10 24 13 72675 Printed Notice of WCDA's Attempt To Remand Coughlin and Revoke Two Probations and Addendum To Post-Trial Motions Stamped With Ex 1 Opt A9 PDF

I
,
,

,

,

COlIgh I .. ; ;;_.
NIl Bar
7402
IN TIlE RENJ JUSfICE coon
a:x.NTY OF WASI-OE; STATE OF NEVAf1.\
II",,,,, OF NEVAIl-\.
,
RCR20lJ-07267S
"
"
INTIFF )
:
05. then reassigned
)
O<rnARY BARKER COLGlLrN;
I. Zacllary Barker Coughlin declare pur suan t l oNRS under penally
perjury Iha! the follOwin& is Irue and correct and based upon my own fi .51
knowledge ucepl those mailers Slaled upon in formatio n and belief (even
implicit l )' so staled), and liS 10 those maltcrs. I believe them to be
Coughlin was nevcr once provided any rCIU'f\ of. of. or proof
service of the Adnin Order 2012-01 (il h believe lhal the copy thereof
' 1I .,,;II<.:d into evidence al trial had sud. bUI the '>\ICD<\ failed [0 provide
" II ,em"hlin II copy of Ihat exhibi t. which Judge GlaHon countenanced) . There i s
"
"
"
11"oofo f service of t he Ad-nin Order 12-01 and Coughlin certainly never a<inillcd
Bny service thereof. nor the requiremen t tha t such be served.
II'''''' ia I ! Y whe re t he pu rpo.t cd serv i ce was appa .en t Iy by a I!a rt y. RJC Rai I i rr
11',"'ho",English. The Admin Order 12-01 that thcV.'CIlo\"sOfrice failed to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2/118 -
NOTICE OF WCDAS ATTEMPT TO REMAND COUGHLIN AND REVOKE TWO PROBATIONS AND ADDENDUM TO POST-TRIAL
MOTIONS
i ndent i f y i n i ts 5/ 31/13 Crimi nal Compl ai nt i n 72675 ( and arguabl y, such exhi bi t
shoul d not have been admi t t ed gi ven i ts l ack of rel evancy and t he f ai l ure to
speci f y such as the previ ousl y ordered by the cour t al l usi on i n the Crimi nal
Compl ai nt, whi ch J udge Cl i f ton countenanced at the 9/24/13 heari ng i n 72675. The
por t i on of AO12-01 Bai l i f f Reyes ci t es to and quotes i n hi s 5/28/13 Narrat i ve
(1. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLI N shal l not enter the premi ses of the Reno J ust i ce
Cour t at One South Si er ra St reet except as f ol l ows: a. I f ZACHARY BARKER
COUGHLIN wi shes to f i l e a document wi th the Reno J ust i ce Cour t or at tend a
hear i ng i n the Reno J ust i ce Cour t he must noti f y the secur i ty personnel at the
mai n secur i ty entr ance l ocated at the east ent rance of One South Si er ra Street
and wai t f or a bai l i f f of t he Reno j ust i ce Cour t to respond to hi s l ocati on. )
i s especi al l y i r rel evant and mi sl eadi ng ( simi l ar to Bai l i f f Reyes changi ng the
t i t l e of Washoe County Code 53.140 f rom di st urbi ng the peace to
resi st i ng/obstruct i ng/del ayi ng a peace of f i cer and t hat of Washoe County Code
53.200 f r om resi st i ng a publ i c of f i cer to resi st i ng an of f i cer)
par t i cul ar l y wi th respect t o the f act that the por t i on Bai l i f f Reyes quotes to
i nvol ves si tuat i ons where Coughl i n wi shes to, and presents wi th, a
documentand actual l y :
I T I S HEREBY ORDERED:
1. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shal l not enter the premi ses of the Reno
J ust i ce Cour t at One South Si er ra Street except as f ol l ows:
a. I f ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN wi shes to f i l e a document wi th t he
Reno J usti ce Cour t or at tend a hear i ng i n the Reno J ust i ce Court he must
not i f y the secur i t y personnel at the mai n secur i ty ent rance l ocated at
the east entrance of One South Si er r a Street and wai t f or a bai l i f f of t he
Reno j usti ce Cour t to respond to hi s l ocat i on.
b. I f ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN wi shes to make a request of the Reno
J ust i ce Cour t f or copi es, t ranscr i pts, access to a cour t f i l e or to ask a
quest i on he shal l do so i n wri t i ng and ei ther mai l the request to the Reno
J ust i ce Cour t or del i ver the wr i t ten request to a bai l i f f of the Reno
J ust i ce Cour t by f i r st contact i ng the bai l i f f through cour t secur i ty as
detai l ed above. The bai l i f f wi l l then f i l e the document f or Mr . Coughl i n
and provi de him a f i l e stamped copy i n return
2. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shal l not be present i n the excl usi ve
premi ses of the Reno J ust i ce Cour t i ncl udi ng the cr imi nal , ci vi l ,
ci tat i on, or admi ni st rat i ve f aci l i t i es l ocated on the f i r st f l oor of the
North Tower of One South Si er ra Street and the ent i re area l ocated on the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3/118 -
MOTIONS
second f l oor of the Nor th Tower of One South Si er ra Street wi thout the
escor t of a bai l i f f of thi s Cour t and wi thout f i r st f ol l owi ng t he
procedures out l i ned above
5. Any vi ol at i on of thi s Order may be consi dered contempt of cour t
and puni shed pursuant to NRS Chapter 22 by a f i ne of up to $500 and/or
i ncarcerat i on f or up to 25 days i n t he Washoe County Detent i on Faci l i ty.
