion.|FN4|However,ajurymaynotproperlydisregardthetestimonyoIawitness,
evenaninterestedone,withoutsomereasontodosothatisapparentIromtherecord.|FN5|Ithassometimesbeenstatedthatajuryisnotpermittedtodisbelievetestimonyunless
thereisgoodreasonIorquestioningthecredibilityoIthewitnesses.|FN6|
Observation:
WherethereisconIlictingtestimonyaboutIactualmatters,theresolutionoIwhichdependsuponadeterminationoIthecredibilityoIthewitnesses,thematterisoneoItheweightoI
theevidence,notitssuIIiciency.|FN7|Inotherwords,attacksonwitnesscredibilityaresimplechallengestothequalityandnottothesuIIiciencyoItheevidence.|FN8|
AjuryisIreetorejectthetestimonyoIadeIendantwherethattestimonyisinconsistentwithotherdirectorcircumstantialevidence.|FN9|ThetrieroIIactmaytakeintoconsideration
allthecircumstancesoIthecase,|FN10|suchaswhetherthetestimonyisreasonableandconsistentwithotherevidence;thewitness'sappearance,conduct,memoryandknowledgeoI
theIacts;thewitness'sinterestinthetrial;|FN11|andthewitness'semotionalormentalstate.|FN12|ThetrieroIIactmayalsoconsidertherelationshipoIthewitnessestotheparty
involvedandtheirIeelingstowardstheparty.|FN13|AIamilyrelationshipbetweenawitnessandaparty,Iorexample,maybearuponthewitness'sbias;theIactoItherelationship
doesnotestablishbias,butissimplyacircumstanceconsideredbytheIact-Iinderinappraisingcredibility.|FN14|
Cases:
Whenevidenceismerelypotentiallyexculpatory,theIailuretopreservepotentiallyuseIulevidencedoesnotconstituteadenialoIdueprocessoIlawunlessthedeIendantcanshow
badIaithonthepartoIthepolice.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.14.Statev.Lehr,254P.3d379(Ariz.2011),petitionIorcert.Iiled(U.S.July27,2011).
JuryalonedetermineswhatweighttogiveevidenceandmayrejectitoracceptalloranypartoIitthatthejurorsbelievetobetrue.Smithv.State, 2010Ark. 75,2010WL565246
(2010).
ThetrieroIIactmaycreditpartoIawitness'stestimonyandrejectotherparts.Statev.MichaelH.,291Conn.754,970A.2d113(2009).
TrieroIIactmaycreditpartoIawitness'stestimonyandrejectotherparts.Hicksv.State,287Conn.421,948A.2d982(2008).
ThetrieroIIacthastherighttoacceptpartanddisregardpartoIthetestimonyoIawitness.Costanzov.Gray,112Conn.App.614,963A.2d 1039(2009),certiIicationdenied,291
Conn.905,967A.2d1220(2009).
AtrieroIIactisthesolearbiteroIcredibility,andthusisIreetoacceptorreject,inwholeorinpart,thetestimonyoIIeredbyeitherparty.Somersv.Chan,110Conn.App.511,955
A.2d667(2008).
JurorsmayconsiderthetenoroIawitness'stestimonyindecidingwhethertobelievethewordsthatwitnesshasspokenonthestand,butjurorscannotIindinthosemannerismswords
andentiresentencesunspokenincourtandusesuchconstructstosupplementtheactualevid
encetorenderaverdictthatsuitstheirsenseoIIairnessnotwithstandingthelaw.Statev.Brooks,263P.3d161(Kan.2011).
ThetrieroIIacthastherighttobelievetheevidencepresentedbyonelitigantinpreIerencetoanother.Millerv.Com.,283S.W.3d690(Ky.2009).
ThetrieroIIactmaybelieveanywitnessinwholeorinpart.Millerv.Com.,283S.W.3d690(Ky.2009).
ThetrieroIIactmaytakeintoconsiderationallthecircumstancesoIthecase,includingthecredibilityoIthewitness.Millerv.Com.,283S.W.3d690(Ky.2009).
ConIlicting expert testimonyoIten called a "battle oI the experts"requires the Iact-Iinder to assign credibility, and the Iact-Iinder is Iree to accept or reject any oI the expert
opinions.Estateexrel.Campbellv.CalhounHealthServices,66So.3d129(Miss.2011).
JuryisIreetobelieveordisbelieveanyoIthewitnesstestimony.Statev.Celis-Garcia,344S.W.3d150(Mo.2011).
ENDOFSUPPLEMENT]
|FN1|Com.v.Cousar,593Pa.204,928A.2d1025(2007),petitionIorcert.Iiled
(U.S.Jan.22,2008).
CredibilitydeterminationsarewithinthesoleprovinceoIthejury.Com.,Dept.oIGeneralServicesv.U.S.MineralProductsCo.,927A.2d717(Pa.Commw.Ct.2007).
|FN2|JeIIersv.State,934A.2d908(Del.2007);Taylorv.Taylor,288Ga.App.334,654S.E.2d146(2007);Porterv.Hu,116Haw.42,169P.3d994(Ct.App.2007);Statev.Ware,
959So.2d459(La.2007);Peoplev.Schumacher,276Mich.App.165,740N.W.2d534(2007),appealdenied,480Mich.1043,743N.W.2d876(2008);Conradv.Michelle&John,
Inc.,394N.J.Super.1,925A.2d54(App.Div.2007);Com.v.Faulk,2007PASuper185,928A.2d1061(2007);Russov.State, 228S.W.3d779(Tex. App.Austin2007),petition
IordiscretionaryreviewreIused,(Dec.5,2007).
|FN3| Lubetzky v. Friedman, 228 Cal. App. 3d 35, 278 Cal. Rptr. 706 (2d Dist. 1991), opinion modiIied, (Mar. 19, 1991);Mather v. GriIIin Hosp., 207 Conn. 125, 540 A.2d666
(1988);Simsv.Dibler,172OhioApp.3d486,2007-Ohio-3035,875N.E.2d965(7thDist.JeIIersonCounty2007).
WeightoIexpertopinionandinsanitydeIense,see1420.
|FN4|Evans-Reidv.DistrictoIColumbia,930A.2d930(D.C.2007).
|FN5|Whitev.GreaterArizonaBicyclingAss'n,216Ariz.133,163P.3d1083(Ct.App.Div.22007).
|FN6|Pagev.Crisp,303S.C.117,399S.E.2d161(Ct.App.1990).
|FN7|Statev.Wilhite,961So.2d565(La.Ct.App.2dCir.2007),writdenied,973So.2d755(La.2008).
AssessingweightandsuIIiciencygenerally,see1357.|FN8|U.S.v.Lee,991F.2d343(6thCir.1993).|FN9|Alvinv.State,287Ga.App.350,651S.E.2d489
(2007).Circumstantialevidence,generally,see1361.|FN10|Bissellv.Baumgardner,236S.W.3d24(Ky.Ct.App.2007).|FN11|Statev.Frake,450N.W.2d817
(Iowa1990).InconsistentorconIlictingevidence,generally,see1371,1372.TheIactIindermaytreataninterestedwitness'stestimonyasconclusiveiIitisclear,
direct,andpositiveandtherearenocircumstancestendingtodiscreditorimpeachthe
same.Wilzv.Flournoy,228S.W.3d674(Tex.2007).
|FN12|U.S.v.Martinez,877F.2d1480(10thCir.1989),statingthattheIactthata
witnesswasateenagerwithahistoryoIemotionalproblemsandthatanotherwasa
drugaddictwereimpeachingIactswhichposedacredibilityissuetoberesolvedbythe
IactIinderandwereproperlyleItIorthejurytoconsider.
Awitness'sparanoiaandpsychiatrictreatmentdoesnotnecessarilymakehistestimony
Subject: request to meet, conIer, and prepare Ior trial LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE
Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlinhotmail.com) 9/13/12
To: jlesliewashoecounty.us, bdoganwashoecounty.us, jboslerwashoecounty.us,
enovakwashoecounty.us, sheriIIwebwashoecounty.us, lstuchellwashoecounty.us, ormaasareno.gov,
drakejreno.gov, zyoungda.washoecounty.us, hsotelotmcc.edu, aclunvaclunv.org,
williamhornelawIirm.com, jIriersonasm.state.nv.us, tsegerblomasm.state.nv.us, jluntwashoecounty.us,
lcarlsonwashoecounty.us, emartinwashoecounty.us, mpickesqmsn.com, I.Iorsmancox.net
Sent: Thu 9/13/12 5:16 AM
To: jlesliewashoecounty.us; bdoganwashoecounty.us; jboslerwashoecounty.us;
enovakwashoecounty.us; sheriIIwebwashoecounty.us; lstuchellwashoecounty.us; ormaasareno.gov;
drakejreno.gov; zyoungda.washoecounty.us; hsotelotmcc.edu; aclunvaclunv.org;
williamhornelawIirm.com; jIriersonasm.state.nv.us; tsegerblomasm.state.nv.us; jluntwashoecounty.us;
lcarlsonwashoecounty.us; emartinwashoecounty.us; mpickesqmsn.com; I.Iorsmancox.net
Dear Mr. Leslie and Mr. Dogan AND VARIOUS PROSECUTORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENICES,

ATTENTION, THIS IS A LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE. PLEASE KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOW
REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN ANY MEDIA AND RECORDS IN YOUR POSSESSION, OR TO WHICH YOU
COULD BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO ACQUIRE OR MAINTAIN, THAT RELATE IN ANY WAY TO
THE VARIOUS WRONGFUL ARRESTS OF ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN THAT YOUR AGENCIES HAVE
ENGAGED IN OVER THE PAST 14 MONTHS. RENO CITY ORMAAS, THE LAST TIME I DISCUSSED
SOMETHING WITH YOU THAT YOU ARGUABLY HAD A DUTY TO DOCUMENT AND FOLLOW UP
ON, I WOUND UP BEING KIDNAPPED AND HAD MY SMARTPHONE EXTRACTED FROM MY
CLUTCHES, ONLY TO HAVE IT AND A MICRO SD CARD RETURNED WIPED OF DATA, DATA
WHICH YOU APPARENTLY WERE FEARFUL MIGHT SOMEHOW SUGGEST A PURPOSEFUL TACT
ON YOUR PART TO AVOID DOCUMENTING ANY MISCONDUCT BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES YOU WORK WITH AND WHICH YOUR CIVIL DIVISION DEFENDS IN WRONGFUL
ARREST LAWSUITS. THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE SITUATION DDA YOUNG FINDS HIMSELF IN
CURRENTLY IN PROSECUTING COUGHLIN FOR "MISUSE OF 911" WHERE COUGHLIN
ALLEGEDLY CALLED 911 TO REPORT MISCONDUCT CAUSING HIM SERIOUS FEAR BY LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT. KIND OF A TRICKY THING TO PROSECUTE, SOME MIGHT SAY.
ANYWAYS...

I have been calling and or writing both oI you on a daily basis and have not received any response Irom either
oI you. This is interesting considering Mr. Leslie's statements in his email below Irom 9 4 2012. Please
indicate a list oI dates and time when I can meet with either oI you (and hopeIully not some "investigator" like
Larry Carlsen who just sits there all empty headed and careIree, only to later admit he had done absolutely no
work on my case, despite sitting in on two meetings, and that he had no plans to do any work or investigation on
my case....

Jim, the RCR2011-063341 Trial resumes on October 15th, 2012. Despite your indication to the court on
September 5th, 2012, the conclusion oI the Trial will take more than an hour. I don't think you get it. I really
don't think you get it, Jim. There is a lot oI work to do, and since the Court has ruled that I am stuck with you
(until at least the competency evaluation is complete), you are still attorney oI record, and have a duty to
prepare Ior trial. Also, check out Goodnight's Request Ior Submission on May 5th, 2012. Notice that it asks Ior
something therein. Why didn't you or Joe ever Iollow up on that? That is prejudicial to my interests.
1/10

Biray, I am still waiting to hear back Irom you regarding why you have Iailed to provide me a copy oI my Iile in
RCR2012-065630. On July 26th, 2012 at 2:16pm you indicated that you personally had provided me the Iile
during my previous visit to the oIIice. By 2:18 you had changed that story to one where you saw Jim Leslie
give me the Iile. By 2:19 pm you indicated that it was not true that a manilla Iolder containing my Iile had
been placed Ior me at the Iront desk Ior a Iew days, then returned back to the oIIice, despite your receptionist
conIirming this. We don't need to get into what Leslie Thibault has to say about you, either oI you, do we?

I want you to Iax or email me my Iile, preIerably email. That way, there is no debate, you have prooI you sent
it, and I will have it. II you must Iax it Iine, my Iax is 949 667 7402. II you want to continue motivating me,
then go ahead and be a pain and tell me I have to pick it up, or that you already think you or Jim provided it and
"are we going to just keep doing this over and over where we provide you copies and copies oI the same thing"
blah, blah. Go ahead, Biray. Go ahead.

Now, surely, you have documentation oI what you have provided me already, Birary. Good. Now, check to see
iI any "Discovery" you have provided me includes the dispatch reports Irom the night oI the January 14th, 2012
arrest, or iI it just contains Schaur's Narrative and dispatch reports Irom the wee small hours oI January 12th-
13th, when RPD Duralde (whom Mr. Leslie cross examined the other day while making argument to the Court
that "nobody did anything wrong in this case, certainly not the RPD). Actually, Mr. Leslie, I Iiled a complaint
with the RPD (or attempted to, sometimes they reIuse to accept such things) on or about September 7th, 2011,
and OIIicer Rosa clearly did some things wrong on the video oI the arrest, so...

Birary, please serve a subpoena duces tecum on the WCDA and the RPD, and the emergency services division
gathering the media recordings made by emergency services oI the arrest on January 14th, 2012 and the events
leading up to that arrest, including the many 911 calls and responses by the RPD in relation to the domestic
violence I was a victim oI at 1422 E. 9th St., Reno, NV 89512, and Ior which I received two Protection Orders
in FV12-00187 and FV12-00188 (see attached). Please subpoena and interview prior to Trial, and disclose as a
witness I intend to call at trial (I have an inviolable Right to Subpoena Witnesses, and no "means and
objectives" versus "tactics" claptrap out oI you or Leslie is changing that. both Sargent Paul SiIre (whom
directed both the arrest on January 12th, 2012 Ior "jaywalking" wherein excessive Iorce was used on me by
RPD OIIicer Look and Leedy), while SiIre obstructed justice by turning oII my video camera, and Sargent Zach
Thew, whom had in the days previous to the January 14th, 2012 arrest at 1422 E. 9th St. (I returned home that
evening to Iind my dog missing and my violent abusive roomates making menacing statements in that regard)
had given me permission to call him and provided two numbers at which to do so, one oI which was the 911,
and the other was a 334- number. SiIre directed the arrest by Schaur on January 14th, 2012, and I have
provided you a video oI SiIre chiding me immediately prior to the arrest Ior "placing yourselI in situations
where you are the victim". From my time in the domestic violence advocacy sphere I know such a viewpoint is
common to an abuser, and that is what SiIre is. Further, please subpoena the records related to Sargent SiIre
detaining me Ior an hour outside oI my sister's house and allowing my dog to escape and be lost (Ior which the
County is still impermissibly seeking to bill me).

II you don't want to do these things, please provide a response in writing that I can copy and past into my
Complaint and greivance against you should your response be as tepid and transparent as the ones you have
provided in the past. Further, I demand that you Iile (aIter presenting a DraIt Ior my approval) a Motion to
Dismiss based upon the insuIIiciency oI the inIormation in the complaint and upon the Iact that the arrest was
Ior alleged conduct that did not occur in the presence oI the oIIicer (does the discovery you have, or which may
be in the court's Iile speak to conduct on the days previous?). I also want you to develop a deIense that points to
the comparable misue oI 911 by my sister and or Corey Goble, and the retalitatory nature oI this arrest and
2/10
prosecution, especially vis a vis the pullover by Duralde and 4-5 other oIIicers later at night on January 12th,
2012, and the suspicious and coercive attempts to dissuade my testimony by RPD Sargent Dye and Weaver on
September 4th, 2012 Ior the Trial oI that day in 12 CR 12420 (which involves the Northwind Apartments
situation that Mr. Leslie is active within, or should be, in RCR2012-067980). Sargent Dye just happened to roll
up into an empty parking lot I was in at 12:15 am on September 4th, 2012 wanting ot discuss the Trial in 12 CR
12420 that was to take place hours later in the RMC. We talked about cell phone providers selling GPS data to
law enIorcement and the potential Ior abuse thereoI by retaliatory policing enthusiasts, which Dane Claussen
and the Nevada chapter oI the ACLU are doing such Iind advocacy against:

https://ssl.capwiz.com/aclu/issues/alert/?alertid61029581&typeCO?
ssrcUNW120001C00&mswebactiongpsact2homepage
http://www.aclu.org/node/34902

Speaking oI the use oI Iorce reporting requirements, I wonder iI the Washoe County Jail charted the beatings I
endured there while serving 18 days in jail on a Soldal v. Cook County violating "disturbing the peace" arrest by
RPD Sargent Weaver and OIIicer Dye aIter I pointed out that unauthorized practitioner's oI law (they advertise
as a "Iull service eviction consulting Iirm") Nevada Court Services and RPD Lieutenant Brown where actually
wrong in suggesting that one could be arrested Ior criminal trespass where he still has a valid lease to a rental in
the Northwind Apartments complex, and that RPD Sargent Miller et al would be unwise to Iollow the tact oI
JeII Chandler and Nevada Court Services...Yes Sargent Miller et al persisted in threatening a lease holder oII the
property with criminal trespass charges, on to clean it up a little a Iew days later and decide to hedge their bets a
bit more with a "disturbing the peace" charge, whereupon Sargent Dye and OIIicer Weaver showed up to an
unnoticed bail hearing days later and succeeded in getting Jill Drake, Esq. to violate RPC 3.8 and Nevada Law
in advocating Ior a bail increase (Irom a bondable $1,415 to a cash only $3,000) based upon "public health and
saIety" rationale, where Nevada law only allows Ior bail to be set based upon one purpose, insuring the
deIendant's appearance at Trial.

Then, in court that morning while awaiting Trial, RPD OIIicer Dye gave Coughlin the old menacing
exaggerated eye wink move. Nice. Speaking oI that, Mr. Leslie, I am demanding that you draIt Ior my
approval Ior Iiling a Motion to Dismiss similar to the one above in that DDA Young's Complaint lack a
suIIiciently detailed speciIication oI the Iacts support the elements oI the crime charge, etc. Please also draIt a
Motion to Suppresss based upon the lack oI reasonableness in making such an arrest, especially in the manner
in which it was made, given the advance notice that was provided to the RJC, WCSO and RPD with respect to
the insuIIiciency oI the 5 day unlawIul detainer notice in light oI AB 227 and the dictates oI NRS 40.253, which
require the appropriate court to Iile a Tenant's Answer be listed on such an UnlawIul Detainer Notice to Quit.
The Notice, which was draIted by a non-attorney Ior Nevada Court Services, which commits the unauthorized
practice oI law, which DDA Young is enabling) listed Sparks Justice Court, rather than Reno Justice Court. Mr.
Leslie, I demand that you procure and provide a copy to me oI the Hearing on that eviction RJC Rev2012-
001048 and in the TPO Hearing in RJC RCP2012-00287, wherein the testimony oI Milan Krebs and Dwayne
Jakob relates to their percipient knowledge oI the Iacts and events immediately involved in the arrest in
RCR2012-067980. I have checked the Court records and you have so Iar Iailed to Order any oI these. Please
do.

I still have not heard Irom either oI you with regard to whether the Trial in RCR2012-065630 at 9 am is vacated
due to the Order Ior Competency Evaluation Mr. Leslie procured in RCR2011-063341 on September 5th, 2012,
and whether the same is true Ior the hearing that I believe is set Ior October 2nd (please conIirm this to me in
writing and provide a time, in addition to a time to meet to prepare Ior that hearing, which seeks to amend the
3/10
charge to one that is not only lacking in probable cause and indicative oI a retaliatory prosecution, but which
will have worse consequences Ior me under SCR 111(6), than would a gross misdemeanor. Mr. Dogan and Mr.
Leslie, Please reply in writing with a a citation to the NRS that prevents a police oIIicer Irom making a
custodial arrest aIter 7pm, such as the one on January 14th, 2012, Ior a non-Ielony not committed in his
presence. Mr. Leslie, you Iailed to cite to that statute in Trial in RCR2011-063341, and seeing as how you
haven't Iiled a single page oI any legal work in that case...Speaking oI people who are lucky enough to get paid
Ior not doing any work:

Name Evo Novak
Position CHIEF INVESTIGATOR (PD)
Washoe County
Notice
For Washoe County, "Total Pay" Iigures include many pay categories not included in the "Base Pay" or
"Overtime" Iigures, including: longevity, bonus pay, premium pays, allowances and mileage reimbursement.
Year 2009
Base Pay $79,581.60
Overtime and
Callback Collected $0.00
Total Pay $80,631.60
BeneIits Accumulated$27,968.74
Total Pay & BeneIits $108,600.34
Mr. Leslie, I bet Larry Carlson is glad you asked him to sit in on two client meetings with Coughlin when you
mysteriously decided to replace Joe Goodnight, Esq. aIter his "shadowy" removal Irom the case just minutes
beIore Trial on July 16th, 2012 in RJC RCR2012-063341. I will remind you, Mr. Leslie, that iI I believe you
are or are about to commit perjury upon the Court I have a duty to take certain steps to address any such
malIeasance on your part. So,please have your legal assistant Linda Gray under subpoena and ready to testiIy at
the resumption oI the Trial on October 15th, 2012.

Carlson Lawrence W Public DeIender - INVESTIGATOR II (PD)$65,711.44 $0.00 $1,550.00
$26,992.07 $94,253.51 Washoe County 2011

Email:
jluntwashoecounty.us
Right oI indigent deIendant in state criminal case to assistance oI investigators. 81 A.L.R.4th 259 (Originally
published in 1990).

I am trying to think oI even one thing Mr. Novak or Mr. Carlson, or any WCPD Investigator did on any oI the
three case in which your oIIices has represented me this year that would, you know, tend to Iurther the
"advocacy" the various public deIenders have put Iorth.....Yeah, I got nothing. Can you help me out here, Evo?
Can you name something besides saying, again: "I called the witnesses and asked them iI their stories were true
and they said "yes" and so I said "thanks" and that concluded my investigation, don't tell me how to do my job,
you're not the boss oI me."
I like that Jeremy Bosler, Esq. I have seen some real changes in him lately. JT lookin' sharp these days. Not
many people know this, but most people knew him as "Gator" in college, and it wasn't uncommon to hear him
4/10
say things like: "Gator don't play no sh*t. Gator ain't never been about playin' no sh*t....". Rumor is he gettin'
tired oI trying ot make chicken salad out oI chicken sh....well, you get the idea. Sure would be nice to see his
people do a little bit better by him. AIter all, he has come so Iar Irom being known as the Washoe County
District Attorney's "hand-picked" Public DeIender, going to Iar as to pull his lawyers out oI the Sixth
Amendment questionable Early Case Resolution program (ECR) in Febuary oI 2008.

http://www.aclunv.org/press/aclu-nevada-petitions-nevada-supreme-court-provide-amicus-support-ECR-
challenge

But, a lot oI his accomplishments do sound kind oI "social work"-esque, rather than shoring up, say, the oIIices
practices to counter retaliatory prosecutions and arrests, prosecutor misconduct, protecting deIendant's privacy
rights (no saying any names now....but Biray Dogan likes to read Mental Health Court patients prescriptions
into the open record in a public courtroom Iull oI Iorty members oI the public aIter weeks oI talkin' up the
extreme privacy saIeguards and HIPAA this'n'that oI the MHC program, then Bosler and Dogan reIuse to seek
to srike or otherwise ameliorate Dogan's bone head move...unless, it was a retaliatory move that was actually
rather premeditated....hmmmn....). Mr. Bosler's social work includes a lengthy list oI achievements, its just that
not many oI them have anything to do with say, expanding the scope oI, say Terry, or utilizing the import oI
Soldal v. Cook County, or developing approaches to combat all the pre-textual police work going on amongst
local law enIorcement. Rather, most oI his "accomplishments" seem to stem Irom a place oI viewing the
deIendant as guilty and unhealthy and, iI he is really lucky, getting into some "alternative" Iorum to avoid the
clobbering the deIendant would Iace upon Iacing attorneys with the WCDA who have "brieI banks" and stuII:

Under Mr. Bosler`s direction, the Washoe County Public DeIender's OIIice has had many accomplishments
including:
Renegotiating a drug evaluation contract to maintain uniIorm quality oI evaluations produced and create cost
certainty
Installed Language Line in oIIice to provide immediate telephonic access Ior clients and the public to 150
diIIerent language interpreters
Established a Iormal Internship Program withBoydLawSchool to attract and retain Nevada students in Public
Interest law
Created a County Services/Community InIormation kiosk in oIIice to assist clients and public
Provided specialized training to the Reno Police Department`s Crisis Intervention Team on identiIying mental
health issues and accessing mental health services to reduce jail overcrowding
Accepted appointment to the Supreme Court Bench Bar Committee to evaluate and improve appellate court
processes and practice
Assisted in development oI standardized pleadings and procedures in criminal competency evaluations to
enhance an accused persons ability to receive treatment towards competency
Initiated participation in the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) with the Washoe County
Department oI Juvenile Services
Established 1-800 line Ior toll Iree communication by out-oI-state clients and witnesses
Our Iuture goals include:
Bring attorney caseloads into compliance with nationally recommended standards
Implement projects to comply with the Adoption and SaIe Families Act (ASFA)
Institute an eIIective legislative advocacy program with Public DeIender's OIIices statewide
Develop a Law Related Education (LRE) program Ior local juvenile population
Participate in electronic data sharing through e-Iiling and a Multi-County Integrated Justice InIormation System
(MCIJIS)
Provide community outreach programs to explain the mission and services oI the Washoe County Public
5/10
DeIender's OIIice

To wit, WCPD Joe Goodnight, Esq. likes to tout the SOLACE Program and a "holistic" approach, just as long
as the actual criminal deIense type stuII (you know legal resarch, Iact gathering, spinning on a level somewhat
commensurate to what you know the DA is willing to do) is the "donut hole" part oI the "holistic" banquet oI
social work the public deIender currently provides. Why, I think it was JenniIer Rains, Esq. who announced at
the Mental Health Court orientation that "the Judge doesn't want to hear anything I have to say, he wants to hear
Irom you!". Great. So that explains why they are giving you $80K and bennies. Then Goodnight admits that,
despite being at the WCPD Ior 8 years deIending misdemeanors, he was unaware oI the deadline to Iile an
appeal upon a convictio oI such a charge, under NRS 189.010. Oh. He also admitted he was unaware that the
Washoe County Law Library had Iree Westlaw access. I mean, Lexis is just so solid, you know.

Then there is Biray Dogan's commentary on the prospect oI actually Iiling some legal work to challenge the
suIIiciency oI a Complaint by "lets throw some mud up and see what sticks" DDA Zach "Norman NiIong"
Young, Esq., whom likes to bring up the accused's "custody status" out oI the blue Ior no discernible reason
other than it sure is a lot easier Ior him to compete against someone when they are locked up, and subject to all
the deprivations oI one's access to justice that the Washoe County Detention Center so, so very good at.
Dogan's comments were: "can't the DA just pretty much say whatever in the Complaint and change it whenever,
and not have to meet any sort oI pleading standard or notice requirements like those I went to law school to
learn about?".

On that note, Biray:

110. Charging particular mode oI commission
West's Key Number Digest
West's Key Number Digest, Larceny k28(1), 34, 35 to 39
A general rule oI criminal pleading is that iI an oIIense may be committed in various modes, the party charged
is entitled to have that mode stated in the indictment which is to be proved on the trial,|FN1| and this rule has
been applied in larceny prosecutions.|FN2| The Model Penal Code states that an accusation oI theIt may be
supported by evidence that it was committed in any manner that would be theIt under the Code Article on theIt,
notwithstanding the speciIication oI a diIIerent manner in the indictment or inIormation, subject only to the
power oI the court to ensure Iair trial by granting a continuance or other appropriate relieI where the conduct oI
the deIense would be prejudiced by lack oI Iair notice or by surprise.|FN3|
Where an act which was not larceny at common law is made larceny by statute, it is not suIIicient to charge the
commission oI larceny merely; rather, the indictment should state the particular act speciIied by statute as
constituting the crime.|FN4| Similarly, an indictment in the common-law Iorm is generally insuIIicient in a
prosecution Ior the larceny under a statute.|FN5|
On the other hand, it has been held that in a prosecution Ior larceny it is not necessary that the manner in which
stolen property was taken and carried away be alleged, and the words "by trick" are not required in an
indictment charging larceny when property was obtained by trick or Iraud.|FN6| A statute may expressly
remove the requirement that a larceny indictment speciIy that the deIendant committed larceny in any particular
manner, except in certain stated cases.|FN7|
Practice Guide:
When the manner oI theIt is not an element oI the oIIense, and the inIormation does not so speciIy, the
inIormation and discovery materials presented to the deIendant may adequately
place him or her on notice oI the manner oI theIt.|FN8|
6/10
The rule that, when a statute characterizes an oIIense in generic terms merely, an inIormation charging the
oIIense must state the speciIic acts on which the charge is based applies to larceny prosecutions.|FN9|
However, in prosecutions under such a statute, there is no necessity oI a detailed speciIication in charging an
ordinary theIt oI property.|FN10|
|FN1| Am. Jur. 2d, Indictments and InIormations 113.
|FN2| Miller v. State, 654 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1983).
|FN3| Model Penal Code 223.1(1) (2001).
|FN4| U.S. v. Northway, 120 U.S. 327, 7 S. Ct. 580, 30 L. Ed. 664 (1887).
|FN5| State v. Jackson, 218 N.C. 373, 11 S.E.2d 149, 131 A.L.R. 143 (1940).
|FN6| State v. Barbour, 153 N.C. App. 500, 570 S.E.2d 126 (2002).
|FN7| People v. Norman, 6 Misc. 3d 317, 789 N.Y.S.2d 613 (Sup 2004).
|FN8| Com. v. Shamberger, 2001 PA Super 351, 788 A.2d 408 (2001).
|FN9| State v. Kesterson, 403 S.W.2d 606 (Mo. 1966).
|FN10| State v. Miles, 412 S.W.2d 473 (Mo. 1967). v. January, 176 S.W.3d 187 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2005).
|FN7| Model Penal Code 223.1(3) (2001).

So, DDA Norman NiIong is charging Coughlin with "petty larceny", and, on the same set oI Iacts (not that
Norman actually set Iorth in any speciIicity whatsoever in his Complaint any actual Iacts) with receiving stolen
property:
111. Joinder oI other oIIenses; election
West's Key Number Digest, Larceny k28(1), 28(4)
A.L.R. Library
Participation in larceny or theIt as precluding conviction Ior receiving or concealing the stolen property, 29
A.L.R.5th 59.

Now, you can lead a Jim Leslie, Esq. to precedent and legal argument, but you can't make him advocate
zealously on a deIendant's behalI, can you? Mr. Marvick knows what I'm talkin' 'bout.

Coughlin was represented by Lew Taitel, Esq. in a criminal trespass matter in Reno Muni Court, 11 CR 26405,
where Coughlin was convicted oI trespass at his Iormer home law oIIice despite the RJC impermissibly taking
$2,275 "rent escrow" Irom Coughlin (there is no LVJCR 44 in Reno Justice Court) during the pendecy oI a
summary eviction proceedign oI a commercial tenant where the non-payment oI rent was neither pled nor
alleged, in violation oI NRS 40.253, and where Taitel (whom is now employed in the ECR program by Washoe
Legal Services, whom Coughlin is suing Ior wrongIul termination aIter WLS Iired domestic violence attorney
Coughlin, Paul Elcano, Executive Director's words, based soley on a $1,000 attorney's Iee sanction Family
Court Judge Linda Gardner sanctioned Coughlin with personally in a divorce Trial, whereupon Coughlin Iiled a
Petition Ior Writ oI Mandamus to challenge the sanction:

But, despite the Iact that he is her brother, Reno Munic. Court Judge William Gardner reIused to recuse himselI
Irom the criminal trespass matter against Coughlin. Further, Judge W. Gardner admitted that he had just days
prior passed along his sister's April 2009 sanction Order to RMC Judge Nash Holmes (whom, like all Judges
with the RMC and all court appointed deIenders with the RMC, is a Iormer prosecutor), who promptly struck
Coughlin's Notice oI Appeal oI a summary contempt Order by Judge Nash Holmes stemming Irom a traIIic
citation in connection with Coughlin's eviction by Richard G. Hill, Esq. Irom his Iormer home law oIIice (at
which Taitel's business partners, "process serving, Iull service eviction consulting Iirm"

7/10

Uh, so, given that that sort oI environment is what indigent criminal deIendants (even those with a law degree,
and, sometimes, a law license, depending) are dealign with, perhaps the qualiIications that Jim Leslie, Esq.
touted as evinced by Jeremy Bosler in his impressions oI him, are not all that useIul. Leslie wrote in 2005: "I
believe he has in mind the truest interests oI the Public DeIender's OIIice and the public at large, and that he
possesses a mature, realistic view oI the role in our society oI a Public DeIender and a Public DeIender's
OIIice".

When you are going up against a bloodsportin', adrenaline junky, "Norman NiIong" (whom tackily says things
at Trial like "Your Honor, I don't have a dog in that Iight, so with respect to that Motion I will reIrain Irom...."
A "dog in that Iight"? Like a criminal prosecution is a dogIight, like a "bad newz kennelz" illegal dog Iight to
the death type thing....) who will glady devote at least 14 months oI public resources in seeking a petty
larceny/receiving stolen property conviction oI an attorney ( in RJC RCR2011-063341, State v Coughlin) who
is accused oI retrieving a phone Irom someone whom Iound it lost, mislaid, or abandoned on the ground at a
skate plaza at 11 pm in downtown Reno and held it aloIt and loudly exclaimed to all present that he would
"throw this phone in the river iI someone" did not claim it right away (testimony already admitted to at the still
ongoing Trial by the prosecution's own witness). This, even where there exists, and was provided to the
prosecutor, an exculpatory video oI the events prior to and the arrest itselI, wherein RPD OIIicers are clearly
depicted behaving in a retaliatory, pre-textual manner, and where there is more than a strong suggestion that
some "creative remixing" oI the Iacts and timelines is being put Iorward by the RPD (such as overvaluing a
three year old iPhone suIIicient to charge Coughlin with Ielony grand larceny and thereIore get around the
statutory dictates oI No Norman NiIong. That's a bad Norman NiIong. I wish somebody would tell me when
my Iriend ZY comes back, because I don't know how much more oI this Norman NiIong cat I can stomach. Mr.
Leslie, I don't know how useIul having a mature, measured individual as Public DeIender would be under those
conditions. You might need to have someone who is more than willing to get down in the sandbox and play
patty cake with whoever want it. Orange wedge. Juicebox. Fruit Roll-Up. Motion to Suppress.

NRS 171.124 Arrest by peace oIIicer .
1. ... a peace oIIicer may make an arrest in obedience to a warrant delivered to him or her, or may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
(a) For a public oIIense committed or attempted in the oIIicer's presence.
(b) When a person arrested has committed a Ielony or gross misdemeanor, although not in the oIIicer's presence.
(c) When a Ielony or gross misdemeanor has in Iact been committed, and the oIIicer has reasonable cause Ior
believing the person arrested to have committed it.
(d) On a charge made, upon a reasonable cause, oI the commission oI a Ielony or gross misdemeanor by the
person arrested."

Yes, Biray, you should still arguing that statute even though the DA charged Coughlin with the gross
misdemeanor oI "Misue oI 911" as Coughlin's alleged calling 911 to report his Iear regarding retaliaton by Reno
Police Department OIIicers Ior Coughlin's complaining about their earlier misconduct vitiates any "reasonable
cause" Iinding, clearly, especially given the voluminous evidence oI retaliation and misconduct by just a couple
members oI the RPD towards Coughlin since August 2011.

Two oIIenses committed by the same person may be included in the same indictment, in diIIerent courts, where
they are oI the same general nature and belong to the same Iamily oI crimes and where the mode oI trial and
nature oI the punishment are also the same, although they may be punished with diIIerent degrees oI severity.
|FN1| Thus, indictments charging one count oI grand larceny in the second degree and multiple counts oI
8/10
commercial bribe-receiving,|FN2| or the oIIenses oI larceny and oI receiving stolen goods,|FN3| may be
proper.
Caution:
Since the crimes oI larceny, receiving, and possession oI stolen property are separate and distinct oIIenses,
generally legislatures do not intend to punish a deIendant Ior receiving or possessing the same goods that he or
she stole. ThereIore, though a deIendant may be indicted and tried on charges oI larceny, receiving, and
possession oI the same property, the deIendant may be convicted oI only one oI those oIIenses.|FN4|
|FN1| Am. Jur. 2d, Indictments and InIormations 200 to 204. |FN2| People v. Silverman, 106 Misc. 2d 468,
434 N.Y.S.2d 319 (Sup 1980). |FN3| Logan v. Com., 319 S.W.2d 465 (Ky. 1958).
|FN4| State v. Perry, 305 N.C. 225, 287 S.E.2d 810 (1982).

B. Indictment, InIormation, or Complaint
2. Particular Allegations
a. In General
Topic Summary Correlation Table ReIerences
113. Generally
West's Key Number Digest, Larceny k28(1), 28(2)
An indictment Ior theIt must disclose that property alleged to have been stolen was subject to theIt; the
indictment is deIective iI it shows on its Iace that thing alleged to have been stolen was property not subject to
theIt.|FN1|
An indictment that insuIIiciently alleges the identity oI the victim in a charge Ior larceny is Iatally deIective and
cannot support a conviction oI either a misdemeanor or a Ielony.|FN2|
|FN1| Bourland v. State, 133 Tex. Crim. 544, 112 S.W.2d 720 (1937). As to the suIIiciency oI an indictment in
common-law Iorm where prosecution is Ior
larceny oI a thing which is the subject oI larceny only by virtue oI a statute, and not at common law, see 96.
|FN2| State v. Norman, 149 N.C. App. 588, 562 S.E.2d 453 (2002).

Until they stop me, bury, murder me, or drop me,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
To Zach Coughlin
From: Leslie, Jim (Jlesliewashoecounty.us)
Sent: Tue 9/04/12 4:55 PM
To: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlinhotmail.com)
Mr. Coughlin:

I had expected to hear Irom you aIter last Wednesday`s close oI proceedings, so we could work on trial issues
and prepare you in case you testiIy at the trial, but this email Irom you is the Iirst communication since last
Wednesday. Based on your acrimonious temperament toward your assigned counsel, including me, I doubt you
would have participated meaningIully in any such preparation eIIorts, but I would have been willing to try, as I
9/10
have done beIore. I wish you would have communicated with me earlier.

James B. Leslie, Esq
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Tel 775 338 8118
Fax 949 667 7402
10/10
LITIGATIONHOLDNOTICEANDSUBPOENAyour11711responsetodiscoveryrequestinrjcrcr2011-063341
unbelievable.U.S.v.Gatto,727F.Supp.903(D.N.J.1989).EveniIawitnesstestiIiesastoaperiodduringwhichhewasundertheinIluenceoIdrugs,ajuryisentitledto
believethewitnessandcandiscountthetestimonyasitseesIit.U.S.v.Bailey,510F.3d726(7thCir.2007).
|FN13|Pattersonv.State,181Ga.App.68,351S.E.2d503(1986).
|FN14|Crewev.Blackmon,289S.C.229,345S.E.2d754(Ct.App.1986).
ThetrialcourthasthediscretiontorejecttestimonyoIbiasedwitnesses.Statev.Rus
sell,92N.C.App.639,376S.E.2d458(1989).
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Sent: Fri9/21/1212:02AM
To: newmanpreno.gov;renodirectreno.gov
ATTENTION,THISISALITIGATIONHOLDNOTICE;YOUMAYBEREQUIREDTOHOLDANYANDALLDOCUMENTATION,RECORDINGS,
REPORTS,911ANDORDISPATCHCALLS,VIDEOS,ETC.INVOLVINGZACHARYBARKERCOUGHLININANYWAYINLIGHTON
ANTICIPATEDFUTURELITIGATIONINCONNECTIONWITHANYINVOLVEMENTWITHZACHARYBARKERCOUGHLINANDLOCALAND
STATELAWENFORCEMENTAGENCIES,INCLUDINGTHERENOPOLICEDEPARTMENT,WASHOECOUNTYSHERIFF,WCDA,CITYOFRENO
CITYATTORNEY'SOFFICE,ETC. PLEASERETAINANDFORWARDACOPYOFANYSUCHMATERIALSONTOTHISEMAILADDRESSOR
THEFOLLOWINGADDRESSFORZACHARYBARKERCOUGHLIN:
POBOX3961
RENO,NV89505
TEL:7753388118
FAX:9496677402
DearMs.Newman,
PleaserespondIully,andasrequiredunderthelawtotheRequestIorDiscoveryandsubpoenasyouwereserved,notmerelyaskingtheoIIicersiItheyrecordedanythingandchecking
to"seeiIsomethingwasbookedintoevidence". ReadtheRequestIorDiscoveryvery,verycareIully,Ms.Newman,andthesubpoenas.
IIyourcasetheninvolvesa911callyoumayhavetotracethesource.
Example:
AdrivercallsinaninjuryaccidentonhercellphoneIromacitystreetinSanMateo.
ThecallwillberoutedtotheCHPdispatchcenterinVallejoandputonhold.OnceansweredandrecordedbyCHPdispatchers,thecallwillbetransIerredtotheSanMateo
PoliceDepartment.
OnlythenwillSanMateoPolicedispatchdeterminethenatureoIthecalltodispatchaSanMateoPoliceoIIicertothescene.
ThecallmayalsobetransIerredagaintoFireDepartmentresponseandAmbulance.
ResultIortheLawyer:
GiventhispresentcircumstancetherecordkeepingIorthecallmaybeinavarietyoIlocations.TheCHPdispatchmayhavetheonlyrecordoItheoriginalcall.Frequentlythis
originalcallerisawitnesstotheaccidentbutisnotnecessarilyawitnesswhoislateridentiIiedinthesubsequentpolicereport.
2.Distinctionsbetweenlocallandline911systemandCHP911system
Keepinmindthatthelocal911systemisgenerallysuperiortothewirelessCHP911systemonavarietyoIIronts.
LocalSystem
a.Theland-lineisrarelyoverloadedIorcalldelays.
b.ThesystemhasadirectlinktotheaddresssourceoIthecall.ThisisusuallyoneoIthemethodsadispatcher/supervisorcanusetorunasearchrelatedtocallsgeneratedIroma
particularresidenceoverahistoricalperiodoItimeorphonenumbertoansweraninquiryorsubpoena.
c.RarelydoesthesystempassthecallontoanotheragencyoutsidethecityIromwhichthecallisgeneratedsotrackingislessoIanissue.
CHPSystem
a.Thesingleadvantageisthatbynatureitiswireless.
b.Systemisseriouslyoverloaded.
c.ThecontentandqualityoImaterialscontainedwithinthecalllogislikelytobeIarmorelimitedthanthatoIalocal911system.
d.IItheCHPdispatcherwasnotsuccessIulinobtainingthenameandcontactinIormationIromtheoriginalcallerthelawyerwillbegiItedwithanotherlayeroIredtapeand
subpoenastoobtainthepersonalinIormationoIthecaller.
e.CHPislikelytobeabythebookorganizationwhereasyoumayIindthatlocalagenciesmaybesomewhatmorerelaxedinIollowingstrictguidelinesrelatedtothereleaseoIcall-
loginIormation.
C.StateRequirementsIorRecordkeeping:thevoice-callandthelog-entry
1.Audiovoice911call:
CaliIorniaGovernmentCode26202.6and34090.6audiorecordingsincludingthe911systemmaybedestroyedaIter100days.
2.911CallLog:
34090.6oItheGovernmentCodeappearstobeinterpretedbylocallawenIorcementasauthoritytodestroy911logsaIter2years.
ResultIorthelawyer:
EachagencyisIunctioningbytheirownstandardoperatingprocedure.ThereIoreitmustbeaddressedonacase-by-casebasisandonemustpresumetherecordsmustbeobtained
immediately.
ExamplesoIlocallawenIorcementrecordretention:
SanFranciscoPoliceDepartment
Voicecall3years(butstartedinMarchoI2005)
CallLog3years
SanRaIaelPoliceDepartment
Voicecall180days
CallLogPermanent(theyretainrecordsindeIinitely)
SanJosePoliceDepartment
Voicecall14months
CallLog7years
LessonsLearned:
a.ValueImmediatelydeterminevalueoIthevoicecallandcalllog(s).
b.NoticePuttheagencyonnoticebyletterandphonecallthatboththevoicecall(s)andcalllog(s)arematersoIpresentorIuturelitigationandtheyarerequiredtoretainthose
recordsIortheentiretyoIthelitigationprocessper.CaliIorniaGovernmentCodeSections26202.6and34090.6.
b.PreservationGetthoserecordsinhandasquicklyaspossibletoensuretheirpreservation.
D.Thelawandprivacy/conIidentialityconsiderations
1.Thesubpoenarequest
Generally,IhaveIoundthatlawenIorcementagencieswillnotcontesttherequestIorrecordsIromaninterestedpartyinaIiledcasewhentherecordrequestaddressesthespeciIic
instancesoIthelitigationinquestion.However,iIyouareaskingtheagencytoproducerecordsIorarangeoIdatesorcallsprivacyissuescouldarise.
ExampleoISubpoenaLanguage:
PleaseprovidecopiesoIall911logsgeneratedIromtheaddressoI13SatanWay,Fontana,CA92335IromMay4,2004tothepresent.
wrongfularrests,malicious/retaliatoryprosecutionsFW:RenoevictionnoticedforSparks1usticeCourt
2.Themixedresults
MakinganallinclusivebroadbrushrequestcanpotentiallygetcomplicatediIthesourceaddresshasresidentswhoarenotnamedpartiestothelitigation;suchasanursinghomewith
multipleresidents.Otherresidentswhoarenon-partiesmaybecallingthe911Iorreasonsthatarecompletelyunrelatedtoyourcase.Again,thisisacasebycasebasisandtheproduct
youreceivewilllargelybebasedonthesystemsbeingused,theskilloIthepersonmakingthesearchandwhatinternalprotocolstheymaybeIollowingbeIoretheyreleasethe
documentsrequested.
SitbackandwaitIortheresult.
3.Statutoryconsiderations
Inenactingthischapter,theLegislature,mindIuloItherightoIindividualstoprivacy,IindsanddeclaresthataccesstoinIormationconcerningtheconductoIthepeoples
businessisaIundamentalandnecessaryrightoIeverypersoninthisstateGovernmentCodeSection6250.
4.CaliIorniaPublicRecordsActandthebalancebetweenpublicneedandconIidentiality
JudicialdecisionsinterpretingtheCaliIorniaPublicRecordsAct(CPRA)seektobalancethepublicrighttoaccesstoinIormation,thegovernmentsneed,orlackoIneed,to
preserveconIidentiality,andtheindividualsrighttoprivacy.CopleyPress,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(2006)48Cal.Rptr.3d183,39Cal.4th1272,141P.3d288,onremand2006WL
3190280,unpublished.
5.BurdenisontheAgency
CaliIorniaPublicRecordsAct(CPRA)exemptionsaretobenarrowlyconstrued,andthegovernmentagencyopposingdisclosurebearstheburdenoIprovingthatoneormoreapply
inaparticularcase.CountyoILosAngelesv.SuperiorCourt(Axelrad)(App.2Dist.2000)98Cal.Rptr.2d564,82Cal.App.4th819,reviewdenied.
E.ApproachtoSubpoena911calllogs
Thebasics
1.WhatamIaIterandwhydoIwantit?
2.Callthedispatchcenter,askIorthecustodianoIrecordsandIollowtheproceduresoutlinedabove.
a.Iamnotonthedarkside(soundIamiliar?)
b.Wehaveacommoninteresttogetthebadguy.
c.Getthememotionallyinvolved.
d.Canyoupleasehelpme?
e.IknowIneedtowriteasubpoenacanyoutellmehowyouwantittoreadtomakeiteasieronyouandmakesurethatIamgettingwhatIneed.
I.Tellthemitisgoinginthemailtoday.
g.Addressittothatperson.
h.Youwillgetwhatyouwantbecausethepersonontheotherendlikestohammerbadguystoo.
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Sent: Tue9/11/121:30PM
To: jlesliewashoecounty.us;bdoganwashoecounty.us;zyoungda.washoecounty.us;mkandarasda.washoecounty.us;bsooudireno.gov;sooudibreno.gov;
drakejreno.gov
2attachments
Iilings.pdI(1058.4KB)
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Date:Mon,2Jul201217:21:54-0700
NRS207.200,RMC8.10.040.