6. Thi s Order i s ef f ect i ve upon personal servi ce upon Mr. Coughl i n. "
I t i s tel l i ng that Bai l i f f Reyes s Nar rat i ve of 5/24/13 ci tes onl y to
sect i on 1 and 1(a) of the Admi n Order 12-01 ( AO12-01) , especi al l y where at t r i al
Reyes ref erenced t he l ast t wo l i nes of page 2 and ent i rety of page 3 thereof .
Bai l i f f Reyes Narrat i ve i n hi s pol i ce repor t f ai l s to admi t that there i s
nothi ng i n AO12-01 to suppor t Reyes vi ew that Coughl i n i s somehow subj ect to
bei ng, essent i al l y, detai ned, or f orced to wai t i n the l obby f or the RJ C
Bai l i f f s to f i nal l y return wi th hi s documents.
I t i s f urther reveal i ng that Bai l i f f Reyes (whom i s not f i t to be a
Bai l i f f ( par t i cul ar l y one t asks such as those set f or t h i n the Admin Order 2012-
01) , not i n any way whatsoever) wrote i n hi s Decl arat i on of Probabl e Cause: "At
approximatel y 1620 hrs, I ordered Zachary Coughl i n to vol untar i l y move t o the
RJC f ront entrance l obby, t o awai t documents he requested, af ter he ref used
several r equests t o do so. . .
Why, oh, why, woul d Reyes PC Decl arat i on f ocus sol el y on Coughl i n s
apparent obl i gat i on to awai t documents he requested i n the RJ C f ront entrance
l obby ( t o be cl ear , Reyes Decl arat i on f ai l s to i ndi cate j ust where such
documents where r equested by Coughl i n, whether vi a some wri t i ng as provi ded
f or i n the Admin Order 2012- 01 or verbal l y. Thi s i s, of course, tel l i ng, where
Reyes Nar rat i ve of one day l ater then pi cks and chooses f rom the Admin Order
12-01 one of the very l east rel evant por t i ons thereof , and compl etel y f ai l s to
(because there i s none) ci t e to any por t i on of such Admin Order 12-01 that
requi res Coughl i n to wai t around anywhere, much l ess by the l obby bench or
secur i ty check i n, af ter the documents Coughl i n submi ts f or f i l i ng are t aken by
an RJ C Bai l i f f .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 4/118 -
MOTIONS
Thi s content i on that Coughl i n i s requi red to wai t at t he l obby benches i s
nowhere t o be f ound i n AO12- 01, but , rather , was a creat i on of Deputy Reyes, et
al put i n pl ace i n an at tempt to f urther the abi l i ty of the RJ C Bai l i f f s to tel l
Coughl i n mi struths about whether or not the RJ C Fi l i ng Of f i ce had cl osed i t s
doors. On numerous occasi ons ( sometimes as much as f i f teen mi nutes pr i or to the
posted cl osi ng t ime of the RJC f i l i ng of f i ces) Reyes and other RJC Bai l i f f s (but
mostl y Reyes, whomcl ear l y seems to be somewhat of a r i ng l eaderthat i s unt i l
he gets Bai l i f f s Hei ber t and Reyes to commi t mi sconduct of thei r own ( such as
that Bai l i f f Ramsey test i f i ed to havi ng commit ted on 5/ 22/13 i n throwi ng away
Coughl i n s f i l i ng) , at whi ch poi nt Reyes f el l ow Bai l i f f s cl am up on him when i t
comes to produci ng wr i t ten statements f or Reyes pol i ce repor t , whi ch cl ear l y
consi sts of ent i rel y coached up by Reyes wr i t ten statements by those whom Reyes
had been abl e to i ntimi date and control ( somethi ng Reyes wi f e Cathy A. Reyes
compl ai ned of i n her temporary order f or protect i on agai nst domest i c vi ol ence
wherei n she decr i es the f act that Reyes empti ed an apparent l y j oi nt bank account
one day and l ef t her and thei r two chi l dren wi thout any money f or groceri es
between 3/ 29/12 or so and 5/ 2/12) , t o one degree or another (Deputy Troup, i n
par t i cul ar , ought be sui tabl y ashamed of hersel f , especi al l y f or her al l egat i on
that Coughl i n, a t rai ned attorney, actual l y sat on the caf bench and expounded
to the bai l i f f s f ace about what a pi ece of shi t he i s, as though that woul d
not have resul ted i n an immedi ate di spl ay of remonstrance by any bai l i f f , rather
than the qui et l y standi ng by Reyes i s cl aimed to have responded wi th) . I ndeed
sect i on 2 of AO12-01 f ai l s to requi r e Coughl i n to wai t at the secur i ty check i n
(The bai l i f f wi l l then f i l e the document f or Mr . Coughl i n and provi de him a
f i l e stamped copy i n return" ) but onl y that Coughl i n must check i n wi th the
secur i ty ((2) wishes to make a request of t he Reno J ust i ce Cour t f or copi es,
t ranscr i pts, access to a cour t f i l e or to ask a quest i on he shal l do so i n
wri t i ng and ei ther mai l the request to the Reno J ust i ce Cour t or del i ver the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 5/118 -
MOTIONS
wri t ten r equest to a bai l i f f of the Reno J usti ce Cour t by f i r st contact i ng the
bai l i f f t hrough cour t securi ty; see, al so, sect i on 1( a) of AO12-01 (wi shes to
f i l e a document wi th the Reno J ust i ce Cour t or at tend a hear i ng i n the Reno
J ust i ce Cour t he must not i f y the secur i ty personnel at the mai n secur i t y
entrance l ocated at the east entrance of One South Si er ra Street and wai t f or a
bai l i f f of the Reno j ust i ce Cour t to respond to hi s l ocat i on. ) . There simpl y
i s nothi ng i n AO12- 01 whatsoever to suppor t Reyes content i on t hat Coughl i n was
requi red, on 5/23/ 13 to wai t at the l obby bench f or an RJ C Bai l i f f to awai t
documents he requested (as ref erenced i n Bai l i f f Reyes s 5/23/ 13 Decl arat i on of
Probabl e Cause) .