6
U.S.SupremeCourt
SEVENTHCIRCUIT
No.91-6516
ArguedOctober5,1992
Held:
I
|2|
|3|
|4|
|5|
andnowreverse.
|6|
|506U.S.56,61|
II
|7|
350.
III
Iederalcourts.
IV
Soordered.
Footnotes
(1stDist.1987).
banc).
context.
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Date:Tue,26Jun201209:10:14-0700
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Date:Tue,26Jun201207:58:36-0700
(Ward1-nap?)
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
tel7753388118
Iax9496677403
CivilDivision
630GreenbraeDrive
Sparks,Nevada89431
pleasenotemynewaddressifithasnotalreadybeennoted
motionforpreparationoftranscriptatpublicexpenseetc
(775)353.7603Phone
(775)352.3004Fax
ChrisHansen
Civil
Evictions
SmallClaims
To: renomunirecordsreno.gov
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Sent: Tue8/07/1211:42PM
To: hazlett-stevenscreno.gov;kadlicjreno.gov;drakejreno.gov
1attachment
IMAG0569motionIorpreparationoItranscriptatpublicexpenseandoppositiontomotiontodismissrmc11cr26405.jpg(2.8MB)
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Sent: Tue8/07/1211:01PM
To: keithloomisearthlink.net;jlesliewashoecounty.us;zyoungda.washoecounty.us;drakejreno.gov;kadlicjreno.gov
6attachments
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
globalresolution
Date:Fri,8Jun201216:41:49-0700
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
To: jlesliewashoecounty.us;zyoungda.washoecounty.us;mkandarasda.washoecounty.us;kadlicjreno.gov;christensendreno.gov
DearMr.Leslie,DDAYoung,DDAKandaras,andCityAttorneyKadlic,andDeputyCityAttorneyChristensen,
Will you please confer with DDA Young and, perhaps, DDA Kandaras (I believe she is the appropriateattorneytodiscuss
resolutionoIanypotentialcivilclaimswith,aswellas,perhaps,CityAttorneyKadlicorDeputyCityAttorneyChristensengiventhe
August20th,2011arrestinRCR201-063341wasmadebyaRPDOIIicerandthatthereispotentiallyanissueoImisconduct/aFourth
AmendmentViolationthatcouldariseattrialiItheissueoIwhethertheoIIicerreachedintotheaccused'spocket,priortothetechnicalpoint
oIarrest,toturnonthecellphone,IorthepurposeoIcallingitanapplyinga"plainsightorIeelorsound"approachtoIindingprobable
causetoarrestIoramisdemeanorallegedly occurringoutsidetheoIIicer'spresence,aIter7p.m.,andtothereIoreconductasearch
incidenttoarrest. IwouldgreatlyappreciateanopportunitytoavoidhavingthoseissuescomeupontherecordatTrial,orever....
Mr.Leslie,IwouldappreciateitiIyouwouldconIerwiththeabovelistedattorney'sastowhethertheproposedpleaagreementIwroteoI
recentlyisacceptable(itbasicallyamendsthepreviouspleaagreementbyincludingawaiveronmypartoIanycivilcausesoIactionthatI
mayhaveagainstthevariousgovernmentalentitiespotentiallyliableinconnectionwithanyoIthosethreearrestsinexchangeIorexcising
IromthepreviouslyproposedpleaagreementthoseportionssuspendingasentenceandrequiringthedeIendantto"obeyalllaws". Iwrote
previously:
"IamIairlyopposedtoresolutionsoIthecriminalmattersthatincludeany"obeyalllaws"and"180dayssuspendedsentence"typesoI
conditions,notbecauseIthinktheprosecutorsorthesystemisunreasonable,but...well,IhaveupsetagoodnumberoImembersoIlaw
enIorcementandImaywishtoleavetheareaIoranextendedtime(onlyiIlegallyallowedtodoso),andIorthesamereasons(andbecause
Ialreadyhavetwoconvictions)IwouldpreIernottogointoMentalHealthCourt(thoughIgreatlyrespectJudgeBreen),inadditionto
someothermorepersonalreasonsthatrelatetomyIather,whomIlove. However,mywholeliIehasbeensomewhatoIaMentalHealth
CourtordiversionprogramwithmyDadinit,ashehas beeninvolvedinphysiciandiversionprogramsIorthosewithmentalhealth
problemsandsubstanceabuseissues,andthathasresultedinatoughloveapproachIoryears,takentoanextreme,which,attimes,has
seemedtocomplicate,iInotderailentirely,myattemptstoaddressthevariousissuesthatIIace."
IwouldpreIernottogettoointoit,butthesituationwithmyDadissomewhatlikethatseeninChristianScientistIamilies. WhenIsay
"toughlove",IamnotreIerringto,letssay,hypothetically,aphysicianparentnotgivingoneatemporaryloanwhenone'sgirlIriendoIIive
yearsstealsacouplemonthsrentIromhim. IamreIerringtosuchaparentharassingoneIoryears,pullingprescriptionrecordsin
violationoIprivacylaws,demandingtocommandeerone'sapproachtotreatingADHDand/ordepressionortreatementresistantdepression,
callingupStateBarsandDeanoILawSchoolswithhis"diagnosis",criticizinganyoneandeveryonewhodrinksalcoholeverasa"drunk",
implementingmanipulativetacticsreminiscentoItheDuluthModeloIthe"PowerandControlWheel"commonlyIoundinthedomestic
violenceliterature,MunchausenbyProxy,justgenerallybeingacontrolIreakasmostallphysiciansare,badmouthingoneproIessionally
IoryearsIromabullypulpit,callingupone'sdomesticpartnersandconvincingthemtoleaveonewhileundulyinIluencingthemviathe
"MDeIIect",alienatingoneIromallotherIamilymembersbymeansoIIinancialcontrolincidenttoapunishmentrewardapparatusapplied
totheIamilyonalargescale,etc.,etc.,andjustbasicallyviewingone'soIIspringinnarcissisticpersonalitydisorderstylethatseesthemas
anextensionoIone'segoratherthanseparate,distincthumanbeingscapableoIandentitledtomakestheirownchoicesaboutthings,("oh,
youtakethatmedicationIorADHD,well,IamanAAbleedingdeaconanddon'tcareiIyouhaven'thadadrinkordrugin6years,Iam
goingtosystematicallyandproactively-"lettingyouhaveyourpain"-destroyyourliIeinanyandeverywayIcanuntilIbringyouthe
"incomprehensibledemoralization"citedintheBigBookoIAlcoholicsAnonymoussonecessary,inmyopiniontorebuildingyouinmy
ownimage,er,Imean,toyourrecovery")...etc.,etc...
IamgoingtohaveplentyoImentalhealthoversightregardlessoIwhetherIgointoMentalHealthCourtorwhetherIhaveasuspended
sentencehangingovermyhead,andIhaveagreatmanyreasonstoobeyalllaws. PleaseconsiderthattheAugust20th,2011arrest
occurredjustdaysaIterIwasIirstthreatenedwithasummaryevictionIrommyIormerhomelawoIIicebyaveterancommerciallitigator,
thatIspentnearly7daysinjailinconnectionwithit,andlostsomemoneyandclientswhileinjailinadditiontosustainingsomeother
signiIicantIinancialdamages. Then,justsome13daysaIterbeingreleaseIromjailonAugust26th,2011,Iwasarrestedandsubsequently
convictedoIpettylarcenyinRMC11CR22176,whichIreportedtotheStateBaroINevadaunderSCR111andtheUnitedStatesPatent
11CR26405andappealinCR12-1262:NoticeofRMC'sfailuretofiletimelyfiledNoticeofAppealresultedin
dismissalofAppealinCR12-1262
andTrademarkOIIiceunder37CFR11.24and11.25,resultinginthesuspensionoImylawlicense andreportsoIthatconvictionand
suspensionrunninginnumerousnewspapersandtelevisionnewsreportsinlightoIanAssociatedPressarticleonit. Irealizemanywould
considerthechancesoIanycivilclaimsImaybringtobeverythin,butpleaseconsideranybeneIitthatwouldinuretoyourorganizations
andorlawenIorcementasawholeincidenttomywaiveroIanysuchclaimsinexchangeIorthisamendedpleaagreementaswellas
whetheryoumight,perchance,takesomepityonmeandIorgivemeIormyinappropriatebehaviorthispastyear.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
To: hazlett-stevenscreno.gov;kadlicjreno.gov;drakejreno.gov
3attachments
cr12-1262motiontosetasideorderdismissingappeal.pdI(141.2KB),noticeIilingin11cr26405completetoIileon82712.pdI(198.6KB),ex1tomotiontoset
asidedismissalcr12-1262bw.pdI(2.7MB)
11CR26405andappealinCR12-1262:NoticeoIRMC'sIailuretoIiletimelyIiledNoticeoIAppealresultedindismissaloIAppealinCR12-1262
alsopleaseIindmotiontoreconsider,alter,amend,setaside,etc.therecentorderdismissingtheappealincr12-1262.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Close Print
FW: Reno eviction noticed for Sparks Justice Court
Sent: Mon 8/06/12 3:55 PM
To: keithloomis@earthlink.net; kadlicj@reno.gov; drakej@reno.gov
2 attachments
coughlin v northwind 16_TenantsAffidavit_DeclarationOther_PrivateHousing other than nonpayment of rent.pdf (76.3
KB) , combined northwind v coughlin eviction filings.pdf (1058.4 KB)
please view this in conjunction with the email I just sent.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
To: kbrown@nvbar.org; milllerr@reno.gov; millerr@reno.gov; stuttle@washoecounty.gov; rsilva@washoecounty.us;
stuttle@washoecounty.us; jamchen@washoecounty.us; 037nor4@acg.com; info@acg-apmi.com; rjcweb@wasoecounty.us;
jboles@callatg.com; apminfo@acg.com
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 17:21:54 -0700
NOrthwindandNevadaCourtServicesservedand"amended5daynoticeoIunlawIuldetaineronJuly29th,2012"...giving
meIivedaystogetmystuIIoutoIunit29(theonethesubjectoIJudgeSchroeer'sEvictionOrder,whichwaseIIectively
rescindedbytheirservinganew5dayunlawIuldetainernotice....)aswellasunits71and45...whiciharetwounitstowhichi
stillhavevalideleaseagreements,ie,IcannotbetrespassingIoraccessingthem(theRenoPDhasindicatedtheywillarrest
meIorcriminaltrespassIoraccessinganyunitsinthecomplex,includingthosetowhichIstillhaveavalidpossessoryor
propertyinterest,inviolationoI42usc1983).
whydoesSargentMillerhavetogivemeahardtime? Isn'titenoughIorhimtohavehis"Denzel"goodlooksandamuch
higherpayingjobthanIwilleverhave? Whatupwitthat?
NorthwindandNevadaCourtServices(whichispracticingevictionlawwithoutalicense)screwedupandput"SparksJustice
CourtonGreenbrae"astheplaceIorthetenanttoIileaTenan'tsAnswerorAIIidavit. DoingsowillmaketheRJCOrderby
JudgeSchroedernullandvoid(KarenStancil,ChieICivilClerkatRJCadmitsthis,butreally,theIaultlieswithNCSand
Northwind,notthecommittedproIessionalattheRJC).
TheNoticemustidentiIytheCourtwithjurisdiction.NRS40.253(3)(a). ONecannotbetrespassinginaplacwewheretheyhaveavalid
reasonIorbeingoralawIulrighttobe. NRS207.200,RMC8.10.040.
6
U.S.SupremeCourt
SEVENTHCIRCUIT
No.91-6516
ArguedOctober5,1992
While evictionproceedingswerepending,TerracePropertiesandMargaretHaleIorciblyevictedpetitioners,theSoldal
Iamily,andtheirmobilehomeIromaTerraceProperties'mobilehomepark.AtHale'srequest,CookCounty,Illinois,SheriII's
Departmentdeputieswerepresentattheeviction.AlthoughtheyknewthattherewasnoevictionorderandthatTerrace
Properties'actionswereillegal,thedeputiesreIusedtotakeMr.Soldal'scomplaintIorcriminaltrespassorotherwiseinterIere
withtheeviction.Subsequently,thestatejudgeassignedtothependingevictionproceedingsruledthattheevictionhadbeen
unauthorized,andthetrailer,badlydamagedduringtheeviction,wasreturnedtothelot.Petitionersbroughtanactioninthe
FederalDistrictCourtunder42U.S.C.1983,claimingthatTerracePropertiesandHalehadconspiredwiththedeputysheriIIs
tounreasonablyseizeandremovetheirhomeinviolationoItheirFourthandFourteenthAmendmentrights.Thecourtgranted
deIendants'motionIorsummaryjudgment,andtheCourtoIAppealsaIIirmed.Acknowledgingthatwhathadoccurredwasa
"seizure"intheliteralsenseoItheword,thecourtreasonedthatitwasnotaseizureascontemplatedbytheFourth
Amendmentbecause,interalia,itdidnotinvadepetitioners'privacy.
Held:
(a)A"seizure"oIpropertyoccurswhen"thereissomemeaningIulinterIerencewithanindividual'spossessory
interestsinthatproperty."UnitedStatesv.Jacobsen,466U.S.109,113.ThelanguageoItheFourthAmendment-
whichprotectspeopleIromunreasonablesearchesandseizuresoI"theirpersons,houses,papers,andeIIects"-cuts
againstthenovelholdingbelow,andthisCourt'scasesunmistakablyholdthattheAmendmentprotectsproperty
evenwhereprivacyorlibertyisnotimplicated.See,e.g.,ibid.;Katzv.UnitedStates,389U.S.347,350.This
Court's"plainview"decisionsalsomakeuntenablethelowercourt'sconstructionoItheAmendment.IIthe
Amendment'sboundariesweredeIinedexclusivelybyrightsoIprivacy,"plainview"seizures,ratherthanbeing
scrupulouslysubjectedtoFourthAmendmentinquiry,Arizonav.Hicks,480U.S.321,326-327,wouldnot
implicatethatconstitutionalprovisionatall.ContrarytotheCourtoIAppeals'|506U.S.56,57| position,the
Amendmentprotectsseizureeventhoughnosearchwithinitsmeaninghastakenplace.See,e.g.,Jacobsen,supra,
at120-125.Alsocontrarytothatcourt'sview,Grahamv.Connor,490U.S.386,doesnotrequireacourt,whenit
Iindsthatawrongimplicatesmorethanoneconstitutionalcommand,tolookatthedominantcharacteroIthe
challengedconducttodetermineunderwhichconstitutionalstandarditshouldbeevaluated.Rather,each
constitutionalprovisionisexaminedinturn.See,e.g.,Hudsonv.Palmer,468U.S.517.Pp.61-71.
(b)TheinstantdecisionshouldnotIomentawaveoInewlitigationintheIederalcourts.Activitiessuchas
repossessionsorattachments,iItheyinvolveenteringahome,intrudingonindividuals'privacy,orinterIeringwith
theirliberty,wouldimplicatetheFourthAmendmentevenontheCourtoIAppeals'ownterms.Andnumerous
seizuresoIthistypewillsurviveconstitutionalscrutinyon"reasonableness"grounds.Moreover,itisunlikelythat
thepolicewilloItenchoosetoIurtheranenterpriseknowingthatitiscontrarytothelaw,orproceedtoseize
propertyintheabsenceoIobjectivelyreasonablegroundsIordoingso.Pp.71-72.
KennethL.GillisarguedthecauseIorrespondents.WithhimonthebrieIwereJackO'Malley,ReneeG.GoldIarb,and
KennethT.McCurry.|*|
| Footnote*|JamesD.Holzhauer,TimothyS.Bishop,JohnA.Powell,StevenR.Shapiro,HarveyM.Grossman,andAlanK.
ChenIiledabrieIIortheAmericanCivilLibertiesUnionetal.asamicicuriaeurgingreversal.
RichardRuda,CarterG.Phillips,MarkD.Hopson,andMarkE.HaddadIiledabrieIIortheNationalLeagueoICitiesetal.
asamicicuriaeurgingaIIirmance.
I
EdwardSoldalandhisIamilyresidedintheirtrailerhome,whichwaslocatedonarentedlotintheWillowayTerracemobile
|506U.S.56,58| homeparkinElkGrove,Illinois.InMay1987,TerraceProperties,theowneroIthepark,andMargaretHale,its
manager,IiledanevictionproceedingagainsttheSoldalsinanIllinoisstatecourt.UndertheIllinoisForcibleEntryand
DetainerAct,Ill.Rev.Stat.,ch.110,9-101etseq.(1991),atenantcannotbedispossessedabsentajudgmentoIeviction.The
suitwasdismissedonJune2,1987.AIewmonthslater,inAugust1987,theownerbroughtasecondproceedingoIeviction,
claimingnonpaymentoIrent.ThecasewassetIortrialonSeptember22,1987.
RatherthanawaitjudgmentintheirIavor,TerracePropertiesandHale,contrarytoIllinoislaw,chosetoevicttheSoldals
Iorciblytwoweekspriortothescheduledhearing.OnSeptember4,HalenotiIiedtheCookCounty'sSheriII'sDepartmentthat
shewasgoingtoremovethetrailerhomeIromthepark,andrequestedthepresenceoIsheriIIdeputiestoIorestallany
possibleresistance.Laterthatday,twoTerracePropertiesemployeesarrivedattheSoldals'homeaccompaniedbyCook
CountyDeputySheriIIO'Neil.TheemployeesproceededtowrenchthesewerandwaterconnectionsoIIthesideoIthetrailer
home,disconnectthephone,tearoIIthetrailer'scanopyandskirting,andhookthehometoatractor.Meanwhile,O'Neil
explainedtoEdwardSoldalthat"`hewastheretoseethat|Soldal|didn'tinterIerewith|Willoway's|work.'"BrieIIor
Petitioner6.
Bythistime,twomoredeputysheriIIshadarrivedatthescene,andSoldaltoldthemthathewishedtoIileacomplaintIor
criminaltrespass.TheyreIerredhimtodeputyLieutenantJones,whowasinHale'soIIice.JonesaskedSoldaltowaitoutside
whileheremainedclosetedwithHaleandotherTerracePropertiesemployeesIorover20minutes.AItertalkingtoadistrict
attorneyandmakingSoldalwaitanotherhalIhour,JonestoldSoldalthathewouldnotacceptacomplaintbecause"ìtwas
betweenthelandlordandthetenant...|and|theyweregoingtogoaheadandcontinuetomove|506U.S.56,59| outthetrailer.'"
Id.,at8.1Throughoutthisperiod,thedeputysheriIIsknewthatTerracePropertiesdidnothaveanevictionorderandthatits
actionswereunlawIul.Eventually,andinthepresenceoIanadditionaltwodeputysheriIIs,theWillowayworkerspulledthe
trailerIreeoIitsmooringsandtoweditontothestreet.Later,itwashauledtoaneighboringproperty.
OnSeptember9,thestatejudgeassignedtothependingevictionproceedingsruledthattheevictionhadbeenunauthorized,
andorderedTerracePropertiestoreturntheSoldals'hometothelot.Thehome,however,wasbadlydamaged.
|2|
TheSoldals
broughtthisactionunder42U.S.C.1983,allegingaviolationoItheirrightsundertheFourthandFourteenthAmendments.
TheyclaimedthatTerracePropertiesandHalehadconspiredwithCookCountydeputysheriIIstounreasonablyseizeand
removetheSoldals'trailerhome.TheDistrictJudgegranteddeIendants'motionIorsummaryjudgmentonthegroundsthatthe
SoldalshadIailedtoadduceanyevidencetosupporttheirconspiracytheoryand,thereIore,theexistenceoIstateaction
necessaryunder1983.
|3|
TheCourtoIAppealsIortheSeventhCircuit,construingtheIactsinpetitioners'Iavor,acceptedtheircontentionthattherewas
stateaction.However,itwentontoholdthat|506U.S.56,60| theremovaloItheSoldals'trailerdidnotconstituteaseizureIor
purposesoItheFourthAmendmentoradeprivationoIdueprocessIorpurposesoItheFourteenth.
|4|
Acknowledgingthatwhat
hadoccurredwasa"seizure"intheliteralsenseoItheword,thecourtreasonedthat,becauseitwasnotmadeinthecourseoI
publiclawenIorcement,andbecauseitdidnotinvadetheSoldals'privacy,itwasnotaseizureascontemplatedbytheFourth
Amendment.942F.2d1073,1076(1991).InterpretingpriorcasesoIthisCourt,theSeventhCircuitconcludedthat,absent
interIerencewithprivacyorliberty,a"puredeprivationoIproperty"isnotcognizableundertheFourthAmendment.Id.,at
1078-1079.Rather,petitioners'propertyinterestswereprotectedonlybytheDueProcessClausesoItheFiIthandFourteenth
Amendments.
|5|
WegrantedcertioraritoconsiderwhethertheseizureandremovaloItheSoldals'trailerhomeimplicatedtheirFourth
Amendmentrights,503U.S.918(1992),andnowreverse.
|6|
|506U.S.56,61|
II
TheFourthAmendment,madeapplicabletotheStatesbytheFourteenth,Kerv.CaliIornia,374U.S.23,30(1963),provides
inpertinentpartthatthe"rightoIthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,papers,andeIIects,againstunreasonable
searchesandseizures,shallnotbeviolated...."
A"seizure"oIproperty,wehaveexplained,occurswhen"thereissomemeaningIulinterIerencewithanindividual's
possessoryinterestsinthatproperty."UnitedStatesv.Jacobsen,466U.S.109,113(1984).Inaddition,wehaveemphasized
that"attheverycore"oItheFourthAmendment"standstherightoIamantoretreatintohisownhome."Silvermanv.United
States,365U.S.505,511(1961).SeealsoOliverv.UnitedStates,466U.S.170,178-179(1984);Wymanv.James,400U.S.
309,316(1971);Paytonv.NewYork,445U.S.573,601(1980).
AsaresultoIthestateactioninthiscase,theSoldals'domicilewasnotonlyseized,itliterallywascarriedaway,givingnew
meaningtotheterm"mobilehome."WeIailtoseehowbeingunceremoniouslydispossessedoIone'shomeinthemanner
allegedtohaveoccurredherecanbeviewedasanythingbutaseizureinvokingtheprotectionoItheFourthAmendment.
WhethertheAmendmentwasinIact|506U.S.56,62| violatedis,oIcourse,adiIIerentquestionthatrequiresdeterminingiIthe
seizurewasreasonable.ThatinquiryentailstheweighingoIvariousIactors,andisnotbeIoreus.
TheCourtiIAppealsrecognizedthattherehadbeenaseizure,butconcludedthatitwasaseizureonlyina"technical"sense,
notwithinthemeaningoItheFourthAmendment.ThisconclusionIollowedIromanarrowreadingoItheAmendment,which
thecourtconstruedtosaIeguardonlyprivacyandlibertyinterests,whileleavingunprotectedpossessoryinterestswhere
neitherprivacynorlibertywasatstake.Otherwise,thecourtsaid,
"aconstitutionalprovisionenactedtwocenturiesago|would|makeeveryrepossessionandevictionwithpolice
assistanceactionableunder-oIallthings-theFourthAmendment|,which|wouldbothtrivializetheamendment
andgratuitouslyshiItalargebodyoIroutinecommerciallitigationIromthestatecourtstotheIederalcourts.That
trivializing,thisshiIt,canbepreventedbyrecognizingthediIIerencebetweenpossessoryandprivacyinterests."
942F.2d,at1077.
BecausetheoIIicershadnotenteredSoldal'shouse,rummagedthroughhispossessions,or,intheCourtoIAppeals'view,
interIeredwithhislibertyinthecourseoItheeviction,theFourthAmendmentoIIerednoprotectionagainstthe"grave
deprivation"oIpropertythathadoccurred.Ibid.
WedonotagreewiththisinterpretationoItheFourthAmendment.TheAmendmentprotectsthepeopleIromunreasonable
searchesandseizuresoI"theirpersons,houses,papers,andeIIects."Thislanguagesurelycutsagainstthenovelholding
below,andourcasesunmistakablyholdthattheAmendmentprotectspropertyaswellasprivacy.
|7|
Thismuch|506U.S.56,63|
wasmadeclearinJacobsen,supra,whereweexplainedthattheIirstClauseoItheFourthAmendment
"protectstwotypesoIexpectations,oneinvolving"searches,"theother"seizures."A"search"occurswhenan
expectationoIprivacythatsocietyispreparedtoconsiderreasonableisinIringed.A"seizure"oIpropertyoccurs
wherethereissomemeaningIulinterIerencewithanindividual'spossessoryinterestsinthatproperty."466U.S.,at
113(Iootnoteomitted).
Seealsoid.,at120;Hortonv.CaliIornia,496U.S.128,133(1990);Arizonav.Hicks,480U.S.321,328(1987);Marylandv.
Macon,472U.S.463,469(1985);Texasv.Brown,460U.S.730,747-748(1983)(STEVENS,J.,concurringinjudgment);
UnitedStatesv.Salvucci,448U.S.83,91,n.6(1980).Thus,havingconcludedthatchemicaltestingoIpowderIoundina
packagedidnotcompromiseitsowner'sprivacy,theCourtinJacobsendidnotputanendtoitsinquiry,aswouldberequired
undertheviewadoptedbytheCourtoIAppealsandadvocatedbyrespondents.Instead,adheringtotheteachingsoIUnited
Statesv.Place,462U.S.696(1983),itwentontodeterminewhethertheinvasionoItheowners'"possessoryinterests"
occasionedbythedestructionoIthepowderwasreasonableundertheFourthAmendment.Jacobsen,supra,at124-125.In
Place,althoughweIoundthatsubjectingluggagetoa"dogsniII"didnotconstituteasearchIorFourthAmendmentpurposes
becauseitdidnotcompromiseanyprivacyinterest,takingcustodyoIPlace'ssuitcasewasdeemedanunlawIulseizure,Iorit
unreasonablyinIringed"thesuspect'spossessoryinterestinhisluggage."462U.S.,at708.8Althoughlackingaprivacy
component,thepropertyrightsinbothinstancesnonethelesswerenot|506U.S.56,64| disregarded,butratherwereaIIorded
FourthAmendmentprotection.
RespondentsrelyprincipallyonprecedentssuchasKatzv.UnitedStates,389U.S.347(1967),Warden,Maryland
Penitentiaryv.Hayden,387U.S.294(1967),andCardwellv.Lewis,417U.S.583(1974),todemonstratethattheFourth
Amendmentisonlymarginallyconcernedwithpropertyrights.ButthemessageoIthosecasesisthatpropertyrightsarenot
thesolemeasureoIFourthAmendmentviolations.TheWardenopinionthusobserved,citingJonesv.UnitedStates,362U.S.
257(1960),andSilvermanv.UnitedStates,365U.S.505(1961),thatthe"principal"objectoItheAmendmentisthe
protectionoIprivacy,ratherthanproperty,andthat"thisshiItinemphasisIrompropertytoprivacyhascomeaboutthrougha
subtleinterplayoIsubstantiveandproceduralreIorm."387U.S.,at304.TherewasnosuggestionthatthisshiItinemphasis
hadsnuIIedoutthepreviouslyrecognizedprotectionIorpropertyundertheFourthAmendment.Katz,indeclaringviolativeoI
theFourthAmendmenttheunwarrantedoverhearingoIatelephoneboothconversation,eIIectivelyendedanylingering
notionsthattheprotectionoIprivacydependedontrespassintoaprotectedarea.InthecourseoIitsdecision,theKatzCourt
statedthattheFourthAmendmentcanneitherbetranslatedintoaprovisiondealingwithconstitutionallyprotectedareasnor
intoageneralconstitutionalrighttoprivacy.TheAmendment,theCourtsaid,protectsindividualprivacyagainstcertainkinds
oIgovernmentalintrusion,"butitsprotectionsgoIurther,andoItenhavenothingtodowithprivacyatall."389U.S.,at350.
AsIorCardwell,apluralityoIthisCourtheldinthatcasethattheFourthAmendmentdidnotbartheuseinevidenceoIpaint
scrapingstakenIromandtiretreadsobservedonthedeIendant'sautomobile,whichhadbeenseizedinaparkinglotandtowed
toapolicelockup.Gatheringthisevidencewasnotdeemedtobeasearch,IornothingIromthe|506U.S.56,65| interioroIthe
carand"nopersonaleIIects,whichtheFourthAmendmenttraditionallyhasbeendeemedtoprotect"weresearchedorseized.
417U.S.,at591(opinionoIBLACKMUN,J.).NomeaningIulprivacyrightswereinvaded.ButthisleIttheargument,
pressedbythedissent,thattheevidencegatheredwastheproductoIawarrantless,andhenceillegal,seizureoIthecarIrom
theparkinglotwherethedeIendanthadleItit.However,thepluralitywasoItheviewthat,because,underthecircumstances
oIthecase,therewasprobablecausetoseizethecarasaninstrumentalityoIthecrime,FourthAmendmentprecedent
permittedtheseizurewithoutawarrant.Id.,at593.Thus,boththepluralityanddissentingJusticesconsideredthedeIendant's
autodeservingoIFourthAmendmentprotectioneventhoughprivacyinterestswerenotatstake.TheydiIIeredonlyinthe
degreeoIprotectionthattheAmendmentdemanded.
TheCourtoIAppealsappearedtoIindmorespeciIicsupportIorconIiningtheprotectionoItheFourthAmendmenttoprivacy
interestsinourdecisioninHudsonv.Palmer,468U.S.517(1984).There,astateprisoninmatesued,claimingthatprison
guardshadenteredhiscellwithoutconsentandhadseizedanddestroyedsomeoIhispersonaleIIects.Weruledthatan
inmate,becauseoIhisstatus,enjoyedneitherarighttoprivacyinhiscellnorprotectionagainstunreasonableseizuresoIhis
personaleIIects.Id.,at526-528,andn.8;id.,at538(O'CONNOR,J.,concurring).Whateverelsethecaseheld,itisoI
limiteduseIulnessoutsidetheprisoncontextwithrespecttothecoverageoItheFourthAmendment.
WethusareunconvincedthatanyoItheCourt'spriorcasessupportstheviewthattheFourthAmendmentprotectsagainst
unreasonableseizuresoIpropertyonlywhereprivacyorlibertyisalsoimplicated.Whatismore,our"plainview"decisions
makeuntenablesuchaconstructionoItheAmendment.Suppose,Iorexample,thatpoliceoIIicerslawIullyenterahouse,by
eithercomplyingwiththewarrantrequirementorsatisIyingoneoIitsrecognizedexceptions-|506U.S.56,66| e.g.,througha
validconsentorashowingoIexigentcircumstances.IItheycomeacrosssomeiteminplainviewandseizeit,noinvasionoI
personalprivacyhasoccurred.Horton,496U.S.,at133-134;Brown,supra,at739(opinionoIREHNQUIST,J.).IIthe
boundariesoItheFourthAmendmentweredeIinedexclusivelybyrightsoIprivacy,"plainview"seizureswouldnotimplicate
thatconstitutionalprovisionatall.Yet,IarIrombeingautomaticallyupheld,"plainview"seizureshavebeenscrupulously
subjectedtoFourthAmendmentinquiry.Thus,intheabsenceoIconsentorawarrantpermittingtheseizureoItheitemsin
question,suchseizurescanbejustiIiedonlyiItheymeettheprobable-causestandard,Arizonav.Hicks,480U.S.321,326-
327(1987),9andiItheyareunaccompaniedbyunlawIultrespass,Horton,496U.S.,at136-137.10Thatisbecause,the
absenceoIaprivacyinterestnotwithstanding,"|a|seizureoIthearticle...wouldobviouslyinvadetheowner'spossessory
interest."Id.,at134;seealsoBrown,460U.S.,at739(opinionoIREHNQUIST,J.).Theplain-viewdoctrine"merelyreIlects
anapplicationoItheFourthAmendment'scentralrequirementoIreasonablenesstothelawgoverningseizuresoIproperty."
Ibid.;Coolidgev.NewHampshire,403U.S.443,468(1971);id.,at516(WHITE,J.,concurringanddissenting).
TheCourtoIAppealsunderstandablyIounditnecessarytoreconcileitsholdingwithourrecognitionintheplain-viewcases
thattheFourthAmendmentprotectspropertyassuch.Insodoing,thecourtdidnotdistinguishthiscaseonthegroundthat
theseizureoItheSoldals'hometookplaceina|506U.S.56,67| noncriminalcontext.Indeed,itacknowledgedwhatisevident
Iromourprecedents-thattheAmendment'sprotectionappliesinthecivilcontextaswell.SeeO'Connorv.Ortega,480U.S.
709(1987);NewJerseyv.T.L.O.,469U.S.325,334-335(1985);Michiganv.Tyler,436U.S.499,504-506(1978);
Marshallv.Barlow's,Inc.,436U.S.307,312-313(1978);Camarav.MunicipalCourtoISanFrancisco,387U.S.523,528
(1967).11
NordidtheCourtoIAppealssuggestthattheFourthAmendmentappliedexclusivelytolawenIorcementactivities.It
observed,Iorexample,thattheAmendment'sprotectionwouldbetriggered"byasearchorotherentryintothehomeincident
toanevictionorrepossession,"942F.2d,at1077.12Instead,thecourtsoughttoexplainwhytheFourthAmendmentprotects
againstseizuresoIpropertyintheplain-viewcontext,butnotinthiscase,asIollows:
"|S|eizuresmadeinthecourseoIinvestigationsbypoliceorotherlawenIorcementoIIicersarealmostalways,as
intheplainviewcases,theculminationoIsearches.Thepolicesearchinordertoseize,anditisthesearch|506U.S.
56,68| andensuingseizurethattheFourthAmendment,byitsreIerenceto"searchesandseizures,"seekstoregulate.
SeizuremeansonethingwhenitistheoutcomeoIasearch;itmaymeansomethingelsewhenitstandsapartIrom
asearchoranyotherinvestigativeactivity.TheFourthAmendmentmaystillnominallyapply,but,precisely
becausethereisnoinvasionoIprivacy,theusualrulesdonotapply."Id.,at1079(emphasisinoriginal).
WehavediIIicultywiththispassage.ThecourtseeminglyconstruestheAmendmenttoprotectonlyagainstseizuresthatare
theoutcomeoIasearch.Butourcasesaretothecontrary,andholdthatseizuresoIpropertyaresubjecttoFourthAmendment
scrutinyeventhoughnosearchwithinthemeaningoItheAmendmenthastakenplace.See,e.g.,Jacobsen,466U.S.,at120-
125;Place,462U.S.,at706-707;Cardwell,417U.S.,at588-589.13Moregenerally,anoIIicerwhohappenstocomeacross
anindividual'spropertyinapublicareacouldseizeitonlyiIFourthAmendmentstandardsaresatisIied-Iorexample,iIthe
itemsareevidenceoIacrimeorcontraband.CI.Paytonv.NewYork,|506U.S.56,69| 445U.S.,at587.Wearealsopuzzledby
thelastsentenceoItheexcerpt,wherethecourtannouncesthatthe"usualrules"oItheFourthAmendmentareinapplicableiI
theseizureisnottheresultoIasearchoranyotherinvestigativeactivity"preciselybecausethereisnoinvasionoIprivacy."
Fortheplain-viewcasesclearlystatethat,notwithstandingtheabsenceoIanyinterIerencewithprivacy,seizuresoIeIIects
thatarenotauthorizedbyawarrantarereasonableonlybecausethereisprobablecausetoassociatethepropertywithcriminal
activity.TheseizureoItheweaponsinHorton,Iorexample,occurredinthemidstoIasearch,yetweemphasizedthatitdid
not"involveanyinvasionoIprivacy."496U.S.,at133.Inshort,ourstatementthatsuchseizuresmustsatisIytheFourth
AmendmentandwillbedeemedreasonableonlyiItheitem'sincriminatingcharacteris"immediatelyapparent,"id.,at136-
137,isatoddswiththeCourtoIAppeals'approach.
TheCourtoIAppeals'eIIortisbothinterestingandcreative,but,atbottom,itsimplyreassertstheearlierthesisthatthe
FourthAmendmentprotectsprivacy,butnotproperty.Weremainunconvinced,andseenojustiIicationIordepartingIromour
priorcases.Inourview,thereasonwhyanoIIicermightenterahouseoreIIectuateaseizureiswhollyirrelevanttothe
thresholdquestionwhethertheAmendmentapplies.Whatmattersistheintrusiononthepeople'ssecurityIromgovernmental
interIerence.ThereIore,therightagainstunreasonableseizureswouldbenolesstransgressediItheseizureoIthehousewas
undertakentocollectevidence,veriIycompliancewithahousingregulation,eIIectanevictionbythepolice,oronawhim,Ior
noreasonatall.Aswehaveobservedonmorethanoneoccasion,itwouldbe"anomaloustosaythattheindividualandhis
privatepropertyareIullyprotectedbytheFourthAmendmentonlywhentheindividualissuspectedoIcriminalbehavior."
Camara387U.S.,at530;seealsoO'Connor,480U.S.,at715;T.L.O.,469U.S.,at335.|506U.S.56,70|
TheCourtoIAppealsalsostatedthat,eveniI,contrarytoitspreviousrulings,"thereissomeelementortinctureoIaFourth
Amendmentseizure,itcannotcarrythedayIortheSoldals."942F.2d,at1080.RelyingonourdecisioninGrahamv.Connor,
490U.S.386(1989),thecourtreasonedthatitshouldlookatthe"dominantcharacteroItheconductchallengedinasection
1983case|to|determinetheconstitutionalstandardunderwhichitisevaluated."942F.2d,at1080.BelievingthattheSoldals'
claimwasmoreakintoachallengeagainstthedeprivationoIpropertywithoutdueprocessoIlawthanagainstan
unreasonableseizure,thecourtconcludedthattheyshouldnotbeallowedtobringtheirsuitundertheguiseoItheFourth
Amendment.
ButweseenobasisIordolingoutconstitutionalprotectionsinsuchIashion.CertainwrongsaIIectmorethanasingleright,
and,accordingly,canimplicatemorethanoneoItheConstitution'scommands.Wheresuchmultipleviolationsarealleged,we
arenotinthehabitoIidentiIying,asapreliminarymatter,theclaim's"dominant"character.Rather,weexamineeach
constitutionalprovisioninturn.See,e.g.,Hudsonv.Palmer,468U.S.517(1984)(FourthAmendmentandFourteenth
AmendmentDueProcessClause);Ingrahamv.Wright,430U.S.651(1977)(EighthAmendmentandFourteenthAmendment
DueProcessClause).Grahamisnottothecontrary.ItsholdingwasthatclaimsoIexcessiveuseoIIorceshouldbeanalyzed
undertheFourthAmendment'sreasonablenessstandard,ratherthantheFourteenthAmendment'ssubstantivedueprocesstest.
WewereguidedbytheIactthat,inthatcase,bothprovisionstargetedthesamesortoIgovernmentalconductand,asaresult,
wechosethemore"explicittextualsourceoIconstitutionalprotection"overthe"moregeneralizednotionoI`substantivedue
process.'"490U.S.,at394-395.Surely,GrahamdoesnotbarresortinthiscasetotheFourthAmendment'sspeciIic
protectionIor"houses,papers,|506U.S.56,71| andeIIects,"ratherthanthegeneralprotectionoIpropertyintheDueProcess
Clause.
III
RespondentsareIearIul,aswastheCourtoIAppeals,thatapplyingtheFourthAmendmentinthiscontextinevitablywill
carryitintoterritoryunknownandunIoreseen:routinerepossessions,negligentactionsoIpublicemployeesthatinterIerewith
individuals'righttoenjoytheirhomes,andthelike,therebyIederalizingareasoIlawtraditionallytheconcernoItheStates.
Forseveralreasons,wethinktheriskisexaggerated.Tobegin,ourdecisionwillhavenoimpactonactivitiessuchas
repossessionsorattachmentsiItheyinvolveentryintothehome,intrusiononindividuals'privacy,orinterIerencewiththeir
liberty,becausetheywouldimplicatetheFourthAmendmentevenontheCourtoIAppeals'ownterms.ThiswastrueoIthe
TenthCircuit'sdecisioninSpecht,withwhich,aswepreviouslynoted,theCourtoIAppealsexpressedagreement.
MoresigniIicantly,"reasonablenessisstilltheultimatestandard"undertheFourthAmendment,Camara,supra,at539,which
meansthatnumerousseizuresoIthistypewillsurviveconstitutionalscrutiny.Asistrueinothercircumstances,the
reasonablenessdeterminationwillreIlecta"careIulbalancingoIgovernmentalandprivateinterests."T.L.O.,supra,at341.
Assuming,Iorexample,thattheoIIicerswereactingpursuanttoacourtorder,asinSpechtv.Jensen,832F.2d1516(CA10
1987),orFuentesv.Shevin,407U.S.67,(1972),and,asoItenwouldbethecase,ashowingoIunreasonablenessonthese
Iactswouldbealaborioustaskindeed.CI.Simmsv.Slacum,3Cranch300,301(1806).Hence,whilethereisnoguarantee
againsttheIilingoIIrivoloussuits,hadtheejectioninthiscaseproperlyawaitedthestatecourt'sjudgment,itisquiteunlikely
thattheIederalcourtwouldhavebeenbotheredwitha1983actionallegingaFourthAmendmentviolation.|506U.S.56,72|
Moreover,wedoubtthatthepolicewilloItenchoosetoIurtheranenterpriseknowingthatitiscontrarytothelaw,orproceed
toseizepropertyintheabsenceoIobjectivelyreasonablegroundsIordoingso.Inshort,ourreaIIirmanceoIFourth
AmendmentprinciplestodayshouldnotIomentawaveoInewlitigationintheIederalcourts.
IV
Thecomplainthereallegesthatrespondents,actingundercoloroIstatelaw,dispossessedtheSoldalsoItheirtrailerhomeby
physicallytearingitIromitsIoundationandtowingittoanotherlot.Takingtheseallegationsastrue,thiswasno"garden
variety"landlord-tenantorcommercialdispute.TheIactsallegedsuIIicetoconstitutea"seizure"withinthemeaningoIthe
FourthAmendment,Iortheyplainlyimplicatetheinterestsprotectedbythatprovision.ThejudgmentoItheCourtoIAppeals
is,accordingly,reversed,andthecaseisremandedIorIurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.
Soordered.
Footnotes
|1|Jones'statementwaspromptedbyadistrictattorney'sadvicethatnocriminalchargescouldbebroughtbecause,under
Illinoislaw,acriminalactioncannotbeusedtodeterminetherightoIpossession.SeeIll.Rev.Stat.ch.110,9-101etseq.
(1991);Peoplev.Evans,163Ill.App.3d561,114Ill.Dec.662,516N.E.2d817(1stDist.1987).
"Everypersonwho,undercoloroIanystatute,ordinance,regulation,customorusage,oIanyState...subjects,or
causestobesubjected,anycitizenoItheUnitedStates...tothedeprivationoIanyrights,privileges,orimmunities
securedbytheConstitutionandlaws,shallbeliabletothepartyinjuredinanactionatlaw,suitinequity,orother
properproceedingIorredress."
|4|Thecourtreiteratedthepanel'sconclusionthataconspiracymustbeassumedonthestateoItherecordand,thereIore,that
thecasemustbetreatedinitscurrentposture"asiIthedeputysheriIIsthemselvesseizedthetrailer,disconnecteditIromthe
utilities,andtoweditaway."942F.2d1073,1075(CA71991)(enbanc).
|5|Thecourtnotedthat,inlightoItheexistenceoIadequatejudicialremediesunderstatelaw,aclaimIordeprivationoI
propertywithoutdueprocessoIlawwasunlikelytosucceed.Id.,at1075-1076.SeeParrattv.Taylor,451U.S.527(1981).In
anyevent,theSoldalsdidnotclaimaviolationoItheirproceduralrights.Asnoted,theSeventhCircuitalsoheldthat
respondentshadnotviolatedtheSoldals'substantivedueprocessrightsundertheFourteenthAmendment.Petitionersassert
thatthiswaserror,but,inviewoIourdispositionoIthecase,weneednotaddressthequestionatthistime.
|6|Under42U.S.C.1983,theSoldalswererequiredtoestablishthattherespondents,actingundercoloroIstatelaw,deprived
themoIaconstitutionalright,inthisinstance,theirFourthandFourteenthAmendmentIreedomIromunreasonableseizuresby
theState.SeeMonroev.Pape,|506U.S.56,61| 365U.S.167,184(1961).RespondentsrequestthatweaIIirmonthegroundthat
theCourtoIAppealserredinholdingthattherewassuIIicientstateactiontosupporta1983action.Theallegedinjurytothe
Soldals,itisurged,wasinIlictedbyprivatepartiesIorwhomthecountyisnotresponsible.Althoughrespondentsdidnot
cross-petition,theyareentitledtoaskustoaIIirmonthatgroundiIsuchactionwouldnotenlargethejudgmentoItheCourt
oIAppealsintheirIavor.TheCourtoIAppealsIoundthat,becausethepolicepreventedSoldalIromusingreasonableIorceto
protecthishomeIromprivateactionthattheoIIicersknewwasillegal,therewassuIIicientevidenceoIconspiracybetweenthe
privatepartiesandtheoIIicerstoIoreclosesummaryjudgmentIorrespondents.Wearenotinclinedtoreviewthatholding.
SeeAdickesv.S.H.Kress&Co.,398U.S.144,152-161(1970).
|7|InholdingthattheFourthAmendment'sreachextendstopropertyassuch,wearemindIulthattheAmendmentdoesnot
protectpossessoryinterestsinallkindsoIproperty.See,e.g.,Oliverv.UnitedStates,466U.S.170,176-177(1984).This
case,however,concernsahouse,whichtheAmendment'slanguageexplicitlyincludes,asitdoesaperson'seIIects.
|8|PlacealsoIoundthattodetainluggageIor90minuteswasanunreasonabledeprivationoItheindividual's"libertyinterest
inproceedingwithhisitinerary,"whichalsoisprotectedbytheFourthAmendment.462U.S.,at708-710.
|9|When"operationalnecessities"exist,seizurescanbejustiIiedonlessthanprobablecause.480U.S.,at327.Thatinno
wayaIIectsouranalysis,IoreventhenitisclearthattheFourthAmendmentapplies.Ibid;seealsoUnitedStatesv.Place,462
U.S.696,at703(1983).
|10|OIcourse,iIthepoliceoIIicers'presenceinthehomeitselIentailedaviolationoItheFourthAmendment,noamountoI
probablecausetobelievethataniteminplainviewconstitutesincriminatingevidencewilljustiIyitsseizure.Horton,496
U.S.,at136-137.
|11|ItistruethatMurray'sLesseev.HobokenLand&ImprovementCo.,18How.272(1856),castsomedoubtonthe
applicabilityoItheAmendmenttononcriminalencounterssuchasthis.Id.,18How.at285.Butcasessincethattimehave
shedadiIIerentlight,makingclearthatFourthAmendmentguaranteesaretriggeredbygovernmentalsearchesandseizures
"withoutregardtotheusetowhich|houses,papers,andeIIects|areapplied."Warden,MarylandPenitentiaryv.Hayden,387
U.S.294,301(1967).Murray'sLessee'sbroadstatementthattheFourthAmendment"hasnoreIerencetocivilproceedings
IortherecoveryoIdebt"arguablyonlymeantthatthewarrantrequirementdidnotapply,aswassuggestedinG.M.Leasing
Corp.v.UnitedStates,429U.S.338,352(1977).Whateveritsproperreading,wereaIIirmtodayourbasicunderstandingthat
theprotectionagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizuresIullyappliesinthecivilcontext.
|12|ThiswastheviewexpressedbytheCourtoIAppealsIortheTenthCircuitinSpechtv.Jensen,832F.2d1516(1987),
remandedonunrelatedgrounds,853F.2d805(1988)(enbanc),withwhichtheSeventhCircuitexpresslyagreed.942F.2d,at
1076.
|13|TheoIIicersinthesecaseswereengagedinlawenIorcement,andwerelookingIorsomethingthatwasIoundandseized.
Inthisbroadsense,theseizuresweretheresultoI"searches,"butnotintheFourthAmendmentsense.ThattheCourtoI
Appealsmighthavebeensuggestingthattheplain-viewcasesareexplainablebecausetheyalmostalwaysoccurinthecourse
oIlawenIorcementactivitiesreceivessomesupportIromthepenultimatesentenceoIthequotedpassage,wherethecourt
statesthattheword"seizure"mightloseitsusualmeaning"whenitstandsapartIromasearchoranyotherinvestigative
activity."Id.,at1079(emphasisadded).And,intheIollowingparagraph,itobservesthat,"|o|utsideoIthelawenIorcement
area,theFourthAmendmentretainsitsIorceasaprotectionagainstsearches,becausetheyinvadeprivacy.Thatiswhywe
declinetoconIinetheamendmenttothelawenIorcementsetting."Id.,at1079-1080.EveniIthecourtmeantthatseizuresoI
propertyinthecourseoIlawenIorcementactivities,whethercivilorcriminal,implicateinterestssaIeguardedbytheFourth
Amendment,butthatpurepropertyinterestsareunprotectedinthenon-law-enIorcementsetting,wearenotinaccord,as
indicatedinthebodyoIthisopinion.|506U.S.56,73|
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:10:14 -0700
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
IcalledandreceivedpermissiontoIilethisbyIax...IamindigentandrequestaIeewaiver,andIailingthat,anopportunitytocureanyIiling
IeedeIiciency.
To: sheriffweb@washoecounty.us; lstuchell@washoecounty.us; kstancil@washoecounty.us; chansen@washoecounty.us;
milllerr@reno.gov
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:58:36 -0700
I have received (though not personally served) what appears to be an eviction notice (5 day unlawful detainer?) for rentals
located at 1680 Sky Mountain Drive, Reno, 89523, but the notice indicates that I must file a Tenant's Answer with the Sparks
Justice Court.
Am I mistaken in viewing this matter to be outside the jurisdiction of the Sparks Justice Court, and rather, a matter to be
handled in Reno Justice Court?
Given Sparks Justice Court is open 5 days a week (closes at noon on Fridays) and Reno Justice Court has 4 judicial days a week,
the deadline for filing a special appearance (to contest jurisdiction) and or a Tenant's Answer of Affidavit is difficult to measure.
I spoke with a Reno Police Department who identified himself as Sargent Miller last week and he indicated the WCSO planned to
come effectuate an eviction on this date, June 26, 2012. I believe that would be premature, as Nevada Landlord Tenant law
provides for filing a Tenant's Answer or Affidavit by noon after the fifth full day (judicial days) and Fridays in Sparks Justice
Court are not full days in that sense, and regardless, Sparks Justice Court, I believe, is not the appropriate forum where, as
here, the situs is located in Reno (Ward 1-nap?)
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
tel 775 338 8118
fax 949 667 7403
Civil Division
630 Greenbrae Drive
(775)353.7603 Phone
(775)352.3004 Fax
Chris Hansen
Civil
Civil Complaints for damages in excess of $5000 or if a suit involves a breach of contract, punitive damages, an action to obtain
possession of property, a writ of restitution, or other like actions, legal counsel is suggested for these types of actions.
Evictions
request for a pre trial motion and bail motion
Small Claims
An action filed in order to obtain a monetary judgment. Claims must not exceed $5000. A small claims action may be filed with
the Sparks Justice Court if one of the following applies to the defendant:
Sent: Mon 8/06/12 3:54 PM
To: keithloomis@earthlink.net; drakej@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov
7 attachments
20120605_101458 admitting dwayne tried to lift door up 6 5 12.mp4 (498.1 KB) , 20120605_101513 Northwind
manager handy man attacks from golf cart 6 5 12.mp4 (3.1 MB) , northwind v coughjlin combined for rjc judges
chamers vacate summary eviction motion affidavit, amended motion and proposed order.pdf (130.9 KB) , supplement
to tenants motion to dismiss northwind in sparks justice court.pdf (98.3 KB) , 6 8 12 fax to northwind with page
numbers.pdf (50.7 KB) , northwind fax 6 4 12 habitability retaliation etc.pdf (45.8 KB) , emails to
weavera@reno.gov.pdf (32.5 KB)
Dear Mr. Loomis and City Attorney Kadlic and Deputy City Attorney Drake,
I am writing to request that you file some motion to alter, amend, reconsider, set aside, or modify my bail in the case stemming
from my JUly 3, 2012 arrest for distrubing the peace, failure to provide proof of insurance, and failure to secure a load. I am
writing to request that you file a pre trial motion (Motion to Dismiss, request for a pre trial motion and bail motion, and motion to
supress police report based upon the DTP arrest occuring for alleged conduct outside the officer's presence). If you will not file
these motion (and please provide me a draft of such motions for my review prior to filing them as well as prior to making any
communication on my behalf to either the RMC or the City of Reno Prosecutor), please provide me a written indication of your
rationale for so refusing, and then please file a Motion to Withdrawal as soon as practicable. I ask this respectfully.
The police showed up to the hearing, yet I was not noticed of that fact in advance, or of the hearing itself. Further, Judge
Gardner explicilty indicated he was basing his decision to raise the bail based upon "public safety" and "concern for the
defendant's safety", which are impermissible rationale for so increasin one's bail.
NRS
178.498. Many courts use a bail schedule to determine the amount, but note the
initial amount can be increased if good cause is shown. NRS 178.499. Additionally, in
determining the amount of bail, the judge should look at the following factors (NRS
178.498):
x The nature and circumstances of the offense charged
x The defendants financial ability to post bail
x The defendants character; and
x The factors listed in NRS 178.4853.
Bail can not be excessive. U.S. Const. Amend. VIII. It should be limited to a
reasonableamountdesignedtoensurethedeIendantspresenceincourt.Itshouldnot
be a corrective or preventative detention device.
NRS 178.484. The Court should take care in imposing any restrictions on a defendants constitutional rights (i.e.,
searchandseizure)andonlyimplysuchrestrictionsiIwarrantedbytheunderlyingIacts
of the alleged crime. Section 11 of NRS 178.484 describes the document that must
be signed by the defendant before he/she can be released on bail.
My bail hearing contained what seems to be an impermissible coercive attempt to condition my release or the possibility thereof
upon my providing confidential medical records (Lake's Crossing etc) to the Reno Municipal Court, even where the same judge
presiding over the bail hearing found me competent enough to face a criminal trepass trial less than two weeks before teh bail
hearing in 11 CR 26405.
The friend of mine who posted my bail, Jared Swanson, has a serious form of cancer and a one year old baby. I request a
reduction of the bail for his benefit and for the proof of insurance charge to be dismissed, as (and I am trying to avoid this in any
way I can), if I am rearrested, such a proof of insurance charge may present another basis for imposing an unduly burdensome
bail upon me, as it did on July 5th, 2012 where, despite my having produced a legible pdf copy of my proof of insurance card on
my large screened zoomable smart phone, Officers Weaver and Dye still charged me with that violation, and the bail was
subsequently increase. Further, none of the events or accusations forming the basis of the distrubing the police charge occurred
in the officer's presence, and the police report contains no indication whatsoever that the arrest was made based upon NRS
171.1771. I provided Officer Weaver my driver's license prior to the arrest. I did not
refuses to give a written promise to appear in court as provided in NRS 171.1773.
WhenapersonisbelievedtohavecommittedamisdemeanoroIIense,thepeaceoIIicerhasthediscretionto
either issue a citation or arrest and detain the person. NRS 171.1771 states that a person can be arrested if
hisidentityisquestionableoriIthepeaceoIIicerdoesnotbelievethepersonwillappearincourt.Aperson
can also be arrested for a misdemeanor offense if a warrant has been issued.
Additionally, I am requesting that you file a Motion to Dismiss the Disturbing the Peace charge based upon a lack of evidence and or insufficiency of pleading in
that the allegations do not amount to a prima facie case of a DTP violation. Further, please subpoena and or collect the Protection Order application filed by
Milan Krebs on July 5th, 2012, and interview Krebs as to why he mentions Coughlin often carrying around a large knife in a menacing manner in that
protection order application, yet completely failed to mention that in his July 3rd, 2012 police report. Additionally, please determine why Kreb's TPO
appliication has a different style of handwriting on the caption compared to the descriptive sections, indicating someone pushed the filing of the TPO on Krebs,
perhaps his employer, Northwind Apartments or the RPD, which has in the days preceding the arrest threatend to arrest Coughlin for criminal trespass if he
returned to any part of the premises of Northwind Apartments, in consideration of Coughlin's eviction from unit 29, despite the fact Coughlin still had a valid
right to go to his other two rentals, units 45 and 71, in addition to the fact that Northwinds essentially withdrew or rescinded its June 28th, 2012 eviction of
Coughlin by posting an Amended 5 Day Unlawful Detainer Notice on unit 29 on June 28th, 2012 shortly after Coughlin pointed out to Northwinds and Nevada
Courts Services that the July 14th, 2012 5 Day notice was not "personally served" (NCS's R. Wray lied about effecting personal service, as he could not
possibly have verified someone of "suitable age and discretion" was within the windowless room with a metal door closed and locked and where no Wray
admits that he received no verbal response from the unit or anyone therein upon his knocking on the door and or attempting to break into the unit, please see
Soldal v. Cook County in that regard, a US S. Ct case) and therefore Coughlin would have had until at least noon on July 28th, 2012 to file a Tenant's Answer,
whereas the eviction/lockout/arrest of June 28th, 2012 took place two hours before noon at 10 am).
Additionally, RPD Officer Weaver had previously attempted to break into one of my rentals at Northwind at a time when he lacked a warrant and or an exigent
rationale for doing so, much less an eviction Order. I just want this case to be dismissed and to try to move on in life, and difuse the tensions incident to this
case.
I did not disturb the peace at Northwinds as alleged, nor did I make the threats Kreb's accuses me of or stalk him or follow hi m in a threatening manner at any
time. Additionaly, I never broke into nor did I ever attempt to break into Krebs' truck, and in fact, I filed a police report i n June 2012 reporting extortionate
threats by another maintenance man at Northwinds ("Luke" is his name, I believe) and Northwind's Manage Dwayne Jakob, wherein t hey threatened to make
such a spurious allegation, but subsuquently refrained from doign so when it apparently occurred to them that I may have excupl atory video evidence
disproving such an allegation as well as capturing their baseless and extortionate threats and accusations. Additionally, please subpoene the police reports I
filed with the RPD and any emails I sent to any officers (including Weaver, Barnes, Sargent MIiller, LIeutenant Brown) and any reports of or recording of
phone conversations I had with any of those RPD personnel. Further, please see the attached june 26th, 2012 email to the RPD, WCSO, RJC, Sparks Justice
Court and others pointing out the insufficiency of the 5 day Notice drafted and posted by non-lawyers Nevada Court Services, in that under NRS 40.253 it
listed the wrong forum for the tenant to file a Tenant's Answer, and under the Aiken decision of the Nevada Supreme Court and NRCP 60(b)(4), any lockout
order stemming therefrom is void for lack of jurisdiction.
(c)WhenthepersonisIoundandthearrestismadeinapublicplaceoraplacethatisopentothepublicand:...
(2)ThemisdemeanorisdiscoveredbecausetherewasprobablecauseIorthearrestingoIIicertostop,detainorarrestthepersonIoranother
allegedviolationoroIIense;
(d)WhentheoIIenseiscommittedinthepresenceoIaprivatepersonandthepersonmakesanarrestimmediatelyaItertheoIIenseis
committed;...
Krebs did not immediately arrest me under NRS 171.136(2)(d), nor was the DTP arrest for an offense alleged to have occurred in the officer's presence.
the attached videos are of the incident on June 5th, 2012, not from July 3rd, 2012, but they support my contentions and the rel evancy of subpoening the
police incident reports and other documentation should this case not be dismissed, nolle prosequi, de minimis, etc....
I will forward to you my emails to the RPD et all from June 26th, and July 2nd, 2012. I realize their tone was not a smart one to take or appropriate and am
only sending them in hopes of having this matter dismissed. I do not have any interest in pursuing anything like Wheeler v Cross 344 Fed Apps 420 ( (2008.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Close Print
Full view
|
|
Back to messages
Your Online Police Report T12004553 Has Been Submitted
6/08/12
NvRenoPd@coplogic.com
To zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
From:NvRenoPd@coplogic.com
Sent:Fri 6/08/12 4:39 PM
system.
Online Officer
Full view
|
|
Back to messages
Your Online Police Report T12004554 Has Been Submitted
6/08/12
Sent:Fri 6/08/12 4:45 PM
system.
Online Officer
Full view
|
|
Back to messages
Your Online Police Report 120103420 Has Been Approved
6/11/12
Sent:Mon 6/11/12 4:10 PM
1 attachment
report-120103420-0.pdf (71.4 KB)
Your report has been approved report and the permanent number of the case is
120103420.
Thank you for using our online reporting system and please contact us with any suggestions you have for improving our
system.
Online Officer
Full view
|
|
Back to messages
Your Online Police Report 120103420 Has Been Approved
6/11/12
6 26 12 warning to wcso rpd, etc. Reno eviction noticed for Sparks Justice
Court
Sent:Mon 6/11/12 4:11 PM
1 attachment
report-120103420-1.pdf (70.9 KB)
Your report has been approved supplemental report and the permanent number of the case is
120103420.
Thank you for using our online reporting system and please contact us with any suggestions you have for improving our
system.
Online Officer
Sent: Wed 7/25/12 4:09 PM
To: kadlicj@reno.gov; zyoung@da.washoecounty.us; mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us; hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov
1 attachment
KB)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-xXtP3-yVU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKeIYy1CF_c&feature=channel&list=UL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SvV59vUJwM&feature=channel&list=UL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-_USIE79kY&feature=channel&list=UL
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:10:14 -0700
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
IeedeIiciency.
milllerr@reno.gov
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:58:36 -0700
Justice Court.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
tel 775 338 8118
fax 949 667 7403
Civil Division
630 Greenbrae Drive
(775)353.7603 Phone
(775)352.3004 Fax
Chris Hansen
Civil
Reno eviction noticed for Sparks Justice Court
Evictions
Small Claims
Sent: Wed 7/25/12 4:02 PM
To: mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us; kadlicj@reno.gov
2 attachments
KB) , combined northwind v coughlin eviction filings.pdf (1058.4 KB)
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
To: kbrown@nvbar.org; milllerr@reno.gov; millerr@reno.gov; stuttle@washoecounty.gov; rsilva@washoecounty.us;
stuttle@washoecounty.us; jamchen@washoecounty.us; 037nor4@acg.com; info@acg-apmi.com; rjcweb@wasoecounty.us;
jboles@callatg.com; apminfo@acg.com
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 17:21:54 -0700
NOrthwindandNevadaCourtServicesservedand"amended5daynoticeoIunlawIuldetaineronJuly29th,2012"...giving
meIivedaystogetmystuIIoutoIunit29(theonethesubjectoIJudgeSchroeer'sEvictionOrder,whichwaseIIectively
rescindedbytheirservinganew5dayunlawIuldetainernotice....)aswellasunits71and45...whiciharetwounitstowhichi
stillhavevalideleaseagreements,ie,IcannotbetrespassingIoraccessingthem(theRenoPDhasindicatedtheywillarrest
meIorcriminaltrespassIoraccessinganyunitsinthecomplex,includingthosetowhichIstillhaveavalidpossessoryor
propertyinterest,inviolationoI42usc1983).
whydoesSargentMillerhavetogivemeahardtime? Isn'titenoughIorhimtohavehis"Denzel"goodlooksandamuch
higherpayingjobthanIwilleverhave? Whatupwitthat?
NorthwindandNevadaCourtServices(whichispracticingevictionlawwithoutalicense)screwedupandput"SparksJustice
CourtonGreenbrae"astheplaceIorthetenanttoIileaTenan'tsAnswerorAIIidavit. DoingsowillmaketheRJCOrderby
JudgeSchroedernullandvoid(KarenStancil,ChieICivilClerkatRJCadmitsthis,butreally,theIaultlieswithNCSand
Northwind,notthecommittedproIessionalattheRJC).
TheNoticemustidentiIytheCourtwithjurisdiction.NRS40.253(3)(a). ONecannotbetrespassinginaplacwewheretheyhaveavalid
reasonIorbeingoralawIulrighttobe. NRS207.200,RMC8.10.040.
6
U.S.SupremeCourt
SEVENTHCIRCUIT
No.91-6516
ArguedOctober5,1992
While evictionproceedingswerepending,TerracePropertiesandMargaretHaleIorciblyevictedpetitioners,theSoldal
Iamily,andtheirmobilehomeIromaTerraceProperties'mobilehomepark.AtHale'srequest,CookCounty,Illinois,SheriII's
Departmentdeputieswerepresentattheeviction.AlthoughtheyknewthattherewasnoevictionorderandthatTerrace
Properties'actionswereillegal,thedeputiesreIusedtotakeMr.Soldal'scomplaintIorcriminaltrespassorotherwiseinterIere
withtheeviction.Subsequently,thestatejudgeassignedtothependingevictionproceedingsruledthattheevictionhadbeen
unauthorized,andthetrailer,badlydamagedduringtheeviction,wasreturnedtothelot.Petitionersbroughtanactioninthe
FederalDistrictCourtunder42U.S.C.1983,claimingthatTerracePropertiesandHalehadconspiredwiththedeputysheriIIs
tounreasonablyseizeandremovetheirhomeinviolationoItheirFourthandFourteenthAmendmentrights.Thecourtgranted
deIendants'motionIorsummaryjudgment,andtheCourtoIAppealsaIIirmed.Acknowledgingthatwhathadoccurredwasa
"seizure"intheliteralsenseoItheword,thecourtreasonedthatitwasnotaseizureascontemplatedbytheFourth
Amendmentbecause,interalia,itdidnotinvadepetitioners'privacy.
Held:
(a)A"seizure"oIpropertyoccurswhen"thereissomemeaningIulinterIerencewithanindividual'spossessory
interestsinthatproperty."UnitedStatesv.Jacobsen,466U.S.109,113.ThelanguageoItheFourthAmendment-
whichprotectspeopleIromunreasonablesearchesandseizuresoI"theirpersons,houses,papers,andeIIects"-cuts
againstthenovelholdingbelow,andthisCourt'scasesunmistakablyholdthattheAmendmentprotectsproperty
evenwhereprivacyorlibertyisnotimplicated.See,e.g.,ibid.;Katzv.UnitedStates,389U.S.347,350.This
Court's"plainview"decisionsalsomakeuntenablethelowercourt'sconstructionoItheAmendment.IIthe
Amendment'sboundariesweredeIinedexclusivelybyrightsoIprivacy,"plainview"seizures,ratherthanbeing
scrupulouslysubjectedtoFourthAmendmentinquiry,Arizonav.Hicks,480U.S.321,326-327,wouldnot
implicatethatconstitutionalprovisionatall.ContrarytotheCourtoIAppeals'|506U.S.56,57| position,the
Amendmentprotectsseizureeventhoughnosearchwithinitsmeaninghastakenplace.See,e.g.,Jacobsen,supra,
at120-125.Alsocontrarytothatcourt'sview,Grahamv.Connor,490U.S.386,doesnotrequireacourt,whenit
Iindsthatawrongimplicatesmorethanoneconstitutionalcommand,tolookatthedominantcharacteroIthe
challengedconducttodetermineunderwhichconstitutionalstandarditshouldbeevaluated.Rather,each
constitutionalprovisionisexaminedinturn.See,e.g.,Hudsonv.Palmer,468U.S.517.Pp.61-71.
(b)TheinstantdecisionshouldnotIomentawaveoInewlitigationintheIederalcourts.Activitiessuchas
repossessionsorattachments,iItheyinvolveenteringahome,intrudingonindividuals'privacy,orinterIeringwith
theirliberty,wouldimplicatetheFourthAmendmentevenontheCourtoIAppeals'ownterms.Andnumerous
seizuresoIthistypewillsurviveconstitutionalscrutinyon"reasonableness"grounds.Moreover,itisunlikelythat
thepolicewilloItenchoosetoIurtheranenterpriseknowingthatitiscontrarytothelaw,orproceedtoseize
propertyintheabsenceoIobjectivelyreasonablegroundsIordoingso.Pp.71-72.
KennethL.GillisarguedthecauseIorrespondents.WithhimonthebrieIwereJackO'Malley,ReneeG.GoldIarb,and
KennethT.McCurry.|*|
| Footnote*|JamesD.Holzhauer,TimothyS.Bishop,JohnA.Powell,StevenR.Shapiro,HarveyM.Grossman,andAlanK.
ChenIiledabrieIIortheAmericanCivilLibertiesUnionetal.asamicicuriaeurgingreversal.
RichardRuda,CarterG.Phillips,MarkD.Hopson,andMarkE.HaddadIiledabrieIIortheNationalLeagueoICitiesetal.
asamicicuriaeurgingaIIirmance.
I
EdwardSoldalandhisIamilyresidedintheirtrailerhome,whichwaslocatedonarentedlotintheWillowayTerracemobile
|506U.S.56,58| homeparkinElkGrove,Illinois.InMay1987,TerraceProperties,theowneroIthepark,andMargaretHale,its
manager,IiledanevictionproceedingagainsttheSoldalsinanIllinoisstatecourt.UndertheIllinoisForcibleEntryand
DetainerAct,Ill.Rev.Stat.,ch.110,9-101etseq.(1991),atenantcannotbedispossessedabsentajudgmentoIeviction.The
suitwasdismissedonJune2,1987.AIewmonthslater,inAugust1987,theownerbroughtasecondproceedingoIeviction,
claimingnonpaymentoIrent.ThecasewassetIortrialonSeptember22,1987.
RatherthanawaitjudgmentintheirIavor,TerracePropertiesandHale,contrarytoIllinoislaw,chosetoevicttheSoldals
Iorciblytwoweekspriortothescheduledhearing.OnSeptember4,HalenotiIiedtheCookCounty'sSheriII'sDepartmentthat
shewasgoingtoremovethetrailerhomeIromthepark,andrequestedthepresenceoIsheriIIdeputiestoIorestallany
possibleresistance.Laterthatday,twoTerracePropertiesemployeesarrivedattheSoldals'homeaccompaniedbyCook
CountyDeputySheriIIO'Neil.TheemployeesproceededtowrenchthesewerandwaterconnectionsoIIthesideoIthetrailer
home,disconnectthephone,tearoIIthetrailer'scanopyandskirting,andhookthehometoatractor.Meanwhile,O'Neil
explainedtoEdwardSoldalthat"`hewastheretoseethat|Soldal|didn'tinterIerewith|Willoway's|work.'"BrieIIor
Petitioner6.
Bythistime,twomoredeputysheriIIshadarrivedatthescene,andSoldaltoldthemthathewishedtoIileacomplaintIor
criminaltrespass.TheyreIerredhimtodeputyLieutenantJones,whowasinHale'soIIice.JonesaskedSoldaltowaitoutside
whileheremainedclosetedwithHaleandotherTerracePropertiesemployeesIorover20minutes.AItertalkingtoadistrict
attorneyandmakingSoldalwaitanotherhalIhour,JonestoldSoldalthathewouldnotacceptacomplaintbecause"ìtwas
betweenthelandlordandthetenant...|and|theyweregoingtogoaheadandcontinuetomove|506U.S.56,59| outthetrailer.'"
Id.,at8.1Throughoutthisperiod,thedeputysheriIIsknewthatTerracePropertiesdidnothaveanevictionorderandthatits
actionswereunlawIul.Eventually,andinthepresenceoIanadditionaltwodeputysheriIIs,theWillowayworkerspulledthe
trailerIreeoIitsmooringsandtoweditontothestreet.Later,itwashauledtoaneighboringproperty.
OnSeptember9,thestatejudgeassignedtothependingevictionproceedingsruledthattheevictionhadbeenunauthorized,
andorderedTerracePropertiestoreturntheSoldals'hometothelot.Thehome,however,wasbadlydamaged.
|2|
TheSoldals
broughtthisactionunder42U.S.C.1983,allegingaviolationoItheirrightsundertheFourthandFourteenthAmendments.
TheyclaimedthatTerracePropertiesandHalehadconspiredwithCookCountydeputysheriIIstounreasonablyseizeand
removetheSoldals'trailerhome.TheDistrictJudgegranteddeIendants'motionIorsummaryjudgmentonthegroundsthatthe
SoldalshadIailedtoadduceanyevidencetosupporttheirconspiracytheoryand,thereIore,theexistenceoIstateaction
necessaryunder1983.
|3|
TheCourtoIAppealsIortheSeventhCircuit,construingtheIactsinpetitioners'Iavor,acceptedtheircontentionthattherewas
stateaction.However,itwentontoholdthat|506U.S.56,60| theremovaloItheSoldals'trailerdidnotconstituteaseizureIor
purposesoItheFourthAmendmentoradeprivationoIdueprocessIorpurposesoItheFourteenth.
|4|
Acknowledgingthatwhat
hadoccurredwasa"seizure"intheliteralsenseoItheword,thecourtreasonedthat,becauseitwasnotmadeinthecourseoI
publiclawenIorcement,andbecauseitdidnotinvadetheSoldals'privacy,itwasnotaseizureascontemplatedbytheFourth
Amendment.942F.2d1073,1076(1991).InterpretingpriorcasesoIthisCourt,theSeventhCircuitconcludedthat,absent
interIerencewithprivacyorliberty,a"puredeprivationoIproperty"isnotcognizableundertheFourthAmendment.Id.,at
1078-1079.Rather,petitioners'propertyinterestswereprotectedonlybytheDueProcessClausesoItheFiIthandFourteenth
Amendments.
|5|
WegrantedcertioraritoconsiderwhethertheseizureandremovaloItheSoldals'trailerhomeimplicatedtheirFourth
Amendmentrights,503U.S.918(1992),andnowreverse.
|6|
|506U.S.56,61|
II
TheFourthAmendment,madeapplicabletotheStatesbytheFourteenth,Kerv.CaliIornia,374U.S.23,30(1963),provides
inpertinentpartthatthe"rightoIthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,papers,andeIIects,againstunreasonable
searchesandseizures,shallnotbeviolated...."
A"seizure"oIproperty,wehaveexplained,occurswhen"thereissomemeaningIulinterIerencewithanindividual's
possessoryinterestsinthatproperty."UnitedStatesv.Jacobsen,466U.S.109,113(1984).Inaddition,wehaveemphasized
that"attheverycore"oItheFourthAmendment"standstherightoIamantoretreatintohisownhome."Silvermanv.United
States,365U.S.505,511(1961).SeealsoOliverv.UnitedStates,466U.S.170,178-179(1984);Wymanv.James,400U.S.
309,316(1971);Paytonv.NewYork,445U.S.573,601(1980).
AsaresultoIthestateactioninthiscase,theSoldals'domicilewasnotonlyseized,itliterallywascarriedaway,givingnew
meaningtotheterm"mobilehome."WeIailtoseehowbeingunceremoniouslydispossessedoIone'shomeinthemanner
allegedtohaveoccurredherecanbeviewedasanythingbutaseizureinvokingtheprotectionoItheFourthAmendment.
WhethertheAmendmentwasinIact|506U.S.56,62| violatedis,oIcourse,adiIIerentquestionthatrequiresdeterminingiIthe
seizurewasreasonable.ThatinquiryentailstheweighingoIvariousIactors,andisnotbeIoreus.
TheCourtiIAppealsrecognizedthattherehadbeenaseizure,butconcludedthatitwasaseizureonlyina"technical"sense,
notwithinthemeaningoItheFourthAmendment.ThisconclusionIollowedIromanarrowreadingoItheAmendment,which
thecourtconstruedtosaIeguardonlyprivacyandlibertyinterests,whileleavingunprotectedpossessoryinterestswhere
neitherprivacynorlibertywasatstake.Otherwise,thecourtsaid,
"aconstitutionalprovisionenactedtwocenturiesago|would|makeeveryrepossessionandevictionwithpolice
assistanceactionableunder-oIallthings-theFourthAmendment|,which|wouldbothtrivializetheamendment
andgratuitouslyshiItalargebodyoIroutinecommerciallitigationIromthestatecourtstotheIederalcourts.That
trivializing,thisshiIt,canbepreventedbyrecognizingthediIIerencebetweenpossessoryandprivacyinterests."
942F.2d,at1077.
BecausetheoIIicershadnotenteredSoldal'shouse,rummagedthroughhispossessions,or,intheCourtoIAppeals'view,
interIeredwithhislibertyinthecourseoItheeviction,theFourthAmendmentoIIerednoprotectionagainstthe"grave
deprivation"oIpropertythathadoccurred.Ibid.
WedonotagreewiththisinterpretationoItheFourthAmendment.TheAmendmentprotectsthepeopleIromunreasonable
searchesandseizuresoI"theirpersons,houses,papers,andeIIects."Thislanguagesurelycutsagainstthenovelholding
below,andourcasesunmistakablyholdthattheAmendmentprotectspropertyaswellasprivacy.
|7|
Thismuch|506U.S.56,63|
wasmadeclearinJacobsen,supra,whereweexplainedthattheIirstClauseoItheFourthAmendment
"protectstwotypesoIexpectations,oneinvolving"searches,"theother"seizures."A"search"occurswhenan
expectationoIprivacythatsocietyispreparedtoconsiderreasonableisinIringed.A"seizure"oIpropertyoccurs
wherethereissomemeaningIulinterIerencewithanindividual'spossessoryinterestsinthatproperty."466U.S.,at
113(Iootnoteomitted).
Seealsoid.,at120;Hortonv.CaliIornia,496U.S.128,133(1990);Arizonav.Hicks,480U.S.321,328(1987);Marylandv.
Macon,472U.S.463,469(1985);Texasv.Brown,460U.S.730,747-748(1983)(STEVENS,J.,concurringinjudgment);
UnitedStatesv.Salvucci,448U.S.83,91,n.6(1980).Thus,havingconcludedthatchemicaltestingoIpowderIoundina
packagedidnotcompromiseitsowner'sprivacy,theCourtinJacobsendidnotputanendtoitsinquiry,aswouldberequired
undertheviewadoptedbytheCourtoIAppealsandadvocatedbyrespondents.Instead,adheringtotheteachingsoIUnited
Statesv.Place,462U.S.696(1983),itwentontodeterminewhethertheinvasionoItheowners'"possessoryinterests"
occasionedbythedestructionoIthepowderwasreasonableundertheFourthAmendment.Jacobsen,supra,at124-125.In
Place,althoughweIoundthatsubjectingluggagetoa"dogsniII"didnotconstituteasearchIorFourthAmendmentpurposes
becauseitdidnotcompromiseanyprivacyinterest,takingcustodyoIPlace'ssuitcasewasdeemedanunlawIulseizure,Iorit
unreasonablyinIringed"thesuspect'spossessoryinterestinhisluggage."462U.S.,at708.8Althoughlackingaprivacy
component,thepropertyrightsinbothinstancesnonethelesswerenot|506U.S.56,64| disregarded,butratherwereaIIorded
FourthAmendmentprotection.
RespondentsrelyprincipallyonprecedentssuchasKatzv.UnitedStates,389U.S.347(1967),Warden,Maryland
Penitentiaryv.Hayden,387U.S.294(1967),andCardwellv.Lewis,417U.S.583(1974),todemonstratethattheFourth
Amendmentisonlymarginallyconcernedwithpropertyrights.ButthemessageoIthosecasesisthatpropertyrightsarenot
thesolemeasureoIFourthAmendmentviolations.TheWardenopinionthusobserved,citingJonesv.UnitedStates,362U.S.
257(1960),andSilvermanv.UnitedStates,365U.S.505(1961),thatthe"principal"objectoItheAmendmentisthe
protectionoIprivacy,ratherthanproperty,andthat"thisshiItinemphasisIrompropertytoprivacyhascomeaboutthrougha
subtleinterplayoIsubstantiveandproceduralreIorm."387U.S.,at304.TherewasnosuggestionthatthisshiItinemphasis
hadsnuIIedoutthepreviouslyrecognizedprotectionIorpropertyundertheFourthAmendment.Katz,indeclaringviolativeoI
theFourthAmendmenttheunwarrantedoverhearingoIatelephoneboothconversation,eIIectivelyendedanylingering
notionsthattheprotectionoIprivacydependedontrespassintoaprotectedarea.InthecourseoIitsdecision,theKatzCourt
statedthattheFourthAmendmentcanneitherbetranslatedintoaprovisiondealingwithconstitutionallyprotectedareasnor
intoageneralconstitutionalrighttoprivacy.TheAmendment,theCourtsaid,protectsindividualprivacyagainstcertainkinds
oIgovernmentalintrusion,"butitsprotectionsgoIurther,andoItenhavenothingtodowithprivacyatall."389U.S.,at350.
AsIorCardwell,apluralityoIthisCourtheldinthatcasethattheFourthAmendmentdidnotbartheuseinevidenceoIpaint
scrapingstakenIromandtiretreadsobservedonthedeIendant'sautomobile,whichhadbeenseizedinaparkinglotandtowed
toapolicelockup.Gatheringthisevidencewasnotdeemedtobeasearch,IornothingIromthe|506U.S.56,65| interioroIthe
carand"nopersonaleIIects,whichtheFourthAmendmenttraditionallyhasbeendeemedtoprotect"weresearchedorseized.
417U.S.,at591(opinionoIBLACKMUN,J.).NomeaningIulprivacyrightswereinvaded.ButthisleIttheargument,
pressedbythedissent,thattheevidencegatheredwastheproductoIawarrantless,andhenceillegal,seizureoIthecarIrom
theparkinglotwherethedeIendanthadleItit.However,thepluralitywasoItheviewthat,because,underthecircumstances
oIthecase,therewasprobablecausetoseizethecarasaninstrumentalityoIthecrime,FourthAmendmentprecedent
permittedtheseizurewithoutawarrant.Id.,at593.Thus,boththepluralityanddissentingJusticesconsideredthedeIendant's
autodeservingoIFourthAmendmentprotectioneventhoughprivacyinterestswerenotatstake.TheydiIIeredonlyinthe
degreeoIprotectionthattheAmendmentdemanded.
TheCourtoIAppealsappearedtoIindmorespeciIicsupportIorconIiningtheprotectionoItheFourthAmendmenttoprivacy
interestsinourdecisioninHudsonv.Palmer,468U.S.517(1984).There,astateprisoninmatesued,claimingthatprison
guardshadenteredhiscellwithoutconsentandhadseizedanddestroyedsomeoIhispersonaleIIects.Weruledthatan
inmate,becauseoIhisstatus,enjoyedneitherarighttoprivacyinhiscellnorprotectionagainstunreasonableseizuresoIhis
personaleIIects.Id.,at526-528,andn.8;id.,at538(O'CONNOR,J.,concurring).Whateverelsethecaseheld,itisoI
limiteduseIulnessoutsidetheprisoncontextwithrespecttothecoverageoItheFourthAmendment.
WethusareunconvincedthatanyoItheCourt'spriorcasessupportstheviewthattheFourthAmendmentprotectsagainst
unreasonableseizuresoIpropertyonlywhereprivacyorlibertyisalsoimplicated.Whatismore,our"plainview"decisions
makeuntenablesuchaconstructionoItheAmendment.Suppose,Iorexample,thatpoliceoIIicerslawIullyenterahouse,by
eithercomplyingwiththewarrantrequirementorsatisIyingoneoIitsrecognizedexceptions-|506U.S.56,66| e.g.,througha
validconsentorashowingoIexigentcircumstances.IItheycomeacrosssomeiteminplainviewandseizeit,noinvasionoI
personalprivacyhasoccurred.Horton,496U.S.,at133-134;Brown,supra,at739(opinionoIREHNQUIST,J.).IIthe
boundariesoItheFourthAmendmentweredeIinedexclusivelybyrightsoIprivacy,"plainview"seizureswouldnotimplicate
thatconstitutionalprovisionatall.Yet,IarIrombeingautomaticallyupheld,"plainview"seizureshavebeenscrupulously
subjectedtoFourthAmendmentinquiry.Thus,intheabsenceoIconsentorawarrantpermittingtheseizureoItheitemsin
question,suchseizurescanbejustiIiedonlyiItheymeettheprobable-causestandard,Arizonav.Hicks,480U.S.321,326-
327(1987),9andiItheyareunaccompaniedbyunlawIultrespass,Horton,496U.S.,at136-137.10Thatisbecause,the
absenceoIaprivacyinterestnotwithstanding,"|a|seizureoIthearticle...wouldobviouslyinvadetheowner'spossessory
interest."Id.,at134;seealsoBrown,460U.S.,at739(opinionoIREHNQUIST,J.).Theplain-viewdoctrine"merelyreIlects
anapplicationoItheFourthAmendment'scentralrequirementoIreasonablenesstothelawgoverningseizuresoIproperty."
Ibid.;Coolidgev.NewHampshire,403U.S.443,468(1971);id.,at516(WHITE,J.,concurringanddissenting).
TheCourtoIAppealsunderstandablyIounditnecessarytoreconcileitsholdingwithourrecognitionintheplain-viewcases
thattheFourthAmendmentprotectspropertyassuch.Insodoing,thecourtdidnotdistinguishthiscaseonthegroundthat
theseizureoItheSoldals'hometookplaceina|506U.S.56,67| noncriminalcontext.Indeed,itacknowledgedwhatisevident
Iromourprecedents-thattheAmendment'sprotectionappliesinthecivilcontextaswell.SeeO'Connorv.Ortega,480U.S.
709(1987);NewJerseyv.T.L.O.,469U.S.325,334-335(1985);Michiganv.Tyler,436U.S.499,504-506(1978);
Marshallv.Barlow's,Inc.,436U.S.307,312-313(1978);Camarav.MunicipalCourtoISanFrancisco,387U.S.523,528
(1967).11
NordidtheCourtoIAppealssuggestthattheFourthAmendmentappliedexclusivelytolawenIorcementactivities.It
observed,Iorexample,thattheAmendment'sprotectionwouldbetriggered"byasearchorotherentryintothehomeincident
toanevictionorrepossession,"942F.2d,at1077.12Instead,thecourtsoughttoexplainwhytheFourthAmendmentprotects
againstseizuresoIpropertyintheplain-viewcontext,butnotinthiscase,asIollows:
"|S|eizuresmadeinthecourseoIinvestigationsbypoliceorotherlawenIorcementoIIicersarealmostalways,as
intheplainviewcases,theculminationoIsearches.Thepolicesearchinordertoseize,anditisthesearch|506U.S.
56,68| andensuingseizurethattheFourthAmendment,byitsreIerenceto"searchesandseizures,"seekstoregulate.
SeizuremeansonethingwhenitistheoutcomeoIasearch;itmaymeansomethingelsewhenitstandsapartIrom
asearchoranyotherinvestigativeactivity.TheFourthAmendmentmaystillnominallyapply,but,precisely
becausethereisnoinvasionoIprivacy,theusualrulesdonotapply."Id.,at1079(emphasisinoriginal).
WehavediIIicultywiththispassage.ThecourtseeminglyconstruestheAmendmenttoprotectonlyagainstseizuresthatare
theoutcomeoIasearch.Butourcasesaretothecontrary,andholdthatseizuresoIpropertyaresubjecttoFourthAmendment
scrutinyeventhoughnosearchwithinthemeaningoItheAmendmenthastakenplace.See,e.g.,Jacobsen,466U.S.,at120-
125;Place,462U.S.,at706-707;Cardwell,417U.S.,at588-589.13Moregenerally,anoIIicerwhohappenstocomeacross
anindividual'spropertyinapublicareacouldseizeitonlyiIFourthAmendmentstandardsaresatisIied-Iorexample,iIthe
itemsareevidenceoIacrimeorcontraband.CI.Paytonv.NewYork,|506U.S.56,69| 445U.S.,at587.Wearealsopuzzledby
thelastsentenceoItheexcerpt,wherethecourtannouncesthatthe"usualrules"oItheFourthAmendmentareinapplicableiI
theseizureisnottheresultoIasearchoranyotherinvestigativeactivity"preciselybecausethereisnoinvasionoIprivacy."
Fortheplain-viewcasesclearlystatethat,notwithstandingtheabsenceoIanyinterIerencewithprivacy,seizuresoIeIIects
thatarenotauthorizedbyawarrantarereasonableonlybecausethereisprobablecausetoassociatethepropertywithcriminal
activity.TheseizureoItheweaponsinHorton,Iorexample,occurredinthemidstoIasearch,yetweemphasizedthatitdid
not"involveanyinvasionoIprivacy."496U.S.,at133.Inshort,ourstatementthatsuchseizuresmustsatisIytheFourth
AmendmentandwillbedeemedreasonableonlyiItheitem'sincriminatingcharacteris"immediatelyapparent,"id.,at136-
137,isatoddswiththeCourtoIAppeals'approach.
TheCourtoIAppeals'eIIortisbothinterestingandcreative,but,atbottom,itsimplyreassertstheearlierthesisthatthe
FourthAmendmentprotectsprivacy,butnotproperty.Weremainunconvinced,andseenojustiIicationIordepartingIromour
priorcases.Inourview,thereasonwhyanoIIicermightenterahouseoreIIectuateaseizureiswhollyirrelevanttothe
thresholdquestionwhethertheAmendmentapplies.Whatmattersistheintrusiononthepeople'ssecurityIromgovernmental
interIerence.ThereIore,therightagainstunreasonableseizureswouldbenolesstransgressediItheseizureoIthehousewas
undertakentocollectevidence,veriIycompliancewithahousingregulation,eIIectanevictionbythepolice,oronawhim,Ior
noreasonatall.Aswehaveobservedonmorethanoneoccasion,itwouldbe"anomaloustosaythattheindividualandhis
privatepropertyareIullyprotectedbytheFourthAmendmentonlywhentheindividualissuspectedoIcriminalbehavior."
Camara387U.S.,at530;seealsoO'Connor,480U.S.,at715;T.L.O.,469U.S.,at335.|506U.S.56,70|
TheCourtoIAppealsalsostatedthat,eveniI,contrarytoitspreviousrulings,"thereissomeelementortinctureoIaFourth
Amendmentseizure,itcannotcarrythedayIortheSoldals."942F.2d,at1080.RelyingonourdecisioninGrahamv.Connor,
490U.S.386(1989),thecourtreasonedthatitshouldlookatthe"dominantcharacteroItheconductchallengedinasection
1983case|to|determinetheconstitutionalstandardunderwhichitisevaluated."942F.2d,at1080.BelievingthattheSoldals'
claimwasmoreakintoachallengeagainstthedeprivationoIpropertywithoutdueprocessoIlawthanagainstan
unreasonableseizure,thecourtconcludedthattheyshouldnotbeallowedtobringtheirsuitundertheguiseoItheFourth
Amendment.
ButweseenobasisIordolingoutconstitutionalprotectionsinsuchIashion.CertainwrongsaIIectmorethanasingleright,
and,accordingly,canimplicatemorethanoneoItheConstitution'scommands.Wheresuchmultipleviolationsarealleged,we
arenotinthehabitoIidentiIying,asapreliminarymatter,theclaim's"dominant"character.Rather,weexamineeach
constitutionalprovisioninturn.See,e.g.,Hudsonv.Palmer,468U.S.517(1984)(FourthAmendmentandFourteenth
AmendmentDueProcessClause);Ingrahamv.Wright,430U.S.651(1977)(EighthAmendmentandFourteenthAmendment
DueProcessClause).Grahamisnottothecontrary.ItsholdingwasthatclaimsoIexcessiveuseoIIorceshouldbeanalyzed
undertheFourthAmendment'sreasonablenessstandard,ratherthantheFourteenthAmendment'ssubstantivedueprocesstest.
WewereguidedbytheIactthat,inthatcase,bothprovisionstargetedthesamesortoIgovernmentalconductand,asaresult,
wechosethemore"explicittextualsourceoIconstitutionalprotection"overthe"moregeneralizednotionoI`substantivedue
process.'"490U.S.,at394-395.Surely,GrahamdoesnotbarresortinthiscasetotheFourthAmendment'sspeciIic
protectionIor"houses,papers,|506U.S.56,71| andeIIects,"ratherthanthegeneralprotectionoIpropertyintheDueProcess
Clause.
III
RespondentsareIearIul,aswastheCourtoIAppeals,thatapplyingtheFourthAmendmentinthiscontextinevitablywill
carryitintoterritoryunknownandunIoreseen:routinerepossessions,negligentactionsoIpublicemployeesthatinterIerewith
individuals'righttoenjoytheirhomes,andthelike,therebyIederalizingareasoIlawtraditionallytheconcernoItheStates.
Forseveralreasons,wethinktheriskisexaggerated.Tobegin,ourdecisionwillhavenoimpactonactivitiessuchas
repossessionsorattachmentsiItheyinvolveentryintothehome,intrusiononindividuals'privacy,orinterIerencewiththeir
liberty,becausetheywouldimplicatetheFourthAmendmentevenontheCourtoIAppeals'ownterms.ThiswastrueoIthe
TenthCircuit'sdecisioninSpecht,withwhich,aswepreviouslynoted,theCourtoIAppealsexpressedagreement.
MoresigniIicantly,"reasonablenessisstilltheultimatestandard"undertheFourthAmendment,Camara,supra,at539,which
meansthatnumerousseizuresoIthistypewillsurviveconstitutionalscrutiny.Asistrueinothercircumstances,the
reasonablenessdeterminationwillreIlecta"careIulbalancingoIgovernmentalandprivateinterests."T.L.O.,supra,at341.
Assuming,Iorexample,thattheoIIicerswereactingpursuanttoacourtorder,asinSpechtv.Jensen,832F.2d1516(CA10
1987),orFuentesv.Shevin,407U.S.67,(1972),and,asoItenwouldbethecase,ashowingoIunreasonablenessonthese
Iactswouldbealaborioustaskindeed.CI.Simmsv.Slacum,3Cranch300,301(1806).Hence,whilethereisnoguarantee
againsttheIilingoIIrivoloussuits,hadtheejectioninthiscaseproperlyawaitedthestatecourt'sjudgment,itisquiteunlikely
thattheIederalcourtwouldhavebeenbotheredwitha1983actionallegingaFourthAmendmentviolation.|506U.S.56,72|
Moreover,wedoubtthatthepolicewilloItenchoosetoIurtheranenterpriseknowingthatitiscontrarytothelaw,orproceed
toseizepropertyintheabsenceoIobjectivelyreasonablegroundsIordoingso.Inshort,ourreaIIirmanceoIFourth
AmendmentprinciplestodayshouldnotIomentawaveoInewlitigationintheIederalcourts.
IV
Thecomplainthereallegesthatrespondents,actingundercoloroIstatelaw,dispossessedtheSoldalsoItheirtrailerhomeby
physicallytearingitIromitsIoundationandtowingittoanotherlot.Takingtheseallegationsastrue,thiswasno"garden
variety"landlord-tenantorcommercialdispute.TheIactsallegedsuIIicetoconstitutea"seizure"withinthemeaningoIthe
FourthAmendment,Iortheyplainlyimplicatetheinterestsprotectedbythatprovision.ThejudgmentoItheCourtoIAppeals
is,accordingly,reversed,andthecaseisremandedIorIurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.
Soordered.
Footnotes
|1|Jones'statementwaspromptedbyadistrictattorney'sadvicethatnocriminalchargescouldbebroughtbecause,under
Illinoislaw,acriminalactioncannotbeusedtodeterminetherightoIpossession.SeeIll.Rev.Stat.ch.110,9-101etseq.
(1991);Peoplev.Evans,163Ill.App.3d561,114Ill.Dec.662,516N.E.2d817(1stDist.1987).
"Everypersonwho,undercoloroIanystatute,ordinance,regulation,customorusage,oIanyState...subjects,or
causestobesubjected,anycitizenoItheUnitedStates...tothedeprivationoIanyrights,privileges,orimmunities
securedbytheConstitutionandlaws,shallbeliabletothepartyinjuredinanactionatlaw,suitinequity,orother
properproceedingIorredress."
|4|Thecourtreiteratedthepanel'sconclusionthataconspiracymustbeassumedonthestateoItherecordand,thereIore,that
thecasemustbetreatedinitscurrentposture"asiIthedeputysheriIIsthemselvesseizedthetrailer,disconnecteditIromthe
utilities,andtoweditaway."942F.2d1073,1075(CA71991)(enbanc).
|5|Thecourtnotedthat,inlightoItheexistenceoIadequatejudicialremediesunderstatelaw,aclaimIordeprivationoI
propertywithoutdueprocessoIlawwasunlikelytosucceed.Id.,at1075-1076.SeeParrattv.Taylor,451U.S.527(1981).In
anyevent,theSoldalsdidnotclaimaviolationoItheirproceduralrights.Asnoted,theSeventhCircuitalsoheldthat
respondentshadnotviolatedtheSoldals'substantivedueprocessrightsundertheFourteenthAmendment.Petitionersassert
thatthiswaserror,but,inviewoIourdispositionoIthecase,weneednotaddressthequestionatthistime.
|6|Under42U.S.C.1983,theSoldalswererequiredtoestablishthattherespondents,actingundercoloroIstatelaw,deprived
themoIaconstitutionalright,inthisinstance,theirFourthandFourteenthAmendmentIreedomIromunreasonableseizuresby
theState.SeeMonroev.Pape,|506U.S.56,61| 365U.S.167,184(1961).RespondentsrequestthatweaIIirmonthegroundthat
theCourtoIAppealserredinholdingthattherewassuIIicientstateactiontosupporta1983action.Theallegedinjurytothe
Soldals,itisurged,wasinIlictedbyprivatepartiesIorwhomthecountyisnotresponsible.Althoughrespondentsdidnot
cross-petition,theyareentitledtoaskustoaIIirmonthatgroundiIsuchactionwouldnotenlargethejudgmentoItheCourt
oIAppealsintheirIavor.TheCourtoIAppealsIoundthat,becausethepolicepreventedSoldalIromusingreasonableIorceto
protecthishomeIromprivateactionthattheoIIicersknewwasillegal,therewassuIIicientevidenceoIconspiracybetweenthe
privatepartiesandtheoIIicerstoIoreclosesummaryjudgmentIorrespondents.Wearenotinclinedtoreviewthatholding.
SeeAdickesv.S.H.Kress&Co.,398U.S.144,152-161(1970).
|7|InholdingthattheFourthAmendment'sreachextendstopropertyassuch,wearemindIulthattheAmendmentdoesnot
protectpossessoryinterestsinallkindsoIproperty.See,e.g.,Oliverv.UnitedStates,466U.S.170,176-177(1984).This
case,however,concernsahouse,whichtheAmendment'slanguageexplicitlyincludes,asitdoesaperson'seIIects.
|8|PlacealsoIoundthattodetainluggageIor90minuteswasanunreasonabledeprivationoItheindividual's"libertyinterest
inproceedingwithhisitinerary,"whichalsoisprotectedbytheFourthAmendment.462U.S.,at708-710.
|9|When"operationalnecessities"exist,seizurescanbejustiIiedonlessthanprobablecause.480U.S.,at327.Thatinno
wayaIIectsouranalysis,IoreventhenitisclearthattheFourthAmendmentapplies.Ibid;seealsoUnitedStatesv.Place,462
U.S.696,at703(1983).
|10|OIcourse,iIthepoliceoIIicers'presenceinthehomeitselIentailedaviolationoItheFourthAmendment,noamountoI
probablecausetobelievethataniteminplainviewconstitutesincriminatingevidencewilljustiIyitsseizure.Horton,496
U.S.,at136-137.
|11|ItistruethatMurray'sLesseev.HobokenLand&ImprovementCo.,18How.272(1856),castsomedoubtonthe
applicabilityoItheAmendmenttononcriminalencounterssuchasthis.Id.,18How.at285.Butcasessincethattimehave
shedadiIIerentlight,makingclearthatFourthAmendmentguaranteesaretriggeredbygovernmentalsearchesandseizures
"withoutregardtotheusetowhich|houses,papers,andeIIects|areapplied."Warden,MarylandPenitentiaryv.Hayden,387
U.S.294,301(1967).Murray'sLessee'sbroadstatementthattheFourthAmendment"hasnoreIerencetocivilproceedings
IortherecoveryoIdebt"arguablyonlymeantthatthewarrantrequirementdidnotapply,aswassuggestedinG.M.Leasing
Corp.v.UnitedStates,429U.S.338,352(1977).Whateveritsproperreading,wereaIIirmtodayourbasicunderstandingthat
theprotectionagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizuresIullyappliesinthecivilcontext.
|12|ThiswastheviewexpressedbytheCourtoIAppealsIortheTenthCircuitinSpechtv.Jensen,832F.2d1516(1987),
remandedonunrelatedgrounds,853F.2d805(1988)(enbanc),withwhichtheSeventhCircuitexpresslyagreed.942F.2d,at
1076.
|13|TheoIIicersinthesecaseswereengagedinlawenIorcement,andwerelookingIorsomethingthatwasIoundandseized.
Inthisbroadsense,theseizuresweretheresultoI"searches,"butnotintheFourthAmendmentsense.ThattheCourtoI
Appealsmighthavebeensuggestingthattheplain-viewcasesareexplainablebecausetheyalmostalwaysoccurinthecourse
oIlawenIorcementactivitiesreceivessomesupportIromthepenultimatesentenceoIthequotedpassage,wherethecourt
statesthattheword"seizure"mightloseitsusualmeaning"whenitstandsapartIromasearchoranyotherinvestigative
activity."Id.,at1079(emphasisadded).And,intheIollowingparagraph,itobservesthat,"|o|utsideoIthelawenIorcement
area,theFourthAmendmentretainsitsIorceasaprotectionagainstsearches,becausetheyinvadeprivacy.Thatiswhywe
declinetoconIinetheamendmenttothelawenIorcementsetting."Id.,at1079-1080.EveniIthecourtmeantthatseizuresoI
propertyinthecourseoIlawenIorcementactivities,whethercivilorcriminal,implicateinterestssaIeguardedbytheFourth
Amendment,butthatpurepropertyinterestsareunprotectedinthenon-law-enIorcementsetting,wearenotinaccord,as
indicatedinthebodyoIthisopinion.|506U.S.56,73|
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:10:14 -0700
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
IeedeIiciency.
milllerr@reno.gov
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:58:36 -0700
Justice Court.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
tel 775 338 8118
fax 949 667 7403
Civil Division
630 Greenbrae Drive
(775)353.7603 Phone
(775)352.3004 Fax
Chris Hansen
Fwd: Wheeler v cross 344 fed apps 420
Wheeler v cross 344 fed apps 420
please provide to Judge Gardner, seeking permission to file
Civil
Evictions
Small Claims
Sent: Wed 7/25/12 1:43 PM
To: kadlicj@reno.gov
My July 3 disturbing the peace arrest was for conduct allegedly outside officers presence...impermissible Search of vehicle....I
don't want much....
-------- Original message --------
Subject: Wheeler v cross 344 fed apps 420
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
CC:
is a lot like the arrest Rpd did on me July 3 2012. Doing 17 days in jail....Rpd ignored the video and police report I filed June 5
2012 showing an assault and admission of attempted Break in and trespass by northerns apt staff, one of whom signed the
criminal complaint in my d
Sent: Wed 7/25/12 1:39 PM
is a lot like the arrest Rpd did on me July 3 2012. Doing 17 days in jail....Rpd ignored the video and police report I filed June 5
2012 showing an assault and admission of attempted Break in and trespass by northerns apt staff, one of whom signed the
criminal complaint in my d
Sent: Tue 7/24/12 6:40 PM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov; ballardd@reno.gov
1 attachment
11 cr 25405 soldal version final[1].pdf (129.0 KB)
DearRMC,
Iamunabletoprintthisdocument(IhavenomoneyandmuchoImypropertyisbeingillegallywithheldbyalandlord...)that
IattemptedtoIiledonorabout6/25/12...ididserveittoC.Hazlett-StevensoItheCityAttorney'sOIIiceandIattemptedto
Iileitinperson...near5pm...IhavebeentoldbyMr.TuttleoItheRJCthatthedoorslockonatimerat5pm...Well,Iwasnot
lockedout...buttheDeputyatthemetaldetectorturnedmeaway,citingthatitwasclosingtime....Iwasarrestedtwiceinthe
motion for new trial
nextIewdays,thoughIbelieveItriedtoIaxthistotheRMC(asanemergencymeasureandhopeIullynotinviolationoI
JudgeGardnersearlierOrderregardingIaxing....)onorabout6/30/12...
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Sent: Thu 6/28/12 2:13 AM
To: hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov
1 attachment
11 cr 25405 soldal version final.pdf (154.9 KB)
Zach Coughlin,Esq.
NevadaBarNo:9473(currentlysuspended)
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
tel:7753388118
Iax:9496677402
ProSeDeIendant
regardin11cr22176:MotionIorNewTrial,etc.(14pages)
alsosenttoHon.JudgeWilliamGardner
1SouthSierraStreet,P.O.Box1900renonv
*Faxnumber:
7753343859
ChristopherP.Hazlett-StevensCompany:RenoCityAttorney'sOIIiceAddress:P.O.Box1900~Reno,NV89505PhoneNumber:775-326-
6628Faxnumber:775-334-4226Email:hazlett-stevenscreno.gov
DearJudgeGardnerandMr.Hazlett-Stevens,
IattemptedtoIileatollingmotiononJune25thandagainonJune26th,2012.onthe25thFilingoIIicesupervisorDonnaBallardandCourt
AdministratorCassandraJacksondecidedtoreIusetoacceptmyIiling,apparently.ThenonJune26th,2012,Ientedthecourtpriortothe
"timedlockignoIthedoors"thatIhavebeeneducatedonpreviouslybycourtadminstrationinrelationtoseekigntoIiledocumentscloseto
closingtime,however,IwasagainreIusedinmyattempttoIileanothersuchtollingmotionandtoaccessjustice.IamIaxthisIilingtoboth
oIyou,withthecaveatthatIdonotwishtoviolateanydicateagainstIaxIilignthatJudgeGardnermayhaveineIIect(Iamabitunclear
FW: Reno eviction noticed Ior Sparks Justice Court
Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlinhotmail.com)7/02/12
To: kbrownnvbar.org, milllerrreno.gov, millerrreno.gov, stuttlewashoecounty.gov,
rsilvawashoecounty.us, stuttlewashoecounty.us, jamchenwashoecounty.us, 037nor4acg.com,
inIoacg-apmi.com, rjcwebwasoecounty.us, jbolescallatg.com, apminIoacg.com
Sent: Mon 7/02/12 5:21 PM
To: kbrownnvbar.org; milllerrreno.gov; millerrreno.gov; stuttlewashoecounty.gov;
rsilvawashoecounty.us; stuttlewashoecounty.us; jamchenwashoecounty.us; 037nor4acg.com;
inIoacg-apmi.com; rjcwebwasoecounty.us; jbolescallatg.com; apminIoacg.com
Outlook Active View
2 attachments (total 1164.6 KB)
coughlin v northwind 16TenantsAIIidavitDeclarationOtherPrivateHousing other than nonpayment
oI rent.pdIDownload
combined northwind v coughlin eviction Iilings.pdIDownload
Download all as zip
NOrthwind and Nevada Court Services served and "amended 5 day notice oI unlawIul detainer on July
29th, 2012"...giving me Iive days to get my stuII out oI unit 29 (the one the subject oI Judge Schroeer's
Eviction Order, which was eIIectively rescinded by their serving a new 5 day unlawIul detainer
notice....) as well as units 71 and 45...whicih are two units to which i still have valide lease agreements,
ie, I cannot be trespassing Ior accessing them (the Reno PD has indicated they will arrest me Ior
criminal trespass Ior accessing any units in the complex, including those to which I still have a valid
possessory or property interest, in violation oI 42 usc 1983).