What i s apparent i s that Reyes and Sexton s cont i nual abuse of power had
resul ted i n Coughl i n simpl y appeasi ng them by wai t i ng at the l obby bench, whi ch
i nvar i abl y resul ted i n shenani gan s such as t he f i ve days Coughl i n was made to
spend i n j ai l between 2/1/13/ and 2/ 5/13 i nci dent to RJ C Bai l i f f August i n Medi na
wai t i ng j ust l ong enough to venture the f i f ty yards or so f rom hi s post i n the
RJC f i l i ng of f i ce where he chats up the Department of Al ternat i ve Sentenci ng s
Sabr i na, to the secur i ty check i n, at whi ch poi nt Coughl i n i s to be escor ted
to the Depar tment of Al ternat i ve Sentenci ngaccordi ng to these pet ty, power mad
RJC Bai l i f f swhere the Admi n Order 12-01 i n no way requi res Coughl i n to have an
escor t to venture to the DAS of f i ce ( separat i on of powers, etc. the DAS of f i ce
i s not par t of the excl usi ve premi ses of the RJ C, as there necessar i l y i s an
easement of sor ts that must exi st f or one such as Coughl i n to conduct any
busi ness wi th and i n the DAS room l ocated i n the horseshoe that the RJ C shares
wi th DAS, per i od. Other shenani gan s i ncl ude RJ C Bai l i f f s tel l i ng Cougl hi n the
f i l i ng of f i ce doors have al ready cl osed at 4: 50 (Reyes even sai d so at 4: 45 one
day) (of course J udge Pearson s comments on t he record at the 5/ 23/13 CCCP
hear i ng i n RCR2011- 063341 i ndi cate t hat any f i l i ng submi tted pri or to 5: 00 pm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 6/118 -
MOTIONS
must be t aken by t he RJ C Bai l i f f s, whi ch they cont i nued to f l aunt J udge
Pearson s author i t y even af ter such announcement .
Deputy Turner ref erences the bel l y- achi ng done by Bai l i f f s l i ke Reyes,
Medi na, and Sexton upon Coughl i n bei ng tol d t he RJ C f i l i ng of f i ce had al ready
cl ose, wel l pr i or to 5 pm, and Coughl i n thereaf ter simpl y enteri ng the Lane
J ust i ce Center past the secur i ty check i n, wi thout any escor t ( as none were
requi red gi ven Coughl i n was not goi ng to ei ther the RJ C or the RMC (and dur i ng
the 8/14/ 13 hear i ng i n RCM 13 CR 3913 RMC J udge Di lworth admi t t ed that t he RJ C
asked the RMC to i mpl ement a copy cat order pl aci ng the same restr i ct i ons f ound
i n AO12-01 on Coughl i n as t o Coughl i n s i nter act i ons wi th the RMC. Of course,
the WCDAs Of f i ce and WCSOs of f i ce sought to then extend such two AO s ( the
RMC s verbat im copy cat i s t i t l e AO13-01) to cover the ent i rety of the Lane
J ust i ce Center (wi th Deputy Troup i di ot i cal l y f ol l owi ng Coughl i n up to t he
f ami l y cour t on the thi rd f l oor one day and t el l i ng hi m you have no busi ness
here i n a di spl ay of how very, very not ready f or pr i me t ime Deputy Troup trul y
i s, especi al l y as such rel ates to access to j ust i ce and t ransparency r i ghts i n
the cour t house set t i ng. Deputy Turner s Narrat i ve (wr i t ten f i ve whol e days
af ter the events i n quest i on, as apparent l y i t took the WCDA s Of f i cer t hat l ong
to f ul l y coach up these wr i t ten stat ementswhi ch means the prosecutor i al
immuni ty i t normal l y possesses was l ost by the WCDA s Of f i cer upon i ts ventur i ng
i nto the i nvest i gat i on and l aw enforcement aspects of the work i nvol ved here,
simi l ar t o the RJ C J udges l osi ng thei r immuni ty i n rebrandi ng Admi n Order 2012-
01 i nto a cr imi nal compl ai nt i n RCR2013-071437, and thus taki ng on a
prosecutor i al rol e) reads:
Coughl i n i s always l ocated i n an ar ea where hi s movement i s not
restr i cted, and then he deni es ever stat i ng hi s desi re to access a restr i cted
area. On mul t i pl e occasi ons, I have made contact wi th Mr. Coughl i n on concerns
of accessi ng restr i cted l ocat i ons. Dur i ng these encounters wi th Coughl i n, he has
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 7/118 -
MOTIONS
been very argumentat i ve and border l i ne di srupti ve, however , he was not l ocated
or proven to be i n a rest r i cted area.