why does Sargent Miller have to give me a hard time? Isn't it enough Ior him to have his "Denzel"
good looks and a much higher paying job than I will ever have? What up wit that?

Northwind and Nevada Court Services (which is practicing eviction law without a license) screwed up
and put "Sparks Justice Court on Greenbrae" as the place Ior the tenant to Iile a Tenan'ts Answer or
AIIidavit. Doing so will make the RJC Order by Judge Schroeder null and void (Karen Stancil, ChieI
Civil Clerk at RJC admits this, but really, the Iault lies with NCS and Northwind, not the committed
proIessional at the RJC).
The Notice must identiIy the Court with jurisdiction. NRS 40.253(3)(a). ONe cannot be trespassing in
a placwe where they have a valid reason Ior being or a lawIul right to be. NRS 207.200, RMC
8.10.040.

In Aikins v. Andrews, 91 Nev. 746, 542 P.2d 734 (1975), the Supreme COUli construed the
predecessor statute to NRS 40.2516 to mean that the alternative Iive (5) day notice must be given
1/12
6
beIore the tenants can be dispossed and a lease can be validly terminated. The court stated that this
Iive (5) day notice requirement " ... neither can be waved nor neglected." 91 Nev. at 748.

U.S. Supreme Court
SOLDAL v. COOK COUNTY, 506 U.S. 56 (1992)
506 U.S. 56 SOLDAL, ET UX. v. COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 91-6516
Argued October 5, 1992
Decided December 8, 1992
While eviction proceedings were pending, Terrace Properties and Margaret Hale Iorcibly evicted
petitioners, the Soldal Iamily, and their mobile home Irom a Terrace Properties' mobile home park. At
Hale's request, Cook County, Illinois, SheriII's Department deputies were present at the eviction.
Although they knew that there was no eviction order and that Terrace Properties' actions were illegal,
the deputies reIused to take Mr. Soldal's complaint Ior criminal trespass or otherwise interIere with the
eviction. Subsequently, the state judge assigned to the pending eviction proceedings ruled that the
eviction had been unauthorized, and the trailer, badly damaged during the eviction, was returned to the
lot. Petitioners brought an action in the Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that
Terrace Properties and Hale had conspired with the deputy sheriIIs to unreasonably seize and remove
their home in violation oI their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court granted deIendants'
motion Ior summary judgment, and the Court oI Appeals aIIirmed. Acknowledging that what had
occurred was a "seizure" in the literal sense oI the word, the court reasoned that it was not a seizure as
contemplated by the Fourth Amendment because, inter alia, it did not invade petitioners' privacy.
Held:
The seizure and removal oI the trailer home implicated petitioners' Fourth Amendment rights. Pp. 61-
72.
(a) A "seizure" oI property occurs when "there is some meaningIul interIerence with an individual's
possessory interests in that property." United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 . The language oI
the Fourth Amendment - which protects people Irom unreasonable searches and seizures oI "their
persons, houses, papers, and eIIects" - cuts against the novel holding below, and this Court's cases
unmistakably hold that the Amendment protects property even where privacy or liberty is not
implicated. See, e.g., ibid.; Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 . This Court's "plain view"
decisions also make untenable the lower court's construction oI the Amendment. II the Amendment's
boundaries were deIined exclusively by rights oI privacy, "plain view" seizures, rather than being
scrupulously subjected to Fourth Amendment inquiry, Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 -327, would
not implicate that constitutional provision at all. Contrary to the Court oI Appeals' |506 U.S. 56, 57|
position, the Amendment protects seizure even though no search within its meaning has taken place.
See, e.g., Jacobsen, supra, at 120-125. Also contrary to that court's view, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S.
386 , does not require a court, when it Iinds that a wrong implicates more than one constitutional
command, to look at the dominant character oI the challenged conduct to determine under which
2/12
constitutional standard it should be evaluated. Rather, each constitutional provision is examined in turn.
See, e.g., Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 . Pp. 61-71.
(b) The instant decision should not Ioment a wave oI new litigation in the Iederal courts. Activities such
as repossessions or attachments, iI they involve entering a home, intruding on individuals' privacy, or
interIering with their liberty, would implicate the Fourth Amendment even on the Court oI Appeals'
own terms. And numerous seizures oI this type will survive constitutional scrutiny on "reasonableness"
grounds. Moreover, it is unlikely that the police will oIten choose to Iurther an enterprise knowing that
it is contrary to the law, or proceed to seize property in the absence oI objectively reasonable grounds
Ior doing so. Pp. 71-72.
942 F.2d 1073, reversed and remanded.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion Ior a unanimous Court.
John L. Stainthorp argued the cause and Iiled brieIs Ior petitioners.
Kenneth L. Gillis argued the cause Ior respondents. With him on the brieI were Jack O'Malley, Renee
G. GoldIarb, and Kenneth T. McCurry. |*|
| Footnote *| James D. Holzhauer, Timothy S. Bishop, John A. Powell, Steven R. Shapiro, Harvey M.
Grossman, and Alan K. Chen Iiled a brieI Ior the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae
urging reversal.
Richard Ruda, Carter G. Phillips, Mark D. Hopson, and Mark E. Haddad Iiled a brieI Ior the National
League oI Cities et al. as amici curiae urging aIIirmance.
JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion oI the Court.
I
Edward Soldal and his Iamily resided in their trailer home, which was located on a rented lot in the
Willoway Terrace mobile |506 U.S. 56, 58| home park in Elk Grove, Illinois. In May 1987, Terrace
Properties, the owner oI the park, and Margaret Hale, its manager, Iiled an eviction proceeding against
the Soldals in an Illinois state court. Under the Illinois Forcible Entry and Detainer Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.,
ch. 110, # 9-101 et seq. (1991), a tenant cannot be dispossessed absent a judgment oI eviction. The suit
was dismissed on June 2, 1987. A Iew months later, in August 1987, the owner brought a second
proceeding oI eviction, claiming nonpayment oI rent. The case was set Ior trial on September 22, 1987.
Rather than await judgment in their Iavor, Terrace Properties and Hale, contrary to Illinois law, chose to
evict the Soldals Iorcibly two weeks prior to the scheduled hearing. On September 4, Hale notiIied the
Cook County's SheriII's Department that she was going to remove the trailer home Irom the park, and
requested the presence oI sheriII deputies to Iorestall any possible resistance. Later that day, two
Terrace Properties employees arrived at the Soldals' home accompanied by Cook County Deputy
SheriII O'Neil. The employees proceeded to wrench the sewer and water connections oII the side oI the
trailer home, disconnect the phone, tear oII the trailer's canopy and skirting, and hook the home to a
tractor. Meanwhile, O'Neil explained to Edward Soldal that "`he was there to see that |Soldal| didn't
interIere with |Willoway's| work.'" BrieI Ior Petitioner 6.
By this time, two more deputy sheriIIs had arrived at the scene, and Soldal told them that he wished to
Iile a complaint Ior criminal trespass. They reIerred him to deputy Lieutenant Jones, who was in Hale's
oIIice. Jones asked Soldal to wait outside while he remained closeted with Hale and other Terrace
Properties employees Ior over 20 minutes. AIter talking to a district attorney and making Soldal wait
another halI hour, Jones told Soldal that he would not accept a complaint because "ìt was between the
landlord and the tenant ... |and| they were going to go ahead and continue to move |506 U.S. 56, 59|
out the trailer.'" Id., at 8. 1 Throughout this period, the deputy sheriIIs knew that Terrace Properties did
not have an eviction order and that its actions were unlawIul. Eventually, and in the presence oI an
additional two deputy sheriIIs, the Willoway workers pulled the trailer Iree oI its moorings and towed it
onto the street. Later, it was hauled to a neighboring property.
3/12
On September 9, the state judge assigned to the pending eviction proceedings ruled that the eviction
had been unauthorized, and ordered Terrace Properties to return the Soldals' home to the lot. The home,
however, was badly damaged. |2| The Soldals brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging a
violation oI their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. They claimed that Terrace
Properties and Hale had conspired with Cook County deputy sheriIIs to unreasonably seize and remove
the Soldals' trailer home. The District Judge granted deIendants' motion Ior summary judgment on the
grounds that the Soldals had Iailed to adduce any evidence to support their conspiracy theory and,
thereIore, the existence oI state action necessary under 1983. |3|
The Court oI Appeals Ior the Seventh Circuit, construing the Iacts in petitioners' Iavor, accepted their
contention that there was state action. However, it went on to hold that |506 U.S. 56, 60| the removal oI
the Soldals' trailer did not constitute a seizure Ior purposes oI the Fourth Amendment or a deprivation
oI due process Ior purposes oI the Fourteenth.
On rehearing, a majority oI the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, reaIIirmed the panel decision. |4|
Acknowledging that what had occurred was a "seizure" in the literal sense oI the word, the court
reasoned that, because it was not made in the course oI public law enIorcement, and because it did not
invade the Soldals' privacy, it was not a seizure as contemplated by the Fourth Amendment. 942 F.2d
1073, 1076 (1991). Interpreting prior cases oI this Court, the Seventh Circuit concluded that, absent
interIerence with privacy or liberty, a "pure deprivation oI property" is not cognizable under the Fourth
Amendment. Id., at 1078-1079. Rather, petitioners' property interests were protected only by the Due
Process Clauses oI the FiIth and Fourteenth Amendments. |5|
We granted certiorari to consider whether the seizure and removal oI the Soldals' trailer home
implicated their Fourth Amendment rights, 503 U.S. 918 (1992), and now reverse. |6| |506 U.S. 56,
61|
II
The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, Ker v. CaliIornia, 374 U.S.
23, 30 (1963), provides in pertinent part that the "right oI the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and eIIects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... ."
A "seizure" oI property, we have explained, occurs when "there is some meaningIul interIerence with
an individual's possessory interests in that property." United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113
(1984). In addition, we have emphasized that "at the very core" oI the Fourth Amendment "stands the
right oI a man to retreat into his own home." Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961). See
also Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 178 -179 (1984); Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 316
(1971); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 601 (1980).
As a result oI the state action in this case, the Soldals' domicile was not only seized, it literally was
carried away, giving new meaning to the term "mobile home." We Iail to see how being
unceremoniously dispossessed oI one's home in the manner alleged to have occurred here can be
viewed as anything but a seizure invoking the protection oI the Fourth Amendment. Whether the
Amendment was in Iact |506 U.S. 56, 62| violated is, oI course, a diIIerent question that requires
determining iI the seizure was reasonable. That inquiry entails the weighing oI various Iactors, and is
not beIore us.
The Court iI Appeals recognized that there had been a seizure, but concluded that it was a seizure only
in a "technical" sense, not within the meaning oI the Fourth Amendment. This conclusion Iollowed
Irom a narrow reading oI the Amendment, which the court construed to saIeguard only privacy and
liberty interests, while leaving unprotected possessory interests where neither privacy nor liberty was at
stake. Otherwise, the court said,
"a constitutional provision enacted two centuries ago |would| make every repossession and eviction
with police assistance actionable under - oI all things - the Fourth Amendment|, which| would both
4/12
trivialize the amendment and gratuitously shiIt a large body oI routine commercial litigation Irom the
state courts to the Iederal courts. That trivializing, this shiIt, can be prevented by recognizing the
diIIerence between possessory and privacy interests." 942 F.2d, at 1077.
Because the oIIicers had not entered Soldal's house, rummaged through his possessions, or, in the Court
oI Appeals' view, interIered with his liberty in the course oI the eviction, the Fourth Amendment
oIIered no protection against the "grave deprivation" oI property that had occurred. Ibid.
We do not agree with this interpretation oI the Fourth Amendment. The Amendment protects the people
Irom unreasonable searches and seizures oI "their persons, houses, papers, and eIIects." This language
surely cuts against the novel holding below, and our cases unmistakably hold that the Amendment
protects property as well as privacy. |7| This much |506 U.S. 56, 63| was made clear in Jacobsen,
supra, where we explained that the Iirst Clause oI the Fourth Amendment
"protects two types oI expectations, one involving "searches," the other "seizures." A "search" occurs
when an expectation oI privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is inIringed. A "seizure"
oI property occurs where there is some meaningIul interIerence with an individual's possessory
interests in that property." 466 U.S., at 113 (Iootnote omitted).
See also id., at 120; Horton v. CaliIornia, 496 U.S. 128, 133 (1990); Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321,
328 (1987); Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 469 (1985); Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 747 -748
(1983) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment); United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 91 , n. 6
(1980). Thus, having concluded that chemical testing oI powder Iound in a package did not
compromise its owner's privacy, the Court in Jacobsen did not put an end to its inquiry, as would be
required under the view adopted by the Court oI Appeals and advocated by respondents. Instead,
adhering to the teachings oI United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983), it went on to determine
whether the invasion oI the owners' "possessory interests" occasioned by the destruction oI the powder
was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Jacobsen, supra, at 124-125. In Place, although we Iound
that subjecting luggage to a "dog sniII" did not constitute a search Ior Fourth Amendment purposes
because it did not compromise any privacy interest, taking custody oI Place's suitcase was deemed an
unlawIul seizure, Ior it unreasonably inIringed "the suspect's possessory interest in his luggage." 462
U.S., at 708 . 8 Although lacking a privacy component, the property rights in both instances
nonetheless were not |506 U.S. 56, 64| disregarded, but rather were aIIorded Fourth Amendment
protection.
Respondents rely principally on precedents such as Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967),
Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967), and Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583
(1974), to demonstrate that the Fourth Amendment is only marginally concerned with property rights.
But the message oI those cases is that property rights are not the sole measure oI Fourth Amendment
violations. The Warden opinion thus observed, citing Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960), and
Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961), that the "principal" object oI the Amendment is the
protection oI privacy, rather than property, and that "this shiIt in emphasis Irom property to privacy has
come about through a subtle interplay oI substantive and procedural reIorm." 387 U.S., at 304 . There
was no suggestion that this shiIt in emphasis had snuIIed out the previously recognized protection Ior
property under the Fourth Amendment. Katz, in declaring violative oI the Fourth Amendment the
unwarranted overhearing oI a telephone booth conversation, eIIectively ended any lingering notions
that the protection oI privacy depended on trespass into a protected area. In the course oI its decision,
the Katz Court stated that the Fourth Amendment can neither be translated into a provision dealing with
constitutionally protected areas nor into a general constitutional right to privacy. The Amendment, the
Court said, protects individual privacy against certain kinds oI governmental intrusion, "but its
protections go Iurther, and oIten have nothing to do with privacy at all." 389 U.S., at 350 .
As Ior Cardwell, a plurality oI this Court held in that case that the Fourth Amendment did not bar the
5/12
use in evidence oI paint scrapings taken Irom and tire treads observed on the deIendant's automobile,
which had been seized in a parking lot and towed to a police lockup. Gathering this evidence was not
deemed to be a search, Ior nothing Irom the |506 U.S. 56, 65| interior oI the car and "no personal
eIIects, which the Fourth Amendment traditionally has been deemed to protect" were searched or
seized. 417 U.S., at 591 (opinion oI BLACKMUN, J.). No meaningIul privacy rights were invaded. But
this leIt the argument, pressed by the dissent, that the evidence gathered was the product oI a
warrantless, and hence illegal, seizure oI the car Irom the parking lot where the deIendant had leIt it.
However, the plurality was oI the view that, because, under the circumstances oI the case, there was
probable cause to seize the car as an instrumentality oI the crime, Fourth Amendment precedent
permitted the seizure without a warrant. Id., at 593. Thus, both the plurality and dissenting Justices
considered the deIendant's auto deserving oI Fourth Amendment protection even though privacy
interests were not at stake. They diIIered only in the degree oI protection that the Amendment
demanded.
The Court oI Appeals appeared to Iind more speciIic support Ior conIining the protection oI the Fourth
Amendment to privacy interests in our decision in Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984). There, a
state prison inmate sued, claiming that prison guards had entered his cell without consent and had
seized and destroyed some oI his personal eIIects. We ruled that an inmate, because oI his status,
enjoyed neither a right to privacy in his cell nor protection against unreasonable seizures oI his personal
eIIects. Id., at 526-528, and n. 8; id., at 538 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). Whatever else the case held,
it is oI limited useIulness outside the prison context with respect to the coverage oI the Fourth
Amendment.
We thus are unconvinced that any oI the Court's prior cases supports the view that the Fourth
Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures oI property only where privacy or liberty is also
implicated. What is more, our "plain view" decisions make untenable such a construction oI the
Amendment. Suppose, Ior example, that police oIIicers lawIully enter a house, by either complying
with the warrant requirement or satisIying one oI its recognized exceptions - |506 U.S. 56, 66| e.g.,
through a valid consent or a showing oI exigent circumstances. II they come across some item in plain
view and seize it, no invasion oI personal privacy has occurred. Horton, 496 U.S., at 133 -134; Brown,
supra, at 739 (opinion oI REHNQUIST, J.). II the boundaries oI the Fourth Amendment were deIined
exclusively by rights oI privacy, "plain view" seizures would not implicate that constitutional provision
at all. Yet, Iar Irom being automatically upheld, "plain view" seizures have been scrupulously subjected
to Fourth Amendment inquiry. Thus, in the absence oI consent or a warrant permitting the seizure oI the
items in question, such seizures can be justiIied only iI they meet the probable-cause standard, Arizona
v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 -327 (1987), 9 and iI they are unaccompanied by unlawIul trespass,
Horton, 496 U.S., at 136 -137. 10 That is because, the absence oI a privacy interest notwithstanding,
"|a| seizure oI the article ... would obviously invade the owner's possessory interest." Id., at 134; see
also Brown, 460 U.S., at 739 (opinion oI REHNQUIST, J.). The plain-view doctrine "merely reIlects an
application oI the Fourth Amendment's central requirement oI reasonableness to the law governing
seizures oI property." Ibid.; Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 468 (1971); id., at 516
(WHITE, J., concurring and dissenting).
The Court oI Appeals understandably Iound it necessary to reconcile its holding with our recognition in
the plain-view cases that the Fourth Amendment protects property as such. In so doing, the court did
not distinguish this case on the ground that the seizure oI the Soldals' home took place in a |506 U.S.
56, 67| noncriminal context. Indeed, it acknowledged what is evident Irom our precedents - that the
Amendment's protection applies in the civil context as well. See O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709
(1987); New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 334 -335 (1985); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 504
-506 (1978); Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 312 -313 (1978); Camara v. Municipal Court oI
6/12
San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 528 (1967). 11
Nor did the Court oI Appeals suggest that the Fourth Amendment applied exclusively to law
enIorcement activities. It observed, Ior example, that the Amendment's protection would be triggered
"by a search or other entry into the home incident to an eviction or repossession," 942 F.2d, at 1077. 12
Instead, the court sought to explain why the Fourth Amendment protects against seizures oI property in
the plain-view context, but not in this case, as Iollows:
"|S|eizures made in the course oI investigations by police or other law enIorcement oIIicers are almost
always, as in the plain view cases, the culmination oI searches. The police search in order to seize, and
it is the search |506 U.S. 56, 68| and ensuing seizure that the Fourth Amendment, by its reIerence to
"searches and seizures," seeks to regulate. Seizure means one thing when it is the outcome oI a search;
it may mean something else when it stands apart Irom a search or any other investigative activity. The
Fourth Amendment may still nominally apply, but, precisely because there is no invasion oI privacy,
the usual rules do not apply." Id., at 1079 (emphasis in original).
We have diIIiculty with this passage. The court seemingly construes the Amendment to protect only
against seizures that are the outcome oI a search. But our cases are to the contrary, and hold that
seizures oI property are subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny even though no search within the
meaning oI the Amendment has taken place. See, e.g., Jacobsen, 466 U.S., at 120 -125; Place, 462 U.S.,
at 706 -707; Cardwell, 417 U.S., at 588 -589. 13 More generally, an oIIicer who happens to come
across an individual's property in a public area could seize it only iI Fourth Amendment standards are
satisIied - Ior example, iI the items are evidence oI a crime or contraband. CI. Payton v. New York,
|506 U.S. 56, 69| 445 U.S., at 587 . We are also puzzled by the last sentence oI the excerpt, where the
court announces that the "usual rules" oI the Fourth Amendment are inapplicable iI the seizure is not
the result oI a search or any other investigative activity "precisely because there is no invasion oI
privacy." For the plain-view cases clearly state that, notwithstanding the absence oI any interIerence
with privacy, seizures oI eIIects that are not authorized by a warrant are reasonable only because there
is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity. The seizure oI the weapons in Horton,
Ior example, occurred in the midst oI a search, yet we emphasized that it did not "involve any invasion
oI privacy." 496 U.S., at 133 . In short, our statement that such seizures must satisIy the Fourth
Amendment and will be deemed reasonable only iI the item's incriminating character is "immediately
apparent," id., at 136-137, is at odds with the Court oI Appeals' approach.
The Court oI Appeals' eIIort is both interesting and creative, but, at bottom, it simply reasserts the
earlier thesis that the Fourth Amendment protects privacy, but not property. We remain unconvinced,
and see no justiIication Ior departing Irom our prior cases. In our view, the reason why an oIIicer might
enter a house or eIIectuate a seizure is wholly irrelevant to the threshold question whether the
Amendment applies. What matters is the intrusion on the people's security Irom governmental
interIerence. ThereIore, the right against unreasonable seizures would be no less transgressed iI the
seizure oI the house was undertaken to collect evidence, veriIy compliance with a housing regulation,
eIIect an eviction by the police, or on a whim, Ior no reason at all. As we have observed on more than
one occasion, it would be "anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are Iully
protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected oI criminal behavior."
Camara 387 U.S., at 530 ; see also O'Connor, 480 U.S., at 715 ; T.L.O., 469 U.S., at 335 . |506 U.S. 56,
70|
The Court oI Appeals also stated that, even iI, contrary to its previous rulings, "there is some element or
tincture oI a Fourth Amendment seizure, it cannot carry the day Ior the Soldals." 942 F.2d, at 1080.
Relying on our decision in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), the court reasoned that it should
look at the "dominant character oI the conduct challenged in a section 1983 case |to| determine the
constitutional standard under which it is evaluated." 942 F.2d, at 1080. Believing that the Soldals' claim
7/12
was more akin to a challenge against the deprivation oI property without due process oI law than
against an unreasonable seizure, the court concluded that they should not be allowed to bring their suit
under the guise oI the Fourth Amendment.
But we see no basis Ior doling out constitutional protections in such Iashion. Certain wrongs aIIect
more than a single right, and, accordingly, can implicate more than one oI the Constitution's
commands. Where such multiple violations are alleged, we are not in the habit oI identiIying, as a
preliminary matter, the claim's "dominant" character. Rather, we examine each constitutional provision
in turn. See, e.g., Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process Clause); Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) (Eighth Amendment and
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause). Graham is not to the contrary. Its holding was that claims
oI excessive use oI Iorce should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard,
rather than the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process test. We were guided by the Iact that,
in that case, both provisions targeted the same sort oI governmental conduct and, as a result, we chose
the more "explicit textual source oI constitutional protection" over the "more generalized notion oI
`substantive due process.'" 490 U.S., at 394 -395. Surely, Graham does not bar resort in this case to the
Fourth Amendment's speciIic protection Ior "houses, papers, |506 U.S. 56, 71| and eIIects," rather than
the general protection oI property in the Due Process Clause.
III
Respondents are IearIul, as was the Court oI Appeals, that applying the Fourth Amendment in this
context inevitably will carry it into territory unknown and unIoreseen: routine repossessions, negligent
actions oI public employees that interIere with individuals' right to enjoy their homes, and the like,
thereby Iederalizing areas oI law traditionally the concern oI the States. For several reasons, we think
the risk is exaggerated. To begin, our decision will have no impact on activities such as repossessions
or attachments iI they involve entry into the home, intrusion on individuals' privacy, or interIerence
with their liberty, because they would implicate the Fourth Amendment even on the Court oI Appeals'
own terms. This was true oI the Tenth Circuit's decision in Specht, with which, as we previously noted,
the Court oI Appeals expressed agreement.
More signiIicantly, "reasonableness is still the ultimate standard" under the Fourth Amendment,
Camara, supra, at 539, which means that numerous seizures oI this type will survive constitutional
scrutiny. As is true in other circumstances, the reasonableness determination will reIlect a "careIul
balancing oI governmental and private interests." T.L.O., supra, at 341. Assuming, Ior example, that the
oIIicers were acting pursuant to a court order, as in Specht v. Jensen, 832 F.2d 1516 (CA10 1987), or
Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 , (1972), and, as oIten would be the case, a showing oI
unreasonableness on these Iacts would be a laborious task indeed. CI. Simms v. Slacum, 3 Cranch 300,
301 (1806). Hence, while there is no guarantee against the Iiling oI Irivolous suits, had the ejection in
this case properly awaited the state court's judgment, it is quite unlikely that the Iederal court would
have been bothered with a 1983 action alleging a Fourth Amendment violation. |506 U.S. 56, 72|
Moreover, we doubt that the police will oIten choose to Iurther an enterprise knowing that it is contrary
to the law, or proceed to seize property in the absence oI objectively reasonable grounds Ior doing so.
In short, our reaIIirmance oI Fourth Amendment principles today should not Ioment a wave oI new
litigation in the Iederal courts.
IV
The complaint here alleges that respondents, acting under color oI state law, dispossessed the Soldals oI
their trailer home by physically tearing it Irom its Ioundation and towing it to another lot. Taking these
allegations as true, this was no "garden variety" landlord-tenant or commercial dispute. The Iacts
alleged suIIice to constitute a "seizure" within the meaning oI the Fourth Amendment, Ior they plainly
implicate the interests protected by that provision. The judgment oI the Court oI Appeals is,
8/12
accordingly, reversed, and the case is remanded Ior Iurther proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Footnotes
|1| Jones' statement was prompted by a district attorney's advice that no criminal charges could be
brought because, under Illinois law, a criminal action cannot be used to determine the right oI
possession. See Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, # 9-101 et seq. (1991); People v. Evans, 163 Ill.App. 3d 561, 114
Ill.Dec. 662, 516 N.E.2d 817 (1st Dist. 1987).
|2| The Soldals ultimately were evicted per court order in December 1987.
|3| Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides that:
"Every person who, under color oI any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, oI any State ...
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen oI the United States ... to the deprivation oI any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding Ior redress."
|4| The court reiterated the panel's conclusion that a conspiracy must be assumed on the state oI the
record and, thereIore, that the case must be treated in its current posture "as iI the deputy sheriIIs
themselves seized the trailer, disconnected it Irom the utilities, and towed it away." 942 F.2d 1073,
1075 (CA7 1991) (en banc).
|5| The court noted that, in light oI the existence oI adequate judicial remedies under state law, a claim
Ior deprivation oI property without due process oI law was unlikely to succeed. Id., at 1075-1076. See
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981). In any event, the Soldals did not claim a violation oI their
procedural rights. As noted, the Seventh Circuit also held that respondents had not violated the Soldals'
substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioners assert that this was error,
but, in view oI our disposition oI the case, we need not address the question at this time.
|6| Under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Soldals were required to establish that the respondents, acting under
color oI state law, deprived them oI a constitutional right, in this instance, their Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment Ireedom Irom unreasonable seizures by the State. See Monroe v. Pape, |506 U.S. 56, 61|
365 U.S. 167, 184 (1961). Respondents request that we aIIirm on the ground that the Court oI Appeals
erred in holding that there was suIIicient state action to support a 1983 action. The alleged injury to the
Soldals, it is urged, was inIlicted by private parties Ior whom the county is not responsible. Although
respondents did not cross-petition, they are entitled to ask us to aIIirm on that ground iI such action
would not enlarge the judgment oI the Court oI Appeals in their Iavor. The Court oI Appeals Iound that,
because the police prevented Soldal Irom using reasonable Iorce to protect his home Irom private
action that the oIIicers knew was illegal, there was suIIicient evidence oI conspiracy between the
private parties and the oIIicers to Ioreclose summary judgment Ior respondents. We are not inclined to
review that holding. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 -161 (1970).
|7| In holding that the Fourth Amendment's reach extends to property as such, we are mindIul that the
Amendment does not protect possessory interests in all kinds oI property. See, e.g., Oliver v. United
States, 466 U.S. 170, 176 -177 (1984). This case, however, concerns a house, which the Amendment's
language explicitly includes, as it does a person's eIIects.
|8| Place also Iound that to detain luggage Ior 90 minutes was an unreasonable deprivation oI the
individual's "liberty interest in proceeding with his itinerary," which also is protected by the Fourth
Amendment. 462 U.S., at 708 -710.
|9| When "operational necessities" exist, seizures can be justiIied on less than probable cause. 480
U.S., at 327 . That in no way aIIects our analysis, Ior even then it is clear that the Fourth Amendment
applies. Ibid; see also United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 , at 703 (1983).
|10| OI course, iI the police oIIicers' presence in the home itselI entailed a violation oI the Fourth
Amendment, no amount oI probable cause to believe that an item in plain view constitutes
9/12
incriminating evidence will justiIy its seizure. Horton, 496 U.S., at 136 -137.
|11| It is true that Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272 (1856), cast
some doubt on the applicability oI the Amendment to noncriminal encounters such as this. Id., 18 How.
at 285. But cases since that time have shed a diIIerent light, making clear that Fourth Amendment
guarantees are triggered by governmental searches and seizures "without regard to the use to which
|houses, papers, and eIIects| are applied." Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 301
(1967). Murray's Lessee's broad statement that the Fourth Amendment "has no reIerence to civil
proceedings Ior the recovery oI debt" arguably only meant that the warrant requirement did not apply,
as was suggested in G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 352 (1977). Whatever its
proper reading, we reaIIirm today our basic understanding that the protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures Iully applies in the civil context.
|12| This was the view expressed by the Court oI Appeals Ior the Tenth Circuit in Specht v. Jensen, 832
F.2d 1516 (1987), remanded on unrelated grounds, 853 F.2d 805 (1988) (en banc), with which the
Seventh Circuit expressly agreed. 942 F.2d, at 1076.
|13| The oIIicers in these cases were engaged in law enIorcement, and were looking Ior something that
was Iound and seized. In this broad sense, the seizures were the result oI "searches," but not in the
Fourth Amendment sense. That the Court oI Appeals might have been suggesting that the plain-view
cases are explainable because they almost always occur in the course oI law enIorcement activities
receives some support Irom the penultimate sentence oI the quoted passage, where the court states that
the word "seizure" might lose its usual meaning "when it stands apart Irom a search or any other
investigative activity." Id., at 1079 (emphasis added). And, in the Iollowing paragraph, it observes that,
"|o|utside oI the law enIorcement area, the Fourth Amendment retains its Iorce as a protection against
searches, because they invade privacy. That is why we decline to conIine the amendment to the law
enIorcement setting." Id., at 1079-1080. Even iI the court meant that seizures oI property in the course
oI law enIorcement activities, whether civil or criminal, implicate interests saIeguarded by the Fourth
Amendment, but that pure property interests are unprotected in the non-law-enIorcement setting, we
are not in accord, as indicated in the body oI this opinion. |506 U.S. 56, 73|

Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Tel 775 338 8118
Fax 949 667 7402

To: chansenwashoecounty.us
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:10:14 -0700
10/12
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Tel 775 338 8118
Fax 949 667 7402
Dear Sparks Justice Court,
I called and received permission to Iile this by Iax...I am indigent and request a Iee waiver, and Iailing
that, an opportunity to cure any Iiling Iee deIiciency.
To: sheriIIwebwashoecounty.us; lstuchellwashoecounty.us; kstancilwashoecounty.us;
chansenwashoecounty.us; milllerrreno.gov
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:58:36 -0700
I have received (though not personally served) what appears to be an eviction notice (5 day unlawIul
detainer?) Ior rentals located at 1680 Sky Mountain Drive, Reno, 89523, but the notice indicates that I
must Iile a Tenant's Answer with the Sparks Justice Court.
Am I mistaken in viewing this matter to be outside the jurisdiction oI the Sparks Justice Court, and
rather, a matter to be handled in Reno Justice Court?
Given Sparks Justice Court is open 5 days a week (closes at noon on Fridays) and Reno Justice Court
has 4 judicial days a week, the deadline Ior Iiling a special appearance (to contest jurisdiction) and or a
Tenant's Answer oI AIIidavit is diIIicult to measure.
I spoke with a Reno Police Department who identiIied himselI as Sargent Miller last week and he
indicated the WCSO planned to come eIIectuate an eviction on this date, June 26, 2012. I believe that
would be premature, as Nevada Landlord Tenant law provides Ior Iiling a Tenant's Answer or AIIidavit
by noon aIter the IiIth Iull day (judicial days) and Fridays in Sparks Justice Court are not Iull days in
that sense, and regardless, Sparks Justice Court, I believe, is not the appropriate Iorum where, as here,
the situs is located in Reno (Ward 1-nap?)
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
tel 775 338 8118
Iax 949 667 7403
11/12
Civil Division
630 Greenbrae Drive
(775)353.7603 Phone
(775)352.3004 Fax
Chris Hansen
The Civil Division oI Sparks Justice Court is made up oI three major Iunctions:
Civil
Civil Complaints Ior damages in excess oI $5000 or iI a suit involves a breach oI contract, punitive
damages, an action to obtain possession oI property, a writ oI restitution, or other like actions, legal
counsel is suggested Ior these types oI actions.
Evictions
An act or process oI legally dispossessing a person oI land or rental property.
Small Claims
An action Iiled in order to obtain a monetary judgment. Claims must not exceed $5000. A small claims
action may be Iiled with the Sparks Justice Court iI one oI the Iollowing applies to the deIendant:
They reside within the boundaries oI the Sparks Township;
They are employed within the boundaries oI the Sparks Township; and/or,
They do business within the boundaries oI the Sparks Township.
12/12
motion for new trial
nextIewdays,thoughIbelieveItriedtoIaxthistotheRMC(asanemergencymeasureandhopeIullynotinviolationoI
JudgeGardnersearlierOrderregardingIaxing....)onorabout6/30/12...
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel7753388118
Fax9496677402
Sent: Thu 6/28/12 2:13 AM
To: hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov
1 attachment
11 cr 25405 soldal version final.pdf (154.9 KB)
Zach Coughlin,Esq.
NevadaBarNo:9473(currentlysuspended)
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
tel:7753388118
Iax:9496677402
ProSeDeIendant
regardin11cr22176:MotionIorNewTrial,etc.(14pages)
alsosenttoHon.JudgeWilliamGardner
1SouthSierraStreet,P.O.Box1900renonv
*Faxnumber:
7753343859
ChristopherP.Hazlett-StevensCompany:RenoCityAttorney'sOIIiceAddress:P.O.Box1900~Reno,NV89505PhoneNumber:775-326-
6628Faxnumber:775-334-4226Email:hazlett-stevenscreno.gov
DearJudgeGardnerandMr.Hazlett-Stevens,
IattemptedtoIileatollingmotiononJune25thandagainonJune26th,2012.onthe25thFilingoIIicesupervisorDonnaBallardandCourt
AdministratorCassandraJacksondecidedtoreIusetoacceptmyIiling,apparently.ThenonJune26th,2012,Ientedthecourtpriortothe
"timedlockignoIthedoors"thatIhavebeeneducatedonpreviouslybycourtadminstrationinrelationtoseekigntoIiledocumentscloseto
closingtime,however,IwasagainreIusedinmyattempttoIileanothersuchtollingmotionandtoaccessjustice.IamIaxthisIilingtoboth
oIyou,withthecaveatthatIdonotwishtoviolateanydicateagainstIaxIilignthatJudgeGardnermayhaveineIIect(Iamabitunclear
motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration, motion to alter or amend
whetherthatonlyappliedtopre-trialmotionsortoanything).
IbelievetheWhitman,Sullivan,Donoho,andotherNvS.CtdecisionsIorbidMs.BallardandJacksonIromsorejectingmyIilings,in
additiontoNRCP5(e).
Sincerely,
zAchCoughlin
Sent: Wed 6/27/12 1:53 PM
To: kadlicj@reno.gov; hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov
1 attachment
motion for new trial 11 cr 26405 4 pages submitted for filing 6 26 12 to rmc.pdf (4.3 MB)
PleaseIindattachedthetollingmotionsinthesubjectline
IromZachCoughlin
\(NVBArNo:9473,currentlysuspended)
POBOX3961
RENO,NV89505
Tele:775-338-8118
FAX:9496677402
TO:
RenoCityAttorney'sOIIice
ChristopherHazlett-Stevens,Esq.
JohnKadlic,Esq.
Reno eviction noticed for Sparks Justice Court
Email:
Sent: Tue 6/26/12 7:58 AM
milllerr@reno.gov
Justice Court.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
tel 775 338 8118
fax 949 667 7403
Civil Division
630 Greenbrae Drive
(775)353.7603 Phone
(775)352.3004 Fax
Chris Hansen
Civil
Evictions
Small Claims
NCAA and Dwayne jakob
Nevada court services attack and attempted break in
respectfully submitted
Sent: Fri 6/22/12 9:36 AM
To: weavera@reno.gov
Keep turning light off attempting break in malicious abuse of process claiming color of law
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Sent: Fri 6/22/12 9:34 AM
To: weavera@reno.gov
NCA and northerns mgmt tried to break again on June 14th.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Sent: Fri 6/08/12 4:41 PM
To: weavera@reno.gov; barnesm@reno.gov
6 attachments
20120605_101513 Northwind manager handy man attacks from golf cart 6 5 12.mp4 (3.1 MB) , landlord tenant law
manual for police in minnesota.pdf (735.1 KB) , Police_manual_-_final_as_adopted_by_State's_Attorney.pdf (263.7
KB) , trespass criminal civil evictdion.pdf (69.8 KB) , 6 8 12 fax to northwind with page numbers.pdf (50.7 KB) ,
northwind fax 6 4 12 habitability retaliation etc.pdf (45.8 KB)
IamrespectIullysubmittingthissupplementarymaterialtothepolicereportIsubmittedtoyouinpersonon
June6,2012regardingtheassaultIwasthevictimoIatthehandsoImaintenancestaIImemberLukeoI
NorthwindApartmentsonJune5th,2012,andtheattemptsatunlawIulentrycommittedbyNorthwind
ManagerDwayneJakobonoraboutJune4,2012.
IamattachinganarticleyoumayIindoIinterestregardingtheintersectionoIlandlordtenantlawandpolice
work,visaviscriminal/civilmattersandtheIinedistinctionsthatsometimesarise. Ididn'tseeanythingin
thereonOIIicerWeaversIinehypotheticalregardingentrywithoutpermissionwhenaburglarymaybe
occurring. ThatsituationprobablydoesnotcomeupthatoItenbecausehardlyanybodybutthepolicewould
bebraveenoughtoentersuchadangeroussituation.
IappreciatethebraveservicebothoIyouprovide. Iamattachingthismaterialsjustbecausetheyare
interestingtomeandmaybetoyouandinnowaywishIorsoattachignthesetobeinterpretedasacriticism
Cory Goble battery
oIeitheroIyourpolicework.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
Sent: Wed 6/06/12 1:36 AM
To: denneym@reno.gov; jgoodnight@washoecounty.us; zyoung@da.washoecounty.us
5 attachments
20120605_204307 cory goble flicks cigarette at coughlin hits coughlin's left shoulder.mp4 (5.5 MB) ,
20120605_210151 Pabst Blue Ribbon beer can beneath section of Lexus Goble was sitting in.jpg (1323.9 KB) ,
20120605_210154 the cigarette Goble flicked Coughlin.jpg (2.2 MB) , 20120605_204512 Goble's brunette female
friend taunting Coughlin over reputational damage done by Goble and Zarate's lying to RPD Officer Duralde.mp4 (3.9
MB) , Cory Goble address 5020 Las Brisas Blvd. Reno NV.pdf (188.2 KB)
denneymreno.gov
DearOIIicerDenneyandtheRenoPoliceDepartment,DDAYoung,andDPDGoodnight,
ThisisthesupplementtothereportoIthebatterythatCoryGoblecommittedupon melastnight,June5th,
2012.
lexusrx300brownishcolorlicenseplate073xyIbrunetteIemaleearlytwentiesbehindthewheel,indicated
thelexusbelongedtoherearlytwentiesblondeIemaleIriend. CoryGoblesatonthepassengersideinthe
backseat. AsianmanearlytwentiesinIrontpassengerseat.
RenoPoliceDepartmentcasenumber12-10761Iorincidentoccurringatapproximately8:44pminparking
lotoIImperialLoungeonArlingtonand2ndStreet.
911callmadeannouncingToyotaPrius (licenseplatenumberprovidedduring911call)wasthegetaway
vehicleIorGobleandhisthreeassociateswhenCoughlinannouncedhewascalling911toreportthebattery
byCoryGoble.
IwasattheWashoeCountyLawLibraryuntilNikkiBritt,lawlibrariantoldmeitwastimetogoat7:30pm.
SheletmestayaItertheusual7:00pmclosingtimebecausesheisniceandbecausethe"Lawyerinthe
Library"programwasrunninglate,soshewasgoingtobethereanyway. IleItmycarparkedinthecourt
house'slotanddecidedtogoIorawalkintheentertainmentcorridordowntownbetweenarlingtonandsierra
streetsandFirstandSecondStreets. Idon'thavemuchmoneyrightnowandsoIwasmorewatchingtobig
screentelevisionreplaysoItheHeatCelticsgamethananythingelsethroughthewindowintheimperial
parkinglot. Ididn'tgoinbecauseIdon'thavemuchmoneytospend,theplacelookedkindoIdeadanyways,
andIwasgettingtiredanywaysaIterdoinglegalresearchIorseveralhours. Whilewatchingthesports
highlightsIheardayoungman'svoicekindoIclowningmeaboutmywearingasuit. Thenthevoice
exclaimedthatIwas"theguywhostolemyphone". AtthatpointIturnedonmysmartphonerecorderand
thatiswherethetapestarts,withGoblerepeatingthathewas"overit"nowand,apparently,nolongerupset
aboutthesituation,whichwassomewhatpuzzlingconsideringhedidnotlosetheuseoIhisphoneIor
anythingmorethanaIewminutesatthemostbackonAugust20th,2011,andalsoconsideringthatthestill
unidentiIiedmanthatNicoleWatsonadmittedhearingsaythathewouldthrowthephoneinquestion"inthe
river"iIitwasn'tclaimedimmediately(http://www.youtube.com/watch?vtoUOFIccLw attheIourminute
tensecondmarkoIthevideojustlinkedtoNicoleWatsonadmitstohearingandseeingthismanexclaimthat
hewouldthrowtheiPhoneintheriver...soGoble'sownIriend,NicoleWatsonadmitsthatGoble'sphone
wouldhavebeenintheriveranyways....)
JoeGoodnightneverwatchedthatvideolinkedto,despitetheIactthatitwasprovidedtohimandqualiIiesas
exculpatoryevidence. GoodnightsadmitsthatheIailedtoutilizeorwatchthatvideo. Theotherindividual
providingawitnessstatement,NateZarate,isseeninthevideosattemptingtodissuadeNicoleWatsonIrom
providinganyinsightintowhatsheactuallyeyewitnessedthenightoIthegrandlarcenyarrestoICoughlin
bytheRPD,atthebehestoIGobleandZarateonAugust20th,2011.
InthevideoIromJune5,2012,CoryGobleisseenwiththeword"FUCK"tatooedontheknucklesoIhisleIt
handinlargeIontandblackink. Heappearshighlyintoxicated. APabstBlueRibbonbeercanwasseen
underthesectionoItheLexusRX300thatGoblewasseatedin.
TheearlytwentysomethingsappearedtoIeelitrathernecessarytoswitchcars,andpossiblydrivers. The
excuseproIerredlater,apparentlybyashaggybrownhairedtallerearlytwentysomethingmalethattheRPD
interviewed,andwhomwasverythreateningtoCoughlinintheparkinglot,seemsthin. Theexcuse,that
theseIourswitchedcarsbecauseCoughlinwasblockingtheegressoItheirLexusseemsparticularlysuspect
consideringthemerelyswitchedtoaToyotaPriusparkedsome3parkingspacesaway. Why,iICoughlin
wastrulypreventingthemIromleavinghecouldnt'havejustblockedthePrius,isunclear.
WhatisclearisthatnoIorcible"citizen'sarrest"wasmadebyCoughlin. Coughlinmadethedecisionto
allowGobleandhisassociatestoleavepeaceably(thoughtheylikelypresentedadangertoothersonthe
roadconsideringtheyallseemedintoxicated). However,inthevideooItheAugust20th,2011arrestoI
Coughlin,whereinGoblesignedacriminalcomplaint,RPDOIIicerDuraldecheerIullydismissesCoughlin's
protestationsthatCoughlinhimselIcalled911inlightoItheskateryouth'sviolentandthreatening behavior
(attemtingtostealCoughlin'spekingnesepuppyandCoughlin'sbike,attemptingtoreachintoCoughlin's
shortspocket,gleeIullyexclaimignthelackoIculpabilityoneoItheircohortswouldIacegivenhewas"only
17yearsoldandstillaminor". OIIicerDuraldeishearinthevideodismissingCoughlin'saccountoIthe
assaultsandbatteriesthisgangoIskateryouthcommittedbydeemingtheirbehaviora"citizen'sarrest".
Coughlin,however,chosenottoutilizeanyoItheIorceorthreatutilizedbytheskateryouth'sinthevideooI
theAugust20th,2011arrestoICoughlinIorgrandlarceny(DuraldecheerIullyexplainedtoCoughlinthathe
waspurposeIullychargingitasa"Ielony"andwentontodetailtheadvantagestoDuraldeindoingsoandthe
disadvantagestoCoughlinthatthatdecisionbyDuraldewouldpresent.
IamreportingthisbatterybyGoblewithin48hoursoIittakingplace. Assuch,heshouldbearrested. I
swear,underpenaltyoIperjury,thatGobleIlickedhislitcigarettedirectlyatme,Iromabout3Ieetawayand
thatithitmeintheleItshouldareaoImysuitjacketandthesparksandashexlodedIromthetipoIthelit
cigarettewhenithitmyleItshoulderoImysuitjacket.
Mental health court
FW: release of information to my attorney
TheattachedvideorevealGobleIlickinghislitcigaretteatmeandithittingmyleItshouldatthe51second
mark. ForacouplesecondsaIterwardsIwasliterallytoshockedtosayanything,asitwassucha
phenomenallystupidthingIorhimtohavedone,especiallyconsideringthathisIemaleIriendhadonlyjusta
IewmomentsbeIoremadesuretoannouncethatI,Coughlin,wasobviouslyrecordingandorIilmingthe
interaction. ThegroupadmitsthatGoblestartedtheconversationwithmeandtheyalsoreadilyacknowledge
thathisconductinvitedtheinteraction.
Iappreciateyourattentiontothismatter.
IIyouchoosetomakeanarrest,locatingGobleshouldnotbethatdiIIicult. Goble'sparentsareapparently
locatedat 2480MontegoDr PamelaandTimothyGoble. TheCriminalComplaingbyDDAYounglist
CoryGoble'saddressas5020 LasBrisasBlvdinReno,NV.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
From: Zach Coughlin,Esq. (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 5/09/12 12:04 PM
To: kadlicj@reno.gov; Timothy D. Coughlin, MD (tcoughlinmd@hotmail.com); peter.breen@washoecourts.us
I got in to MHC by order of Judge Sferrazza yesterday for the RJC case stemming from the August arrest, but in the
RMC trespassing case, the Reno City Attorney is objecting to that. That attorney, Hazlett-Stevens lied to me in
September 2011 about whether the City Attorney's office had received anything regarding my 9 9 11 arrest.
I was started on antidepressants as a boy by my physician father and was off them during the two arrests between
August and September 2009. I asked for some temporary help with obtaining some antidepressants, but my father
indicated he need to put that money toward paying for acting lessons for his 30 year old stepson. In the past he has
called the Dean of the law school and provided his own diagnosis of me, which wound up becoming the subject of
several pointed questions in a deposition conducted by bar counsel for the California State Bar, which denied me a
license in large lpart due to that call to the Dean.
My psychiatrist confirms I was off my medications during that period during which these arrests occured.
My father has interferred with my health care continually and in derogation of my privacy rights, using shame and
manipulation to control that to which he is not entitled to.
I was denied counsel in RMC 11 CR 22176, which resulted in a conviction for eating a candybar and cough drops while
shopping and eventually paying for $90 of merchandise. A petition to suspend my law license was filed on May 3, 2012.
I will be filing a motion to prevent such a suspension.
My dad called my girlfriend up in May 2011 and she broke up with me days later, stealing two months of rent that I
had given her to forward to our landlord. City Attorney Roberts offered testimony she knew to be false, the Walmart
associate lied, as did the Indian Colony Police in the candybar case. In the appeal of that case, Judge Elliot cited
a civil statute in excusing the RMC's failure to prepare a transcript. I feel the conviction in 11 CR 22176 should be
overturned and that case should be in mental health court.
Depending on how this turns out, my Dad and I may never speak again.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq. PO BOX 3961, Reno, NV 89505 tel 775 338 8118 fax 949 667 7402
Sent: Wed 5/02/12 4:29 PM
To: jgoodnight@washoecounty.us; keithloomis@earthlink.net; keith@leelawoffice.net; patrickk@nvbar.org; coe@gbis.com;
zyoung@da.washoecounty.us; judgemcgee@msn.com; kadlicj@reno.gov; geofgiles@hotmail.com; hazlett-
stevensc@reno.gov; sooudib@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; ormaasa@reno.gov
3 attachments
patrick o. king citations.pdf (1070.1 KB) , loomis allcases.pdf (624.7 KB) , giles allcases.pdf (1426.7 KB)
DearMr.LoomisandMr.Goodnight,etal,
I am writing response to your putting for the idea of a global resolution. If any global resolution could be achieved it would
mean a great deal to me. I believe I am doing better now and this has been an enormously difficult time with a great deal of
damage done to my family relationships, reputation, finances, privacy rights, lost opportunities, etc.
I ask that you pursue, if possible including the conviction of 11 30 12 before Judge Howard on some Rule 60 relief from
judgment basis. I believe I filed a Rule 60 in that petit theft conviction in 11 TR 22176, however, I am not sure if the RMC filed
it, etc., etc. as sometimes there have been issues with having my filings accepted. I am just trying to move on with my life and
pick up the pieces. Of course, I wish I had handled some things better and am plenty willing to grovel for foregiveness before
whomever if it will help get these matters resolved without a conviction, and especially if it will get the conviction in 11 TR 22176
set aside or undone, etc. I did report that conviction to Bar Counsel (from RMC 11 TR 22176 before Judge Howard) under SCR
111, however, I believe a global resolution wherein that conviction is overturned would hel me retain my law license and avoid a
significant suspension. If that could be achieved it would be very easy for me to just move on and forget about seeking
recourse for the various things that have happened. Further, my main goal is to avoid a suspension of my law license or being
forced into a SCR 117 disability petition. I love the practice of law and take it very seriously. I have very few clients right now
because I know that is necessary to afford me that which I need to provide them services in a professional manner and to meet
all standards of care. I could be making more money right now, but I know the prudent thing is to not take on too many clients
and to do good work for those clients I do have. I attempt to mirror the approach of Geof Giles, whom could have a great deal
more foreclosure defense clients and clients in general than he currently does, but chooses to keep that roster relatively trim in
order to attempt to get the best precedent on the books as possible. Mr. Giles is doing work that is extremely important to
Nevadans right now in the foreclosure defense setting, including fighting the big removal and preemption fights. I have been
lucky to get to do a little research for him once in awhile, though I dont think I have found him any materials he did not already
have or otherwise get him anything useful, but at least
I get to see some of this exciting foreclosure battle up close.
Mr. Goodnight, please work with Mr. Loomis, he is the former District Attorney for Lyon County and is extremely well respected in
our profession. I am attaching a collection of his Westlaw profiler results. Mr. Loomis, Joe is a National Merit Finalist whom I
have known since I moved to Reno in 7th grade after sending 2 years in Dayton, Ohio before that I slit time between
Gardnerville 9 months a year with my mom and summers with my Dad in Reno. Also, if permissible, please work with
Bar Counsel Patrick King, whom Coe Swobe speaks highly of and who has been pretty patient with me throughout my recent
issues. I am attaching a collection of the signficant cases he has appeared on as well.
Coe Swobe, Esq. former state senator, and recipient of a commendation from President Reagan for his work in forming the TRPA,
and Keith Lee, Esq., whom started the Character and Fitness Committee, was student body president at UNR may be willing to
provide some insight into this situation. I will be attending Lawyers Concerned For Lawyers on Thursday nights, though an
extremely heavy deadline collection of late has been tough of late...
Basically, I was doing pretty well for some time, but creative differences at Washoe Legal Services resulted in our parting ways in
May 2009, though I still have an enormous deal of respect for Paul Elcano and the rest of Washoe Legal Services, and in some
ways owe him more than I am comfortable admitting for his insane decision to hire me in August 2007. After leaving WLS, the
economy turned sour, and the next 2 years were a combination of seeking employment and doing the scut work of preparing to
enter private practice. I can build a computer from the ground up and know what thermal paste is for a processor. I am
getting better with rules based calendaring software and the rest of all that is involved in practicing law these days.
However, my live-in girlfriend of four and a half years and I broke up in June 2011. As confirmed by the landlord in RJC
Rev2011-001708, my girlfriend took a couple months worth of my rent contributions and instead of forwarding it on to the
landlord, she secretly used it to get a new apartment, etc. She also took my beloved Pomeranian, Palin.
I was running low on money in early August 2011 and decided to take a 'medication holiday', which is an
accepted practice, especially considering the cost of the medication has skyrocketed somewhat in the last year or so. My
psychiatrist, Dr. Yassar's office will confirm that they have a record of my calling to cancel my August 2, 2011 appointment and
that I would have run out and did not refill my prescription by that date. I did not receive another prescription or otherwise fill
one until September 12, 2011.
I did not find out about the missing rent until mid August 2011 as the landlord had a practice of not even cashing rent checks for
months at a time....naturally, as he is a neurosurgeon who probably is not living paycheck to paycheck. Richard G. Hill, Esq.
entered the picture for the landlord on August 16th, 2011. I was arrested on the iphone in the skate plaza possession of lost or
mislaid property matter on August 20th, 2011 and the eviction Notice is dated August 22nd...and I sent 7 days in jail waiting for
an OR. Then, on September 9th, 2011 I was arrested on the eating a candy bar, etc, at WalMart while shopping for an paying
please file this with the RMC
for $90 worth of groceries. I do not believe I committed theft in either of the petit larceny cases, the arrests for which occurred
during a 19 day period wherein I had ceased taking a medication prescribed by my pscyhiatrist that I have been on for years and
years, mostly due to the cost of the medication skyrocketing lately, my girlfriend breaking up with me and making off with my
share of the rent, a tough economy, etc., etc. I believe my personality was made prickly from going off the medication abruptly
and that resulted in two arrests in situations where an arrest would not typically be made. I got back on one of my medications
immediately following my release from jail on September 12th, 2011. I still could not afford my other medication until I finally
filled it on April 28th, 2011. My dad is a physician and gave me this medication when I was a teenager.
The eviction Order by Judge Sferrazza (that Mr. Loomis made a brilliant argument against in the criminal trespass matter related
to the RJC being divested of jurisdiction to enter that Order considering a Notice of Appeal was filed by me in the interim
between the two hearings) called for the lockout to take place on November 1, 2011. I was arrested for criminal trespass on
November 13th, 2011. Despite NRS 40.253 expressly forbidding it, Judge Sferrazza forced me to deposit my last $2,300 into the
RJC's rent escrow account in order to preserve my right to litigate habitability. Even after the eviction Order was rendered on
October 27th, 2011 and for nearly 10 days thereafter, the RJC continued to hold on to that $2,300 of mine. What was I
supposed to live on? Plus, the way the law is being applied currently, a tenant is forced to deposit such an escrow amount,
then, prepare for a hearing, then if the tenant loses, be ready for a Sheriff to be opening their door with his gun drawn after a
locksmith gained access to the rental just hours after the hearing itself. I do not get Section 8 housing benefits, do not get
welfare or food stamps, no medicaid, etc. Further, Richard G. Hill and Casey Baker actually got Judge Sferrazza to sign the Order
of 10/27/11 with a ruling wherein the $2,300 was awarded to the neurosurgeon, despite the Order as rendered in open court
having said no such thing. Simply put, they hand the court an Order that the court directed them to prepare based on what was
announced in open court, and rather than faithfully reproducing the same, they remix it to be what they had hoped the Order
would be in the first place, forcing Judge Sferrazza and I to correct their perfidy...just kidding, sort of... I had to file a JCRCP
Motion to Alter or Amend just to correct that and get that rent escrow deposit back. In Las Vegas, the Justice Court had to get
Rule 44 passed off on by the Nevada Supreme Court just to be able to force such rent escrow deposits, as required by JCRCP
83. I think Judge Sferrazza just misread the statute, which is damn confusing and complex. Such forced rent escrow deposits in
the context of the speedy nature of these ultra quick summary eviction proceedings have a vast societal cost, as seen here. The
Reno Police Department has gotten a little disparage in this. Officer's have. My reputation will never be the same...the RJC took
some lums.....and Richard G. Hill, Esq. got over $50,000 in fees to litigate a summary eviction from a commercial law office
where the only notice served failed to allege nonpayment of rent. NRS 40. 253 expressly forbids utilizing summary eviction
proceedings against commercial tenants unless non-payment of rent is alleged. My Lease Agreement allowed for the commercial
law office use for which the property was being utilized, in express, written terms. Richard G. Hill, Esq. committed a wrong site
surgery of a legal nature for his neurosurgeon client.
So, I was subject to a custodial arrest incident to Richard G. Hill, Esq. signing a criminal trespass complaint on November 13th,
2011. I spent three days in jail and more money on bail and got out on November 16th, 2011, then Thanksgiving week and
many deadlines in other cases took place... Then, on November 30th, 2011 the trial in RMC 11 TR 22176 in the candy bar case
took place and Judge Howard denied my request for a continuance, even where Richard G. Hill was subjecting exculpatory
materials to an unlawful rent distrain under NRS 118A.520 that I felt necessary to my defense of a matter for which a conviction
would require reporting under SCR 111. I was convicted and did report that to Bar Counsel. I was denied an attorney, yet
sentenced to 3 days in jail for summary contempt. It is my hope that there is some permissible manner for that conviction to be
overturned and to avoid a SCR 117 disability petition. I spent four years on the sidelines from 2001 to 2005 waiting to get a law
license. I have not had a relapse. Staying busy has always been the best thing for me, and a suspension, I believe, would have
a negative effect in that regard, and actually not benefit me or otherwise provide time for me to address any problems anyone
feels I might have. Simply put, I just want to practice law. I do not want to get into protracted wranglings and fighting city hall,
etc. while waiting out a suspension or worse. I know I have upset a good number of people and will be making amends for that
in the years to come.
I appreciate anything any of you can do to assist me here in achieving my stated goals and promise you I would pay it forward in
our profession in the future. There has been a silver lining in all this for me, however. I have been able to meet and watch
practice a number of fine attorneys and people, including Deputy City Attorneys Roberts, who had some very crafty moves in the
appeal of the candy bar case, Ormaas, Hazlett-Stevens, and Sooudi, as well as Deputy District Attorney Zach Young. And RJC
Chief Bailiff Sexton and Bailiff English and I were able to joke the other day after a hearing wherein my arguments were roundly
smited about how I actually won the hearing because I did not have to go to jail at the conclusion of it, and how its those little
victories that one must build on in seeking to navigate in the legal profession while learning to practice law. And I may not have
ever received a license in the first place if it was not for Reno City Attorney John Kadlic writing me a letter of recommendation to
the State Bar of Nevada and Nevada Supreme Court back in 2004 where I was languishing in Moral Character application
purgatory, or were it not for Keith Lee taking on my case pro bono when it seemed bleakest, or had Judge McGee and Coe not
been there to laugh with.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.,PO BOX 3961, RENO, NV, 89505,tel:7753388118,Iax:9496677402;ZachCoughlinhotmail.com NevadaBar
No:9473
CHANGE OF ADDRESS ATTORNEY COUGHLIN
CORRECTION CHANGE OF ADDRESS ATTORNEY ZACH COUGHLIN, ESQ.
Sent: Mon 4/16/12 4:30 PM
1 attachment
4 16 12 rmc notice of non service.pdf (96.8 KB)
in 11 tr 26800
No:9473
Sent: Mon 4/16/12 3:28 PM
To: tbeko@etsreno.com; bgonsalves@live.com; jgarin@lipsonneilson.com; jgoodnight@washoecounty.us;
bdogan@washoecounty.us; keithloomis@earthlink.net; renodirect@reno.gov; renopd@coplogic.com;
kcordisco@da.washoecounty.us; jleslie@washoecounty.us; kadlicj@reno.gov; gfuller@grgflaw.com;
rjcweb@washoecourts.us; robertsp@reno.gov; heidi.howden@washoecourts.us; hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov;
sooudib@reno.gov; ormaasa@reno.gov
PleasenotemynewaddressIorallcorrespondenceandormailings:
ZachCoughlin,Esq.,PO BOX 3961, RENO, NV, 89505,tel:7753388118,Iax:
9496677402;ZachCoughlinhotmail.com NevadaBarNo:9473
Sent: Mon 4/16/12 2:38 PM
To: suzannew@nvbar.org; support@baralliance.com; renodirect@reno.gov; courtadmin@washoecourts.us;
courttech@washoecourts.us; joey.hastings@washoecourts.us; joey.orduna@washoecourts.us;
craig.franden@washoecourts.us; kstancil@washoecounty.us; stuttle@washoecounty.us; rbaker@washoecounty.us
DearStateBaroINevada,2ndJudicialDistrictCourt,RenoJusticeCourt,etal,
PleaseletmeclariIyandorchangemyrecentcommunication. InmylastcorrespondenceImadea
misstatementbaseduponmymisreadingoISCR79. Pleaseallowmetocorrectthat. MypreIerredmailing
addressandmySCR79addressshouldbethesame,aslisteddirectlybelow:
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
Tel:7753388118
Fax:9496677402
email:ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
website:www.ZachCoughlinEsq.wordpress.com
pleasemakealltheaboveinIormationmypreIerredmailingaddressandpubliclyavailable.
FW: Evidence
AsIoranyalternatemailingaddress,pleasechangethatto:
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
945W.12thSt.
Reno,NV89503
I will attempt to make these changes myself at the "portal" found at www.nvbar.org in the
member section, however, I am contacting you now in an abundance of caution.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.,PO BOX 3961, RENO, NV, 89505,tel:7753388118,Iax:9496677402;
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com NevadaBarNo:9473
Sent: Wed 4/04/12 11:07 PM
To: nrickey@washoecounty.us; renodirect@reno.gov; mhaley@washoecounty.us; tvinger@washoecounty.us;
rromero@washoecounty.us; bberryman@washoecounty.us; mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us;
william.rempel@latimes.com
DearDeputyDistrictAttorneyKandarasandSheriIIHaley,
IrespectIullyrequestIortheWCSOtoanswermyquestionswithregardtowhatexactlywillbereturnedto
me,including,butnotlimitedto,whetheramicrosdcardwillbereturnedandwhethersuchacardwasIree
standing(ie,notinsertedintoanyotherpersonalproperty)ornot,andwhetheranycopiesoIthedataonany
oImypersonalpropertyhasbeenmadeorwhethersuchdatahasbeenaccessed. IclaimlawenIorcement
misconduct,notunproIessionaltreatment,visavistheincidenton3/30/12. DDAKandaras,youwrote:" I
am unsure as to your complaint about the District Attorney possessing your evidence." Please
try to become sure and find out whether or not the DA, or anyone connected with the DA
"possessed" this "evidence". Additionally, please indicate what this "evidence" is "evidence" of,
whetheranycrimewillbecharge,andwhetheranyprobablecause,reasonablesuspicionorotherbasisexists
orexistedsuIIicienttojustiIythisseizureoIanattorney'spersonalproperty,includingasmartphoneanda
microsdcard,aswellasanothersmartphoneandanexpensiveelectricshaverIornowover35days.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
No:9473
Subject: RE: Evidence
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:29:03 -0700
From: mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us
To: BBerryman@washoecounty.us; zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
CC: NRickey@washoecounty.us; renodirect@reno.gov; MHaley@washoecounty.us; TVinger@washoecounty.us;
RRomero@washoecounty.us
Dear Mr. Coughlin:

In reviewing the emails below as well as others generated with respect to the Holmes order, it appears that the staff is trying to
work with you to release your items in a timely manner. It is my understanding that when you came to the detention facility on
Friday, March 30, 2011, it was after 5:00 p.m. Because the evidence custodian is open during regular business hours, your request
could not be processed at that time. I was informed that staff told you yesterday that you could make arrangements to come pick
up your items. I see no reason why there should be any problems with this release as I am confident that all parties will treat
each other with the utmost professionalism and courtesy.

I did not receive copy of the Holmes order until Monday, April 2, 2012, when you sent it to me via email at about 4:00 p.m. I
have never requested that the items taken into evidence be routed to the District Attorneys office, nor have I ever viewed them. I
am unsure as to your complaint about the District Attorney possessing your evidence.

Please be advised that your claims of unprofessional treatment on March 30, 2012 will be reviewed. Have a nice evening.

Mary Kandaras
Deputy District Attorney
Phone: (775) 337 - 5723
Fax: (775) 337 - 5732

From: Berryman, Brandi J
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 3:08 PM
Cc: Rickey, Natasha; renodirect@reno.gov; Kandaras, Mary; Haley, Michael; Vinger, Todd; Romero, Renee L.
Mr. Coughlin,
Today will work just fine. Please give me a time before 5:00pm today that you are able to pick up your items.
Thank you,
Brandi Berryman
RE: Evidence

Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 2:46 PM
To: Berryman, Brandi J; Rickey, Natasha; renodirect@reno.gov; Kandaras, Mary; Haley, Michael; Vinger, Todd
Dear Ms. Kandaras, Berryman and Rickey,
Pleas answer my questions regarding the property that is to be released. The Order is dated 3/30/12, why does it take until 4/5/12 to have it available to me?
Am I going to be hassled and subject to abuse of process and threats of malicious prosecution and retaliatory arrest by unprof essional and malevolent
deputies like Deputy Beatson? Can I retrieve my items right now, today? Would an Order to Show Cause help you to follow the Order?
Thank You,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 60952, 89506,tel:7753388118,Iax:9496677402;ZachCoughlinhotmail.com NevadaBarNo:9473
Subject: Evidence
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 07:38:01 -0700
From: BBerryman@washoecounty.us
CC: NRickey@washoecounty.us
Hi Mr. Coughlin,
Please come to the front desk at the Sheriffs Office on Thursday, April 5
th
at 11:00am. Just let the person at the desk know you are here to pick up your evidence.
Be sure to have your ID as well.
Thank you,
Brandi Berryman
Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Crime Lab, Evidence
328-3060 (office)
328-2831 (fax)
Sent: Wed 4/04/12 2:45 PM
To: bberryman@washoecounty.us; nrickey@washoecounty.us; renodirect@reno.gov; mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us;
mhaley@washoecounty.us; tvinger@washoecounty.us
Dear Ms. Kandaras, Berryman and Rickey,
Pleas answer my questions regarding the property that is to be released. The Order is dated 3/30/12, why does it take until
4/5/12 to have it available to me? Am I going to be hassled and subject to abuse of process and threats of malicious
prosecution and retaliatory arrest by unprofessional and malevolent deputies like Deputy Beatson? Can I retrieve my items right
now, today? Would an Order to Show Cause help you to follow the Order?
City of Reno Marshal Division Harrassment, hanging up phone on me, RMC
seizing Reno Attorney's smart phone and cell phone etc. in court after cross
examing RPD on bribery and retaliation
Thank You,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 60952, 89506,tel:7753388118,Iax:9496677402;ZachCoughlinhotmail.com NevadaBarNo:9473
Subject: Evidence
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 07:38:01 -0700
From: BBerryman@washoecounty.us
CC: NRickey@washoecounty.us
Hi Mr. Coughlin,
Please come to the front desk at the Sheriffs Office on Thursday, April 5
th
at 11:00am. Just let the person at the desk know you are here to
pick up your evidence.
Be sure to have your ID as well.
Thank you,
Brandi Berryman
Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Crime Lab, Evidence
328-3060 (office)
328-2831 (fax)
Sent: Thu 3/29/12 2:39 PM
To: dgentile@gordonandsilver.com; renodirect@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; rcornlaw@150.reno.nv.us;
stermitz@sbcglobal.net; office@bdjlaw.com; defense@freeman-law.com; ed@npri.org;
mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us; mark@markmausertlaw.com
20 attachments
11 TR 26800 NOTICE OF APPEAL AND MOTIONS 3 7 12 WITH EXHIBIT 1 ATTACHED.pdf (2.6 MB) , 2 24 20 fax to
rmc regarding deficiency in record on appeal - Copy.pdf (55.6 KB) , 3 19 12 fas to rmc marshals regarding property
wcso - Copy.pdf (40.0 KB) , 3 26 12 fax to rmc regarding address emails and car sleeping allegations - Copy.pdf
(51.9 KB) , JAMES MENZEL TransparentNevada rmc marshal menzel 2009 does not include health benefits.htm (3.6
KB) , JOEL HARLEY TransparentNevada RMC Marshal Harley.htm (3.3 KB) , JUSTIN ROPER TransparentNevada
rmc chief marshal justin roper 2010 base pay 109K.htm (3.3 KB) , motion to set aside RMC 11 CR 22176 faxed 2 22
12 - Copy.pdf (196.5 KB) , Pages from mary barker rmc 11 tr 26800 order denying motion for return of bond -
Copy.pdf (508.2 KB) , cr11-2064 motion for extension fo tiem.pdf (133.2 KB) , CR11-2064-2676094 (Opposition to
Mtn ...).pdf (167.7 KB) , CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...).pdf (149.7 KB) , CR11-2064-2682487 (Supplemental
...).pdf (75.3 KB) , ex 44 pages all emails to renomunirecords@reno.gov from ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com.pdf (288.8
KB) , Motion_for_Continuance_to_Reno_City_Atty_Roberts_RMC.pdf (448.9 KB) , 2 24 20 fax to rmc regarding
deficiency in record on appeal.pdf (55.6 KB) , 3 19 12 fax to reno marshal division.pdf (193.0 KB) , chief marshal
justin roper roperj@reno.gov emails.pdf (155.9 KB) , complaint or grievance by Judge Dorothy Nash Holmes against
Reno attorney Coughlin with State Bar of Nevada 3 14 12.pdf (737.8 KB) , WCSO Beckman, Debi Campbell,
Cummings, Hodge Statements on property sezied from Reno Attorney by Reno Munic Court Judge Nash Holmes.pdf
(150.3 KB)
DearCityoIReno,
PleaseplaceacopyoIthisinMarshalCoppa'sandtheotherMarshalwhotransportedmetojailon2/27/12's
employment/personnelIileashewastheonewhowentintoabackroomoIthe"SallyBay"atthejailaIter
whisperingintheWCSODeputyCheung'sear. Pleaseaskhimaboutthebagwiththemicrosdcard,the
variouscontradictorystatementsmadebyRMCstaII,RenoMarshals,andWCSOstaIIwithrespecttothe
chainoIcustodyoItheseizedproperty,withparticularattentionIocusedonMarshalHarley'sstatements
concerninganymicrosdcard,DebiCampbell'sassertionsinthatregard,whatPamWillmoreheardWCSO
DeputyHodgeadmitwithrespecttotheWCSOretentionoIthemicrosdandotherproperty,comparingthat
withanyrecordignsoIthatconversationthatmayexist,andIurtherreIerencingthestatementsoIMs.
Campbell,Cummings,andBeckman,whilealsoreviewinganyrecordingsmadeoItelephoneconversations
withWCSODetentionFacilityStaIIshortlyaIterCoughlinwasreleasedIromjailon
PleaseIindnewattachmentshereinincludingtheemailedresponsesoIWCSOagentsCummings,Debi
Campbell,andTrishBeckman.
No:9473
To: renodirect@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; rcornlaw@150.reno.nv.us; stermitz@sbcglobal.net; office@bdjlaw.com;
defense@freeman-law.com
Subject: City of Reno Marshal Division hanging up phone on me, RMC seizing Reno Attorney's smart phone and cell phone etc. in
court after cross examing RPD on bribery and retaliation
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:05:54 -0700
DearCityoIRenoandMr.Jeanney,
IwastoldbytheWashoeCountySheriII'sOIIicetocalltheCityoIRenoMarshal'sdivisiontoinquireabout
thereturnoIthepersonalpropertythatwasseizedIrommeincidenttoa2/27/12arrestIorsummarcontempt
duringthetraIIictrialin11tr26800beIoreJudgeNashHolmes. IcalledthenumberheldoutastheMarshals
Divisioncontactnumberhttp://reno.gov/index.aspx?page223
Anda"Bill"answeredthephone,wasevasive,indicatedhedidnotworkIortheMarshal'sdivision,would
notgivemeanycontactinIormationIoraMarshal,anyMarshal,toldmehewasn'tgoingtoanswermestupid
questions,andhunguponme.
IcalledbackandIbelieveitwasMarshalHarleywhoanswered(thoughIamnotsure)andheanswerethe
phoneinanunproIessionalmanner,guessingastomyidentityinsomeshowoImenace. Ratherthantjust
answerthephonelikeaproIessionalandprovidemethenumberIorMarshalDayton,asIwasrequesting,
thisindividualreIusedtoprovidethenumber,answeredthephoneona"gotcha"typewaywheretherewas
nothingto"gotcha",thenhungupthephoneonpurposeaIterdeclaringthathewouldnotgivemeMarshal
Dayton'snumberortakeamessage. PleaseplaceacopyoIthiscorrespondence/complaintsin"Bill"oIcourt
securityIortheRenoMunicCourt,andMarshalHarley'sIileandIollowupthisgrievance. Iamavailableto
commentonthisunproIessionalconductIurther. PleasealsoIindattachedotherrecentcomplaintsIhave
submittedregardingtheMarshalDivisionandplacethemintheindividual'scomplainedoI
employment/personnelIiles. TherewillbenoabilitytoallegealackoIknowledgeoIthisconductinany
Iuturenegligenthiring,training,andsupervisionlawsuitincidenttoanymisconductalleged. Iarequesting
thataIullscaleinvestigation/inquirybeconductedpursuanttothevariousconIlicting,andinconsistent
statementmadewithrespecttotheseizedpersonalproperty(inlcudingmyphones,etc.). Youmightwantto
considerwhetheranyWashoeCountySheriII'sDeputieshavemadestatementsthatwillconIlictwith
anythingtheCityoIRenomaysayIromhearonout. Givenproblemsassociatedwithmyrecentlybeing
adjudgeavictimoIdomesticviolence(myvulnerabilityinthatregardmademoresobyJudgeNashHolmes
seizingmycellphonesandattempttohavemyincomedreducedthroughjeopardizingmylawlicense,etc.)
pleasecorrespondwithmyinwritingonlyandonlybyemailandorIax.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
No:9473
Detail page for JAMES MENZEL
Name JAMES MENZEL
Position
Marshal
Reno
Notice
The City of Reno failed to report the cost of employee health care benefits. Only the cost
of retirement benefits is included within the "Benefits" category for this jurisdiction.
Year 2009
Base Pay $60,609.42
Overtime and
Callback Collected
$622.67
Detail page for JOEL HARLEY
Name JOEL HARLEY
Position
7821 - Marshal
Reno
Year 2010
Base Pay $85,323.07
Overtime and
Callback Collected
$6,755.56
Other Pay $478.65
Benefits Accumulated N/A
Detail page for JUSTIN ROPER
Name JUSTIN ROPER
Position
7819 Marshal Commander
Reno
Year 2010
Base Pay $107,914.00
Overtime and
Callback Collected
$0.00
Other Pay ($2,697.89)
Total Pay $105,216.11
Name JAMES MENZEL
Position
Marshal
Reno
Notice
Year 2009
Base Pay $60,609.42
Overtime and
Callback Collected
$622.67
rpd sargent siIre loses Z coughlin's dog Jackson is gone voicemail Irom (775) 762-1595 at 4:27 PM
Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlinhotmail.com) 3/29/12
To: renopdcoplogic.com, schultztcityoIreno.com, kadlicjreno.gov, renodirectreno.gov,
cityclerkreno.gov, nvrenopdcoplogic.com, thewzreno.gov, siIrepreno.gov, ednpri.org,
marybarkbarkyahoo.com, geoIgileshotmail.com, carcoughstergmail.com,
carly.coughlincrcgmail.com, melissa.l.ulloagmail.com, loriwnvbar.org
Outlook Active View
Reno Police Department Sargent Paul SiIre arrests Reno Attorney Ior misuse oI 911
Dear City oI Reno Animal Control, SPCA, and Reno Police Department, and Reno City Attorney's
OIIice,

Please help me Iind my dog, and please place a copy oI this complaint in RPD Sargent Paul SiIre's
employment/personnel Iile. Also, dear city clerk, i would like a date to dispute all parking tickets or
traIIic citations outstanding and I believe the parking ticket Irom 1/12/12 shoudl be rescinded given it
occured while i was in custody on the jaywalking arrest by RPD Sargent SiIre, the one who just lost my
dog, and who also arrested me Ior misues oI 911 incident to a 1/14/12 wherein i called to report Iurther
domestic violence against me, including the mysterious disappearance oI my dog and where SiIre made
sarcastic statements about me and my dog.
t: Z coughlin's dog Jackson is goneFwd: New voicemail Irom (775) 762-1595 at 4:27 PM
I received a call Irom someone claiming the Iound Jackson, but that they then took oII his
collar/harness which had his dog tag on it which had my phone number engraved in it 775 338 8118.
This 3.5 year old Pekingnese has a micro chip identiIier embedded in it. Please help me Iind him.

my dog Jackson was adopted Irom the spca with an adoption id oI 13142.
his microchip number oI 022261310 with the dhpp oI 3/10/11 and bb oI 3/109/11 he has all his
vaccinations and is a cream colored pekingnese whose collar/harness was removed by the people who
Iound them whose phone number is included herein
IThe way the Reno PD treated the 911 call oI 3/27/12 and allowed my dog, Jackson, to escape is
reminiscent oI the RPD approach to situations where Richard G. Hill, Esq. makes a report oI some
criminal violation, in comparision to when someone reports a criminal violation by Richard G. Hill,
Esq. Some might say when Hill's Iiles a report or signs a criminal complaint, the RPD treats it as a
"violation Io criminal law, a police matter", but that when anyone points out Hill's attempts at extortion,
bribery, abuse oI process, larceny, withholding one's state issued identiIication, perjury, etc., etc., the
RPD simply washes their hands clean oI the complainants request, indicating, "sorry, buddy, that's a
civil matter, your remedy is with the courts...". So, when Hill wants a Temporary Protection Order
against Zach Coughlin, because, gosh darn it, Coughlin is Iimliming and collectding evidence oI the
personal property that Hill's contractor, Phil Stewart's crew is throwing away Irom Coughlin's Iormer
home law oIIice, in anticipation oI a wrongIul eviction lawsuit against Hill and his Beverly Hill's High
School graduate CaliIornia Neurosurgeon landlord client, Matt Merliss (now on appeal in CV11-03628,
wherein Judge Flanagan oI Department 7 recently denied one oI Hill's "quadruple jeopardy" cheap
shots at Coughlin, by denying Hill's Motion Ior Order to Show Cause (now that just leaves the baseless
State Bar oI Nevada grievance Hill Iiled on behalI oI individuals whom are not even his clients,
wherein he cites unattributed hearsay and Ior which he Iailed to attach an actual signature thereto, and
which consists chieIly oI innuendo and complaining that Coughlin dared to actually request a Iee
1/5
waiver Irom the District Court to Iile a complaint, despite doing so being an acceptable practice as set
Iorth in statute in NRS 12.015). So, where Coughlins peaceIully Iilming on a sidewalk, the RPD
doesn't tell Richard Hill, Esq. that "its a civil matter, sorry your remedy is with the courts", but rather,
Sargent Paul SiIre orders a young trainee , OIIicer Leedy, to walk up to Coughlin unprovoked, grab the
video camera out oI his hand prior to making any sort oI attempt to engage Coughlin or otherwise
explain why the RPD would be, in a matter oI two seconds, applying excessive Iorce to Coughlin's bent
back wrists and obstructing justice by turning oII his video camera despite Coughlin's express
insistance that Sargent Paul SiIre reIrain Irom doing so.

Incidentally, the RPD Sargent whom charged me with the "misuse oI 911" gross misdemeanor that I am
currently Iacing, plagued wtih the representation oI one Biray Dogan in, actually managed to lose my
dog on 3/27/12, when Sargent SiIre was responding to a true instance oI misuse oI 911, where Zach
Coughlin's "sister" Carly Noel Coughlin, called 911 to report that Mr. Coughlin had arrived at Carly's
house, where she had invited him to drop oI his pekingnese dog, Jackson Pawluck, iI he ever wanted
Ms. Coughlin's "Iriend" to watch Jackson again. Ms. Coughlin indicated that "the peopel who watched
him last time cried when I went to go get him, so I don't really wanna do this again" despite her earlier
indication that she would. Ms. Coughlin, grew annoyed with Mr. Coughlin's request and renegged on
her oIIer to transport the dog to the disabled woman to whom it brought so much joy, and her daughter.
Mr. Coughlin walked back to his car with his dog to leave, but his car was apparently to low on gas to
start. Ms. Coughlin continued to regale Mr. Coughlin with her hypocritical, saturnine approach to
human relations (this despite her working in the mental health care Iield, apparently, and perhaps, most
troubling). Ms. Coughlin threatened to call 911 iI Mr. Coughlin did not leave immediately, Mr.
Coughlin said he would, asked what on earth she would be calling 911 about, and promptly attempted
to start his car to leave. It would not, and Ms. Coughlin drove oII. Mr. Coughlin, knowing Iull well that
his sister would in Iact be calling 911, and that she was well aware oI Mr. Coughlin's recent trials and
tribulations with local law enIorcement in light oI Mr. Coughlin's aberrant belieI that people in this
county actually do have rights and that we do not live in a police state), and that she, in Iact, sought to
Iurther cause Mr. Coughlin discord with law enIorcement, somethign which should would, oI course,
later "remix" as her "concern" Ior his "welIare". Sargent SiIre, whom Ior some reason was assigned to
answer this call by the RPD, echoed these sentiments to Mr. Coughlin and provided his proIessional
opinion that Ms. Coughlin did "care so very deeply" about Mr. Coughlin. Apparently, this proIound
concern was also exhibited in Ms. Coughlin calling 911 a second time the night oI 3/27/12 when Mr.
Coughlin returned some two hours laters to his vehicle, parked on Keele St., on a public street, with a
gas can with halI a gallon oI gas, intending to place it in his care and drive oI, hopeIully beIore, once
again, being abused by local law enIorcement, like Sargnet SiIre, whom was laughing on 1/14/12 when
he arrested Coughlin and charged him with a gross misdemeanor, "misuse oI 911". Ms. Coughlin oI
course sought to have Mr. Coughlin arrested Ior nothing and to Iurther involve Mr. Coughlin with local
law enIorcement, though that probably has nothing to do with her various bitter statements over the
years about how It has not been Iound and may well be dead given the proximity oI traIIic and the
dog's inexperience in dealing with it. How Sargent SiIre could possibly lecture Mr. Coughlin Ior over
an hour, perhaps causing Coughlin to miss an electronic Iiling deadline in an important legal matter is
unclear, particularly where Sargent SiIre admitted to Coughlin that Ms. Coughlin admitted Mr.
Coughlin did not touch her, harm her, or threaten her in any way. How it is that Ms. Coughlin is not
guilty oI "misuse oI 911" whereas Mr. Coughlin was subject to a custodial arrest Ior the very same
charge, by the very same RPD Sargent, Paul SiIre, is just not very clear. .. Anyways, Sargent Paul SiIre
had to admit to Zach Coughlin, on 3/27/12, that he and his RPD associate had allowed Mr. Coughlin's
dog Jackson, to escape Irom Ms. Coughlins unlocked residence, where Mr. Coughlin had placed the
2/5
dog immediately beIore attempting to go walk to a gas station and get gas, given Mr. Coughlin's
reasonable believe that iI he leIt his dog in his parked car, outside Ms. Coughlin's house, he would be
arrested by the RPD Ior "dog endangerment or neglect or animal cruelty"....Amazingly, even aIter
letting Mr. Coughlin's dog escape Irom Ms. Coughlin's house, and perhaps be hit by a car, Sargent SiIre
still saw Iit to lecture Mr. Coughlin and point out the benevolence oI the police state Sargent SiIre and
those like him currently have in place in Washoe County and the City oI Reno. But, RPD Sargent SiIre
was sure to point out to attorney Coughlin how very proIoundly deep Dr. Coughlin and Carly N.
Coughlin's concern was Ior attorney Coughlin. However, their concern is apparently not so signiIicant
as to allow, say, attorney to store a plastic garbage bag Iull oI expensive suits under Dr. Coughlin's
Caughlin Ranch home, which has 5 empty bedrooms and a "mudroom" the size oI an aircraIt hanger
under the home Ior storing things. AIter the bag oI suits being beneath Dr. Coughlin's home Ior
approximately a week they outwore their welcome, prompting Dr. Coughlin and his wiIe, Monica
Morelli Coughlin to inquire as to when attorney Coughlin might be able to remove such bag Irom the
"mudroom" underneath their home, which, again, has 5 empty bedrooms. Dr. Coughlin previously
telephone the Dean oI the UNLV Boyd School oI law to deIame his son, whereupon Dean Richard
Morgan, ever the risk minimizer middle managing, business attorney, cutthroat, educator that is he,
promptly called up the State Bar to report as much. And would Carly Noel Coughlin be alright with
allowing her brother, attorney Coughlin to store, say, a guitar or a box oI papers at her home Ior a little
while? OI course she wouldn't. Though, Miss Carly sure will put on a show oI "concern" Ior Sargent
SiIre when he shows up, twice.....Oh, but how very much they want to "help". Just only with
psychobabble and Iaux concern and selI serving power hungry, manipulative ego trips, rather than any
discernible, tangible beneIit to the tasks at hand. Dr. Coughlin is Reno City Attorney John Kadlic's
personal physician, and Kadlic is godIather to the daugther Dr. Coughlin had with Monica Morelli
Coughlin, oI Morelli v. Morelli Iame:
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?
xmldoc19861424720P2d70411419.xml&docbaseCSLWAR2-1986-2006
In Morelli v. Morelli, Nevada's Iirst Italian Neurosurgeon was sued by his now attorney 18 year old
daugther Ior the cost oI her college and law school tuition, which was expressly set Iorth as a
stipulation in the marital settlement agreement in that matter. The daughter was awarded the tution and
Iather and daughter never spoke again during Dr. Morelli's liIetime, some 20 more years.
Ironically, the "misuse oI 911" charged stemmed Irom my calling about the mysterious and menacing
disappearance oI my dog (whom I appeared with in the December 2012 issue oI the Nevada Lawyer),
which occured in the context oI a continuous barrage oI domestic violence to which I was exposed,
thorugh the Iirst six weeks oI 2012, by the actions oI my then housemates, and Ior which I attempted to
obtain protection or justice Irom by contacting the RPD, including Sargent Zach Thew (allegedly, I was
arrested while allegedly attempting to contact Sargent Thew, in accordance with Sargent Thew's
express instructions that I do so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?voU3tkRR0RA
3/5
....which Biray Dogan knows, but Ior which Mr. Dogan has reIused to Iile any Motion to Dismiss or
other action on my behalI, rather, Mr. Dogan seeks to retaliate against me and to embarass me with yet
another retaliatory "competency" evaluation, despite the Iact that I passed, with Ilying colors, the one
administered by Libby Heijne aIter Deputy Washoe County Public DeIendenr Cary Hylin ordered one
(subsequent Iilings by the WCPD indicated that a "hearing" took place wherein such an evaluation was
requested by Hylin and orderd by Judge Jack Schroeder, yet no such "hearing" took place);
RPD Sargent SiIre (whom actually makes more money through his public employment than most
District Court Judges) arrested me another time, making it twice in two days, on January 12th, 2012 Ior
"jaywalking, then he obstructed justice by turning oII my video camera while RPD OIIicer Look and
OIIicer Leedy were using excessive Iorce (completely out oI the blue and with zero justiIication Ior
doing so, as evinced by the video itselI) on me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vgBu9zIlGALE&Ieaturerelated
Deputy District Attorney Zach NiIong, er, Zach Young, Esq., has been extremely resistant to any sort oI
plea bargaining in either case, as he has been in the matter Ior which Deputy Public DeIender Joe
Goodnight, Esq. is "representing" me as my "attorney". That matter RCR also included police
misconduct by the Reno Police Department, by OIIicers Ron Rosa and Nick Duralde. Where would
Reno attorney Zach Coughlin, Esq. be iI there was not video tape oI all oI this police misconduct?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v5PR7q4OI5b0&Ieaturerelated
Despite having this video, DA Zach Young retaliated against Coughlin Ior Coughlin's Iiling a NRCP 11
Motion against both Goodnight and Young by amending the criminal complaint to overcharge some
more. No, rather DA Zach Young and the RPD see the witness tampering and attempts to dissuade
Nicole Watson Irom oIIering any insight into the wrongIul arrest oI 8/20/12 by Nicholas Duradle as "a
civil matter", not a "criminal one". Heck, the RPD doesn't even see battery, assault, aggravated assault,
or domestic violence as "criminal in nature" when these things happen to pesky First Amendment
attorney Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq., ...no, rather, those are matters oI a "civil nature" and
Coughlin's "remedy is with the court's", so sayeth RPD OIIicer Stacey Gardner, Sargent Monica Lopez,
OIIicer Mcquattry, OIIicer Look and Leedy and Delvecchio, OIIicer Warren, etc., etc.,
Incidentally, it would be helpIul iI an entity like Washoe Legal Services took an aggresive approach to
advocating on behalI oI tenants'.....Washoe Legal Services Executive Director Paul Elcano has
reportedly call Dr. Coughlin in an attempt to inIluence attorney Coughlin to close the case Coughlin
has against WLS Ior wrongIul termination.
4/5
Its a good thing Nevada has so many brave First Amendment attorney's like JM Devoy and his
associate Marc Randazza, neither oI whom have any association with Mr. Coughlin. I, Mr. Coughlin
am aware that it is slightly awkward to write this switching between the Iirst and third person, however,
the exigencies and economics oI solo law practice were at play in doing so.
At least there isn't much oI a societal cost to the legally questionable manner in which evictions are
decided and carried out in Washoe County:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vssE0FWHFNEY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vKjG2aEjslr4
Zach Coughlin, Esq., PO BOX 60952, RENO, NV, 89506, tel: 775 338 8118, Iax: 949 667 7402;
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com Nevada Bar No: 9473