Noti ce of how the i nf l uence of Chi ef Bai l i f f Sexton and Bai l i f f Reyes has
resul ted i n the WCSO not real l y knowi ng what the Admin Order 2012-01 actual l y
entai l s. Deputy Turner has bought t o company l i ne put out by t he RJ C Bai l i f f s
i n a di spl ay of the l ack of respect the Bai l i f f s have f or the j udges i n the RJ C
(Coughl i n wi l l spare the j udges a detai l i ng of some of the comments he has
heard, as they are not f ai r (nor woul d be quot i ng these Bai l i f f here) , and
di scount the extraordi nary work j udges l i ke Cl i f ton, Chi ef J udge Pearson, and
J udge Sf er razza do day i n and day out , handl i ng an awesome l evel of
responsi bi l i ty and power wi th i ntel l i gence and cl ass, rout i nel y) . I ndeed, there
i s nothi ng i n AO12- 01 that woul d make rel evant whether or not Coughl i n deni es
ever stat i ng hi s desi re to access a restr i cted area. Even i f what Turner i s
ref erenci ng had occurred, such i s not a vi ol at i on of AO12-01. Fur ther , the ever
i ncreasi ng wai t t i mes ( read game pl ayi ng by the RJ C Bai l i f f s) woul d i nevi tabl y
resul t i n such, anyways.
Fur ther , Deputy Turner s wri t ten statement i s par t i cul ar l y cur i ous when
contrast i ng the asser t i ons made therei n wi th Bai l i f f Reyes character i zati on of
the shared areas as bei ng areas under the RJC s excl usi ve control i n Reyes
t r i al test imony. I ndeed, upon Reyes scheme at tempti ng to get CSO Perez (whom
was not cal l ed by the State f or a reason) to test i f y t o havi ng wi tnessed
Coughl i n recei ve some papers back f r om Bai l i f f Hei ber t at the caf bench
(ostensi bl y the papers Perez coyl y r ef erences Coughl i n as havi ng provi de to
Hei ber t at the l obby bench).
Despi te t he f act t hat i t i s compl etel y i r rel evant whether or not Coughl i n
wai ted f or Hei ber t to return wi th the set of papers Coughl i n provi ded to
Bai l i f f Hei ber t j ust pr i or to the st ar t of the f i r st vi deo the WCDA s of f i ce
produced af ter some Brady vi ol at i ng edi t i ng ( whi ch set of papers Bai l i f f Hei ber t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 8/118 -
MOTIONS
returns t o Coughl i n (or at l east the stamped f i r st page of each f i l i ng Coughl i n
submi t ted) at the 16:16:05 mark of such vi deo) , each of the wr i t ten stat ements
by the wi tnesses ( or Narrati ves) make a grand at tempt to establ i sh that Coughl i n
f ai l ed to wai t at the l obby bench f or Hei ber t to return wi th st amped copi es of
the papers Coughl i n provi ded Hei ber t at the l obby benchor that Coughl i n
provi ded some paper s to ei t her Bai l i f f Hei bert or Bai l i f f Ramsey at the caf
bench (whi ch, at l east , woul d make f or a very, very weak argument that Coughl i n
was somehow i n vi ol at i on of sect i on 1(a) of AO12-01 suf f i ci ent to, at most ,
resul t i n an RJ C Bai l i f f ref usi ng to accept such papers f or f i l i ng f rom Coughl i n
absent Coughl i n checki ng i n wi th the secur i ty team i n the l obby f i r st .
Note: - FN18] Wash.Sacket t v. Sant i l l i , 146 Wash. 2D 498, 47 P. 3D 948 ( 2002) . -
Superseded by stat uteJ udges have i nherent power to adopt rul es of pract i ce
wi thi n thei r cour ts unl ess superseded by stat ute. I owaLemon v. Pasternak, 340
N.W.2D 268 ( I owa 1983) . [FN19] I l l .Yel l ow Cab Co. V . J ones, 108 I l l . 2D 330, 91
I l l . Dec. 643, 483 N.E.2D 1278 (1985) . - [FN20] Cal .J evne v. Super i or Cour t , 35
Cal . 4Th 935, 28 Cal . Rptr . 3D 685, 111 P.3D 954 (2005) . - [FN21] Or .Ptack v.
Strong, 121 Or . 688, 257
: 24.Grounds, general l yMi sconduct or of f i ci al mi sbehavi or
Ci tat i on: 70 Am. J ur. 2d Sher i f f s, Pol i ce, and Constabl es 24
J ames M. Bar t l ey, Esq.
Ci tat i on: 1984 Nev. Op. Atty. Gen. 77; 346 A.2d 346 Gi lmer v. Phi l adel phi a Transp. Co. , 346
A.2d 346
Pa.Super . , 1975
Where par ty to l i t i gat i on i ntended to comply wi th rul es of ci vi l procedure but was mi sl ed by
i nterpretat i on er roneousl y pl aced on such rul es by l ocal cour ts, Superi or Cour t woul d excuse
l i t i gant ' s f ai l ure t o recogni ze i nval i di ty of l ocal i nterpretat i on of rul es si nce l i t i gant' s
rel i ance on l ocal rul es was reasonabl e.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 9/118 -
MOTIONS
: J ohn P. Comeaux
Ci tat i on: 2002 Nev. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 38
; Bat t i ato v. Sher i f f , Cl ark County
Ci tat i on: 95 Nev. 36
We bel i eve that i n enact i ng NRS 4.370(3)(b) , the l egi sl ature i ntended that a pol i ce of f i cer be
i ncl uded wi thi n the term publ i c of f i cer. We acknowl edge that i n some areas of l egi sl at i on,
di st i nct i ons are made between peace of f i cers and publ i c of f i cers. See NRS 41.0307 (def i ni ng
publ i c of f i cer f or act i ons agai nst the state) ; NRS 169.125 and NRS 169.164 (def i ni ng peace
of f i cers and publ i c of f i cers f or purposes of the Nevada Cr imi nal Procedure Law) . I n other
statutes, however , t he di st i nct i on i s not mad; : State v. Thompson
Sent On: October 23, 2013
Sent By: A West l awNext Researcher
Cl i ent ID: PATRON ACCESS
Note: thi s case actual l y appl i es to a publ i c of f i cer taki ng a br i be 197.110 and consi der t hat
what i s now ti t l e 15 was then t i t l e 16, etc.k, etc. and that 193.019 was then i n 193.010(16) and
whether such was repeal ed by 169.164 entai l s state v economy repeal by impl i cat i on
State v. Rhodi g
Sent On: October 23, 2013
Sent By: A West l awNext Researcher
Cl i ent ID: PATRON ACCESS
Note: Def endant was empl oyed as a Deputy Ci ty Marshal f or the Ci ty of Reno ( the Ci ty) i n Apr i l
1981 to serve ar rest warrants i ssued by the Muni ci pal Cour t of the Ci ty. . . .The evi dence
demonstrated that Rhodi g, as a sworn Deputy Ci ty Marshal supervi sed by the Ci ty Marshal , was a
publ i c of f i cer . NRS 193.019 (def i ni t i on of publ i c of f i cer ) ; State v. Thompson, 89 Nev. 320, 511
P.2d 1043 (1973) . NOTE: the Rhodi g opi ni on mi sstates the scope of the def i ni t i on provi ded i n NRS
193.019, as such encompasses both
Rhodi g rel ates to a l aw maki ng a deputy ci ty marshal i n Reno that i s no l onger even i n
ef f ect .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 10/118 -
MOTIONS
(Deputy Turner s account of thi s compl etel y i r rel evant i ssue:
At approximatel y1620 hours, I was standi ng at the Mi l l s L ane J ust i ce
bui l di ng entrance, next to the magnetometers. Dur i ng t hi s t ime, I wi tnessed Mr.
Coughl i n enter the bui l di ng and i nform the Cour t Securi ty Of f i cers that he had
paperwork to be f i l ed. An RJ C bai l i f f met wi th Mr. Coughl i n, pr i or to passi ng
through t he magnetometers. The RJ C Bai l i f f col l ected t he paperwork to be f i l ed
i n the RJ C f i l l i ng of f i ce f rom Mr. Coughl i n and proceeded to do that . Af ter the
bai l i f f l ef t the i mmedi ate area, Mr . Coughl i n passed t hrough the magnetometers
and proceeded to si t on a bench adj acent to stai r s l eadi ng to t he second f l oor
of the bui l di ng. ) .
Agai n, even i f what Deputy Turner wrote were t rue (whi ch i t i s not , as
cl ear l y Turner i s at tempti ng to at l east gi ve the impressi on that Coughl i n
f ai l ed to wai t i n the l obby f or the return of stamped copi es of hi s f i l i ngs or
requests by Bai l i f f Hei ber t whi ch, r egardl ess, woul d not be a vi ol at i on of the
AO12-01, and cer tai nl y not a reason f or Bai l i f f Reyes and Deputy Turner to
at tack Coughl i n physi cal l y (wi th Deputy Troup pul l i ng a tazer , outrageousl y) ,
such i n no way j ust i f i es Bai l i f f Reyes f raudul ent manuf actur i ng of a NRS
199.280 charge and concomi tant ar rest , not to ment i on the r i di cul ous $16, 000
worth of bai l resul t i ng f rom the per se outrageous overchargi ng by peace
of f i cer j ust i ce cour t bai l i f f J ohn Hol gui n Reyes (whom has been sued i n hi s l aw
enforcement capaci ty no l ess than f i ve t imes). Turner s Narrati ve, of course,
f ai l s to ever speci f y what happened to the paperwork to be f i l ed i t ref erences
Coughl i n as havi ng provi ded to Bai l i f f Hei bert .
Simpl y put , the RJ C Bai l i f f cl ear l y woul d pref er i f the Admin Order had
somehow requi red Coughl i n t o wai t at the l obby benches, f or ever l onger and
l onger wai t t imes, whi l e some RJ C Bai l i f f under takes t he monumental task of
taki ng a document or two f r om Coughl i n, wal ki ng i t al l of f i f ty y yards or so to
the f i l i ng of f i ce, and havi ng the f i r st page of each document stamped f i l ed or
recei ved and maki ng a photocopy of such stamped page and thereaf ter wal ki ng
another f i f ty yards back to Coughl i n and provi di ng such to Coughl i n ( thi s has
taken over an hour sometimes, especi al l y when Bai l i f f Reyes i s i nvol ved, as i t
di d agai n on 10/23/ 13, but not before Bai l i f f Reyes at tempted t o threaten
Coughl i n out of f i l i ng anythi ng by mal evol entl y ref erenci ng Reyes st rong bel i ef
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 11/118 -
MOTIONS
that even the sl i ghtest devi at i on (however uni ntent i onal ) by Coughl i n f r om
ei ther AO12-01 or AO12-06 woul d immedi atel y r esul t i n Coughl i n bei ng taken i nto
custody, upon such f i l i ngs (and they are f i l i ngs the second the are pl aced i n
the possessi on of the RJ C Bai l i f f , per i od, the RJ C i s not permi t ted to r ej ect
such, see NV J CRCP 5(e) and McKi nn) .