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:29:18 -0700
Subject: Z coughlin's dog Jackson is goneFwd: New voicemail Irom (775) 762-1595 at 4:27 PM
To:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Google Voice voice-noreplygoogle.com~
Date: Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:31 PM
Subject: New voicemail Irom (775) 762-1595 at 4:27 PM
Voicemail Irom: (775) 762-1595 at 4:27 PM
Transcript not available
Play message
5/5
City of Reno Marshal Division hanging up phone on me, RMC seizing Reno
Attorney's smart phone and cell phone etc. in court after cross examing RPD
on bribery and retaliation
Name JOEL HARLEY
Position
7821 - Marshal
Reno
Year 2010
Base Pay $85,323.07
Overtime and
Callback Collected
$6,755.56
Other Pay $478.65
Name JUSTIN ROPER
Position
Reno
Year 2010
Base Pay $107,914.00
Overtime and
Callback Collected
$0.00
Other Pay ($2,697.89)
Total Pay $105,216.11
Sent: Thu 3/29/12 2:05 PM
To: renodirect@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; rcornlaw@150.reno.nv.us; stermitz@sbcglobal.net; office@bdjlaw.com;
defense@freeman-law.com
19 attachments
11 TR 26800 NOTICE OF APPEAL AND MOTIONS 3 7 12 WITH EXHIBIT 1 ATTACHED.pdf (2.6 MB) , 2 24 20 fax to
rmc regarding deficiency in record on appeal - Copy.pdf (55.6 KB) , 3 19 12 fas to rmc marshals regarding property
wcso - Copy.pdf (40.0 KB) , 3 26 12 fax to rmc regarding address emails and car sleeping allegations - Copy.pdf
(51.9 KB) , JAMES MENZEL TransparentNevada rmc marshal menzel 2009 does not include health benefits.htm (3.6
KB) , JOEL HARLEY TransparentNevada RMC Marshal Harley.htm (3.3 KB) , JUSTIN ROPER TransparentNevada
rmc chief marshal justin roper 2010 base pay 109K.htm (3.3 KB) , motion to set aside RMC 11 CR 22176 faxed 2 22
12 - Copy.pdf (196.5 KB) , Pages from mary barker rmc 11 tr 26800 order denying motion for return of bond -
Copy.pdf (508.2 KB) , cr11-2064 motion for extension fo tiem.pdf (133.2 KB) , CR11-2064-2676094 (Opposition to
Mtn ...).pdf (167.7 KB) , CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...).pdf (149.7 KB) , CR11-2064-2682487 (Supplemental
...).pdf (75.3 KB) , ex 44 pages all emails to renomunirecords@reno.gov from ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com.pdf (288.8
KB) , Motion_for_Continuance_to_Reno_City_Atty_Roberts_RMC.pdf (448.9 KB) , 2 24 20 fax to rmc regarding
deficiency in record on appeal.pdf (55.6 KB) , 3 19 12 fax to reno marshal division.pdf (193.0 KB) , chief marshal
justin roper roperj@reno.gov emails.pdf (155.9 KB) , complaint or grievance by Judge Dorothy Nash Holmes against
Reno attorney Coughlin with State Bar of Nevada 3 14 12.pdf (737.8 KB)
DearCityoIRenoandMr.Jeanney,
IwastoldbytheWashoeCountySheriII'sOIIicetocalltheCityoIRenoMarshal'sdivisiontoinquireabout
thereturnoIthepersonalpropertythatwasseizedIrommeincidenttoa2/27/12arrestIorsummarcontempt
duringthetraIIictrialin11tr26800beIoreJudgeNashHolmes. IcalledthenumberheldoutastheMarshals
Divisioncontactnumberhttp://reno.gov/index.aspx?page223
Anda"Bill"answeredthephone,wasevasive,indicatedhedidnotworkIortheMarshal'sdivision,would
notgivemeanycontactinIormationIoraMarshal,anyMarshal,toldmehewasn'tgoingtoanswermestupid
questions,andhunguponme.
IcalledbackandIbelieveitwasMarshalHarleywhoanswered(thoughIamnotsure)andheanswerethe
phoneinanunproIessionalmanner,guessingastomyidentityinsomeshowoImenace. Ratherthantjust
answerthephonelikeaproIessionalandprovidemethenumberIorMarshalDayton,asIwasrequesting,
thisindividualreIusedtoprovidethenumber,answeredthephoneona"gotcha"typewaywheretherewas
nothingto"gotcha",thenhungupthephoneonpurposeaIterdeclaringthathewouldnotgivemeMarshal
Dayton'snumberortakeamessage. PleaseplaceacopyoIthiscorrespondence/complaintsin"Bill"oIcourt
securityIortheRenoMunicCourt,andMarshalHarley'sIileandIollowupthisgrievance. Iamavailableto
commentonthisunproIessionalconductIurther. PleasealsoIindattachedotherrecentcomplaintsIhave
submittedregardingtheMarshalDivisionandplacethemintheindividual'scomplainedoI
employment/personnelIiles. TherewillbenoabilitytoallegealackoIknowledgeoIthisconductinany
Iuturenegligenthiring,training,andsupervisionlawsuitincidenttoanymisconductalleged. Iarequesting
thataIullscaleinvestigation/inquirybeconductedpursuanttothevariousconIlicting,andinconsistent
statementmadewithrespecttotheseizedpersonalproperty(inlcudingmyphones,etc.). Youmightwantto
considerwhetheranyWashoeCountySheriII'sDeputieshavemadestatementsthatwillconIlictwith
anythingtheCityoIRenomaysayIromhearonout. Givenproblemsassociatedwithmyrecentlybeing
adjudgeavictimoIdomesticviolence(myvulnerabilityinthatregardmademoresobyJudgeNashHolmes
seizingmycellphonesandattempttohavemyincomedreducedthroughjeopardizingmylawlicense,etc.)
pleasecorrespondwithmyinwritingonlyandonlybyemailandorIax.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
No:9473
Name JAMES MENZEL
Position
Marshal
Reno
Notice
Year 2009
Base Pay $60,609.42
Overtime and
Callback Collected
$622.67
Name JOEL HARLEY
Position
7821 - Marshal
Reno
Year 2010
Base Pay $85,323.07
Overtime and
Callback Collected
$6,755.56
Other Pay $478.65
Name JUSTIN ROPER
i was evicted 3 15 12, i need a continuance
Position
Reno
Year 2010
Base Pay $107,914.00
Overtime and
Callback Collected
$0.00
Other Pay ($2,697.89)
Total Pay $105,216.11
Sent: Mon 3/26/12 10:32 PM
To: keithloomis@earthlink.net; stermitz@sbcglobal.net; jmd@randazza.com; jboles@callatg.com;
kristiemanning@yahoo.com; kadlicj@reno.gov
2 attachments
65-main.pdf (159.6 KB) , 65-1.pdf (248.3 KB)
DearMr.Loomis,
IwaswrongIullyevictedon31512,andIneedacontinuanceinthecriminaltrespassmatterthatyouset
overlyquicklyagainstmyexpresswishesanyway. MyabilitytocollectevidencenecessarytomydeIense
andotherwisepreparehasbeenadverselyaIIected. Additionally,Idon'tIeelasthoughyouareperIormingin
anappropriatemannerasdeIensecounsel,butratheryouseemstuckinyourprosecutorialways,tooquickto
lookIoranyexcusewhatsoevertoburyone'scase,soIthinkyouhaveIorcedasplithere,whichIurther
prejudicesmycaseandaugerstowardsacontinuance. PleasemoveIoroneimmediatelyandcopymeon my
entireIilebyemailandIaxplease. Additionally,pleaseseekclariIicationIromtheRMCastowhetherIam
allowedtoeversendanemailtorenomunicrecordsreno.gov. Pleasenote,today,JudgeFlanagandenied
RichardHill'slatestIrivolousmotion.
DidyouknowthatKevinKelly,oItheStateBaroINevada'sCharacterandFitnessCommitteeIoratleastthe
lastdecadeownsandrunstheSpearmintRhinostripclubinLasVegas:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrjhome/2002/Mar-06-Wed-2002/news/18241452.html
IknowIalwayslikemythreehourtoursoIheavyhandedmoralizingIromsomeonewhorunsamonolithic
stripclubinLasVegas.
YouareontheStateBaroINevada'sIeedisputecommittee,aren'tyouMr.Loomis? Doyouownanystrip
clubs?
Mr. Loomis, which of the elements of the trespass charge RMC 8.10.040 do you feel are weakest
for Deputy City Attorney Jill Drake, whom I informed about the admission by Reno PD Officer
please note my new address, SOLACE PROGRAM REQUEST?
3/28/12
Reply ?
Zach Coughlin
To bdoganwashoecounty.us, rwhomeswashoecounty.us, jboslerwashoecounty.us,
stermitzsbcglobal.net, kgnpri.org, ednpri.org, jmdrandazza.com, mjrrandazza.com,
kadlicjreno.gov, keithloomisearthlink.net, jgoodnightwashoecounty.us,
kstancilwashoecounty.us, zyoungda.washoecounty.us, carly.coughlincrcgmail.com,
amnpri.org, geoIgileshotmail.com, loriwnvbar.org, ehejnylakes.nv.gov, inIolakes.nv.gov,
coughlinyplj.com, rcornlaw150.reno.nv.us, vsanevadajuno.com
From:
Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlinhotmail.com)
Sent:
Wed 3/28/12 5:34 PM
To:
bdoganwashoecounty.us; rwhomeswashoecounty.us; jboslerwashoecounty.us;
stermitzsbcglobal.net; kgnpri.org; ednpri.org; jmdrandazza.com; mjrrandazza.com;
kadlicjreno.gov; keithloomisearthlink.net; jgoodnightwashoecounty.us;
kstancilwashoecounty.us; zyoungda.washoecounty.us; carly.coughlincrcgmail.com;
amnpri.org; geoIgileshotmail.com; loriwnvbar.org; ehejnylakes.nv.gov; inIolakes.nv.gov;
coughlinyplj.com; rcornlaw150.reno.nv.us; vsanevadajuno.com
Hotmail Active View
12 attachments (total 7.3 MB)
html~
head~
title~Report generated on 2012-10-23 23:08/title~
/head~
body~
pre~
b~# Archive C:\PerIect World Entertainment\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.IE5\QTOJA67D\please note my new address, SOLACE PROGRAM REQUEST.zip/b~
2012-10-23 23:07 2702330 2702330 11 TR 26800 NOTICE OF APPEAL AND MOTIONS 3 7
12 WITH EXHIBIT 1 ATTACHED.pdI
2012-10-23 23:07 1938690 1938690 3 16 12 Iax to wcso re eviction park terrace hill etc
revmargins removed.pdI
2012-10-23 23:07 53147 53147 3 26 12 Iax to rmc regarding address emails and car
sleeping allegations.pdI
2012-10-23 23:07 377710 377710 all emails Irom Patrick King Bar Counsel Nevada
PatrickKnvbar.org.pdI
2012-10-23 23:07 1160431 1160431 Coughlin wexhibits031612 3 16 12 Letter Irom Bar
Counsel Patrick King with Judge Nash Holmes Formal Complaint Attached.pdI
2012-10-23 23:07 175745 175745 CR11-2064-2676094 (Opposition to Mtn ...).pdI
2012-10-23 23:07 157422 157422 CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...).pdI
2012-10-23 23:07 133625 133625 CR11-2064-2691386 (Opening BrieI).pdI
2012-10-23 23:07 135246 135246 CR11-2064-2691431 (Mtn Ior Extension oI Time).pdI
2012-10-23 23:07 68373 68373 CV11-03628 Coughlin v Merliss 3 26 2012 Richard G. Hil's
1/21
Motion Ior Order to Show Cause Against Coughlin is DENIED.pdI
2012-10-23 23:07 367507 367507 CV11-03628-2690815 (Opening BrieI).pdI
2012-10-23 23:07 146354 146354 THE 2 11 12 email to WCSO RPD Reno City Attorney Hill
NPUC Hill et al.pdI
b~#
# Total Size Packed Files
# 7416580 7416580 12
/b~/pre~
/body~
/html~
CV11-0362...pdI
Download(68.5 KB)
Coughlin ...pdI
Download(1163.1 KB)
Download all as zip
Dear Deputy Washoe County Public DeIender Biray Dogan, Esq., et al,
Must I use Lake's Crossing Ior this second competency evaluation? Do you have some sort oI Iinancial
arrangment with Lake's Crossing? Please provide a written answer as to whom else I may utilize Ior
such an evaluation and the requirements, certiIications, or standards, which they must meet in order to
be eligibel to perIorm such an evaluation. Nonetheless, I have yet to receive anything Irom Lake's
Crossing, but I will call them now and copy them on this email in an attempt to comply with the
evaluation requirement. Ms. Hejny oI Lakes Crossing, I was able to check my voice mails despite
Iormer prison warden or administrator RMC Judge Nash Holmes summarily seizing my, an attorney's,
cellular and smartphone in court on 2/27/12, and still reIusing to release them, despite Her Honor Iiling
a grievance against Coughlin with the State Bar oI Nevada that neglects to mention that seizure at
all....nonetheless, a diIIicult to discern message sound like it was Irom a Dr. Brown with Lakes
Crossing...Ms. Hejny, would you Iorward this on to him with a message that I am trying to meet him
and comply with all scheduling requirements imposed upon me?
Please copy me via email and Iax on my entire Iile. The domestic violence attacks against me in FV12-
00188 and FV12-00187 resulted in interIerence with receipt oI my USPS mail. I have taken all
reasonable steps to counteract that, however, in an abundance oI caution, I ask that you copy me on
everything via email and Iax and have Lakes Crossing do so as well. Additionally, Judge Nash Holmes
conIiscated my phones on 2/27/12 and still has not released them or provided (as Iar as I know) any
indication Ior her basis Ior doing so, etc.
Mr. Dogan, please explain your position vis a vis your missing the Arraignment in my cases, including
speciIic reIerence to the approximately 90 minute meeting you and I had in advance oI that
arraignment. Further, please provide an indication in writing as to why you Ielt this more invasive,
more involved competency evaluation you moved Ior was a request based in law or Iact, including
speciIic details and documentation in support thereoI. Oh, that's right, Biray Dogan and Joe Goodnight
oI the WCPD only believe that NRCP 11 applies to criminal matters where they need to leverage it as
an excuse not to Iile a Motion to Dismiss or some other pre-trial motion....Dogan and Goodnight's
position on Nevada Rule oI Civil Procedure 11 in a criminal context, though, in the context oI Iiling
any Motion Ior Sanctions against Goodnight's organic Iree trade coIIee shop buddy DA Zach Young is
that "NRCP 11 does not apply in a criminal context". Its reminiscent oI the RPD approach to situations
where Richard G. Hill, Esq. makes a report oI some criminal violation, in comparision to when
someone reports a criminal violation by Richard G. Hill, Esq. Some might say when Hill's Iiles a report
or signs a criminal complaint, the RPD treats it as a "violation Io criminal law, a police matter", but that
2/21
when anyone points out Hill's attempts at extortion, bribery, abuse oI process, larceny, withholding
one's state issued identiIication, perjury, etc., etc., the RPD simply washes their hands clean oI the
complainants request, indicating, "sorry, buddy, that's a civil matter, your remedy is with the courts...".
So, when Hill wants a Temporary Protection Order against Zach Coughlin, because, gosh darn it,
Coughlin is Iimliming and collectding evidence oI the personal property that Hill's contractor, Phil
Stewart's crew is throwing away Irom Coughlin's Iormer home law oIIice, in anticipation oI a wrongIul
eviction lawsuit against Hill and his Beverly Hill's High School graduate CaliIornia Neurosurgeon
landlord client, Matt Merliss (now on appeal in CV11-03628, wherein Judge Flanagan oI Department 7
recently denied one oI Hill's "quadruple jeopardy" cheap shots at Coughlin, by denying Hill's Motion
Ior Order to Show Cause (now that just leaves the baseless State Bar oI Nevada grievance Hill Iiled on
behalI oI individuals whom are not even his clients, wherein he cites unattributed hearsay and Ior
which he Iailed to attach an actual signature thereto, and which consists chieIly oI innuendo and
complaining that Coughlin dared to actually request a Iee waiver Irom the District Court to Iile a
complaint, despite doing so being an acceptable practice as set Iorth in statute in NRS 12.015). So,
where Coughlins peaceIully Iilming on a sidewalk, the RPD doesn't tell Richard Hill, Esq. that "its a
civil matter, sorry your remedy is with the courts", but rather, Sargent Paul SiIre orders a young
trainee , OIIicer Leedy, to walk up to Coughlin unprovoked, grab the video camera out oI his hand prior
to making any sort oI attempt to engage Coughlin or otherwise explain why the RPD would be, in a
matter oI two seconds, applying excessive Iorce to Coughlin's bent back wrists and obstructing justice
by turning oII his video camera despite Coughlin's express insistance that Sargent Paul SiIre reIrain
Irom doing so.
Further, please explain what exactly you meant when you told me, aIter we discussed my previous
work experience at Hale Lane, that you could never do civil law in the private sector what with all that
hard work and the billable hours requirements being demanding oI your time and eIIort, and that you
Iound the public deIender liIestyle much more to your liking. Please also explain why you Iound it
necessary to point out how bitterly disappointed you were with the lack oI diversity in Reno's judiciary
and Reno in general, and how much you sympathized with the plight oI poor Judge Howard (whom has
never deIeated anyone in an election despite being on the bench since 1998) in having to deal with me
in 11 cr 22176, wherein he sentenced Reno attorney Coughlin to 3 days in jail Ior a Iinding oI summary
contempt under NRS 22.010 Ior zealously advocating on behalI oI a deIendant in a criminal matter
where police misconduct was alleged. Mr. Bosler, I am hereby requesting that a copy oI this and all
other correspondences between Biray Dogan and myselI and my complete Iile in the matter Ior which
Mr. Dogan is representing me be placed in Mr. Dogan's Iile and that a Iormal complaint investigation
against Mr. Dogan Ior his negligence in representing me so Iar and his retaliatory approach (having a
psyche evaluation ordered that is displayed on the www.ccwashoe.com courtconnect docket in close
proximity to my complaining oI Mr. Dogan's Iailure to appear at my arraingment and his questionable
statements to me, as well as the practice he and Deputy PD Joe Goodnight attempted to employe
previously were they insisted upon talking to me on the phone as a pair, in a surprise approach manner.
Incidentally, the RPD Sargent whom charged me with the "misuse oI 911" gross misdemeanor that I am
currently Iacing, plagued wtih the representation oI one Biray Dogan in, actually managed to lose my
dog last night, when Sargent SiIre was responding to a true instance oI misues oI 911, where Zach
Coughlin's "sister" Carly Noel Coughlin, called 911 to report that Mr. Coughlin had arrived at Carly's
house, where she had invited him to drop oI his pekingnese dog, Jackson Pawluck, iI he ever wanted
Ms. Coughlin's "Iriend" to watch Jackson again. Ms. Coughlin indicated that "the peopel who watched
him last time cried when I went to go get him, so I don't really wanna do this again" despite her earlier
indication that she would. Ms. Coughlin, grew annoyed with Mr. Coughlin's request and renegged on
her oIIer to transport the dog to the disabled woman to whom it brought so much joy, and her daughter.
3/21
Mr. Coughlin walked back to his car with his dog to leave, but his car was apparently to low on gas to
start. Ms. Coughlin continued to regale Mr. Coughlin with her hypocritical, saturnine approach to
human relations (this despite her working in the mental health care Iield, apparently, and perhaps, most
troubling). Ms. Coughlin threatened to call 911 iI Mr. Coughlin did not leave immediately, Mr.
Coughlin said he would, asked what on earth she would be calling 911 about, and promptly attempted
to start his car to leave. It would not, and Ms. Coughlin drove oII. Mr. Coughlin, knowing Iull well that
his sister would in Iact be calling 911, and that she was well aware oI Mr. Coughlin's recent trials and
tribulations with local law enIorcement in light oI Mr. Coughlin's aberrant belieI that people in this
county actually do have rights and that we do not live in a police state), and that she, in Iact, sought to
Iurther cause Mr. Coughlin discord with law enIorcement, somethign which should would, oI course,
later "remix" as her "concern" Ior his "welIare". Sargent SiIre, whom Ior some reason was assigned to
answer this call by the RPD, echoed these sentiments to Mr. Coughlin and provided his proIessional
opinion that Ms. Coughlin did "care so very deeply" about Mr. Coughlin. Apparently, this proIound
concern was also exhibited in Ms. Coughlin calling 911 a second time the night oI 3/27/12 when Mr.
Coughlin returned some two hours laters to his vehicle, parked on Keele St., on a public street, with a
gas can with halI a gallon oI gas, intending to place it in his care and drive oI, hopeIully beIore, once
again, being abused by local law enIorcement, like Sargnet SiIre, whom was laughing on 1/14/12 when
he arrested Coughlin and charged him with a gross misdemeanor, "misuse oI 911". Ms. Coughlin oI
course sought to have Mr. Coughlin arrested Ior nothing and to Iurther involve Mr. Coughlin with local
law enIorcement, though that probably has nothing to do with her various bitter statements over the
years about how It has not been Iound and may well be dead given the proximity oI traIIic and the
dog's inexperience in dealing with it. How Sargent SiIre could possibly lecture Mr. Coughlin Ior over
an hour, perhaps causing Coughlin to miss an electronic Iiling deadline in an important legal matter is
unclear, particularly where Sargent SiIre admitted to Coughlin that Ms. Coughlin admitted Mr.
Coughlin did not touch her, harm her, or threaten her in any way. How it is that Ms. Coughlin is not
guilty oI "misuse oI 911" whereas Mr. Coughlin was subject to a custodial arrest Ior the very same
charge, by the very same RPD Sargent, Paul SiIre, is just not very clear. But, one shouldn't hold one's
breath waiting Ior any sort oI zealous advocacy by one Biray Dogan, Deputy Washoe County Public
DeIender, or any great exhibition oI restraint by Deputy District Attorney Zach Young. Mr. Coughlin
was able to Iinally leave and continue with his legal work when local "Judge Whisperer" Dr. Timothy
D. Coughlin, MD arrived with a gas can at the scene and place a gallon oI gas in Mr. Coughlin's
vehicle. That represented the Iirst expenditure by Dr. Coughlin towards "helping" his son that was not
conditioned upon some bizarre, Munchausen by Proxy, Power and Control Wheel (Duluth Model)
embodying physician control Ireak/lawyer envy insistence that Mr. Coughlin be subject to some
experiemental treatment that Dr. Coughlin Iound required given Dr. Coughlin's belieI his son, Reno
Attorney is aIIlicted with a condition wherein a "demon" resides inside oI his son. Dr. Coughlin leIt his
son, Reno Attorney Zach Coughlin as voice mail in the last year wherein he state to his son, "I truly
believe you have a demon inside oI you " whereupon Dr. Coughlin demanded upon some sort oI
backwoods exorcism being perIormed upon attorney Coughlin, whom regularly reIers to his Iather as
"Tim" or "Dr. Coughlin", but only very rarely, anymore, as "Dad". Dr. Coughlin is reIerred to by some
as the "Judge Whisperer" given his status as the physician oI choice to utilize in the shame based
sledghammer role during interventions with members oI the Nevada Judiciary whom allegedly have
substance abuse problems... And its not unheard oI Ior members oI the judiciary to approach attorney
Zach Coughlin and ask where they may Iind Dr. Coughlin, as they would like to punch him square in
the mouth. Anyways, Sargent Paul SiIre had to admit to Zach Coughlin, on 3/27/12, that he and his
RPD associate had allowed Mr. Coughlin's dog Jackson, to escape Irom Ms. Coughlins unlocked
residence, where Mr. Coughlin had placed the dog immediately beIore attempting to go walk to a gas
4/21
station and get gas, given Mr. Coughlin's reasonable believe that iI he leIt his dog in his parked car,
outside Ms. Coughlin's house, he would be arrested by the RPD Ior "dog endangerment or neglect or
animal cruelty"....Amazingly, even aIter letting Mr. Coughlin's dog escape Irom Ms. Coughlin's house,
and perhaps be hit by a car, Sargent SiIre still saw Iit to lecture Mr. Coughlin and point out the
benevolence oI the police state Sargent SiIre and those like him currently have in place in Washoe
County and the City oI Reno. But, RPD Sargent SiIre was sure to point out to attorney Coughlin how
very proIoundly deep Dr. Coughlin and Carly N. Coughlin's concern was Ior attorney Coughlin.
However, their concern is apparently not so signiIicant as to allow, say, attorney to store a plastic
garbage bag Iull oI expensive suits under Dr. Coughlin's Caughlin Ranch home, which has 5 empty
bedrooms and a "mudroom" the size oI an aircraIt hanger under the home Ior storing things. AIter the
bag oI suits being beneath Dr. Coughlin's home Ior approximately a week they outwore their welcome,
prompting Dr. Coughlin and his wiIe, Monica Morelli Coughlin to inquire as to when attorney
Coughlin might be able to remove such bag Irom the "mudroom" underneath their home, which, again,
has 5 empty bedrooms. Dr. Coughlin previously telephone the Dean oI the UNLV Boyd School oI law
to deIame his son, whereupon Dean Richard Morgan, ever the risk minimizer middle managing,
business attorney, cutthroat, educator that is he, promptly called up the State Bar to report as much.
And would Carly Noel Coughlin be alright with allowing her brother, attorney Coughlin to store, say, a
guitar or a box oI papers at her home Ior a little while? OI course she wouldn't. Though, Miss Carly
sure will put on a show oI "concern" Ior Sargent SiIre when he shows up, twice.....Oh, but how very
much they want to "help". Just only with psychobabble and Iaux concern and selI serving power
hungry, manipulative ego trips, rather than any discernible, tangible beneIit to the tasks at hand. Dr.
Coughlin is Reno City Attorney John Kadlic's personal physician, and Kadlic is godIather to the
daugther Dr. Coughlin had with Monica Morelli Coughlin, oI Morelli v. Morelli Iame:
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?
xmldoc19861424720P2d70411419.xml&docbaseCSLWAR2-1986-2006
In Morelli v. Morelli, Nevada's Iirst Italian Neurosurgeon was sued by his now attorney 18 year old
daugther Ior the cost oI her college and law school tuition, which was expressly set Iorth as a
stipulation in the marital settlement agreement in that matter. The daughter was awarded the tution and
Iather and daughter never spoke again during Dr. Morelli's liIetime, some 20 more years.
Ironically, the "misuse oI 911" charged stemmed Irom my calling about the mysterious and menacing
disappearance oI my dog (whom I appeared with in the December 2012 issue oI the Nevada Lawyer),
which occured in the context oI a continuous barrage oI domestic violence to which I was exposed,
thorugh the Iirst six weeks oI 2012, by the actions oI my then housemates, and Ior which I attempted to
obtain protection or justice Irom by contacting the RPD, including Sargent Zach Thew (allegedly, I was
arrested while allegedly attempting to contact Sargent Thew, in accordance with Sargent Thew's
express instructions that I do so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?voU3tkRR0RA
....which Biray Dogan knows, but Ior which Mr. Dogan has reIused to Iile any Motion to Dismiss or
other action on my behalI, rather, Mr. Dogan seeks to retaliate against me and to embarass me with yet
another retaliatory "competency" evaluation, despite the Iact that I passed, with Ilying colors, the one
administered by Libby Heijne aIter Deputy Washoe County Public DeIendenr Cary Hylin ordered one
(subsequent Iilings by the WCPD indicated that a "hearing" took place wherein such an evaluation was
requested by Hylin and orderd by Judge Jack Schroeder, yet no such "hearing" took place);
RPD Sargent SiIre (whom actually makes more money through his public employment than most
District Court Judges) arrested me another time, making it twice in two days, on January 12th, 2012 Ior
"jaywalking, then he obstructed justice by turning oII my video camera while RPD OIIicer Look and
OIIicer Leedy were using excessive Iorce (completely out oI the blue and with zero justiIication Ior
5/21
doing so, as evinced by the video itselI) on me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vgBu9zIlGALE&Ieaturerelated
Deputy District Attorney Zach NiIong, er, Zach Young, Esq., has been extremely resistant to any sort oI
plea bargaining in either case, as he has been in the matter Ior which Deputy Public DeIender Joe
Goodnight, Esq. is "representing" me as my "attorney". That matter RCR also included police
misconduct by the Reno Police Department, by OIIicers Ron Rosa and Nick Duralde. Where would
Reno attorney Zach Coughlin, Esq. be iI there was not video tape oI all oI this police misconduct?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v5PR7q4OI5b0&Ieaturerelated
Despite having this video, DA Zach Young retaliated against Coughlin Ior Coughlin's Iiling a NRCP 11
Motion against both Goodnight and Young by amending the criminal complaint to overcharge some
more. No, rather DA Zach Young and the RPD see the witness tampering and attempts to dissuade
Nicole Watson Irom oIIering any insight into the wrongIul arrest oI 8/20/12 by Nicholas Duradle as "a
civil matter", not a "criminal one". Heck, the RPD doesn't even see battery, assault, aggravated assault,
or domestic violence as "criminal in nature" when these things happen to pesky First Amendment
attorney Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq., ...no, rather, those are matters oI a "civil nature" and
Coughlin's "remedy is with the court's", so sayeth RPD OIIicer Stacey Gardner, Sargent Monica Lopez,
OIIicer Mcquattry, OIIicer Look and Leedy and Delvecchio, OIIicer Warren, etc., etc.,
Incidentally, it would be helpIul iI an entity like Washoe Legal Services took an aggresive approach to
advocating on behalI oI tenants'.....Washoe Legal Services Executive Director Paul Elcano has
reportedly call Dr. Coughlin in an attempt to inIluence attorney Coughlin to close the case Coughlin
has against WLS Ior wrongIul termination.
Its a good thing Nevada has so many brave First Amendment attorney's like JM Devoy and his
associate Marc Randazza, neither oI whom have any association with Mr. Coughlin. I, Mr. Coughlin
am aware that it is slightly awkward to write this switching between the Iirst and third person, however,
the exigencies and economics oI solo law practice were at play in doing so.
At least there isn't much oI a societal cost to the legally questionable manner in which evictions are
decided and carried out in Washoe County:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vssE0FWHFNEY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vKjG2aEjslr4
Well, Mr. Loomis, thinks my arguments about the insuIIiciency oI service oI the Summary Eviction
Order's is "Irivolous", but, hey, he is just getting paid to zealously advocate on my behalI, so....
And just because Bar Counsel Patrick King, Esq., Ieels the greivances I Iiled are not worth pursuing
whereas those Iiled by Richard G. Hill, Esq. are deIinately worthy oI lots and lots oI Iollow up (even
where he lacks standing to so Iile or is oIIering only unattributed hearsay in support oI his contentions,
etc.) does not mean Bar Counsel Patrick King is acting as an attack dog Ior the rich, that would not be
an accurate statement, in all likelihood.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Coughlin:
This message is sent to address issues raised in the e-mail you sent on 3-26-12.
1. Please note that you are Iree to send the communications you send to me, to anyone else you desire.
You should be aware that sending your communications to other parties will cause your
communications to me to lose their attorney-client conIidentiality.
2. For what speciIic purposes do you need a continuance? A continuance purely Ior the purpose oI
delay is not a proper reason Ior a continuance.
3. Whether you are entitled to e-mail the Reno Municipal Court is not my concern. That is a problem to
6/21
be addressed between you and the Court.
4. Ms. Drake is no longer the attorney handling your case Ior the Reno City Attorney`s OIIice. Your
case is now being handled by Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, Esq.
5. In response to your question regarding the weaknesses oI the trespassing case I oIIer the Iollowing:
a. The complaint is deIicient in that iI Iails to set Iorth the elements oI the crime oI trespass. It Iails to
identiIy whether your presence on the premises was Ior the purpose to vex or annoy the owner or
occupant oI the premises or whether it was an entry onto the premises aIter a warning not to so
trespass. This is probably easily remedied by an amendment at the time oI trial. Nevertheless these are
alternative theories on which a trespass case can be pursued and the deIendant is entitled to know on
which theory or theories a case is being prosecuted in advance oI showing up Ior trial.
b. You Iiled an appeal on October 19, 2011, apparently, oI the order made by Justice oI the Peace
SIerrazza on October 13, 2011. That order denied your request Ior a continuance and granted summary
eviction unless you Iiled a deposit with the court. Typically the courts lose jurisdiction to rule on other
matters in the case once an appeal is taken. It is clear Irom the court records that this appeal was
pending beIore the Second Judicial District Court at the time the court held a hearing on the unlawIul
detainer on October 25, 2011. It may well be that the Justice Court lost jurisdiction to hold the eviction
hearing while the appeal was pending.
c. I am working on some other thoughts.
6. II you are dissatisIied with the way I am representing you, you remain Iree to seek a new attorney.
7. Another chuckle regarding my ownership oI strip clubs. I don`t own or have any ownership interest
in any strip clubs, brothels, adult book stores or movie houses. I guess that leaves me Iree to moralize.
8. I still don`t see the importance oI Dr. Merliss. The request Ior payment oI an amount equal to rent,
was Ior storage oI your personal property. You are entitled to contest the amount oI the storage Iee,
which you did. There is no credible evidence anywhere which suggests that anyone intended to reopen
or create a new tenancy allowing you to retain possession oI the premises.
9. Dr. Merliss is an out oI state witness. In order to compel his appearance, his testimony must be
material. NRS 174.425(1). It does not appear that his testimony is material under the inIormation you
have provided Further, under NRS 174.425(2) he is entitled to be paid his subsistence and travel
expenses incurred in coming to Nevada. Are you prepared to pay those expenses in advance oI his
coming to Nevada?
10. I don`t intend to Iax or e-mail to you, your Iull Iile in this case. You already have everything with
the exception oI a couple oI items which I mailed to your old address. I will send them again to your
new address. II you want to review the Iile you are welcome to do so at my oIIice. II you want copies
oI anything in the Iile you may mark the items. AIter giving you a cost estimate, Ior which I require
payment in advance, we will provide you with copies oI the marked items.
Keith Loomis
From: Zach Coughlin |mailto:zachcoughlinhotmail.com|
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 10:33 PM
To: keithloomisearthlink.net; stermitzsbcglobal.net; jmdrandazza.com; jbolescallatg.com;
kristiemanningyahoo.com; kadlicjreno.gov
Subject: i was evicted 3 15 12, i need a continuance
Dear Mr. Loomis,
I was wrongIully evicted on 3 15 12, and I need a continuance in the criminal trespass matter that you
set overly quickly against my express wishes anyway. My ability to collect evidence necessary to my
deIense and otherwise prepare has been adversely aIIected. Additionally, I don't Ieel as though you are
perIorming in an appropriate manner as deIense counsel, but rather you seem stuck in your
prosecutorial ways, too quick to look Ior any excuse whatsoever to bury one's case, so I think you have
7/21
Iorced a split here, which Iurther prejudices my case and augers towards a continuance. Please move
Ior one immediately and copy me on my entire Iile by email and Iax please. Additionally, please seek
clariIication Irom the RMC as to whether I am allowed to ever send an email to
renomunicrecordsreno.gov. Please note, today, Judge Flanagan denied Richard Hill's latest Irivolous
motion.
Did you know that Kevin Kelly, oI the State Bar oI Nevada's Character and Fitness Committee Ior at
least the last decade owns and runs the Spearmint Rhino strip club in Las Vegas:
I know I always like my three hour tours oI heavy handed moralizing Irom someone who runs a
monolithic strip club in Las Vegas.
You are on the State Bar oI Nevada's Iee dispute committee, aren't you Mr. Loomis? Do you own any
strip clubs?
Mr. Loomis, which oI the elements oI the trespass charge RMC 8.10.040 do you Ieel are weakest Ior
Deputy City Attorney Jill Drake, whom I inIormed about the admission by Reno PD OIIicer Chris
Carter that Richard G. Hill, Esq. bribes him, but Ior which Ms. Drake indicated a complete lack oI
interest and expressed that she would not be Iollowing up on that report oI bribery oI a RPD OIIicer.
Mr. Kadlic, please place a copy oI this correspondence in Jill Drake's personnel Iile. Additionally
please place one in Allison Ormaas's personnel and employment Iile too, in addition to Deputy City
Attorney Dan Wong's employment Iile, as all three oI those Deputy City Attorney's were provided that
report and all three indicated they did not care and had no intention oI Iollowing up or otherwise
investigating the admission by RPD OIIicer Chris Carter that Richard G. Hill, Esq. bribed him. I think
the Iailure to Iollow up by any oI these 3 Deputy City Attorney's relates to any Iuture negligent hiring,
training, and supervision claims that the Reno City Attorney may need to deIend against when
representing the Reno PD like it did in the EeoI v. Pitsnogle case:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/reno-oIIicial-accused-oI-witness-tampering-116586528.html
You know, Deputy City Attorney Ormaas's decision to push on Ior that $70 traIIic ticket is looking
more and more interesting. \\
Oh, and, Mr. Loomis, Dr. Merliss presence is necessary because his understanding oI the extent to
which his attorney, Richard G. Hill, Esq. had eIIectively rescinded any eviction Order by sending a bill
Ior the same amount as Iull use and occupany oI the location at 121 River Rock St. goes to the
substance oI the elements Iound in RMC 8.10.040 as well as the credibility oI both Merliss and Hill.
Sincerely,
Close Print
Full view
,
,
Back to messages
RE: rmc 11 cr 26405 you are appointed counsel? Ior puentes ne taitel??
2/27/12
Keith Loomis
To 'Zach Coughlin'
From: Keith Loomis (keithloomisearthlink.net)
Sent: Mon 2/27/12 3:27 PM
8/21
To: 'Zach Coughlin' (zachcoughlinhotmail.com)
Mr. Coughlin:
E-mail works well Ior me.
Keith Loomis
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 7:56 AM
To: keithloomisearthlink.net
Subject: rmc 11 cr 26405 you are appointed counsel? Ior puentes ne taitel?
hi, i guess Mr. Loomis was appointed as my 3rd deIense attorney in RMC case 11 cr 26405. I have not
heard anything about this case, and the RMC indicated they had nothing scheduled. Please
communicate with me only via email or Iax please, having issues with my mail incident to domestic
violence committed against me my Iax is 949 667 7402. thanks,
Zach Coughlin
Full view
,
,
Back to messages
court date?
3/05/12
Keith Loomis
To 'Zach Coughlin'
Sent: Mon 3/05/12 4:09 PM
Mr. Coughlin:
I have requested that court set your trespass case Ior trial in about 30 days. I will let you know the date
and time as soon as I know.
Keith Loomis
Full view
,
,
Back to messages
RE: court date?
3/07/12
Keith Loomis
To zachcoughlinhotmail.com
Sent: Wed 3/07/12 4:36 PM
Mr. Coughlin:
On what grounds, other than those already set Iorth in your existing motion, do you believe a motion to
dismiss should be Iiled?
Keith Loomis
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:45 AM
Subject: RE: court date
9/21
Mr. Loomis,
Please copy me on any and all correspondences, Iiling, or other documentation or verbal requests,
correspondences, etc. that you submit to the Court, including the one you reIerence below. Please do
not Iollow Taitel's tact oI agreeing to requests or Iailing to oppose motions without even attempting to
obtain my permission to in advance thereoI.
I would like Ior you to draIt a Motion to Dismiss in this case Ior me review.
Thanks,
Zach Coughlin, Esq., 1422 E. 9th St. #2, RENO, NV 89512, tel: 775 338 8118, Iax: 949 667 7402;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: keithloomisearthlink.net
Subject: court date
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:09:19 -0800
Mr. Coughlin:
Keith Loomis
Full view
,
,
Back to messages
RE: court date?
3/09/12
Keith Loomis
Sent: Fri 3/09/12 10:14 AM
No worries. Made me laugh.
Couple oI questions:
Did you Iile an appeal Irom Justice oI the Peace SIerrazza`s eviction order?
II yes, has it been resolved?
Did SIerrazza announce at the close oI the hearing on the 25th that he was granting the eviction and ask
Hill/Baker to provide a written order?
Did you ever see the eviction order posted by WCSO
II yes, when?
What is relevance oI personnel Iiles oI Carter or Lopez?
How is Dr. Merliss` testimony material to the deIense oI this case?
Keith Loomis
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 12:46 AM
Dear Mr. Loomis,
I apologize Sir Ior what I am sure comes across as rudeness on my part. You seem like a good guy, and
you have great hair. I simply don't have time, money or energy to do any oI this the polite way given
10/21
the "uniqueness" oI this situation....Please just know I mean you no disrespect.
Would you please Iile a request or Motion Ior the Personnel File oI RPD OIIicer Chris Carter and
Sargent Monica Lopez as well as supboena Irom the RPD all the volumns oI crap Richard Hill has
given them on this in addition to noticing the court and City Atty as to Richard HIll being a witness,
subpoena him (though the earlier continuance would appear to imply he already is) AND SUBPOENA
THE OLD CALIFORNIA NEUROSURGEON WHO CAN GET HIS OUT DOWN HERE FOR THE
TRIAL AND A DEPOSITION PRIOR THERETO, ETSPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT THE
VARIOUS POLICE REPORTS AND MOTIONS FOR ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE QUOTE
MERLISS AS SAYING HE WAS AT THE PROPERTY IN THE "WEEKS PRECEEDING" THE
ARREST, ETC., ETC. (THE STUFF BOBBY PUENTES GOT YOU WHEN HE COPIED YOU MY
FILE, IE MY FAXES TO BOBBY, SET THIS OUT CLEARLY). iF THESE FOOLS WANT TO
HAVE ME ARREST AND ATTEMPT TO RUN A TRAIN ON ME, THEN THEY CAN PUT THE
TIME AND WORK IN AND NOT PHONE IT IN FROM CALI AND HAVE THEIR RENT-A-
LYCAN rICHARD HILL DO IT.
ALSO PLEASE FILE A MOTION TO dismiss based upon denial oI right to a speedy trial, spoliation
oI evidence, etc....
PEACE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full view
,
,
Back to messages
Trial Date?
3/09/12
Keith Loomis
Sent: Fri 3/09/12 10:44 AM
1 attachment
Coughlin Trial Setting.pdI (771.8 KB)
See attached
Full view
,
,
Back to messages
RE: Trial Date?
3/12/12
Keith Loomis
Sent: Mon 3/12/12 9:26 AM
I can do that iI there is a good reason to vacate the date. What is the reason?
Keith
11/21
Subject: RE: Trial Date
Please Iile something with the court seeking to vacate that trial date and explaining that you Iailed to
even once consult with your client prior to setting it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Trial Date
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:44:17 -0800
See attached
Full view
,
,
Back to messages
RE: court date?
3/12/12
Keith Loomis
Sent: Mon 3/12/12 10:02 AM
This e-mail is sent to address the grounds you identiIied as Iorming the basis oI a motion to dismiss. As
you know there is both a constitutional right and a statutory right to a speedy trial. This case is nowhere
close to a violation oI the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The statute does provide Ior a right to
trial within 60 days oI arraignment in municipal court. NRS 178.556(2). In this circumstance the court
'may dismiss the complaint. The statute requires, however, that the trial not have been postponed at
the request oI the deIendant. It is my understanding that the January 10, 2012, trial date, was postponed
at your request. II that is true then there are not grounds to dismiss on the basis oI a violation oI a right
to speedy trial.
Dismissal based on spoliation is a civil concept. It has not been applied to criminal cases in Nevada as
oI yet. See Higgs v. State, 126 Nev. Adv. Opn 1 (2010). Rather deIendants in criminal cases are
protected Irom the loss oI evidence in the hands oI the prosecution by the doctrine oI due process.
Consequently you might have a basis to request dismissal iI the City Attorney`s OIIice lost evidence, in
its possession material to the case. In such case iI the City acted in bad Iaith or with connivance or iI
you were prejudiced by the loss then there may be grounds on which to base a dismissal. Please advise
as to what evidence was lost and how it was lost.
You have not identiIied any other grounds as a basis Ior dismissal. II you believe there are other
grounds, let me know.
Thanks
Keith Loomis
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 12:46 AM
12/21
Dear Mr. Loomis,
I apologize Sir Ior what I am sure comes across as rudeness on my part. You seem like a good guy, and
you have great hair. I simply don't have time, money or energy to do any oI this the polite way given
the "uniqueness" oI this situation....Please just know I mean you no disrespect.
Would you please Iile a request or Motion Ior the Personnel File oI RPD OIIicer Chris Carter and
Sargent Monica Lopez as well as supboena Irom the RPD all the volumns oI crap Richard Hill has
given them on this in addition to noticing the court and City Atty as to Richard HIll being a witness,
subpoena him (though the earlier continuance would appear to imply he already is) AND SUBPOENA
THE OLD CALIFORNIA NEUROSURGEON WHO CAN GET HIS OUT DOWN HERE FOR THE
TRIAL AND A DEPOSITION PRIOR THERETO, ETSPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT THE
VARIOUS POLICE REPORTS AND MOTIONS FOR ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE QUOTE
MERLISS AS SAYING HE WAS AT THE PROPERTY IN THE "WEEKS PRECEEDING" THE
ARREST, ETC., ETC. (THE STUFF BOBBY PUENTES GOT YOU WHEN HE COPIED YOU MY
FILE, IE MY FAXES TO BOBBY, SET THIS OUT CLEARLY). iF THESE FOOLS WANT TO
HAVE ME ARREST AND ATTEMPT TO RUN A TRAIN ON ME, THEN THEY CAN PUT THE
TIME AND WORK IN AND NOT PHONE IT IN FROM CALI AND HAVE THEIR RENT-A-
LYCAN rICHARD HILL DO IT.
ALSO PLEASE FILE A MOTION TO dismiss based upon denial oI right to a speedy trial, spoliation
oI evidence, etc....
PEACE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Trial Date?
3/14/12
Keith Loomis
Sent: Wed 3/14/12 2:35 PM
Dear Mr. Coughlin:
My obligation under Nevada Rule oI ProIessional Conduct 1.2 is to abide by a client`s decision
concerning the objectives oI representation and, as required by Rule 1.4 to consult with the client as to
the means by which the objectives oI representation are to be pursued. . In a criminal case the lawyer
shall abide by the clients decision, aIter consultation with the lawyer, as to plea to be entered, whether
to waive jury trial whether the client will testiIy.
Under Rule 1.4 (a)(5) a lawyer shall consult with the client about any relevant limitations on the
lawyers conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules oI
ProIessional Conduct or other law.
Under Rule 2.1. In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent proIessional judgment and
render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may reIer not only to law but to other
considerations such as moral economic, social and political Iactors, that may be relevant to the client`s
situation.
Under Rule 3.1. A lawyer shall not bring or deIend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue
therein, unless there is a basis in law and Iact Ior doing so that is not Irivolous, which includes a good
Iaith argument Ior an extension, modiIication or reversal oI existing law. A lawyer Ior a deIendant in a
13/21
criminal proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so deIend the proceeding as to
require that every element oI the case be established.
Under Rule 3.2(a) and (b). A lawyer shall make reasonable eIIorts to expedite litigation consistent with
the interests oI the client.
The duty stated in paragraph (a) does not preclude a lawyer Irom granting a reasonable request Irom
opposing counsel Ior an accommodation, such as an extension oI time, or Irom disagreeing with a
client`s wishes on administrative and tactical matters, such as scheduling depositions, the number oI
depositions to be taken, and the Irequency and use oI written discovery requests.
Under Rule 8.4(d) It is misconduct Ior a lawyer to engage in conduct which is prejudicial to the
administration oI justice.
These, and others, are the proIessional rules I operate under in providing legal representation to you in
case number 11 CR 26405, a case in which you are charged with the crime oI trespass. It is my
understanding that your objective in this criminal case is that you be acquitted oI the crime oI trespass.
That is my purpose in representing you. I am happy to work towards that outcome to the best oI my
ability. It is my opinion, however, that much oI what you ask to be done is not in compliance with the
above rules. Accordingly, I will not be Iiling a motion to dismiss based upon NRCP 6(a) and (b), I see
that argument as Irivolous. I will not be proceeding with the summoning oI an out-oI-state witness
(Merliss) unless you can establish his materiality to the deIense. Nor will I be subpoenaing the
personnel records oI law enIorcement personnel unless you can establish to my satisIaction why they
are relevant to this case. I have no intention at this time oI conducting any depositions in the case or
sending requests Ior production oI documents or interrogatories in the case. I see these actions as
unduly burdensome on the judicial system, and unwarranted by anything you have provided to this
point. I also see them as Irivolous and an attempt to utilize the criminal justice system to accomplish
objectives not relevant to my purpose in representing you.
II you are dissatisIied with the limitations I perceive to exist regarding my representation oI you, you
are welcome to terminate my representation oI you. You may then ask the Court to appoint a new
lawyer to represent you.
It is my understanding that Deputy Machem will be testiIying in the case along with Richard Hill and
Casey Baker.
I do think that there are some interesting angles to the case upon which a deIense can be based and I
will be pursuing those angles. I have asked you in previous e-mails to provide inIormation which I
believe will be helpIul to the deIense oI your case.
I advise you that the City has oIIered to recommend time-served as a sentence iI you enter a no-contest
plea to trespass. It is also my understanding that you have other criminal cases pending in both Reno
Justice Court and in the Second Judicial District Court oI the State oI Nevada. It is my understanding
Iurther that all oI the criminal cases can be resolved in a single plea to a misdemeanor oIIense iI you
will obtain psychological counseling. It is my obligation to inIorm you oI the availability oI these
resolutions to the present criminal case in which I provide representation. I will, oI course, abide by
your decision as to whether to accept these resolutions or not.
I note that there is a psychiatric evaluation scheduled Ior you in 2nd Judicial District Court Case No.
CR12-0376 on April 3, 2012. The outcome oI that evaluation could have an important impact on this
case. I am asking that you authorize a release oI the inIormation contained in the evaluation to me so
that I may determine what impact it could have on your behalI in this case.
I remain prepared to represent you in the trespass case. I think that a trial oI the case will be interesting.
My representation, however, is circumscribed by the Nevada Rules oI ProIessional Conduct.
Keith Loomis
14/21
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:29 PM
Dear Mr. Loomis,
In your motion to dismiss, I would like you to really Iocus on and set Iorth to the court the Iact that the
eviction order needed to be served in compliance with NRCP 6(a) and 6(e). NRS 40.400 Rules oI
practice. The provisions oI NRS, Nevada Rules oI Civil Procedure and Nevada Rules oI Appellate
Procedure relative to civil actions, appeals and new trials, so Iar as they are not inconsistent with the
provisions oI NRS 40.220 to 40.420, inclusive, apply to the proceedings mentioned in those sections.
The language about "removing the tenant with in 24 hours oI receipt oI the order" is only applicable to
those situations where the tenant does not Iile a Tenant's Answer or Tenant's AIIidavit. I did Iile such a
Tenan'ts AIIidavit, and litigated the matter thoroughly. In those situations, NRS 40.400 requires NRCP
to apply, speciIically NRCP 6(a) and 6(e), and clearly WCSO Machem (please subpoena and identiIy
as witnesses Mary Kandaras, Esq. oI the WCDA Civil Disvision, WCSO Deputy Machem, and WCSO
Civil Division supervisor Liz Stuchell Ior the trial in this matter, and Iurther send out a request Ior
production and subpoena duces tecum to the WCDA and the WCSO askign them to speciIy, in writing
and in detail, the exact procedures and policies in place with respect to the service and conducting oI
such lockouts (ie, not deIault lockouts where there is not a summary eviction hearing, but one's like the
present one, where there was a Tenant's Answer and hearing held, etc....). Be sure to ask whether the are
aware oI what "personally served" means, and whether they mail the Orders on top oI merely posting
them to the door. Further, I have been told that the WCSO has a policy or penatly system in place
whereby the deputies must get these lockouts perIormed "within 24 hours oI receipt oI the order" the
receipt being the WCSO's receipt, and not the tenant's receipt. I don't ncessarily read the statute that
way, but....the WCSO policy and punishment system would be at least some indication oI what the
legislature meant (I guess, but I dont' really think so, though, you will note that Hill was leIt with
nothing but citing to the "usual and customary practice oI the WCSO" in serving the Eviction ORders
and perIormign lockouts, I believe, because the law does not contain much to support Hill's contention
and thereIore he wishes to see the WCSO "customary practices" being given the weight oI law.
Please see some speciIic selections attached Irom the eviction matter. I know, I know, you want to
curtail the scope oI your representation to an immaculate degree....but Hill can clearly be seen in his
various Motion to Show Cause, State Bar Grievances, Temproary Protection Order Applications, etc.,
etc., to be a punk who doesn't much like competing on an even playing Iield, like any good private
schooler, he would rather sick an attack dog on somebody than get in the octogon and go toe to toe
mentally. Regardless, Hill shows a continual desire to subvert NRCP 6(e), which applies to service oI
documents Iiled elecronically in the Second Judicial District Court. He would rather withhold opposing
counsels computers, laptops, client Iiles, driver's license, etc. The last thing he wants is to go argument
Ior argument, research Ior research, writing Ior writing. Private school and daddy's pleading bank. Hill
Iiles a Motion to Show caue allegeing Coughlin subvreted an Order that was Iiled on January 11th,
2012 with Couglin's action oI January 12th, 2012. Under NRCP 6(e), the Order Denying the TRO had
not even been served yet, and there has been no indidcation that Hill gave the Order at the town dump
to anyone other than an RPD OIIicer.
Further, it is not all that clear why Hills Motion Ior ORder to Show Cause deserves a Iull blown
hearing when D7 does not indicate a hearing will be accorded to the appeal. This is particularly suspect
given that Anvui sets Iorth that appeals in summary eviction matters are done on a trial de novo basis.
There are a number, but how about your complete lack oI communication with me prior to so setting
that date. How about Mr. Taitel and Mr. Puentes's Iailure in this matter and the prejudice to my case so
created? How about your Iailing to identiIy yourselI as the public deIender to a room Iull oI deIendants
15/21
in jail at the arraignment?
There are other reasons as well, including, but not limited to, your resistance to subpoena the materials
I have and am requesting.
I wish Ior you to subpoena the personnel Iiles oI both RPD Sargent Monica Lopez and OIIicer Chris
Carter. I wish Ior you to list Dr. Merliss as a witness and subpoena his appearance and appropriately
notice the City oI Reno in that regard, same goes Ior Richard Hill and Casey Baker (Baker, by letter
dated November 10th, 2011 demands the Iull rental value Ior the property as "storage" under NRS
40.253, while also asserting he will go aIter moving and inventory costs, in addition to Hill's contractor
Phil Stewarts later ridiculous charges and perjury. Please subpoena Stewart as well.
Most importantly subpoena Washoe County SheriII's OIIice Deputy Machem to testiIy and serve a
subpoena dueces tecum, requests Ior production, and interrogatories seeking records and responses
Irom the WCSO as set Iorth in the letter I sent Liz Stuchell (see attached) on or about February 10th,
2012. You see, the WCSO and Deputy Machem may be committing a Iraud upon the public by
repeatedly Iiling aIIidavits oI service that attest to personal service where Liz Stuchell, oI the WCSO
admits that they clearly do not know, or choose to "remix" the legal meaning oI "personally serve".
Further, please inIorm the City oI Reno and appropriately notice the same as to the existence and intent
to oIIer into evidence a video oI Richard Hill, Esq., admitting that he and his Iirm, on behalI oI Dr.
Merliss, were withholding the accused personal property, in addition to the client's Iiles Irom the
Iormer commercial lease home law oIIice oI the accused and asserting a lien, under NRS 40.253 Ior
"storage", however, as the video tape shows, Hill admits to charging the undersigned the same $900 per
month rent as was charged Ior the "Iull use and occupancy" oI the premises at 121 River Rock St.,
Reno, NV 89512. Hill Iurther demands that property be removed in a certain order, regardless oI
whether his articiIically inIlated lien was paid or not. Additionally, Hill committed Iraud upon the court
in a number oI instances and Iiled Ialse police reports wherein he alleges that he agreed to or otherwise
made available to the accused items such as the accused's clients Iiles (and Ior a time wallet and state
issued driver's license) where, clearly, without requiring any payment by the accused, however, clearly,
the Iacts show that Hill never actually lived up to those assertions and repeatedly Iailed to show
provide such items absent payment oI his artiIically inIlated lien.
Further, I wish Ior you to divulge and provide notice that it is available Ior pickup and that we intent to
introduce into evidence a video oI RPD Sargent Monica Lopez admitting that she and RPD OIIicer
Carter did not identiIy themselves as police oIIicers or otherwise ask the accused to leave 121 River
Rock St. on the date oI the arrest prior to Merliss opening the door to the basement. This is apparently
in direct contradiction to the sworn Iilings made by Richard Hill, Esq. in his aIIidavits attached to his
various Motions to Show Cause, the Reply to Opposition thereto, Opposition to TRO, etc., etc. (in RJC
Rev2011-001708 and the appeal in CV11-03628). For that reason alone Merliss' presence is required.
He was a precipient witness and you are asking me why he should be there? You have a duty to
zealously advocate on my behalI, Mr. Loomis. You are paid, by the public, to do so. Please divulge any
prior associations you have with anyone employed by or workign as an independent contractor with the
RMC and or the Reno City Attorney, including anyone you went to law school with or attended the
same law school as, within a 5 year period.
Further, I wish Ior you to Iile a motion seeking a mistrial or otherwise requiring the recusal oI the RMC
and Iurther disclosing why it is that Judge Gardner seemingly has recused Judge Dilworth (why
wouldn't Judge Dilworth recuse Judge Dilworth?) in one case, without detailing why exactly, while
Judge Gardner apparently is intent on remaining on in 11 CR 26405, despite the Iact that an apparent
conIlict exists, one which he only disclosed upon prompting Irom the accused, with respect to Judge
Gardner's very recent employment with the Reno City Attorney's oIIice and the existing and or brewing
litigation (or, at least, possible litigation) between the accused and the City oI Reno, Reno City
16/21
Attorney, and possibly, the RMC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:26:35 -0700
I can do that iI there is a good reason to vacate the date. What is the reason?
Keith
Please Iile something with the court seeking to vacate that trial date and explaining that you Iailed to
even once consult with your client prior to setting it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Trial Date
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:44:17 -0800
See attached
Full view
,
,
Back to messages
RE: i was evicted 3 15 12, i need a continuance?
2:03 PM
Keith Loomis
Sent: Wed 3/28/12 2:03 PM
Dear Mr. Coughlin:
This message is sent to address issues raised in the e-mail you sent on 3-26-12.
1. Please note that you are Iree to send the communications you send to me, to anyone else you desire.
You should be aware that sending your communications to other parties will cause your
communications to me to lose their attorney-client conIidentiality.
2. For what speciIic purposes do you need a continuance? A continuance purely Ior the purpose oI
delay is not a proper reason Ior a continuance.
3. Whether you are entitled to e-mail the Reno Municipal Court is not my concern. That is a problem to
be addressed between you and the Court.
4. Ms. Drake is no longer the attorney handling your case Ior the Reno City Attorney`s OIIice. Your
case is now being handled by Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, Esq.
5. In response to your question regarding the weaknesses oI the trespassing case I oIIer the Iollowing:
17/21
a. The complaint is deIicient in that iI Iails to set Iorth the elements oI the crime oI trespass. It Iails to
identiIy whether your presence on the premises was Ior the purpose to vex or annoy the owner or
occupant oI the premises or whether it was an entry onto the premises aIter a warning not to so
trespass. This is probably easily remedied by an amendment at the time oI trial. Nevertheless these are
alternative theories on which a trespass case can be pursued and the deIendant is entitled to know on
which theory or theories a case is being prosecuted in advance oI showing up Ior trial.
b. You Iiled an appeal on October 19, 2011, apparently, oI the order made by Justice oI the Peace
SIerrazza on October 13, 2011. That order denied your request Ior a continuance and granted summary
eviction unless you Iiled a deposit with the court. Typically the courts lose jurisdiction to rule on other
matters in the case once an appeal is taken. It is clear Irom the court records that this appeal was
pending beIore the Second Judicial District Court at the time the court held a hearing on the unlawIul
detainer on October 25, 2011. It may well be that the Justice Court lost jurisdiction to hold the eviction
hearing while the appeal was pending.
c. I am working on some other thoughts.
6. II you are dissatisIied with the way I am representing you, you remain Iree to seek a new attorney.
7. Another chuckle regarding my ownership oI strip clubs. I don`t own or have any ownership interest
in any strip clubs, brothels, adult book stores or movie houses. I guess that leaves me Iree to moralize.
8. I still don`t see the importance oI Dr. Merliss. The request Ior payment oI an amount equal to rent,
was Ior storage oI your personal property. You are entitled to contest the amount oI the storage Iee,
which you did. There is no credible evidence anywhere which suggests that anyone intended to reopen
or create a new tenancy allowing you to retain possession oI the premises.
9. Dr. Merliss is an out oI state witness. In order to compel his appearance, his testimony must be
material. NRS 174.425(1). It does not appear that his testimony is material under the inIormation you
have provided Further, under NRS 174.425(2) he is entitled to be paid his subsistence and travel
expenses incurred in coming to Nevada. Are you prepared to pay those expenses in advance oI his
coming to Nevada?
10. I don`t intend to Iax or e-mail to you, your Iull Iile in this case. You already have everything with
the exception oI a couple oI items which I mailed to your old address. I will send them again to your
new address. II you want to review the Iile you are welcome to do so at my oIIice. II you want copies
oI anything in the Iile you may mark the items. AIter giving you a cost estimate, Ior which I require
payment in advance, we will provide you with copies oI the marked items.
Keith Loomis
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 10:33 PM
To: keithloomisearthlink.net; stermitzsbcglobal.net; jmdrandazza.com; jbolescallatg.com;
kristiemanningyahoo.com; kadlicjreno.gov
Subject: i was evicted 3 15 12, i need a continuance
Dear Mr. Loomis,
I was wrongIully evicted on 3 15 12, and I need a continuance in the criminal trespass matter that you
set overly quickly against my express wishes anyway. My ability to collect evidence necessary to my
deIense and otherwise prepare has been adversely aIIected. Additionally, I don't Ieel as though you are
perIorming in an appropriate manner as deIense counsel, but rather you seem stuck in your
prosecutorial ways, too quick to look Ior any excuse whatsoever to bury one's case, so I think you have
Iorced a split here, which Iurther prejudices my case and augers towards a continuance. Please move
Ior one immediately and copy me on my entire Iile by email and Iax please. Additionally, please seek
clariIication Irom the RMC as to whether I am allowed to ever send an email to
renomunicrecordsreno.gov. Please note, today, Judge Flanagan denied Richard Hill's latest Irivolous
18/21
motion.
Did you know that Kevin Kelly, oI the State Bar oI Nevada's Character and Fitness Committee Ior at
least the last decade owns and runs the Spearmint Rhino strip club in Las Vegas:
I know I always like my three hour tours oI heavy handed moralizing Irom someone who runs a
monolithic strip club in Las Vegas.
You are on the State Bar oI Nevada's Iee dispute committee, aren't you Mr. Loomis? Do you own any
strip clubs?
Mr. Loomis, which oI the elements oI the trespass charge RMC 8.10.040 do you Ieel are weakest Ior
Deputy City Attorney Jill Drake, whom I inIormed about the admission by Reno PD OIIicer Chris
Carter that Richard G. Hill, Esq. bribes him, but Ior which Ms. Drake indicated a complete lack oI
interest and expressed that she would not be Iollowing up on that report oI bribery oI a RPD OIIicer.
Mr. Kadlic, please place a copy oI this correspondence in Jill Drake's personnel Iile. Additionally
please place one in Allison Ormaa's personnel and employment Iile too, in addition to Deputy City
Attorney Dan Wong's employment Iile, as all three oI those Deputy City Attorney's were provided that
report and all three indicated they did not care and had no intention oI Iollowing up or otherwise
investigating the admission by RPD OIIicer Chris Carter that Richard G. Hill, Esq. bribed him. I think
the Iailure to Iollow up by any oI these 3 Deputy City Attorney's relates to any Iuture negligent hiring,
training, and supervision claims that the Reno City Attorney may need to deIend against when
representing the Reno PD like it did in the EeoI v. Pitsnogle case:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/reno-oIIicial-accused-oI-witness-tampering-116586528.html
You know, Deputy City Attorney Ormaas's decision to push on Ior that $70 traIIic ticket is looking
more and more interesting. \\
Oh, and, Mr. Loomis, Dr. Merliss presence is necessary because his understanding oI the extent to
which his attorney, Richard G. Hill, Esq. had eIIectively rescinded any eviction Order by sending a bill
Ior the same amount as Iull use and occupany oI the location at 121 River Rock St. goes to the
substance oI the elements Iound in RMC 8.10.040 as well as the credibility oI both Merliss and Hill.
Sincerely,
Close Print
Full view
,
,
Back to messages
RE: rmc 11 cr 26405 you are appointed counsel? Ior puentes ne taitel??
2/27/12
Keith Loomis
To 'Zach Coughlin'
Sent: Mon 2/27/12 3:27 PM
Mr. Coughlin:
E-mail works well Ior me.
Keith Loomis
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 7:56 AM
19/21
Subject: rmc 11 cr 26405 you are appointed counsel? Ior puentes ne taitel?
hi, i guess Mr. Loomis was appointed as my 3rd deIense attorney in RMC case 11 cr 26405. I have not
heard anything about this case, and the RMC indicated they had nothing scheduled. Please
communicate with me only via email or Iax please, having issues with my mail incident to domestic
violence committed against me my Iax is 949 667 7402. thanks,
Zach Coughlin
Full view
,
,
Back to messages
court date?
3/05/12
Keith Loomis
To 'Zach Coughlin'
Sent: Mon 3/05/12 4:09 PM
Mr. Coughlin:
Keith Loomis
Full view
,
,
Back to messages
RE: court date?
3/07/12
Keith Loomis
Sent: Wed 3/07/12 4:36 PM
Mr. Coughlin:
On what grounds, other than those already set Iorth in your existing motion, do you believe a motion to
dismiss should be Iiled?
Keith Loomis
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:45 AM
Mr. Loomis,
Please copy me on any and all correspondences, Iiling, or other documentation or verbal requests,
correspondences, etc. that you submit to the Court, including the one you reIerence below. Please do
not Iollow Taitel's tact oI agreeing to requests or Iailing to oppose motions without even attempting to
obtain my permission to in advance thereoI.
I would like Ior you to draIt a Motion to Dismiss in this case Ior me review.
20/21
Thanks,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: court date
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:09:19 -0800
Mr. Coughlin:
Keith Loomis
Full view
,
,
Back to messages
RE: court date?
3/09/12
Keith Loomis
Sent: Fri 3/09/12 10:14 AM
No worries. Made me laugh.
Couple oI questions:
Did you Iile an appeal Irom Justice oI the Peace SIerrazza`s eviction order?
II yes, has it been resolved?
Did SIerrazza announce at the close oI
21/21
traffic/parking citations
Chris Carter that Richard G. Hill, Esq. bribes him, but for which Ms. Drake indicated a complete
lack of interest and expressed that she would not be following up on that report of bribery of a
RPD Officer. Mr. Kadlic, please place a copy of this correspondence in Jill Drake's personnel file.
Additionally please place one in Allison Ormaa's personnel and employment file too, in addition to
Deputy City Attorney Dan Wong's employment file, as all three of those Deputy City Attorney's
were provided that report and all three indicated they did not care and had no intention of
following up or otherwise investigating the admission by RPD Officer Chris Carter that Richard G.
Hill, Esq. bribed him. I think the failure to follow up by any of these 3 Deputy City Attorney's
relates to any future negligent hiring, training, and supervision claims that the Reno City Attorney
may need to defend against when representing the Reno PD like it did in the Eeof v. Pitsnogle
case:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/reno-official-accused-of-witness-tampering-116586528.html
Youknow,DeputyCityAttorneyOrmaas'sdecisiontopushonIorthat$70traIIic
ticketislookingmoreandmoreinteresting.\\
Oh,and,Mr.Loomis,Dr.Merlisspresenceisnecessarybecausehisunderstanding
oItheextenttowhichhisattorney,RichardG.Hill,Esq.hadeIIectivelyrescinded
anyevictionOrderbysendingabillIorthesameamountasIulluseandoccupanyoI
thelocationat121RiverRockSt.goestothesubstanceoItheelementsIoundin
RMC8.10.040aswellasthecredibilityoIbothMerlissandHill.
Sincerely,
No:9473
Sent: Wed 3/21/12 9:18 AM
To: cityclerk@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; vj@npri.org; mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us
4 attachments
PAUL SIFRE TransparentNevada city of reno failed to report cost of health care benefits.htm (3.6 KB) , KIMBERLY
BRADSHAW TransparentNevada.htm (3.3 KB) , JOHN TARTER TransparentNevada tarter 2010.htm (3.3 KB) ,
MARCIA LOPEZ TransparentNevada sergeant monica lopez 2010.htm (3.3 KB)
DearCityClerk,
IpreIeriIyoucommunicatetomeinwriting,byemailonly. IhaveaticketIrom1/12/12thatIbelieveshouldbedismissed.
IssueNO020148154. IwaswrongIullyarrestedbythe"communityorientedpolicing"RenoPoliceDepartmentshortlybeIore
thatticketwas,apparentlyissued. Yes,acustodialarrestIor"jaywalking"oIanattorney,myselI. IdonotbelieveIshouldbe
chargedIortheticketunderthesecircumstances. Further,uponbeingreleasedIromjailin25degreecoldlatethatnight,right
aIterthelastRTCbusIorthenighthadleIt(whatacoincidence). SargentSiIreadmittedtomeatthesceneoIthewrongIul
arrestthatheordereditdonebyIreshIacetrainingcopOIIicerLeedy. IwasliterallyattackedbytheRenoPoliceDepartment,
mycameratakingoutoImyhands. ItoldSargentSiIrenottoturnthecameraoII,buthedidso,gleeIully. Youthinka
youngsargentmakingmorethansomeoIthetoplitigationattorneysintown(andmorethanDistrictCourtJudgesmake)
wouldbeabitmorecheerIul,butyouwouldbewrong. See,IwasatmyIormerhomelawoIIiceIilmingRichardG.Hill's
crewtakingthepersonalpropertyinitthatIbelieveIwillultimatelybeentitledtosueIordamagesto,tothetowndump.
Now,RPDOIIicerHollingsworthdidtellmethat,becauseIwasjustpeacablythereonpublicproperty,onthesidewalk,thatI
wasnotbreakinganylaws....but,see...RichardG.Hilldidn'tlikethat,probablybecauseIwasgatheringevidencethatwill
ultimatelymakethe"wrongsitesurgery"hedidonbehalIoIhisCaliIorniannuerosurgeonlandlordclient,somethingIor
whichHillwillbeliabileIor(HilldecidedtobillhisclientsomewhereintheneighborhoodoI$40Ktoattempttoremoveme,
acommercialtenant,IromthepropertyviathesummaryevictionproceduresIoundinNRS40.253,basedonlyonaNoCause
Evictionnotice,whichisexpresslyIorbidden(onecannotsummarily evictacommercialtenantunlessthenon-paymentoIrent
isalleged...andHilldidn'twanttogetintothatbecausetheIactsweresopooronhabitabilityandretaliation,etc.,etc. So,
HillalsogetsaTPOissuedbytheRenoJusticeCourt,inrecordtime,withinIortyminutesoIIilingitthatday....AndRPD
OIIicerLookpracticalybrokeintotheWashoeCountyjailtryingtoserveitonmewithinanhouroIHillIilingit. Gosh,
thoseRPDOIIicerssureworkhardwhenRichardG.Hill,Esq.isinvolved! Butjustyoutrytogetthemtoarrestanyone
IromNevadaCourtServicesIortrespassing,eventhoughsomeonepostedavideooIthemdoingjustthatonyoutube:
http://www.freeexistence.org/police_state.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbNoYqK_ZU4
ThenthereisSargentTarter,wouldretaliatedagainstmeIorreportingtohimthatRPDOIIicerChrisCarteradmittedtometo
takingbribesIromRichardG.Hill,Esq.inconnectionwithmy11/12/11arrestIortrespass(apparentlyIamnevereligibleIor
acitationIromtheRenoPDorIoranORreleaseIromtheWCSO,howconvenientIoreveryone...)byissuignmethreetraIIic
citationsminutesaIterhedemandedIleaveRichardG.Hill'svicinity(ortheareanearHill'slawoIIiceat652ForrestSt.)
whereIhadgoneuponbeingreleasedIromjailon11/15/11toretrievemywalletandNevadadriver'slicenseIromHill,whom
reIusedtogivemethoseitemsIoranother7days,andwhoIurtherwithheldmyclient'sIilesIrommeandthemIoranother6
weeks. Then,RMCJudgeNashHolmeshadmearrestedIorsummarycontemptincourtwhenIdaredtocrossexamine
SargentTarterabouthisretaliatorycitations. Whilehavingmearrested,JudgeHolmesapparentlydecidedthecourtwas
entitledtokeepbothoImycellphonesandmyelectricshaver.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.,1422E.9thSt.#2,RENO,NV89512,tel:7753388118,Iax:9496677402;ZachCoughlinhotmail.com NevadaBar
No:9473
Detail page for PAUL SIFRE
Name PAUL SIFRE
Position
Sergeant
Reno
Notice
Year 2009
Base Pay $89,019.87
Overtime and
Callback Collected
$7,595.10
Total Pay $108,955.53
Detail page for KIMBERLY BRADSHAW
Name KIMBERLY BRADSHAW
Position
7555 Sergeant
Reno
Year 2010
Base Pay $109,225.10
Overtime and
Callback Collected
$5,644.98
Total Pay $153,371.72
Detail page for JOHN TARTER
Name JOHN TARTER
Position
7555 Sergeant
Reno
Year 2010
Base Pay $109,225.10
Overtime and
Callback Collected
$7,733.14
Total Pay $134,494.05
Detail page for MARCIA LOPEZ
Name MARCIA LOPEZ
Position
7555 Sergeant
Reno
FW: City Clerk's Office
Year 2010
Base Pay $92,481.00
Overtime and
Callback Collected
$7,012.04
Total Pay $116,409.24
Sent: Thu 3/08/12 4:22 AM
To: cityclerk@reno.gov
DearSharonandRenoCityClerk'sOIIice,
IhavenotheardorreceivedanythingontherequestIsentbelow. PleaserespondonlybyemailorIaxasIhavebeenavictim
oIdomesticviolencerecentlythathasIacedtamperingwithhismail...
No:9473
Subject: City Clerk's Office
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0800
Dear City Clerk and Sharon,
Hello, I am writing again about these tickets. I was told that when you go to court at the RMC and you get a ticket while there
for a court date that you will be given a voucher that will take care of that ticket. I went to Court on November 30th, 2011. I
was told there was not possibility of jail time, however, Judge Howard sentenced me to a summary three days in jail on the spot,
so my car was parked there and I was in jail when the ticket came on December 3rd, 2011. May I please have that ticket
excused under the policy I mention above? Please let me know if there is anythind I need to do in that regard.
With respect to the other ticket, from 11/3/11, I wish to dispute it and have not been able to get any information from the City
Clerk's Office with respect to getting a court date or why fines accrue prior to such an opportunity for judicial review. Should not
the additional fines be stayed until an opportunity for review? Please communicate with my by email, in writing.
Thanks,
Zach Coughlin
PS. I am indigent.
Subject: RE: debt validation documentation request and dispute letter under FDCPA to City of Reno et al
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 19:01:22 -0800
DearRenoCityClerk'sOIIice,
Hello, I hope you are having a nice day.
IhavecalledseveraltimesandkeepingleavingmessagesaboutdisputingtheIollowingparkingtickets,anddonotbelieveany"additional
Iines"shouldhaveattachedtothebaseIinewhereIhavecommunicatedthatIamdisputingthemandhavenotreceivearesponsewithregard
tothedateandtimeoImyhearingtodisputethem:
Citation Details
Citation Number: 020146724
Amount Due: $60.00
Issue Date: 12/03/2011 10:30:00
Plate Number: 838NER
State: NV
Related Citations
We have found the following additional outstanding citations for this license plate number. Please check the box next to each
additional citation that you would like to pay for at this time.
Citation Number Issue Date Amount Due
020145322 11/03/2011 03:20:00 $55.00
To: renodirect@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
Subject: debt validation documentation request and dispute letter under FDCPA to City of Reno et al
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 18:09:30 -0800
Dear CityoIReno,
ThiswritingiswrittennoticetoyouthatIdisputethedebtyouroIIiceandtheCityoIRenoandortheRenoMunicipalCourt
hasrecentlysentme,allegingthatIowesomedebtIoreitherparkingticketsandortraIIiccitations.Further,Irequest
veriIicationanddocumentationinsupportoIyourcontentionthatIowesuchadebtpursuanttotheFairDebtCollection
PracticesAct.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel:7753388118
Iax:9496677402
``Notice`` ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthe
speciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorand
thatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.This message is confidential, intended only for the named
recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s),
you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any copies in
any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov; renodirect@reno.gov