Bai l i f f Reyes has cl ear l y t aken and run wi th, car ry the bags he packed f or
hi s power and ego t r i p al ong wi th hi mwhi ch i s apparent l y a perk of a j ob that
Bai l i f f Reyes seems to have speci f i cal l y targeted as bei ng very much i n l i ne
wi th creat i ng an envi ronment wherei n a control l i ng, i nsecure, power obsessed
person l i ke J ohn Reyes can i ndul ge he needs as readi l y as possi bl e, at t he
expense of those whom are par t i cul arl y i l l - equi pped to rebut any such mi sconduct
by Reyes. Perhaps that i s why i t was wi th such di sgust and enmi ty dur i ng hi s
test imony at t r i al that Reyes decr i ed the speci al t reatment he f eel s Coughl i n
recei ves ( to Coughl i n s benef i t ) f rom the RJ C and i ts Bai l i f f s) .
Regardl ess, Coughl i n di d so on 5/23/ 13. Coughl i n wai t ed i n the l obby f or
Bai l i f f Hei ber t to return wi th the document t hat Hei ber t i s seen taki ng f rom
Coughl i n on 5/23/13 at the 16:16:00 mark of t he f i r st vi deo:
http: / /www.youtube. com/watch?v=vFCHEyvYk94 So, of course, the WCDA s Of f i ce
exci ses t he por t i on of these vi deos where Bai l i f f Hei ber t returns to Coughl i n
the set of papers that he took f rom Coughl i n at the 16:16: 05 mark, and has
the second vi deo onl y star t s j ust af ter Hei ber t has returned such papers to
Coughl i n (whi ch onl y CSO Vi rgo s statement even impl i es, wi th t he rest of the
wri t ten statements (CSO Perez s i ndi cates Hei ber t returned the papers to
Coughl i n at the caf bench; whereas Deputy Turner and Troup s l ame Narrat i ves ) ,
Regardl ess i n the second vi deo ( ht t p: / /www.youtube. com/watch?v=vFCHEyvYk94 )
Bai l i f f Hei ber t i s seen skul ki ng of f ( at the 16:20:00 mark) wal ki ng away f rom
Coughl i n (whom i s vi si bi l e wai vi ng around the set of papers t hat Hei ber t had
j ust provi ded to Cougl i n (whi ch were onl y f i l e stamped copi es of the f i r st page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 12/118 -
MOTIONS
of each f i l i ng, i n vi ol at i on of the mandate i n Admin Ordre 2012- 01 that copi es
of Coughl i n f i l i ngs be provi ded to him, stamped) at the 16:19:58 mark, whi ch
upsets Hei ber t ( as di d Coughl i n s commentary at the t i me rel at i ve to the
mi sconduct therei n cont i nual l y bei ng commi t ted by the RJC Bai l i f f s and Cl erks i n
thei r wanton, patent vi ol ati ons of Nevada l aw and the Admin Order 2012-01) , whom
immedi atel y skul ks away (whi ch Hei ber t l aughabl y test i f i ed to bei ng hi s way of
as an ext ra cour tesy apparent l y checki ng on somethi ngthough, cl ear l y, CSO
Vi rgo s wr i t ten st atement i ndi cates that Coughl i n and Hei ber t s i nteracti on had
concl uded (V i rgo wrote: Mr. Coughl i n sat on the bench i n the cour t l obby
wri t i ng on papers unt i l Bai l i f f Hi eber t returned. Hi eber t and Coghl an were
tal ki ng when Coughl i n began to act agi tated but then t ol d Hi eber t he had no more
busi ness. Bai l i f f Hi eber t t hen return to hi s dut i es, af ter a mi nute or so. Mr .
Coughl i n approach) .
Al so, l at er i n that second vi deo of the l obby (whi ch i s 12:52 i n total
l ength) t he f ol l owi ng contenti on i n Bai l i f f Reyes Narrat i ve i s thoroughl y
exposed f or the brazen, i r r esponsi bl e, immoral l i e that i t i s:
http: / /www.youtube. com/watch?v=vFCHEyvYk94 at the 16:30:11 mark ( compl etel y
destroyi ng Reyes credi bi l i ty even f ur ther , i f that i s even possi bl e) :
(At about that t ime, Chi ef Bai l i f f M. Sexton had ar r i ved and upon
expl ai ni ng to him on what had j ust occurred and surveyi ng the damage, he
author i zed Coughl i n' s ar rest . I i nf ormed Coughl i n that I was i ni t i al l y
pl aci ng him under ar rest f or destruct i on of proper ty and
resi st i ng/ obstructi ng/del ayi ng an of f i cer , to whi ch, Coughl i n stated "No,
you' re not . I 'm l eavi ng!" , Then stood up and took a st ep towards the exi t .
I stepped f orward, took cont rol of Coughl i n' s arms, then pl aced him under
ar rest f or the f ol l owi ng vi ol at i ons)
Another vi ew of the moment of vi deo coi nci di ng wi th Reyes compl etel y
f al se al l egat i on t hat Coughl i n took a step f or the door i n response to bei ng
tol d he was bei ng pl aced under ar rest at the 16:27:33 mark (where Coughl i n
cl ear l y does not t ake any steps whatsoever upon Reyes approachi ng and announci ng
the ar rest , but rather , Coughl i n stands to hi s f eet , wi th hi s f eet remai ni ng i n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 13/118 -
MOTIONS
the same spots on the f l oor as they were immedi atel y before that moment when
Coughl i n was seated at the bench ( such f ur ther vi t i ates the l egi t imacy of the
al l egat i on by WCDA DDA Stege that he has not vi ol ated RPC 3.8 i n prosecut i ng
where there pl ai nl y exi sts no probabl e cause whatsoever , and the f i ndi ng of
probabl e cause to hol d Coughl i n by RJ C J udge Pi er re Haschef f i s bl emi shed by the
f act that Haschef f was and apparent l y st i l l i s on the Board of Di rectors of
Washoe Legal Servi ces ( j ust l i ke WCDA Bruce Hahn, whomal so f ai l ed to recuse
himsel f f rom Coughl i n s 2012 NNDB Screeni ng Panel ) , whom Coughl i n i s sui ng f or
wrongful termi nati on i n CV11-01896 and CV11-01955:
http: / /www.youtube. com/watch?v=LMU_qWIwZbY ( Reyes i s seen pushi ng Coughl i n over
the bench at the 16:25:38 mark) , A t the 16:26:05 mark Bai l i f f Hei ber t i s
vi si bl e, car ryi ng no new set of papers , though Bai l i f f Ramsey i s car ryi ng the
documents ( and pl aces them on the bench near Coughl i n) that he i s seen
col l ect i ng f rom where Coughl i n l ef t them on t he caf bench, upon bei ng at tacked
by Reyes and Deputy Turner (Ramsey i s seen col l ect i ng such at t he 16:25: 49 mark
i n the 8: 51 l ong vi deo of t he caf bench:
http: / /www.youtube. com/watch?v=5cXoj oMbl j 4 ) ( and al l t he t ime stampi ng on these
vi deos i s out of sync wi th each otherfor i nstances, t he vi deo of Reyes
at tacki ng Coughl i n on the caf bench shows the at tack begi nni ng at 16:25: 30
(ht tp: / /www.youtube. com/watch?v=5cXoj oMbl j 4 ) whereas at that same t ime stampi ng
i n the vi deo of the l obby behi nd the metal detector , Reyes i s al ready pl ungi ng
himsel f and Coughl i n i nto t he metal detector , whi l e, i n the vi deo of the l obby
f rom above the metal detectors and of f to the l ef t , Reyes f i nal l y knocks the
metal detector over at the 16:25:52 mark
(ht tp: / /www.youtube. com/watch?v=5cXoj oMbl j 4 )
J CRCP Rul e 4 provi des that a non-par ty must serve t he i ni t i al pl eadi ng
i n a mat t er . The Admin Order 2012-01 i s the Cr imi nal Compl ai nt i n RCR2013-
071437 (a cr imi nal case number gi ven to the r ebranded Admin Order 2012-01 on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 14/118 -
MOTIONS
3/6/13, despi te Chi ef J udge Pearson i ndi cat i ng at the 3/5/13 Order to Show Cause
docketed i n RCR2012-065630 (before J udge Cl i f ton, st rangel y) that such Order to
Show Cause of 2/25/ 13 rel at i ve to the Admin Order 12-01 woul d be put i nto
RCR2011-063341)sti l l no one i nf ormed Coughl i n that the Admin Order 12-01 woul d
real l y be gi ven a cr imi nal case number the f ol l owi ng day and that Bruce L i ndsay,
Esq. woul d get a paycheck f or ref usi ng to f i l e the Noti ce of Appeal Coughl i n
demanded be f i l ed i n connect i on wi th any an al l orders stemming f rom the 3/11/13
hear i ng, whi ch occurred upon the cont i nuance of the 3/ 5/13 Order to Show Cause
hear i ng r ef erenced above (where J udge Pearson ordered that Coughl i n woul d be
permi t ted to be hi s own co- counsel i n any matter i n whi ch he so chose to, and
where Coughl i n never agree to have Bruce L i ndsay be hi s sol e- counsel i n the
Admin Order 2012-01 case) .
So, f or al l the al l eged resi st i ng and ref usi ng, and i ndi cat i ng he was
actual l y headed to the thi r d f l oor f ami l y cour t , and bei ng tol d he coul d not
l eave the immedi ate area, and tol d he must wai t i n the l obby, etc. , etc. the
soonest Bai l i f f Reyes coul d have begun i ssui ng such commands woul d have been
upon the al l eged provi di ng of some request f or documents to Bai l i f f Ramsey
(whi ch, apparent l y must have been done, i f at al l , duri ng the f our second of
vi deo the WCDA s Of f i ce has st rangel y exci sed f rom the vi deo s propounded,
though, not careful l y enough, as one can back t rack f r ame by f r ame and vi ew
those mi ssi ng f our seconds (as Coughl i n di d f or J udge Gl asson dur i ng the t r i al ) ,
whi ch f ai l to reveal Coughl i n passi ng anyone any documents or papers) . But,
even assuming Reyes bel i eve such was the case, the soonest Reyes coul d have
possi bl y begun i ssui ng such di rect i ves as i ndi cated i n hi s repor t and the
statements contai ned therei n woul d have been by 16:25: 12gi ven that Reyes i s
al ready putt i ng hi s hands on Coughl i n by the 16:25:21 mark, that s an awf ul
shor t peri od of t i me for al l that to be communi cated i n addi t i on to al l owing f or
Coughl i n to have done any of the al l eged resi st i ng or ref usi ng that Reyes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 15/118 -
MOTIONS
purpor ts Coughl i n to have engaged i n suf f i ci ent to j ust i f y Reyes physi cal ,
prof essi onal , psychosoci al , and economi c at tack on Coughl i n, whi ch he has
recei ved nothi ng but at taboys f or , apparent l y, so f ar . Reyes di rects hi msel f
and a f ace down Coughl i n i nto the metal detector (whi ch Reyes shoul d absol utel y
be requi r ed to pay f or himsel f ) at t he 16:28: 28 mark.