Subject: proof of insurance and registration Affidavit/Declaration and supporting documentation
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:58:47 -0800
DearRenoMunicipalCourtClerk'sOIIice,
Myname isZacharyB.Coughlin.
MyvehicleandmyselIwereappropriatelyinsured,asveriIiedbytheattachedProoIoIInsuranceIormyUSAAautomobileinsuranceatthe
timeoIbothTraIIicCitationsNo's:544281andR47190389731.CopiesoIbothcitationsareattachedaswell.Myvehicle,atthetimeoIboth
citations,wasincompliancewithNevadalawwithregardtovehicleregistration.AtrueandcorrectcopyoIthisAIIidavitandtheattached
copiesoITraIIicCitationsNo's:544281andR47190389731andatrueandcorrectcopyoItheProoIoIInsuranceIorthetimeoIboth
citationsIrommyUSAAautomobileinsurance(PolicyNumber009852796C71043)andatruecopyoImyDMVautomobileRegistration
CertiIicateIorboth2011and2012isattachedhereto.
IattestthattheassertionscontainedhereinaretrueandmakethisDeclarationunderpenaltyoIperjurypursuanttoNRS199.145.
PleaseIindattacheda6pagepdIwiththisAIIidavit/DeclarationandtheaccompanyingcopiesoIthetwocitationsandtheprooIoIinsurance
atthetimeanddateoIbothcitationsandthesameIortheregistrationIorthevehicle. Iamdisputingthe"Iailuretocometoacompletestop"
partoIthecitationin544281andunderstandingthatIhaveahearinginRenoMunicipalCourton2612at8:30aminthatregard,please
correctmeiIthatisnotthecorrectdateandtime.
Also,IhavecalledseveraltimesandkeepingleavingmessagesaboutdisputingtheIollowingparkingtickets,anddonotbelieveany
"additionalIines"shouldhaveattachedtothebaseIinewhereIhavecommunicatedthatIamdisputingthemandhavenotreceivearesponse
withregardtothedateandtimeoImyhearingtodisputethem:
CitationDetails
CitationNumber: 020146724
AmountDue: $60.00
IssueDate: 12/03/201110:30:00
PlateNumber: 838NER
State: NV
RelatedCitations
WehaveIoundtheIollowingadditionaloutstandingcitationsIorthislicenseplatenumber.Pleasechecktheboxnextto
eachadditionalcitationthatyouwouldliketopayIoratthistime.
CitationNumber IssueDate AmountDue
020145322 11/03/201103:20:00 $55.00
Notice of Appeal and MOtion for....

please find motion to dismiss attached for 11 cr 26405
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel:7753388118
Iax:9496677402
Sent: Wed 3/07/12 10:44 AM
To: ormaasa@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov
1 attachment
3 7 12 11 TR 26800 rmc NOTICE OF APPEALS ETC MOTION.pdf (2.6 MB)
Pleaseseeattached
No:9473
Sent: Sat 3/03/12 3:11 PM
To: drakej@reno.gov; keithloomis@earthlink.net
1 attachment
FW: City Clerk's Office
final motion to dismiss 11 cr 26405 3 3 12.pdf (698.4 KB)
No:9473
Sent: Wed 2/22/12 8:11 PM
1 attachment
Zach Coughlin license plate 838NER proof of insurance and registration for citations 544281 and r47190389731.pdf
(1737.4 KB)
DearSharonandRenoCityClerk'sOIIice,
IhavenotheardorreceivedanythingontherequestIsentbelow. PleaserespondonlybyemailorIaxasIhavebeenavictim
oIdomesticviolencerecentlythathasaIIectedmyreceiptoImailthroughtheusmail.
Sincerely,
No:9473
Subject: City Clerk's Office
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0800
Dear City Clerk and Sharon,
Hello, I am writing again about these tickets. I was told that when you go to court at the RMC and you get a ticket while there
for a court date that you will be given a voucher that will take care of that ticket. I went to Court on November 30th, 2011. I
was told there was not possibility of jail time, however, Judge Howard sentenced me to a summary three days in jail on the spot,
so my car was parked there and I was in jail when the ticket came on December 3rd, 2011. May I please have that ticket
excused under the policy I mention above? Please let me know if there is anythind I need to do in that regard.
With respect to the other ticket, from 11/3/11, I wish to dispute it and have not been able to get any information from the City
Clerk's Office with respect to getting a court date or why fines accrue prior to such an opportunity for judicial review. Should not
the additional fines be stayed until an opportunity for review? Please communicate with my by email, in writing.
Thanks,
Zach Coughlin
PS. I am indigent.
Subject: RE: debt validation documentation request and dispute letter under FDCPA to City of Reno et al
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 19:01:22 -0800
DearRenoCityClerk'sOIIice,
Hello, I hope you are having a nice day.
IhavecalledseveraltimesandkeepingleavingmessagesaboutdisputingtheIollowingparkingtickets,anddonotbelieveany"additional
Iines"shouldhaveattachedtothebaseIinewhereIhavecommunicatedthatIamdisputingthemandhavenotreceivearesponsewithregard
tothedateandtimeoImyhearingtodisputethem:
Citation Details
Citation Number: 020146724
Amount Due: $60.00
Issue Date: 12/03/2011 10:30:00
Plate Number: 838NER
State: NV
Related Citations
We have found the following additional outstanding citations for this license plate number. Please check the box next to each
additional citation that you would like to pay for at this time.
Citation Number Issue Date Amount Due
020145322 11/03/2011 03:20:00 $55.00
To: renodirect@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
Subject: debt validation documentation request and dispute letter under FDCPA to City of Reno et al
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 18:09:30 -0800
Dear CityoIReno,
ThiswritingiswrittennoticetoyouthatIdisputethedebtyouroIIiceandtheCityoIRenoandortheRenoMunicipalCourt
hasrecentlysentme,allegingthatIowesomedebtIoreitherparkingticketsandortraIIiccitations.Further,Irequest
veriIicationanddocumentationinsupportoIyourcontentionthatIowesuchadebtpursuanttotheFairDebtCollection
PracticesAct.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel:7753388118
Iax:9496677402
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov; renodirect@reno.gov
Subject: proof of insurance and registration Affidavit/Declaration and supporting documentation
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:58:47 -0800

DearRenoMunicipalCourtClerk'sOIIice,
Myname isZacharyB.Coughlin.
MyvehicleandmyselIwereappropriatelyinsured,asveriIiedbytheattachedProoIoIInsuranceIormyUSAAautomobileinsuranceatthe
timeoIbothTraIIicCitationsNo's:544281andR47190389731.CopiesoIbothcitationsareattachedaswell.Myvehicle,atthetimeoIboth
citations,wasincompliancewithNevadalawwithregardtovehicleregistration.AtrueandcorrectcopyoIthisAIIidavitandtheattached
copiesoITraIIicCitationsNo's:544281andR47190389731andatrueandcorrectcopyoItheProoIoIInsuranceIorthetimeoIboth
citationsIrommyUSAAautomobileinsurance(PolicyNumber009852796C71043)andatruecopyoImyDMVautomobileRegistration
CertiIicateIorboth2011and2012isattachedhereto.
IattestthattheassertionscontainedhereinaretrueandmakethisDeclarationunderpenaltyoIperjurypursuanttoNRS199.145.
PleaseIindattacheda6pagepdIwiththisAIIidavit/DeclarationandtheaccompanyingcopiesoIthetwocitationsandtheprooIoIinsurance
atthetimeanddateoIbothcitationsandthesameIortheregistrationIorthevehicle. Iamdisputingthe"Iailuretocometoacompletestop"
partoIthecitationin544281andunderstandingthatIhaveahearinginRenoMunicipalCourton2612at8:30aminthatregard,please
correctmeiIthatisnotthecorrectdateandtime.
Also,IhavecalledseveraltimesandkeepingleavingmessagesaboutdisputingtheIollowingparkingtickets,anddonotbelieveany
"additionalIines"shouldhaveattachedtothebaseIinewhereIhavecommunicatedthatIamdisputingthemandhavenotreceivearesponse
withregardtothedateandtimeoImyhearingtodisputethem:
CitationDetails
CitationNumber: 020146724
AmountDue: $60.00
IssueDate: 12/03/201110:30:00
PlateNumber: 838NER
State: NV
RelatedCitations
WehaveIoundtheIollowingadditionaloutstandingcitationsIorthislicenseplatenumber.Pleasechecktheboxnextto
eachadditionalcitationthatyouwouldliketopayIoratthistime.
CitationNumber IssueDate AmountDue
020145322 11/03/201103:20:00 $55.00
NOTICE OF APPEAL MOTION TO SET ASIDE WITHDRAWAL

Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel:7753388118
Iax:9496677402
Sent: Wed 2/15/12 3:21 AM
To: puenteslaw@aol.com; drakej@reno.gov
1 attachment
2 13 12 nOTICE OF APPEAL PUENTES DEAL WITH ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1.pdf (415.9 KB)
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel:7753388118
Iax:9496677402
NevadaBarNo:9473
Close Print
RMC11CR22176partfourExhibit1pages701-794ofMotionforNew
trailfrom12122011ey
Sent: Mon12/12/118:29PM
To: Iiskmreno.gov;renomunirecordsreno.gov
1attachment
RMC11CR22176partIourExhibit1pages701-794oIMotionIorNewtrailIrom12122011
ey.pdI(14.4MB)
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice`` ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18U.S.C.2510-
2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenottheintendedrecipientoranagent
responsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatany
review,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.This message is
confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product
or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete
this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named
recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.
To:Iiskmreno.gov;renomunirecordsreno.gov
Subject:MotionIorNewTrialEtc.inRMC11CR22176
Date:Mon,12Dec201119:57:50-0800
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
RMC11CR22176partfourExhibit1pages601-701ofMotionforNew
trailfrom12122011ey
fax:9496677402
Sent: Mon12/12/118:23PM
1attachment
RMC11CR22176partIourExhibit1pages601-701oIMotionIorNewtrailIrom12122011
ey.pdI(11.8MB)
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
MotionforNewTrialEtc.inRMC11CR22176
MotionforNewTrialEtc.inRMC11CR22176
Sent: Mon12/12/117:57PM
1attachment
RMC11CR22176partthreeExhibit1pages301-600oIMotionIorNewtrailIrom12122011.pdI
(9.7MB)
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
Sent: Mon12/12/117:40PM
1attachment
RMC11CR2217parttwoExhibit1pages1-300oIMotionIorNewtrailIrom12122011.pdI(8.6
MB)
IreceivedapprovaltoIilebyemailIromRMC
ThisisthesecondIileintheIiling. Pleasenote,theIilenameoItheattachmentshouldactuallyhavethecorrect
casenumberoIRMCCR22176. Itismissingthe6ontheendintheIilenameoItheattachment
FW:RMCsaidIcouldfilethisbyemail
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
Sent: Mon12/12/117:34PM
To: Iiskmreno.gov
1attachment
121111IinalmotionIornewtrialcityoIrenovcoughlinRMC11CR22176.pdI(12.9MB)
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
signedREQUESTFORRECORDSCD/DVDOFTRIALANDOTHER
DOCUMENTATIONURGENTPLEASE
To:renomunirecordsreno.gov
Subject:RMCsaidIcouldIilethisbyemail
Date:Mon,12Dec201119:27:57-0800
DearRMC,
IcalledanwroteearlierandreceivedapprovaltoIiletheattachedpdIandmediaIiles
byemailratherthanIaxorothersubmission. ThisIilingislarge,assuch,itmustbe
brokendownintosegments.thisispartone,parttwowillbeinthenextemail. Iwill
paywhateverIilingIeeorbondorwhateverIhavetopaytoaccessjusticeinthishere
case.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV8950
fax:9496677402
Sent: Thu12/08/115:56PM
1attachment
RECORDREQUESTFORM2010|1|trialcdandorderstoRMC12811signed.pdI(446.2KB)
IamresendingtheRecordsandREcordingoITrialrequestIorm,SIGNED,justincasethatisnecessary.
ThankYou,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
To:renomunirecordsreno.gov
Subject:REQUESTFORRECORDSCD/DVDOFTRIALANDOTHERDOCUMENTATIONURGENT
PLEASE
Date:Thu,8Dec201117:45:27-0800
PleaseletmeknowrightawayiIthereisanyproblemopeningtheattachedpdI
containingmyURGENTrecordsrequest. PleaseIindattachedmyurgentrequestIor
atapeoIthetrialheldonNovember30,2011(exigentconcernsrelatedtomyabilityto
IiledrelieIIromjudgmentmotionswith10daysoItheOrder,whichwasapparently
madeon11/30/11dictatethatIbeprovidedacopyoIthetapeorcd/dvdoIthehearing
veryquickly,please),anyorderorIindingsinthiscase,theentiredocket,anyContempt
OrderstemmingIromthe11/30/11trial,etc. Iwillpayallchargesrequired,thoughI
believemyindigentstatusshouldyieldanIFPorIeewaiver,however,timeisoIthe
essenceandIcannotwaitmorethanhalIadaytohaveanIFPruledon,soplease
proceedasthoughIwillpay. Pleaseletmeknowimmediately,viaemailpreIerably,
orbyIax(butnotbyphoneorUSPSmail)whenthesematerialsareready,inaddition
toprovidingmeawrittenestimationoIhowlongitwillbebeIoretheywillbeready
andmadeavailabletome.
Sincerely,
RE:yourfailuretopropounddiscovery
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
Sent: Thu12/08/115:14PM
To: hazlett-stevenscreno.gov
Chris,
Iamengagingyouinrelationto11CR22176anyourIailuretoprovidemeaccesstoor
copiesoIthediscoveryIromthearrestoISeptember9,2011,notthetrespasscase.
Wewilldealwiththetrespasscaselater. Fornow,pleasejustaddressyourIailureot
providecopiesoIthediscoverywhenIrequested. Canyoucheckyourphone
records? Wouldyoulikemetocheckmine? HowaboutyourIaxrecords. Mine?
IthinkyouwillIindthatwedeIinatelydidspeak. Anyways,canyouindicateyour
oIIicesstandardoperatingprocedurewhenadeIendantoraccusedcallsandwritesyour
oIIiceuprequestingdiscoverywithinadayaIterthearrest? Mustyouprovide
somethingwithin48hoursoIthearrest? WhataboutiIthearraignmentissetoutone
monthIromthearrest? Mustanarraignmentoccurpriortothat? Itseemsrather
suspecttoassertthatyouroIIicedoesnothaveanyrecordsordiscoveryincidenttothe
anarrestoISeptember9,2011,whentheaccusedcallsandwritesrequesting
documentationincidenttothearrestonapproximatelySeptember13th,201landagain
soonthereaIter,andagainsomewhatlater,whendiscoverysubsequentlyprovidedby
PamRobertsshowsaIax(onlyapartialportionoIwhich,apparently,wasincludedin
thediscovery)IromSargentAvansinotoyouroIIicedatedSeptember12,
2011...Further,youdidnotindicatethatyouroIIicehadsomethingbutwouldn'tprovide
it,youindicatedthatyouroIIicesimplydidnothaveanything. Youmaderemarks
abouthowyouweren'tgoingtotellthisandthatpersonhowtodotheirjob,
etc...Remember? ItseemspatentlyunIairIortheprosecutortobeprovidedaccessto
thisdocumentationoveronemonthpriortothedeIendantbeingaIIordedaccesstoit,
andsuIIicienttimetodowhoknowswhatwithit(severalpagesoISargentAvansino's
IaxappearmissingandtheProbableCausesheetdoesnotappeartobereviewedand
signedoIIonIoraprobablecauseIindingbyanyMagistrate,theIormissimplyblank),
particularlywereacontinuancewasatIirstagreedtobyRobertsinwriting(onlyto
haveherweaseloutoIthatattrialwhilemakingjokesaboutthedeIendant'sneedtouse
therestroominopencourt). Pleaseindicate,Iurther,inwriting,iIyouroIIicereceived
anyIaxedoremailedrecordsrequestIromme,ZachCoughlin,atanytime,including
theperiodoItimepriortotheOct10th,2011arraignment.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
Date:Thu,8Dec201116:05:11-0800
From:Hazlett-StevensCreno.gov
Subject:RE:yourIailuretopropounddiscovery
Mr. Coughlin. I have never spoken to you and have never denied discovery to a defendant in any matter. Again you seek to
engage me in a convesation about the pending trespassing. I cannot speak with you. You are represented by counsel.
Thank you,
Chris
Christopher Hazlett-Stevens
Deputy City Attorney
City of Reno
Tel: 326-6628
Fax: 334-4226
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED
This e-mail message transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, are confidential and
are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient or a person
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying,
dissemination, distribution or use of any of the information contained in, or attached to this e-mail transmission is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by forwarding this e-mail to the
sender or by telephone at (775) 334-2050 and then delete the message and its attachments.
-----OriginalMessage-----
From:ZachCoughlinzachcoughlinhotmail.com~
To:hazlett-stevenscreno.gov~,robertspreno.gov~
Date:Thu,8Dec201115:44:36-0800
Subject:RE:yourIailuretopropounddiscovery
Mr.Hazlett-Stevens,
WediddeIinatelytalkonthephoneregardingthemattertowhichIdonothave
representation,theRSICarrestcase11DR221762IIorwhichDeputyCityAttorney
PamRobertsistheprosecutor. IwasdeniedmySixthAmendmentrighttocourt
appointeddeIensecounselinthatmatter,andrepresentedmyselI. Assuch,thereis
noruleprecludedyouIromcommunicatingwithmeabout11DR221762I. Youdid
speakwithmeaboutthat. IcalledyouwithinacoupledaysoItheSeptember9th,
2011arrestinthatmatterdescribingmyexigentdesiretoobtainacopyoIthe
discovery. IwastransIerredtoyouandwespokeatlengthaboutit,youdescribing
whyyoucouldnotgiveittome. IsityourcontentionthatyouroIIiceortheState
doesnothaveadutytoprovidethedeIendantacopyoIcertainpiecesoIdiscovery
within48hoursoIarrest?
RegardingthematterIorwhichMr.PuentestookthebatonIromMr.Taitel,isitclear
toyouhowMr.Taitelwassomehow,apparently,abletoassenttoacontinuance,only
to,apparently,IindsomeneedtopassthebatontoMr.Puentesvery,veryshortly
thereaIter? WhydidMr.Taitel'sstatusasattorneyoIrecordchange? Wasitdue
toaconIlict? Whydidn'tthatconIlictpreventMr.TaitelIromabstainingIrom
assentingtothecontinuanceinthetrespasscase,whichwasscheduledIortrial
December13,2011?
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
``Notice`` ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18U.S.C.
2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenottheintendedrecipientor
anagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorand
thatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.This
message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney
work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this
information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s),
please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receipt
by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable
privilege.
Date:Wed,7Dec201107:34:25-0800
Subject:Re:yourIailuretopropounddiscovery
Mr. Coughlin. You are represented by counsel and I cannot correspond with you. I have never correponded with you, and
your statement that you spoke with me is false. I have never spoken with you. You may have your attorney, Roberto
Puentes, contact me with any discovery issues or issues regarding the City's Motion to Continue. Please do not correspond
with me regarding this case in the future. As an attorney, you are fully aware that I cannot communicate with a you as a
represented party. Do not contact me without your counsel.
Thank you,
Chris
City of Reno
Tel: 326-6628
Fax: 334-4226
To:hazlett-stevenscreno.gov~
Date:Wed,7Dec201101:48:03-0800
Subject:yourIailuretopropounddiscovery
DearMr.Hazlett-Stevens,
IamwritingtorequestacopyoIanyandalldiscovery,pleadings,documentation,
correspondences,ormediainanywayconnectedtothetrespasscaseagainstmeIorwhichLew
Taitelwasapparentlymycourtappointedattorney,butwhomnolongeris. Further,Iwishtobe
copiedoneverythingpastandpresentinanywayrelatedtothismatteruntilandaIterIprocure
anotherattorney. Ididnotagreeto the continuanceyousought,norwasIinIormedyou
wereseekingit. IIinditparticularlytroublingthatacontinuancewasgrantedinthetrespass
casetothesamemanwhoisapplyinganunlawIulrentdistraintonbothmyclientIiles,personal
property,ANDTHEEXCLUPATINGEVIDENCEINEEDTODEFENDMYSELFINTHE
PETITLARCENYCASEFORWHICHIDETAILTHECOMPLAINTS IHAVEAGAINST
YOUANDYOUROFFICE'SHANDLINGBELOW. NOCONTINUANCEWASGRANTED
ORAGREEDTOATTRIALBYTHERMCORMS.ROBERTS,PERHAPSSHEWASTOO
BUSYALLEGEDLYSUBORNINGTHEPERJURYOFRSICOFFICERKAMERON
CRAWFORD.
InthediscoveryyouroIIice providedinthepetitlarcenymatterMs.Robertsprosecutedagainst
methereisaIaxIromtheRSICtoyouthathasaIaxheadingIorwhatappearstobe"page1"
Iollowedbypageswithoutthatheading...thenaheadingwith"page4"etc...Iwanttheentire
contentsoIanythingprovidedbytheRSICandWalmarttoyouoranyoneconnectedwiththe
RenoCityAttorneyortheRenoMunicipalCourt. Further,Iwantallmediaprovidedby
Walmart,andIquestionwhyyouneeded45minuteswiththethreewitnesswhotestiIiedatthe
November30th,2011trial,Irom1pmto1:45pm. Additionally,youareherebyservedaNRCP
11motionrequiringyoutocorrecttheperjuryyousubornedincourtwithrespecttothepatently
contradictorytestimonyoIOIIicerCrawIordvisavisthevideoevidenceyouyourselIprovidedin
discovery.
Further,Ispokewithyou,Mr.Hazlett-Stevens,shortlyaItertheSeptember9,2011arrestinthis
matterdemandingacopyoIalldocumentationordiscoverythatIhadanyrightto. IwastoldI
wouldnothaveanyopportunitytoreviewsuchmaterialspriortothearraignment,whichwasnot
setIoraIull30daysoutIromthearrest. DoInothavearighttoacopyoIthepcsheet,arrest
report,andwitnessstatementswithin48hoursoIthearrest? TheIaxtoyouroIIiceIromthe
RSICisdated9/12/2011,yetmywrittendemandsandrequestsIorsuchdiscoveryand
requestofcdoftrialin11CR221762I
documentationweremetwithreIusalstoprovidesuchmaterials,and,insomecase,claimsthat
youroIIicedidnotevenhavesuchmaterialsandwouldnotgetthemuntilaIterthe
arraignment. Further,IspokewithandprovidedwrittenrequeststoRSICSargentAvansino
within2daysaIterthearrestandhereIusedtoprovidethematerials,asdidtheRenoMunicipal
Court. Pleasealertthecourttoanywrongdoingonyour'sortheRenoCityAttorneyorthe
RSICpartinthisregardinprejudicingmyabilitytodeIendmycasebydelayingtheproduction
oIessentialdiscovery,thenreIusingtoagreetoacontinuanceattrial,aIterearlierprovidinga
writtenagreementtosuchacontinuance.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenottheintendedrecipient
oranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerror
andthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.
This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged,
attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents
of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named
recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form
immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or
other applicable privilege.
Sent: Thu12/08/114:00PM
Hello,IamwritingtorequestacopyoIthecdoItherecordoItrialin11CR221762IinadditiontoacopyoIthe
ContemptOrderandanyotherordersmadeinthatmatter,inadditiontoacopyoIthedocket.
PleaseemailthesetomeiIpossible. Iwillagreetopaythecopyingcostsorthepaperdocumentsortheaudio
cd/dvd. Ineedtheseassoonaspossibleplease.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
RE:yourfailuretopropounddiscovery
Reno,NV89501
fax:9496677402
Sent: Thu12/08/113:44PM
To: hazlett-stevenscreno.gov;robertspreno.gov
Mr.Hazlett-Stevens,
WediddeIinatelytalkonthephoneregardingthemattertowhichIdonothave
representation,theRSICarrestcase11DR221762IIorwhichDeputyCityAttorney
PamRobertsistheprosecutor. IwasdeniedmySixthAmendmentrighttocourt
appointeddeIensecounselinthatmatter,andrepresentedmyselI. Assuch,thereisno
ruleprecludedyouIromcommunicatingwithmeabout11DR221762I. Youdid
speakwithmeaboutthat. IcalledyouwithinacoupledaysoItheSeptember9th,
2011arrestinthatmatterdescribingmyexigentdesiretoobtainacopyoIthe
discovery. IwastransIerredtoyouandwespokeatlengthaboutit,youdescribing
whyyoucouldnotgiveittome. IsityourcontentionthatyouroIIiceortheState
doesnothaveadutytoprovidethedeIendantacopyoIcertainpiecesoIdiscovery
within48hoursoIarrest?
RegardingthematterIorwhichMr.PuentestookthebatonIromMr.Taitel,isitclearto
youhowMr.Taitelwassomehow,apparently,abletoassenttoacontinuance,onlyto,
apparently,IindsomeneedtopassthebatontoMr.Puentesvery,veryshortly
thereaIter? WhydidMr.Taitel'sstatusasattorneyoIrecordchange? Wasitdueto
aconIlict? Whydidn'tthatconIlictpreventMr.TaitelIromabstainingIromassenting
tothecontinuanceinthetrespasscase,whichwasscheduledIortrialDecember13,
2011?
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
Date:Wed,7Dec201107:34:25-0800
Subject:Re:yourIailuretopropounddiscovery
Mr. Coughlin. You are represented by counsel and I cannot correspond with you. I have never correponded with you, and
your statement that you spoke with me is false. I have never spoken with you. You may have your attorney, Roberto
Puentes, contact me with any discovery issues or issues regarding the City's Motion to Continue. Please do not correspond
with me regarding this case in the future. As an attorney, you are fully aware that I cannot communicate with a you as a
represented party. Do not contact me without your counsel.
Thank you,
Chris
City of Reno
Tel: 326-6628
Fax: 334-4226
To:hazlett-stevenscreno.gov~
Date:Wed,7Dec201101:48:03-0800
Subject:yourIailuretopropounddiscovery
IamwritingtorequestacopyoIanyandalldiscovery,pleadings,documentation,correspondences,
ormediainanywayconnectedtothetrespasscaseagainstmeIorwhichLewTaitelwasapparently
mycourtappointedattorney,butwhomnolongeris. Further,Iwishtobecopiedoneverything
pastandpresentinanywayrelatedtothismatteruntilandaIterIprocureanotherattorney. Idid
notagreeto the continuanceyousought,norwasIinIormedyouwereseekingit. IIindit
particularlytroublingthatacontinuancewasgrantedinthetrespasscasetothesamemanwhois
applyinganunlawIulrentdistraintonbothmyclientIiles,personalproperty,ANDTHE
EXCLUPATINGEVIDENCEINEEDTODEFENDMYSELFINTHEPETITLARCENYCASE
FORWHICHIDETAILTHECOMPLAINTS IHAVEAGAINSTYOUANDYOUROFFICE'S
HANDLINGBELOW. NOCONTINUANCEWASGRANTEDORAGREEDTOATTRIAL
BYTHERMCORMS.ROBERTS,PERHAPSSHEWASTOOBUSYALLEGEDLY
SUBORNINGTHEPERJURYOFRSICOFFICERKAMERONCRAWFORD.
InthediscoveryyouroIIice providedinthepetitlarcenymatterMs.Robertsprosecutedagainst
methereisaIaxIromtheRSICtoyouthathasaIaxheadingIorwhatappearstobe"page1"
Iollowedbypageswithoutthatheading...thenaheadingwith"page4"etc...Iwanttheentire
contentsoIanythingprovidedbytheRSICandWalmarttoyouoranyoneconnectedwiththeReno
CityAttorneyortheRenoMunicipalCourt. Further,IwantallmediaprovidedbyWalmart,andI
questionwhyyouneeded45minuteswiththethreewitnesswhotestiIiedattheNovember30th,
2011trial,Irom1pmto1:45pm. Additionally,youareherebyservedaNRCP11motion
requiringyoutocorrecttheperjuryyousubornedincourtwithrespecttothepatentlycontradictory
testimonyoIOIIicerCrawIordvisavisthevideoevidenceyouyourselIprovidedindiscovery.
wouldnothaveanyopportunitytoreviewsuchmaterialspriortothearraignment,whichwasnot
setIoraIull30daysoutIromthearrest. DoInothavearighttoacopyoIthepcsheet,arrest
report,andwitnessstatementswithin48hoursoIthearrest? TheIaxtoyouroIIiceIromthe
RSICisdated9/12/2011,yetmywrittendemandsandrequestsIorsuchdiscoveryand
documentationweremetwithreIusalstoprovidesuchmaterials,and,insomecase,claimsthat
yourfailuretopropounddiscovery
youroIIicedidnotevenhavesuchmaterialsandwouldnotgetthemuntilaIterthearraignment.
Further,IspokewithandprovidedwrittenrequeststoRSICSargentAvansinowithin2daysaIter
thearrestandhereIusedtoprovidethematerials,asdidtheRenoMunicipalCourt. Pleasealert
thecourttoanywrongdoingonyour'sortheRenoCityAttorneyortheRSICpartinthisregardin
prejudicingmyabilitytodeIendmycasebydelayingtheproductionoIessentialdiscovery,then
reIusingtoagreetoacontinuanceattrial,aIterearlierprovidingawrittenagreementtosucha
continuance.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
privilege.
Sent: Wed12/07/111:48AM
To: hazlett-stevenscreno.gov
IamwritingtorequestacopyoIanyandalldiscovery,pleadings,documentation,correspondences,
ormediainanywayconnectedtothetrespasscaseagainstmeIorwhichLewTaitelwasapparently
mycourtappointedattorney,butwhomnolongeris. Further,Iwishtobecopiedoneverything
pastandpresentinanywayrelatedtothismatteruntilandaIterIprocureanotherattorney. Idid
notagreeto the continuanceyousought,norwasIinIormedyouwereseekingit. IIindit
particularlytroublingthatacontinuancewasgrantedinthetrespasscasetothesamemanwhois
applyinganunlawIulrentdistraintonbothmyclientIiles,personalproperty,ANDTHE
EXCLUPATINGEVIDENCEINEEDTODEFENDMYSELFINTHEPETITLARCENYCASE
FORWHICHIDETAILTHECOMPLAINTS IHAVEAGAINSTYOUANDYOUROFFICE'S
HANDLINGBELOW. NOCONTINUANCEWASGRANTEDORAGREEDTOATTRIALBY
THERMCORMS.ROBERTS,PERHAPSSHEWASTOOBUSYALLEGEDLYSUBORNING
THEPERJURYOFRSICOFFICERKAMERONCRAWFORD.
InthediscoveryyouroIIice providedinthepetitlarcenymatterMs.Robertsprosecutedagainstme
thereisaIaxIromtheRSICtoyouthathasaIaxheadingIorwhatappearstobe"page1"Iollowed
bypageswithoutthatheading...thenaheadingwith"page4"etc...IwanttheentirecontentsoI
anythingprovidedbytheRSICandWalmarttoyouoranyoneconnectedwiththeRenoCity
AttorneyortheRenoMunicipalCourt. Further,IwantallmediaprovidedbyWalmart,andI
questionwhyyouneeded45minuteswiththethreewitnesswhotestiIiedattheNovember30th,2011
trial,Irom1pmto1:45pm. Additionally,youareherebyservedaNRCP11motionrequiringyou
tocorrecttheperjuryyousubornedincourtwithrespecttothepatentlycontradictorytestimonyoI
OIIicerCrawIordvisavisthevideoevidenceyouyourselIprovidedindiscovery.
wouldnothaveanyopportunitytoreviewsuchmaterialspriortothearraignment,whichwasnotset
IoraIull30daysoutIromthearrest. DoInothavearighttoacopyoIthepcsheet,arrestreport,
andwitnessstatementswithin48hoursoIthearrest? TheIaxtoyouroIIiceIromtheRSICisdated
9/12/2011,yetmywrittendemandsandrequestsIorsuchdiscoveryanddocumentationweremet
withreIusalstoprovidesuchmaterials,and,insomecase,claimsthatyouroIIicedidnotevenhave
suchmaterialsandwouldnotgetthemuntilaIterthearraignment. Further,Ispokewithand
providedwrittenrequeststoRSICSargentAvansinowithin2daysaIterthearrestandhereIusedto
providethematerials,asdidtheRenoMunicipalCourt. Pleasealertthecourttoanywrongdoing
onyour'sortheRenoCityAttorneyortheRSICpartinthisregardinprejudicingmyabilityto
deIendmycasebydelayingtheproductionoIessentialdiscovery,thenreIusingtoagreetoa
continuanceattrial,aIterearlierprovidingawrittenagreementtosuchacontinuance.
Sincerely,
discoveryrequest;
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
Sent: Wed12/07/111:16AM
To: robertspreno.gov;kadlicjreno.gov
DearMs.Roberts,
InthediscoveryyouprovidedinthismatterthereisaIaxIromtheRSICtoyouthathas
aIaxheadingIorwhatappearstobe"page1"Iollowedbypageswithoutthat
heading...thenaheadingwith"page4"etc...IwanttheentirecontentsoIanything
providedbytheRSICandWalmarttoyouoranyoneconnectedwiththeRenoCity
AttorneyortheRenoMunicipalCourt. Further,Iwantallmediaprovidedby
Walmart,andIquestionwhyyouneeded45minuteswiththethreewitnesswho
testiIiedattheNovember30th,2011trial,Irom1pmto1:45pm. Additionally,youare
herebyservedaNRCP11motionrequiringyoutocorrecttheperjuryyousubornedin
courtwithrespecttothepatentlycontradictorytestimonyoIOIIicerCrawIordvisavis
thevideoevidenceyouyourselIprovidedindiscovery.
Further,IspokewithMr.Hazlett-StevensshortlyaItertheSeptember9,2011arrestin
thismatterdemandingacopyoIalldocumentationordiscoverythatIhadanyright
to. IwastoldIwouldnothaveanyopportunitytoreviewsuchmaterialspriortothe
yourcoplying,seeyourvideodriverslicenseproduceapoverviewat
6:49mark
arraignment,whichwasnotsetIoraIull30daysoutIromthearrest. DoInothavea
righttoacopyoIthepcsheet,arrestreport,andwitnessstatementswithin48hoursoI
thearrest? TheIaxtoyouroIIiceIromtheRSICisdated9/12/2011,yetmywritten
demandsandrequestsIorsuchdiscoveryanddocumentationweremetwithreIusalsto
providesuchmaterials,and,insomecase,claimsthatyouroIIicedidnotevenhave
suchmaterialsandwouldnotgetthemuntilaIterthearraignment. Further,Ispoke
withandprovidedwrittenrequeststoRSICSargentAvansinowithin2daysaIterthe
arrestandhereIusedtoprovidethematerials,asdidtheRenoMunicipalCourt.
Pleasealertthecourttoanywrongdoingonyour'sortheRenoCityAttorneyorthe
RSICpartinthisregardinprejudicingmyabilitytodeIendmycasebydelayingthe
productionoIessentialdiscovery,thenreIusingtoagreetoacontinuanceattrial,aIter
earlierprovidingawrittenagreementtosuchacontinuance.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
Sent: Sun12/04/114:05AM
To: lcooleyrsic.org;voldenburgrsic.org;rariwitersic.org;policersic.org;robertspreno.gov
pgoinsrsic.org, lcooleyrsic.org;voldenburgrsic.org;rariwitersic.org;policersic.org
Subject:yourcoplying,seeyourvideodriverslicenseproduceapoverviewat6:49mark
WespendhalIthe"trial"arguingaboutwhetheryourlyingcopshadenough
"inIormation"(theirdeIinitionincludedpersonallyidentiIiableinIormationtoidentiIy
theaccusedsuIIicientlytoissueacitation,ACURRENTNEVADA'SDRIVERS
LICENSEWOULDDOJUSTFINEONTHATACCOUNT)toissueacitation,and
how,becausetheydidn't,theyhadtoconductasearchincidenttoarrest,yetYOUR
OWNDAMNVIDEO(ORRATHER,WALMART'S,BUTITSHARDTOSEE
WHEREYOUGUYSENDANDWALMARTBEGINS),THATYOUEFFING
PRODUCED(ORRATHERTHERENOCITYATTORNEYPRODUCEDAFTER
THEBOYSATWALMART"COMPILED"VIDEO,WHICHCURIOUSLYDID
CONTAINAFUCKINGSECONDOFVIDEOSHOWINGANYOFTHEALLEGED
CONCEALINGORCONSUMINGTHEITEMSINQUESTION!SHOWSTHE
ACCUSEDHANDINGTHEMADRIVERSLICENSEANDTHEMCALLINGITIN
TOCHECKFORPRIORS(THATWILLSHOWUPINDISPATCHREPORTSAND
OTHERDOCUMENTATION). THESEKEYSTONECOPEFFUPSHAVE
DEFAMEDMEANDYOUSPONSOREDIT,CULTIVATEDIT.
ICANGIVEYOUUNTILTUESDAYTOMAKEASTRONGEFFORTTO
CORRECTTHIS,AFTERTHAT,IHAVETOMAKEMYMOVESANDFILEMY
MOTIONS. JUDGEVANWALRAVENWOULDBEASHAMEDOFHOWTHIS
HASBEENHANDLED.
THEOFFICERSAREKAMERONCRAWFORDANDBRAUNWORTH,WHOCAMEACROSSAFAR
MORECOGNITIVELYIMPAIREDINCOURTTHANHEDIDINPERSON,TOANEXTENTTHAT
WOULDSUGGESTHEWASDISHONORINGTHELEGALPROCESSBYHIS"PARTICIPATION",AND
ITSALLONTAPE.
IwantyoutomoveIor,ORASKTHECITYATTORNEYTOMOVEFOR, aRule
59MotiontoSetAsideorsomeothermotiontohavetheJudgmentSetAside. Your
copwitnessclearlyhadadriver'slicenseproducedtohimatthe6:49 markoI
WALMART'SOWNDAMNVIDEO! Andyousubornedhisperjuryonthewitness
standinviolationoImanyoIthePOLICECODESYOUAREHELDTO. Further,
whatareyougoingtosaywhentheUPCIromtheallegedreceiptappearsonthe
purchasedreceipt,incombinationwithFrontino'sadamantassertionthattheywouldn't,
FW:yourcoplying,seeyourvideodriverslicenseproduceapoverview
at6:49mark
incombinationwiththesameIromCrawIord,incombinationwithFrontinoadmitting
hecouldn'thearwhatwassaidbetweentheaccusedandthecashier,incombination
withthe"sameUPC,hitthequantitynumber"practicecommonatWalmart? Further,
your OIIicerCrawIord,asa witness,admittedontapeatthetrialthat"hedidn'thave
enoughEVIDENCEtoissueacitationsohearrestedanddidasearchincidenttoarrest"
togetmoreevidence beIore RenoCityAttorneyRoberts andJudgeHowardcould
jumpinandcuthimoII. That'sgametime. Frontino,CrawIord,andBraunworth,
sataroundjokinglikegooIyIratboysthepreceeding30minutesinthehallwayinIront
oIthecourtroom,likeagroupoI3buddieswhohangoutallthetime,except,2get
paidbyyou,andonegetspaidbyWal-Mart,whopaythepeoplewhopayyou. Then
allthreeoIthemwaitaroundtheheartheverdictat8pmhoursaIterFrontinoand
CrawIordIinishedtestiIying. Maybethedon'trealizeJudgeHowardwasn'truling
ontheAppeal,theRule59,60motions,MotionIorReconsideration,deIamation,
wrongIularrest,Ialseimprisonmentlawsuits,etc. Fixitnowwhileyoucan. Wait
tillIgetthevideoIromWalmartthatFrontinoishidingIromyou,anddon'tyoujust
wanttoknowiIsome"other" audioorvideo existsoItheinterrogation.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
Sent: Sun12/04/113:45AM
To: robertspreno.gov;kadlicjreno.gov;kadlicjci.reno.nv.us
WespendhalIthe"trial"arguingaboutwhetheryourlyingcopshadenough
"inIormation"toissueacitation,andhow,becausetheydidn't,theyhadtoconducta
searchincidenttoarrest,yetYOUROWNDAMNVIDEO,THATYOUEFFING
PRODUCED!SHOWSTHEACCUSEDHANDINGTHEMADRIVERSLICENSE
ANDTHEMCALLINGITINTOCHECKFORPRIORS(THATWILLSHOWUP
INDISPATCHREPORTSANDOTHERDOCUMENTATION). THESE
KEYSTONECOPEFFUPSHAVEDEFAMEDMEANDYOUSPONSOREDIT,
CULTIVATEDIT,ANDSMUGLYTALK SMACKTOMEINCOURTABOUT
MYNEEDINGTOUSETHEBATHROOMANDHOWYOUHAVE"HADTWO
KIDSANDCANHOLDMYBLADDER"GENDERSEXUALHARRASSMENT. I
GETEVICTED(WRONGLY,COMMERCIALLEASESPRECLUDESUMMARY
EVICTIONWHERENOCAUSEEVICTIONNOTICESAREALLTHATIS
SERVED)BYTHERICHARDG.HILLGANGBANGEXPRESS,WHILEBEING
ASSAULTEDBYNEVADACOURTSERVICES,WHICHLISTSMYCOURT
APPOINTEDATTORNEYLEWTAITELAS"ASSOCIATEDWITH"ONTHE
NEVADACOURTSERVICESWEBSITE,LEWAGREESTOACONTINUANCE
OFTHETRESPASSTRIALBECAUSERICHARDHILLNEEDSTOGOONA
VACATION,BUTICAN'TGETAFUCKINGCONTINUANCEWHERERICHARD
HILLISAPPLYINGANUNLAWFULRENTDISTRAINTTOMYEVIDENCETO
DEFENDAGAINSTTHISBULLSHITFUCKINGWALMARTFIASCO! THEN
AFTERTAITELAGRESSTOACONTINUANCE,ONLYTHENAFTER
REVIEWINGMYPERSONALFILE,HEFIGURESOUTIAMSUINGHIM,ORAT
LEASTNEVADACOURTSSERVICES. SOMEBODYPUTANICE
COLLECTIONOFVIDEOSUPONYOUTUBEABOUTIT,SOMECRAZY
DOCUMENTARYFILMMAKER. YOUOUGHTTOBEASHAMED.
ICANGIVEYOUUNTILTUESDAY,AFTERTHAT,IHAVETOMAKEMY
MOVESANDFILEMYMOTIONS.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
To:robertspreno.gov;kadlicjreno.gov;kadlicjci.reno.nv.us
Subject:yourcoplying,seeyourvideodriverslicenseproduceapoverviewat6:49mark
Date:Sun,4Dec201103:37:24-0800
IwantyoutomoveIoraRule59MotiontoSetAsideorsomeothermotiontohavethe
JudgmentSetAside. Yourcopwitnessclearlyhadadriver'slicenseproducedtohim
atthe6:49markoIYOUROWNDAMNVIDEO! Andyousubornedhisperjuryon
thewitnessstandinviolationoImanyoItheprosecutorialcodesyouareheldtoand
NRCP11. Furher,whatareyougoingtosaywhentheUPCIromtheallegedreceipt
appearsonthepurchasedreceipt,incombinationwithFrontino'sadamantassertionthat
theywouldn't,incombinationwiththesameIromCrawIord,incombinationwith
Frontinoadmittinghecouldn'thearwhatwassaidbetweentheaccusedandthecashier,
incombinationwiththe"sameUPC,hitthequanitynumber"practicecommonat
Walmart? Further,yourownwitnessadmittedontapeatthetrialthat"hedidn'thave
beIoreyouandJudgeHowardcouldjumpinandcuthimoII. That'sgametime. I
willavalancheyouwithmotionandlawsuits iIyoudon'tIixthisdeIamationyou
Iundedandsupported,whatwithyoulittle30minuteswitnesscoachingsessionthat
keptalltheotherlitigantswaitingIrom1:00to1:30whileyoucalledinFrontino,
CrawIord,andBraunworth. WaittillIgetthevideoIromWalmartthatFrontinois
hidingIromyou,anddon'tyoujustwanttoknowiIsomeaudioexistsoIthe
interrogation.
Sincerely,
yourcoplying,seeyourvideodriverslicenseproduceapoverviewat
6:49mark
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
Sent: Sun12/04/113:37AM
To: robertspreno.gov;kadlicjreno.gov;kadlicjci.reno.nv.us
IwantyoutomoveIoraRule59MotiontoSetAsideorsomeothermotiontohavethe
JudgmentSetAside. Yourcopwitnessclearlyhadadriver'slicenseproducedtohim
atthe6:49markoIYOUROWNDAMNVIDEO! Andyousubornedhisperjuryon
thewitnessstandinviolationoImanyoItheprosecutorialcodesyouareheldtoand
NRCP11. Furher,whatareyougoingtosaywhentheUPCIromtheallegedreceipt
appearsonthepurchasedreceipt,incombinationwithFrontino'sadamantassertionthat
theywouldn't,incombinationwiththesameIromCrawIord,incombinationwith
Frontinoadmittinghecouldn'thearwhatwassaidbetweentheaccusedandthecashier,
incombinationwiththe"sameUPC,hitthequanitynumber"practicecommonat
Walmart? Further,yourownwitnessadmittedontapeatthetrialthat"hedidn'thave
beIoreyouandJudgeHowardcouldjumpinandcuthimoII. That'sgametime. I
willavalancheyouwithmotionandlawsuits iIyoudon'tIixthisdeIamationyou
Iundedandsupported,whatwithyoulittle30minuteswitnesscoachingsessionthat
keptalltheotherlitigantswaitingIrom1:00to1:30whileyoucalledinFrontino,
CrawIord,andBraunworth. WaittillIgetthevideoIromWalmartthatFrontinois
RE:AttachedImage/Subpoena
hidingIromyou,anddon'tyoujustwanttoknowiIsomeaudioexistsoIthe
interrogation.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
Sent: Tue11/29/114:29PM
To: ballarddreno.gov
1attachment
RMCvariouswalmartsubpoenasrenovcoughlin11cr221762I.pdI(56.9KB)
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
Date:Tue,29Nov201115:53:46-0800
From:BallardDreno.gov
Subject:RE:AttachedImage/Subpoena
I am so sorry, I must have misunderstood.
These must be served and the affidavit portion completed before they can be file stamped in.
Thank you,
Donna
To:ballarddreno.gov~
Date:Tue,29Nov201115:48:31-0800
Subject:RE:AttachedImage/Subpoena
DearMs.Ballard,
Thankyousendingtheseandagreeingtostampandemalthembacktometoday,
very,verymuchappreciate.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
emailisthebestwaytocontactme,havingphoneissuestoday.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
RE:AttachedImage/Subpoena
privilege.
Date:Tue,29Nov201115:22:14-0800
Subject:Fwd:AttachedImage/Subpoena
From:"MUNICT1stFloorClerks"canonreno.gov~
To:"DONNA"ballarddreno.gov~
Date:Tue,29Nov201116:14:15-0800
Subject:AttachedImage
DonnaBallard
SeniorCourtSpecialist
RenoMunicipalCourt
1SouthSierraStreet
Reno,Nevada89501
(775)334-3101
DonnaBallard
RenoMunicipalCourt
1SouthSierraStreet
Reno,Nevada89501
(775)334-3101
Sent: Tue11/29/113:48PM
To: ballarddreno.gov
4attachments
RMCsubpoenaEllisWalmartManagerandlosspreventionmanager.pdI(42.7KB),RMCsubpoena
Janicestoreclerkwalmartarrestreceiptcashier2ndSt.89501Walmart.pdI(44.3KB),RMC
subpoenaStoreManagerBrianBain2ndstWalmartRenoandLPsupervisor2ndSt.89501
Walmart.pdI(43.3KB),RMCsubpoenaIillintheblankIornamestyleincityoIrenovcoughlin11
cr221762I.pdI(43.7KB)
DearMs.Ballard,
Thankyousendingtheseandagreeingtostampandemalthembacktometoday,very,
verymuchappreciate.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
emailisthebestwaytocontactme,havingphoneissuestoday.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
Date:Tue,29Nov201115:22:14-0800
Subject:Fwd:AttachedImage/Subpoena
From:"MUNICT1stFloorClerks"canonreno.gov~
To:"DONNA"ballarddreno.gov~
Date:Tue,29Nov201116:14:15-0800
Subject:AttachedImage
DonnaBallard
RenoMunicipalCourt
1SouthSierraStreet
Reno,Nevada89501
(775)334-3101
FW:temporaryaddresschangeandinstructiontopursueacontinuance
Sent: Tue11/29/113:14PM
To: robertspreno.gov;renomunirecordsreno.gov
1attachment
MotionIorContinuancetoRenoCityAttyRobertsRMC.pdI(448.9KB)
Ms.RobertsandRMCRecordsSupervisorDonna,
IamIorwardingthisapologyIsenttoJudgeHowardinresponsetohisremonstrationrespondingtomyemailto
him,inanabundanceoIcautiontoavoidexpartecommunicationswiththecourt,outsideyourpresence. Please
alsoIindattacheaNRCPRule11saIeharborIilingreadysanctionsmotionsIamherebyservingonyou,
invokingthe21daysaIeharbor,withareservationthatanymisconductyoucommitinthecourt'spresencemaybe
punishedsuasponteorsubjecttocontemporaneoussanctionsrequests,particularwithregardtoyoublase
dismissaloItheoIIicialmisdoncut,maliciousprosecution,42USCSec1983deprivationsoIcivilrightsunder
coloroIstatelawandallthoseotherthingsyouroIIiceandHartshorn,etallhavebeensuedIorovertheyears.
PleaseIindattachedmyMotionIorContinuance,beingIiledbyIascimiletodaywiththeRMC.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
To:howardkreno.gov
Subject:RE:temporaryaddresschangeandinstructiontopursueacontinuance
Date:Tue,22Nov201117:22:45-0800
DearJudgeHoward,
MyapologiesYourHonor. IhavehadanunlawIulrentdistraintappliedtoallmy
RE:motionforcontinuance
oIIiceequipmentandtheIilesnecessarytodeIendthiscaseandproducemotions,
incidenttoasummaryevictionstemmingIromaleasethatwasatleastinpart
commercial,hadarentescrowdepositIorceduponmeinviolationoINevadaLaw,had
allmycomputersprinters,everythingsubjecttothedistraint. Ihaveanetbookit
won'tacceptaprinterandonandon. Iapologize. IdonotethattheRMCrules
allowIorIilingbyIacsimile,thoughIgathernottotheIaxnumberlistedIoryoru
chambersatwww.nvbar.org.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,
Sent: Tue11/29/111:33PM
To: robertspreno.gov
DearMs.Roberts,
TheopposingattorneyintheSummaryEvictionProceedingagainstmeinmyhomelawoIIice/businessis
assertingalienagainstmyoIIice,lawpracticeIiles,andmaterialsnecessarytodiscoveryproductionand
deIendingthecasethatyouaretheprosecutoron. Ibelieveacontinuanceisabsolutelynecessaryintheinterests
oIjustice. Additionaly,youhavebeeninIormedthatWalmartprevioustothearrestinthismatterbecameupset
attheaccusedandmadethreatsoImaliciousprosecutionandabuseoIprocessincidenttotheaccusedquestioning
variousWal-martpersonnelandmanagersaboutWal-MartscuriouspracticeoIremixingandIorgettingthe
ReturnPolicystatedinwritingatWalmart.com(andexpresslymadeapplicabletopurchasesmadeinWal-Mart
stores). Amanagernamed"Ellis",thoughwhomayhaveidentiIiedhimselIas"John"andaLossprevention
associateattheWest7thStreetWal-MartinRenoallegedlytoldtheaccusedthattheywouldhavehimbanned
IromallWal-MartsinretaliationIortheaccusedseekingtodosomethingtowhichhewaslegallyentitledtodo,
returnanditemataWal-MartstoresinaccordancewithWal-Mart'sstatedandwrittenReturnPolicy. Thereare
otherretaliatoryaspectstotheconductsandstatementsmadebybothWal-MartandRSICpersonnelinthis
case.
Additionally,thevideo"evidence"thatyouprovidedisshameIul. ItconsistsoItwoshortclipsinsomeWal-
Martbackroomwhere5-6people,including2RSICoIIicersactingundercoloroIstatelawonlandtheir
employerownsandleasestoWal-MartattempttocoercenotonlyaconIession,butaconsenttosearch. There
isnoaudiooIthevideo,atleastnotthevideoyouprovided,thatis. WhereisthevideooItheallegedacts?
HowyoucanmaintainacasesuchasthisstemmingIromtheaccusedactsinastorelikeWal-Mart,thathas
hundredsoIcamerasandonlyprovidevideoIromsomebackroomthatprovesnothingand,inthewordsoI
"Jeannie"thecontactpersonatyouroIIice"doesn'tshowanything",Iamnotsure,andwhetherthatisviolativeoI
yourdutiesasaprosecutor,NiIong,NRCP11(seeSchumacher'sapplicationoIthatcivilruletotheDA)isnot
clear. YouhavebeeninIormedthattheRSICoIIicercommittedpolicemisconductandyetyoubrazenly
announceinwritingthatyoudonotintendtoIollowuponthat,nordoyouIeelcompelledto.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
Date:Tue,22Nov201107:59:37-0800
From:robertspreno.gov
Subject:RE:motionIorcontinuance
Dear Mr. Coughlin, you will need to file a motion to continue in compliance with Reno Municipal Court procedures. As I
have stated in a previous email, I do not object to your motion to continue, however, it is up to the Judge whether or not he
will grant your motion. Regarding the video which I obtained at your previous court date, I have told you that you can come
to our office and view the video. If you still want a copy, I believe our staff will be able to make one for you. NRS 174.235
does not require me to do more than what I have already done. We have provided you with the reports we have, listed the
witnesses we will call and made the video available to you. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
To:robertspreno.gov~
Date:Mon,21Nov201113:05:28-0800
DearMs.Roberts,
IwishtoobtainacopyoIthevideoandwillgotheyouroIIice'slobbyshortlyhoping
tobeprovidedone. PleaserespondtomeregardingmyrequestIromacontinuance.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
privilege.
Date:Thu,17Nov201107:40:44-0800
CC:colterpreno.gov
Mr. Coughlin, the three witnesses who were there at the first trial date include: Thomas Frontino (Walmart employee) and
Officers Crawford and Braunworth from the Reno Sparks Indian Colony Police. I obtained the video at the first trial date
from the Walmart employee and it is available for you to view or get a copy. You may want to view it at the City Attorney's
Office as the CD doesn't seem to work on everyone's computer. Penie Colter will be able to assist you. I am not clear
on what you think my duty is, but I know what my duty is and I will not debate it via email. Pam Roberts, Deputy City
Attorney.
Date:Wed,16Nov201117:30:36-0800
ThanksMs.Roberts,
CanyoutellmewhothethreewitnessesarethatshoweduponNovember14th,2011
Iortrialat1pm? IdidobtainacopyoIthe"discovery"abouttheseconddayitwas
madeavailabletomeIromyouroIIiceinperson. Atthattime,novideoevidence
wasmadeavailabletome. IstherenowsomevideooraudiorecordingtowhichI
maybeprovidedaccess? WouldyoumindjustemailingmethenamesoIthe
intendedwitnesses. Doyoubelieveyoudonothaveadutytomakeareasonably
diligentinquiryoIeitherWalmartorRSICdoassessthevalidityoIthematters
mentionedinmylastemail,ietheretaliatorymotivevisavisWalmartandorthe
impermissiblesearch/42USCSec1983policemisconductoItheRSICoIIicers?
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
Date:Wed,16Nov201117:12:21-0800
Mr. Coughlin, you should have already received a notice regarding the availability of discovery and request for reciprocal
discovery. You just need to call ahead at 334-2050 and arrange to pick it up. You are entitled to copies of all the
reports and witness statements and video we may have on this case. Since I am not calling any additional witnesses
that are not already mentioned in the reports/statements, I am not obligated to send you an additional list of witnesses. I
am also not obligated to do any further investigation or interviews. Pam Roberts.
Date:Wed,16Nov201115:35:48-0800
Ms.Roberts,
ThanksIoryourreply. PleaseascertainIromWalmartwhetheranyWalmart
employeeshad,previoustothisincident,madeanythreatsrespectingmaliciously
havingtheaccusedbannedIromWalmart'sincidenttoadisagreementover
WalmartstaIIandmanagerscuriouspracticeoI"Iorgetting"theirreturnpolicy,
despitesomeindividualshavingworkedthereover10years....Further,Ibelieveit
relevantandpartoIyourdutytoprovideexculpatoryinIormationtoascertain
whethertheRSICpoliceoIIicermadestatementswhereinheattemptedtocoercea
consenttoanimpermissiblesearchandIurtherbuttressedhisprobablecause
Iindingtoconductasearchincidenttoarrest,expressly,inwords,totheaccused,
upontheaccused'sIailuretoconsenttosuchasearch.
PleaseprovidealistoIanywitnessesyouintendtocallattrial,includinga
summationoIthemattersthewilltestiIyto,inadditiontoproducingacopy
or makingavailableIorreproductionanydocumentation,audio,video,orother
materialsintendedtobeusedinanywayattrial.
ThankYou,
Date:Mon,14Nov201110:36:45-0800
Subject:Re:motionIorcontinuance
Mr. Coughlin, we were closed on Friday and I have just read your email. If you have not received confirmation from
the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at 1:00 pm in Courtroom B of
the Reno Municipal Court. We can discuss your case further at that time and if we are unable to resolve the
case, you can ask the Court again for a continuance and I won't object. However, it is the Court's decision to
grant your motion to continue.
It is also the Court's decision whether to appoint you a legal defender. I do not plan to ask for jail time, so the Court is
not required to appoint you an attorney. In addition, you have no right to a jury trial in a misdemeanor case.
I hope your housing situation improves. See you this afternoon. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
Date:Fri,11Nov201101:40:53-0800
Subject:motionIorcontinuance
DearCounselorRoberts,
IbelieveyouaretheprosecutorIorthecaseagainstme,Statev.Coughlin,whichI
believeisstillsetIortrialonNovember14th,Ithinkat1pm.Iamnottotallysure
thatthereisadutytoserveyouonsuchathing,butIIiledaMotionIor
Continuanceand aMotionIorAppointmentoICounselsometimewithinabout
thelast10days,Iwouldsay. IbelieveIattemptedtocopyyouonit,buthave
recentlybeenevictedanditsbeenaverydiIIiculttimeintermsoIcoordinating
paperwork,etc.,etc. IapologizeIoranyinconveniencethismayhavecause
you. IamunsureoIwhethertheNovember14thtrialisstillsettotakeplace.
IbelieveIairnessdictatesthatitbecontinuedtoalaterdate. Ihaverequest
counselbuthaveyettoreceiveany,orwait,Iwasdeniedarequesttoreceive
counselbecauseJudgeHowardsaidthereisnota6thamendmentrighttocounsel
recordsrequest
where,eventhoughjailtimeistechnicallyapossibility,thestatedoesnot
anticipateseekingjailtime...orsomethinglikethat,however,IIoundsomecases
thatsayIshouldstillgetcounselappointed,especiallywhereIshowIam
indigent,andIbelieveIqualiIyasindigentrathereasily. Canandwouldyou
agreetoacontinuance? IbelieveItriedtocontactaboutthispriortoIilingmy
RequestIoraContinuance. ImaintainmyinnocenceinthiscaseandIeelany
sortoIconviction,especiallyoneinvolvinganysortoItheItbasedcharge,would
workaterribleinjusticeandgreatlydamagemyreputationandemployment
prospects. Iwantajurytrial,too.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
``Notice`` ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct, 18U.S.C.
2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenottheintended
recipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyouhavereceivedthis
documentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormation
isstrictlyprohibited.This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information
that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in
reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or
are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any
copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-
client, work product, or other applicable privilege.
Sent: Mon11/28/112:30PM
1attachment
RECORDREQUESTFORM2010|1|rmctrespass111311recordsrequest11-22185.pdI(20.8
KB)
RenoMunicipalCourtappointmentofcounsel
ZachCoughlin,817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
Sent: Mon11/28/1111:42AM
To: ltaitelsbcglobal.net;renomunirecordsreno.gov
DearMr.Taitel,
IunderstandyouhavebeenassignedtorepresentmeintheRenoMunicipalCourttrespassComplaintagainst
me. Pleasenotethatmyaddresshasrecentlychangedto:
ZachCoughlin
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
IhaverecentlybeenevictedandithascausedenormousupheavaltomyliIe,andIamindigent,assuch,Ibelieveacontinuanceisnecessary
andaskthatyouseekoneIortheDecember13th,2011"trial"thatIonlybecameawareoIthroughcallingtheRenoMunicipalCourt. Also,
pleaseprovidemeacopyoIanymotionsorpleadingsyouhaveIiledonmybehalIandanydocumentationthatyouhavebeenprovidedbythe
court,opposingcounsel,oranyoneelse. IpreIersuchdocumentationbeemailed,butIrealizethatmaynotbepossible. Iwouldliketo
obtainacopyoItheComplaintandDiscovery,includingtheprobablecausesheetsandanywitnessstatementsassoonaspossible.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
RE:temporaryaddresschangeandinstructiontopursueacontinuance
verintuseragreement
Sent: Tue11/22/115:22PM
To: howardkreno.gov
DearJudgeHoward,
MyapologiesYourHonor. IhavehadanunlawIulrentdistraintappliedtoallmy
oIIiceequipmentandtheIilesnecessarytodeIendthiscaseandproducemotions,
incidenttoasummaryevictionstemmingIromaleasethatwasatleastinpart
commercial,hadarentescrowdepositIorceduponmeinviolationoINevadaLaw,had
allmycomputersprinters,everythingsubjecttothedistraint. Ihaveanetbookit
won'tacceptaprinterandonandon. Iapologize. IdonotethattheRMCrules
allowIorIilingbyIacsimile,thoughIgathernottotheIaxnumberlistedIoryoru
chambersatwww.nvbar.org.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,
Sent: Mon11/21/118:40PM
HiMs.Roberts,
Sorry,don'tmeantobeapain,butIDON'T AGREEtothisVerintsoItware
policy...itscallsIorallowignthemtoinspectmyoIIiceandpayingthemIortheir
inspectionIeesandallthisotherstuIIthatissoundulyoppressive. ItsjustanAVI
Iile,itsasthoughtheydisableitjustIorthepurposeoIpreventingyouIromwatching
themovieunlessyouagreetotheiroppressive,onerous,contractterms,andhowdoes
thisbeneIittaxpayers? Authenticationissuescanbeaddressedthroughthetraditional
means,Idon'tseethevalueadd.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
Sent: Mon11/21/117:18PM
Ms.Roberts,theopposingattorney'sunlawIulrentdistraintispreventingmeIromprovidingallthediscoveryI
wouldliketoprovideyouwithorascertaintheneedtodo,andIurtherispreventingmeIromhavingaccesstothe
materialsandinIormationIneedtolitigatethiscase.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
Date:Mon,14Nov201110:36:45-0800
Mr. Coughlin, we were closed on Friday and I have just read your email. If you have not received confirmation from the
Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at 1:00 pm in Courtroom B of the Reno
Municipal Court. We can discuss your case further at that time and if we are unable to resolve the case, you can ask
the Court again for a continuance and I won't object. However, it is the Court's decision to grant your motion to continue.
It is also the Court's decision whether to appoint you a legal defender. I do not plan to ask for jail time, so the Court is not
required to appoint you an attorney. In addition, you have no right to a jury trial in a misdemeanor case.
Date:Fri,11Nov201101:40:53-0800
believeisstillsetIortrialonNovember14th,Ithinkat1pm.Iamnottotallysurethat
thereisadutytoserveyouonsuchathing,butIIiledaMotionIorContinuance
and aMotionIorAppointmentoICounselsometimewithinaboutthelast10days,I
wouldsay. IbelieveIattemptedtocopyyouonit,buthaverecentlybeenevicted
anditsbeenaverydiIIiculttimeintermsoIcoordinatingpaperwork,etc.,etc. I
apologizeIoranyinconveniencethismayhavecauseyou. IamunsureoIwhether
theNovember14thtrialisstillsettotakeplace. IbelieveIairnessdictatesthatitbe
continuedtoalaterdate. Ihaverequestcounselbuthaveyettoreceiveany,orwait,
IwasdeniedarequesttoreceivecounselbecauseJudgeHowardsaidthereisnota6th
amendmentrighttocounselwhere,eventhoughjailtimeistechnicallyapossibility,
thestatedoesnotanticipateseekingjailtime...orsomethinglikethat,however,IIound
somecasesthatsayIshouldstillgetcounselappointed,especiallywhereIshowIam
indigent,andIbelieveIqualiIyasindigentrathereasily. Canandwouldyouagree
toacontinuance? IbelieveItriedtocontactaboutthispriortoIilingmyRequest
IoraContinuance. ImaintainmyinnocenceinthiscaseandIeelanysortoI
temporaryaddresschangeandinstructiontopursueacontinuance
conviction,especiallyoneinvolvinganysortoItheItbasedcharge,wouldworka
terribleinjusticeandgreatlydamagemyreputationandemploymentprospects. I
wantajurytrial,too.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
privilege.
Sent: Mon11/21/114:06PM
To: howardkreno.gov;robertspreno.gov
Dear JudgeHowardDeputyCityAttorneyRoberts,
IhavebeenevictedandperhapssubjecttoanillegallockoutandunlawIulrentdistraint
byanattorneyrepresentingmyBeverlyHillsHighSchoolgraduateCaliIornia
Neurosurgeonlandlord,whohasspentapprox$30,000inattorneysIeespursuinga
summaryeviction,andwhoseattorneyiswithholdingmystateissuedindentiIication,
wallet,andallmaterialsnecessarytomylawpracticeallinanunlawIulrentdistraint
prohibitedbyNRS40.460and40.520. IampursuingacontinuanceoItheupcoming
hearing/trial,Icannotevenaccesswhenthathearingis. IhaveinIormedopposing
counselRobertsoI someoItheissueswhichwillrequireextensivediscovery,ajury
trial,andmoretimetoaIIordmyselIalegitimateopportunitytodeIendthiscase. I
havenotbeenservedanyOrderrespondingtomyrequestIorappointmentoIcounsel,
as IbelieveitisrequiredeveniItheStatedoesnot"intend"toseekjailtime,where
anyincarcerationisapossibility,theSixthAmendmentguaranteesit.
PleasenotethatmytemporaryaddressIornowis:
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
c/oSilverDollarMotel
817N.VirginiaSt.,Unit#2
Reno,NV89501
Theopposingcounselinthe summaryevictionmatter iswithholdingmyphoneas

wellandreIusingtoallowmetoaccessanymailthatmayremainatthepropertyIrom
thosetimeswhentheUSPSwasprocessingmyoIIicialChangeoIAddress. Emailis
thebestwaytoget incontact withmeduringthistransitionperiod.
Forinstance,IamunwarewhethermyMotionIorAppointmentoICounselwasgranted
ornot. IcalledJudgeHoward'sassistantandrequestedthatsheemailmethedocket
inthiscaseandanypleadingsorordersIiled,includinganyorderthatmayhave
stemmedIormanyoImypreviousmotions,asIamnotsurehowthosewereruled
on. IbelievemyinternetbasedIaxservicewillallowmetoreceivethosematerialsat
mynumber9496677402,thoughIwouldpreIeremail,butIknowmanygovernmental
entitiespreIertoIaxsuchitems. Iamrequestingajurytrial,asubstantial
continuance,andtheappointmentoIcounsel. IobjecttotheRMC'spracticeoI
reIusingtotelllitigantswhothe4"house"appointeddeIendersareuponquestioning.
Further,ithasbecomeclearthatsomeoIthese"Iormerprosecutors"whoarenowthe
gangoIIour"house"deIenders,donotevenannouncetoaccusedarraigneesthatthey
are,inIact,thedeIenderoranattorneyorthattheymayberepresentingthe
arraignees. IamherebyIilingamotioninlimineregardinganymaterialsor
inIormationgleanedIromtheunlawIulsearchbytheRSICOIIicer,whoclearly
announcedthattheywouldbasetheirprobablecausetoarrestandconductasearch
incidenttoarrestuponanyIailuretoconsenttoasearchbytheaccused. Further,the
allegedconductdidnotoccurintheOIIicer'spresence,andIbelievethereexists
authoritypreventingaminormisdemeanorarrestandtransportunderthose
circumstances. Additionally,moretimeisneededtoconductdiscoveryinthismatter,
especiallyinlightoIallegationsthatWalmarthadpreviouslythreatenedindividuals,
including,perhaps,theaccused,withretaliatoryaction,includingillicitabuseoI
process,IorthepurportedattemptsbysomeonetohavetheWalmartReturnPolicy
enIorced,andtoholdaccountableallWalmartemployeesandmanagers,someoIwhom
haveoveradecadeexperienceintheirpositions,whocuriously"Iorget"theyReturn
PolicyWalmartholdsouttothepublicwhenitisconvenienttodoso,thesameReturn
PolicythatWalmartusedtodriveoutoIbusinesssomanycompetitors. Further,this
caseislikelytogetextremelycomplicatedgiventheapparentconIlictoIinterest
stemmingIromtheIactthattheWalmartinquestionisonlandownedbytheRSIC,
whichmayownoremploy theRSICpolice,andwhichisrentedorownedinpartby
Walmart.
IknowOpposingCounselRobertsmayappreciateacontinuanceaswellandthe
opportunityitwouldaIIordhertoIulIillherNRCP11duty andotherprosecutorial
dutiestoconductareasonablydiligentinquiryintothesematters.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
Sent: Mon11/21/111:05PM
DearMs.Roberts,
IwishtoobtainacopyoIthevideoandwillgotheyouroIIice'slobbyshortlyhopingto
beprovidedone. PleaserespondtomeregardingmyrequestIromacontinuance.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
Date:Thu,17Nov201107:40:44-0800
CC:colterpreno.gov
Mr. Coughlin, the three witnesses who were there at the first trial date include: Thomas Frontino (Walmart employee) and
Officers Crawford and Braunworth from the Reno Sparks Indian Colony Police. I obtained the video at the first trial date
from the Walmart employee and it is available for you to view or get a copy. You may want to view it at the City Attorney's
Office as the CD doesn't seem to work on everyone's computer. Penie Colter will be able to assist you. I am not clear
on what you think my duty is, but I know what my duty is and I will not debate it via email. Pam Roberts, Deputy City
Attorney.
Date:Wed,16Nov201117:30:36-0800
ThanksMs.Roberts,
madeavailabletomeIromyouroIIiceinperson. Atthattime,novideoevidence
wasmadeavailabletome. IstherenowsomevideooraudiorecordingtowhichI
maybeprovidedaccess? WouldyoumindjustemailingmethenamesoIthe
intendedwitnesses. Doyoubelieveyoudonothaveadutytomakeareasonably
diligentinquiryoIeitherWalmartorRSICdoassessthevalidityoIthematters
mentionedinmylastemail,ietheretaliatorymotivevisavisWalmartandorthe
impermissiblesearch/42USCSec1983policemisconductoItheRSICoIIicers?
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
privilege.
Date:Wed,16Nov201117:12:21-0800
discovery. You just need to call ahead at 334-2050 and arrange to pick it up. You are entitled to copies of all the
reports and witness statements and video we may have on this case. Since I am not calling any additional witnesses that
are not already mentioned in the reports/statements, I am not obligated to send you an additional list of witnesses. I am
also not obligated to do any further investigation or interviews. Pam Roberts.
Date:Wed,16Nov201115:35:48-0800
Ms.Roberts,
havingtheaccusedbannedIromWalmart'sincidenttoadisagreementoverWalmart
staIIandmanagerscuriouspracticeoI"Iorgetting"theirreturnpolicy,despitesome
individualshavingworkedthereover10years....Further,Ibelieveitrelevantandpart
oIyourdutytoprovideexculpatoryinIormationtoascertainwhethertheRSIC
policeoIIicermadestatementswhereinheattemptedtocoerceaconsenttoan
impermissiblesearchandIurtherbuttressedhisprobablecauseIindingtoconducta
searchincidenttoarrest,expressly,inwords,totheaccused,upontheaccused's
Iailuretoconsenttosuchasearch.
PleaseprovidealistoIanywitnessesyouintendtocallattrial,includinga
summationoIthemattersthewilltestiIyto,inadditiontoproducingacopy
or makingavailableIorreproductionanydocumentation,audio,video,orother
materialsintendedtobeusedinanywayattrial.
ThankYou,
Date:Mon,14Nov201110:36:45-0800
Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at 1:00 pm in Courtroom B of the
Reno Municipal Court. We can discuss your case further at that time and if we are unable to resolve the case, you can
ask the Court again for a continuance and I won't object. However, it is the Court's decision to grant your motion to
continue.
It is also the Court's decision whether to appoint you a legal defender. I do not plan to ask for jail time, so the Court is
not required to appoint you an attorney. In addition, you have no right to a jury trial in a misdemeanor case.
Date:Fri,11Nov201101:40:53-0800
thatthereisadutytoserveyouonsuchathing,butIIiledaMotionIor
Continuanceand aMotionIorAppointmentoICounselsometimewithinabout
thelast10days,Iwouldsay. IbelieveIattemptedtocopyyouonit,buthave
recentlybeenevictedanditsbeenaverydiIIiculttimeintermsoIcoordinating
paperwork,etc.,etc. IapologizeIoranyinconveniencethismayhavecause
you. IamunsureoIwhethertheNovember14thtrialisstillsettotakeplace. I
believeIairnessdictatesthatitbecontinuedtoalaterdate. Ihaverequestcounsel
buthaveyettoreceiveany,orwait,Iwasdeniedarequesttoreceivecounsel
becauseJudgeHowardsaidthereisnota6thamendmentrighttocounselwhere,
eventhoughjailtimeistechnicallyapossibility,thestatedoesnotanticipate
seekingjailtime...orsomethinglikethat,however,IIoundsomecasesthatsayI
shouldstillgetcounselappointed,especiallywhereIshowIamindigent,andI
believeIqualiIyasindigentrathereasily. Canandwouldyouagreetoa
continuance? IbelieveItriedtocontactaboutthispriortoIilingmyRequestIor
aContinuance. ImaintainmyinnocenceinthiscaseandIeelanysortoI
wantajurytrial,too.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenottheintended
recipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyouhavereceivedthis
documentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationis
strictlyprohibited.This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information
that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in
reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or
are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any copies
in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client,
work product, or other applicable privilege.
Sent: Thu11/17/113:37PM
NRCPRule11anddutytomakereasonablydiligent
inquiry/exculpatoryevidence/prosecutors
DearMs.Roberts,
Idonotmeantosuggestyoudonotknowwhatyourdutyit. Believeme,Iamwellawarethatyoucouldmop
upthecourtroomwithaneophyteattorneysuchasmyselI. IwasmerelyhopingtogetsomedirectionIromyou
regardingtrialpracticeapproachesingeneral.
Sincerely,
Zach
Sent: Wed11/16/115:53PM
To: kadlicjreno.gov
Dear City Attorney Kadlic,
IamwritingaboutacriminalmatterinRenoMunicipalCourtpendingagainstmyselI.
I write inquire as to whether Ms. Robert's statements (included in the email below) are in line with the policy of the Reno City
Attorney's Office with respect to whether Ms. Robert's has any duty to make a reasonably diligent inquiry to ascertain whether some
impermissible actions or motives stem from either Walmart or the RSIC?
Ibelievebothciviland criminallawattorneysinNevada aresubject toNRCPRule11andother

rules relatedtoproIessionalresponsibility. I knowbothyouand
Nev.,2000,OIIiceoIWashoeCountyDist.Atty.v.SecondJudicialDist.Courtexrel.CountyoIWashoe,116
Nev.629,5P.3d562. TheDAabsolutelyissubjecttoNRCP11,andsoisMr.HylinandtherestoIthe
WCPD'sOIIice. "InacasebroughtbythedistrictattorneytoenIorceaWashingtonchildsupportorderin
Nevada,thedistrictcourtimposedNRCP11sanctionsagainstthedistrictattorneyIorIailingtodiscontinue
enIorcementoIthesupportorderaIterthedistrictcourt'spreviousrulingthatWashingtonhadcontinuingexclusive
jurisdictiontoadjudicatethearrearageamount." Districtattorney'soIIice,asanon-partyinunderlying
proceedingstoenIorceout-oI-statechildsupportorder,didnothaverighttoappealdistrictcourt'sorderimposing
Rule11sanctionsagainsttheoIIice,andthuswritoImandamuswasanavailableremedy.OIIiceoIWashoe
CountyDist.Atty.v.SecondJudicialDist.Courtexrel.CountyoIWashoe,2000,5P.3d562,116Nev.629.
Districtjudgeabusedhisdiscretioninimposing$2,500sanctionsagainstcitymanagerandcityattorneyIortheir
allegedIailuretoparticipateingoodIaithinsettlementconIerenceand,thereIore,petitionIorwritoImandamusto
preventdistrictcourtIromenIorcingsanctionswouldbegranted;sanctionslevieddidnotIitpurportedviolations
atissue.CityoISparksv.SecondJudicialDist.CourtInandForCountyoIWashoe,1996,920P.2d1014,112
Nev.952.
SeeGentilev.CountyoISuIIolk,926F.2d142(2dCir.1991)(holdingthatacountydistrictattorney'slong
practiceoIignoringevidenceoIpolicemisconductandsanctioningandcoveringupwrongdoingcouldmakethe
countyliable);ClaudeH.v.CountyoIOneida,626N.Y.S.2d933(App.Div.1995)(holdingthatdistrictattorney's
commandthatplaintiIIbeunlawIullyarrestedcouldsupportactionagainstcountyIorIalseimprisonment).
NevadaRulesoIProIessionalConduct,Rule3.8.SpecialResponsibilitiesoIaProsecutor.
" Theprosecutorinacriminalcaseshall:(a)ReIrainIromprosecutingachargethattheprosecutorknowsisnot
supportedbyprobablecause;(b)MakereasonableeIIortstoassurethattheaccusedhasbeenadvisedoItheright
to,andtheprocedureIorobtaining,counselandhasbeengivenreasonableopportunitytoobtaincounsel;(c)Not
seektoobtainIromanunrepresentedaccusedawaiveroIimportantpretrialrights,suchastherighttoa
preliminaryhearing;(d)MaketimelydisclosuretothedeIenseoIallevidenceorinIormationknowntothe
prosecutorthattendstonegatetheguiltoItheaccusedormitigatestheoIIense,and,inconnectionwith
sentencing,disclosetothedeIenseandtothetribunalallunprivilegedmitigatinginIormationknowntothe
prosecutor,exceptwhentheprosecutorisrelievedoIthisresponsibilitybyaprotectiveorderoIthetribunal;(e)
Notsubpoenaalawyerinagrandjuryorothercriminalproceedingtopresentevidenceaboutapastorpresent
clientunlesstheprosecutorreasonablybelieves:(1)TheinIormationsoughtisnotprotectedIromdisclosureby
anyapplicableprivilege;(2)TheevidencesoughtisessentialtothesuccessIulcompletionoIanongoing
investigationorprosecution;and(3)ThereisnootherIeasiblealternativetoobtaintheinIormation;(I)ExceptIor
statementsthatarenecessarytoinIormthepublicoIthenatureandextentoItheprosecutorsactionandthat
servealegitimatelawenIorcementpurpose,reIrainIrommakingextrajudicialcommentsthathaveasubstantial
likelihoodoIheighteningpubliccondemnationoItheaccusedandexercisereasonablecaretoprevent
investigators,lawenIorcementpersonnel,employeesorotherpersonsassistingorassociatedwiththeprosecutorin
acriminalcaseIrommakinganextrajudicialstatementthattheprosecutorwouldbeprohibitedIrommakingunder
Rule3.6orthisRule."
UnderBradyv.Maryland,373U.S.83,87(1963),thesuppressionbytheprosecutionoIevidenceIavorableto
anaccused...violatesdueprocesswheretheevidenceismaterialeithertoguiltortopunishment....United
Statesv.Shaygan,661F.Supp.2d1289,1325(S.D.Fla.2009)(judgereservedtherighttoimposeanyIurther
sanctionsand/ordisciplinarymeasuresasmaybenecessaryagainst|theIederalprosecutors|aIterreviewingthe
resultsoItheJusticeDepartmentsinvestigation.);UnitedStatesv.Jones,No.CR07-10289-MLW,2010
WL565478(D.Mass.2010)(courtdeterminedthatimpositionoIsanctionsagainstAUSAorgovernmentIor
IailuretoadequatelytrainAUSAbasedonIailuretodiscloseplainlymaterialexculpatoryevidencewereneither
necessarynorappropriatewhere,sinceviolationdisclosure,AUSA,USAttorneysOIIiceandDOJoIIicials
tookactionssuchasparticipatingindiscoverytrainingprograms,whichobviatedneedIorsanctions).
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
To:robertspreno.gov
Date:Wed,16Nov201117:30:36-0800
ThanksMs.Roberts,
madeavailabletomeIromyouroIIiceinperson. Atthattime,novideoevidencewas
madeavailabletome. IstherenowsomevideooraudiorecordingtowhichImaybe
providedaccess? WouldyoumindjustemailingmethenamesoItheintended
witnesses. Doyoubelieveyoudonothaveadutytomakeareasonablydiligent
inquiryoIeitherWalmartorRSICdoassessthevalidityoIthemattersmentionedinmy
lastemail,ietheretaliatorymotivevisavisWalmartandortheimpermissiblesearch/
42USCSec1983policemisconductoItheRSICoIIicers?
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
Date:Wed,16Nov201117:12:21-0800
discovery. You just need to call ahead at 334-2050 and arrange to pick it up. You are entitled to copies of all the reports
and witness statements and video we may have on this case. Since I am not calling any additional witnesses that are not
already mentioned in the reports/statements, I am not obligated to send you an additional list of witnesses. I am also not
obligated to do any further investigation or interviews. Pam Roberts.
Date:Wed,16Nov201115:35:48-0800
Ms.Roberts,
oIyourdutytoprovideexculpatoryinIormationtoascertainwhethertheRSICpolice
oIIicermadestatementswhereinheattemptedtocoerceaconsenttoanimpermissible
searchandIurtherbuttressedhisprobablecauseIindingtoconductasearchincident
toarrest,expressly,inwords,totheaccused,upontheaccused'sIailuretoconsentto
suchasearch.
PleaseprovidealistoIanywitnessesyouintendtocallattrial,includingasummation
oIthemattersthewilltestiIyto,inadditiontoproducingacopyor makingavailable
Iorreproductionanydocumentation,audio,video,orothermaterialsintendedtobe
usedinanywayattrial.
ThankYou,
Date:Mon,14Nov201110:36:45-0800
continue.
Date:Fri,11Nov201101:40:53-0800
thatthereisadutytoserveyouonsuchathing,butIIiledaMotionIorContinuance
and aMotionIorAppointmentoICounselsometimewithinaboutthelast10days,
Iwouldsay. IbelieveIattemptedtocopyyouonit,buthaverecentlybeenevicted
theNovember14thtrialisstillsettotakeplace. IbelieveIairnessdictatesthatit
becontinuedtoalaterdate. Ihaverequestcounselbuthaveyettoreceiveany,or
wait,IwasdeniedarequesttoreceivecounselbecauseJudgeHowardsaidthereis
nota6thamendmentrighttocounselwhere,eventhoughjailtimeistechnicallya
possibility,thestatedoesnotanticipateseekingjailtime...orsomethinglikethat,
however,IIoundsomecasesthatsayIshouldstillgetcounselappointed,especially
whereIshowIamindigent,andIbelieveIqualiIyasindigentrathereasily. Can
andwouldyouagreetoacontinuance? IbelieveItriedtocontactaboutthisprior
toIilingmyRequestIoraContinuance. Imaintainmyinnocenceinthiscaseand
IeelanysortoIconviction,especiallyoneinvolvinganysortoItheItbasedcharge,
wouldworkaterribleinjusticeandgreatlydamagemyreputationandemployment
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
Sent: Wed11/16/115:30PM
ThanksMs.Roberts,
madeavailabletomeIromyouroIIiceinperson. Atthattime,novideoevidencewas
madeavailabletome. IstherenowsomevideooraudiorecordingtowhichImaybe
providedaccess? WouldyoumindjustemailingmethenamesoItheintended
witnesses. Doyoubelieveyoudonothaveadutytomakeareasonablydiligent
inquiryoIeitherWalmartorRSICdoassessthevalidityoIthemattersmentionedinmy
lastemail,ietheretaliatorymotivevisavisWalmartandortheimpermissiblesearch/
42USCSec1983policemisconductoItheRSICoIIicers?
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
Date:Wed,16Nov201117:12:21-0800
discovery. You just need to call ahead at 334-2050 and arrange to pick it up. You are entitled to copies of all the reports
and witness statements and video we may have on this case. Since I am not calling any additional witnesses that are not
already mentioned in the reports/statements, I am not obligated to send you an additional list of witnesses. I am also not
obligated to do any further investigation or interviews. Pam Roberts.
Date:Wed,16Nov201115:35:48-0800
Ms.Roberts,
oIyourdutytoprovideexculpatoryinIormationtoascertainwhethertheRSICpolice
searchandIurtherbuttressedhisprobablecauseIindingtoconductasearchincident
toarrest,expressly,inwords,totheaccused,upontheaccused'sIailuretoconsentto
suchasearch.
ThankYou,
Date:Mon,14Nov201110:36:45-0800
continue.
Date:Fri,11Nov201101:40:53-0800
thatthereisadutytoserveyouonsuchathing,butIIiledaMotionIorContinuance
and aMotionIorAppointmentoICounselsometimewithinaboutthelast10days,
Iwouldsay. IbelieveIattemptedtocopyyouonit,buthaverecentlybeenevicted
theNovember14thtrialisstillsettotakeplace. IbelieveIairnessdictatesthatit
becontinuedtoalaterdate. Ihaverequestcounselbuthaveyettoreceiveany,or
wait,IwasdeniedarequesttoreceivecounselbecauseJudgeHowardsaidthereis
nota6thamendmentrighttocounselwhere,eventhoughjailtimeistechnicallya
possibility,thestatedoesnotanticipateseekingjailtime...orsomethinglikethat,
however,IIoundsomecasesthatsayIshouldstillgetcounselappointed,especially
whereIshowIamindigent,andIbelieveIqualiIyasindigentrathereasily. Can
andwouldyouagreetoacontinuance? IbelieveItriedtocontactaboutthisprior
toIilingmyRequestIoraContinuance. Imaintainmyinnocenceinthiscaseand
IeelanysortoIconviction,especiallyoneinvolvinganysortoItheItbasedcharge,
wouldworkaterribleinjusticeandgreatlydamagemyreputationandemployment
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
Sent: Wed11/16/113:35PM
Ms.Roberts,
individualshavingworkedthereover10years....Further,IbelieveitrelevantandpartoI
yourdutytoprovideexculpatoryinIormationtoascertainwhethertheRSICpolice
searchandIurtherbuttressedhisprobablecauseIindingtoconductasearchincidentto
arrest,expressly,inwords,totheaccused,upontheaccused'sIailuretoconsenttosuch
asearch.
ThankYou,
Date:Mon,14Nov201110:36:45-0800
Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at 1:00 pm in Courtroom B of the Reno
Municipal Court. We can discuss your case further at that time and if we are unable to resolve the case, you can ask
the Court again for a continuance and I won't object. However, it is the Court's decision to grant your motion to continue.
Date:Fri,11Nov201101:40:53-0800
thereisadutytoserveyouonsuchathing,butIIiledaMotionIorContinuance
and aMotionIorAppointmentoICounselsometimewithinaboutthelast10days,I
wouldsay. IbelieveIattemptedtocopyyouonit,buthaverecentlybeenevicted
theNovember14thtrialisstillsettotakeplace. IbelieveIairnessdictatesthatitbe
continuedtoalaterdate. Ihaverequestcounselbuthaveyettoreceiveany,orwait,
IwasdeniedarequesttoreceivecounselbecauseJudgeHowardsaidthereisnota6th
amendmentrighttocounselwhere,eventhoughjailtimeistechnicallyapossibility,
thestatedoesnotanticipateseekingjailtime...orsomethinglikethat,however,IIound
indigent,andIbelieveIqualiIyasindigentrathereasily. Canandwouldyouagree
toacontinuance? IbelieveItriedtocontactaboutthispriortoIilingmyRequest
IoraContinuance. ImaintainmyinnocenceinthiscaseandIeelanysortoI
wantajurytrial,too.
Sincerely,
motionforcontinuance
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
privilege.
Sent: Fri11/11/111:40AM
thereisadutytoserveyouonsuchathing,butIIiledaMotionIorContinuanceand
aMotionIorAppointmentoICounselsometimewithinaboutthelast10days,Iwould
say. IbelieveIattemptedtocopyyouonit,buthaverecentlybeenevictedandits
beenaverydiIIiculttimeintermsoIcoordinatingpaperwork,etc.,etc. Iapologize
Ioranyinconveniencethismayhavecauseyou. IamunsureoIwhetherthe
November14thtrialisstillsettotakeplace. IbelieveIairnessdictatesthatitbe
continuedtoalaterdate. Ihaverequestcounselbuthaveyettoreceiveany,orwait,I
wasdeniedarequesttoreceivecounselbecauseJudgeHowardsaidthereisnota6th
amendmentrighttocounselwhere,eventhoughjailtimeistechnicallyapossibility,the
statedoesnotanticipateseekingjailtime...orsomethinglikethat,however,IIound
indigent,andIbelieveIqualiIyasindigentrathereasily. Canandwouldyouagreeto
acontinuance? IbelieveItriedtocontactaboutthispriortoIilingmyRequestIora
recordsrequest
Continuance. ImaintainmyinnocenceinthiscaseandIeelanysortoIconviction,
especiallyoneinvolvinganysortoItheItbasedcharge,wouldworkaterribleinjustice
andgreatlydamagemyreputationandemploymentprospects. Iwantajurytrial,too.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
Sent: Tue10/04/114:41PM
2attachments
RMCsubpoena.pdI(67.8KB),RECORDREQUESTZachCoughlintoRMC.pdI(20.2KB)
October4,2011
DearRenoMunicipalCourtRecordsDivision,
MynameisZachCoughlin. IhavenowbeeninIormedbyboththeRenoMunicipal
CourtandtheRenoCityAttorney'soIIicer,andtheRenoSparksIndianColonynoneoI
theseentitiescanprovidemyrequestedrecords.Youhavethem,IbelieveIhavea
constitutionalrighttothem.IIyouIeeldiIIerently,pleaseexplaininwritingwhythatis
thecase.
IwishtoobtainanyandallrecordsavailableincidenttoIC110627attheE.2ndSt.
WalmartbytheRenoSparksIndianColonyPoliceonoraboutSaturdayOctober10th,
2011atbetweenapproximately9pmand10:30pm. Iwantanyandallrecords,video,
audio,paperdocumentationorotherwisethatIhavearightto. Iamrepresenting
myselI. IhavesoughttheserecordsIromtheRenoMunicipalCourt'sRecordsOIIice
andtheykepttellingmetheydidn'thavethemyetandthatIshouldreturnsometime
soon. Finally,theyadmittedtheydonotkeeptheserecordsandtheymustbeobtained
IromyourtheRenoCityAttorney'sOIIice.AttheRMCrecordswindowIspokewitha
supervisornamedKaren.ShedeniedmyrequestIortheserecordstoday. Thisdelay
hasundulyprejudicedmycaseandIrequestthatyouprovidetheserecordstomeat
once,withnodelay,please. TheRSIndianColonyPolicereIusedtogivemeacopy
oItheserecordstodaywhenIspokewithSargentAvansino,whowaspoliteandhelpIul
otherwise.Ibelievethiscaseshouldbedismissed.
SignedelectronicallyandsignedinasignedattachedPDF. Icancomepickthe
recordsupwithidentiIicationiIthatisrequiredorIherebygiveyoupermissionto
emailthemtomeormailthemtotheaddressbelow:
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
recordsrequestforincidentreporturgentplease
review,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.
This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, work
product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this information is
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the
sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than
the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.
Sent: Tue10/04/113:10PM
1attachment
recordsrequesttorenocityattorneysoIIiceoct4.pdI(66.5KB)
RenoMuniRecordsreno.gov
DearRenoCityAttorneyRecordsDepartment.
MynameisZachCoughlin. Iwishtoobtainanyandallrecordsavailableincidentto
anarrestattheE.2ndSt.WalmartbytheRenoSparksIndianColonyPoliceonor
aboutSaturdayOctober10th,2011atbetweenapproximately9pmand10:30pm. I
wantanyandallrecords,video,audio,paperdocumentationorotherwisethatIhavea
rightto. IamrepresentingmyselI. IhavesoughttheserecordsIromtheReno
MunicipalCourt'sRecordsOIIiceandtheykepttellingmetheydidn'thavethemyet
andthatIshouldreturnsometimesoon. Finally,theyadmittedthedonotkeepthese
recordsandtheymustbeobtainedIromyouroIIice. TheRSICPolicereIusedtogive
meacopyoItheserecords. ThisdelayhasundulyprejudicedmycaseandIrequest
thatyouprovidetheserecordstomeatonce,withnodelay,please. Ibelievethiscase
shouldbedismissed.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlinsignedelectronicallyandsignedinattachedPDF. Icancomepickthe
recordsupwithidentiIicationiIthatisrequiredorIherebygiveyoupermissionto
emailthemtomeormailthemtotheaddressbelow:
Re:YourOnlinePoliceReportT11005956HasBeenRejected
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
review,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.
This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, work
product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this information is
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the
sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than
the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.
From: ZC(zachcoughlinhotmail.com)
Sent: Fri9/09/1112:29AM
To: coplogicalertsreno.gov
I want mirandized ever. His report contains voluminous inaccuracies. Cops thretened me with
stuff to coerce divulging my name. Didn't call phone and hear any vibrate as report says.
Baggy clothes terry stop search an obvious pretext. However, cop added an inaccurate statement
on. Top of that pretext to justify actions such as subsequent arrest, ie, said he called
phone and identified it by vibrating. That is not true.
NvRenoPd@coplogic.com wrote:
>****DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL****
>
>
>We're sorry the following problem was found during review
>of your submitted report T11005956:
>
>THIS IS NOT THE FORUM FOR THIS TYPE OF COMPLAINT HOWEVER THIS REPORT WAS PRINTED AND PASSED
ON TO THE OFFICER'S SUPERVISOR AND IT WILL BE ADDRESSED.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Officer WOZNIAK,
>Reno Police Department
>
>
From: zachcoughlinhotmail.com(zachcoughlinhotmail.com)
Sent: Thu9/08/1110:06PM
WhichpartoIthereportwasacceptedandwhichwasrejected.Whichsupervisor.Name?Itsabatterybyduralde
whycantiIileapolicereportaboutit...tellmethat.
From: zachcoughlinhotmail.com(zachcoughlinhotmail.com)
Sent: Thu9/08/1110:05PM
WhatabouttheothersthingsainvolvingdawsonandthehispanicIemaleattackerandzarate

9 8 11 To 1 3 13 PRINTABLE BW - Emails-To-Reno-Gov-Addresses-0204-60838-26800-22176-26405-00696-12420 Opt

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

9 8 11 To 1 3 13 PRINTABLE BW - Emails-To-Reno-Gov-Addresses-0204-60838-26800-22176-26405-00696-12420 Opt

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

INDEX OF EMAILS FROM COUGHLIN TO RENO.

GOV ADDRESSES FOR

SincewehavebeenremovedIromthe911case,weareclosingourIile. TheattachedmaterialsweresittingatourIrontdesk. SinceyouIailedtoretrievethem,weprovidetheattachedcourtesy

SincewehavebeenremovedIromthe911case,weareclosingourIile. TheattachedmaterialsweresittingatourIrontdesk. SinceyouIailedtoretrievethem,weprovidetheattachedcourtesy

--Forwarded Message Attachment--

Dear Mr. Tuttle,

Fwd: FW: Case No. RCR2011-063341

Dear Bar Counsel,

InAikins v. Andrews, 91Nev.746,542P.2d734(1975),theSupremeCOUliconstruedthe

Search incident to routine traffic citation. Aroutine

No, HenrySotelo,I didnotwellknowthataboutthetrespasschargebeingdismissedbecausethewitnessdidnotappearinthematteryouarecollecting$7K

Obviously,wearenotinagreementasto howtoproceedwithyourcase. Theattorney-clientrelationshiphasbrokendown. YouarestillaccusingmeoIconspiring

Whatchargesarestillpending? Isthecriminaltrespasschargestillpending? WasthecriminaltrespasschargeComplaint everIilestampedin

Whatchargesarestillpending? Isthecriminaltrespasschargestillpending? WasthecriminaltrespasschargeComplaint everIilestampedinRMC12CR

InAikins v. Andrews, 91Nev.746,542P.2d734(1975),theSupremeCOUliconstruedthe

To: renomunirecords@reno.gov; renodirect@reno.gov

Notice of Appeal and MOtion for....

Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:58:47 -0800

NOTICE OF APPEAL MOTION TO SET ASIDE WITHDRAWAL

Theopposingcounselinthe summaryevictionmatter iswithholdingmyphoneas

Ibelievebothciviland criminallawattorneysinNevada aresubject toNRCPRule11andother

S-ar putea să vă placă și