A st i l l f rame of t he 16:28: 37 mark on the near l y thi r t een mi nute vi deo of
the vi ew of the l obby behi nd the metal detector reveal s Reyes t hrowi ng Coughl i n
over the bench, wi th Reyes arms cl ear extended outward i n a pushi ng/ throwi ng
manner , contrary t o Reyes t est imony:
Reyes throws Coughl i n s wal l et at Coughl i n, whom i s l ayi ng i n t he f l oor
where Reyes threw him, at t he 16:29: 03 mark.
Addi t i onal l y, Bai l i f f Hei ber t s test imony at t r i al that he had no contact
wi th Coughl i n between the 16:20:00 mark on the vi deo where Hei ber t s skul ks of f
f rom the l obby unti l Hei bert exi ted the f i l i ng of f i ce and not i ced Bai l i f f Reyes
at tacki ng Coughl i n physi cal l y on the caf bench then escor t i ng Coughl i n to the
l obby runs counter to CSO Vi rgo s account (Vi rgo wrote: Bai l i f f Hi eber t
returned to tal k wi th Mr . Coughl i n whi l e they were tal ki ng Bai l i f f Ramsey came
towards t hem and Mr . Coughl i n star ted to accuse Ramsay of throwi ng hi s paperwork
away i n t he t rash. )
Of course, the RJ C had a par ty purpor t to serve that 12/20/12
Admini str at i ve Order where Bai l i f f Engl i sh purpor ts to have at t empted or
ef f ected servi ce t hereof on 12/20/12 wi thi n t he cour thouse at t he Reno J ust i ce
Cour t .
http: / /www.scr i bd. com/doc/157400829/ 5-23-13-0204-72675- 71437-Arrest-
Pol i ce-Repor t-Troup-Turner- Hei ber t-Reyes-PC-Sheet-Wi tness-Statement-by-Ol ympi k-
s-Perez- and-5-28-13-by-Vi rgo-Di gi
As to whether Coughl i n ref used to return to wai t i n the l obby or
resi sted some command to do so, the var i ous wr i t ten statements i n Reyes
repor t contradi ct one another . Deputy Turner i ndi cates: Once Bai l i f f Ramsey
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 16/118 -
MOTIONS
l ef t the area, Bai l i f f Reyes requested that Coughl i n wai t on the other si de of
the magnetometers. Mr . Coughl i n ref used to wai t on the other si de. Bai l i f f Reyes
tol d Coughl i n repeatedl y that he must wai t on the other si de of the secured
area, unti l hi s requested i nformati on was recei ved. Mr. Coughl i n began t o argue,
stat i ng t hat he was not goi ng to l eave but go to the t hi rd f l oor f ami l y cour t .
(NOTE: i nterest i ngl y, Bai l i f f Reyes s Narrat i ve f ai l s to note t hi s ref erence
Turner notes Coughl i n made (and whi ch Coughl i n test i f i ed to under oath at t r i al
(whi ch DDA Stege f ai l ed to quest i on at al l ) t o goi ng to l eave but go to the
thi rd f l oor f ami l y cour t whatsoever) Mr . Coughl i n was then i nf ormed that he
coul d not l eave the immedi ate area wi thout f i ni shi ng hi s busi ness wi th J ust i ce
Cour t . Mr. Coughl i n ref used to l eave the bench. Bai l i f f Reyes i ndi cated that i f
he di d not vol untar i l y wai t on the other si de of the secured area that he woul d
be physi cal l y escor ted. Bai l i f f Reyes appl i ed l i ght t ouch to Mr . Coughl i n' s
l ef t arm to assi st him i n standi ng. Once Bai l i f f Reyes made contact , Mr .
Coughl i n immedi atel y began to resi st by turni ng away and pul l i ng hi s arms t i ght
i nto hi s chest . Bai l i f f Reyes then pl aced Coughl i n i nto a rear wri st l ock
So, real l y, even Deputy Turner s account f ai l s to al l ege that Coughl i n
ever ref used any command by Reyes, but , rather , that Coughl i n i ndi cated to Reyes
that he seemed to mi sunderstand AO12- 01, at whi ch poi nt Reyes commanded Coughl i n
not to l eave the immedi ate area( Coughl i n began to argue, stat i ng that he
was not goi ng to l eave but go to the thi rd f l oor f ami l y cour t . Mr. Coughl i n was
then i nformed that he coul d not l eave the immedi ate ar ea) . Deputy Turner f ai l s
to i ndi cate any resi st i ng or ref usi ng by Coughl i n between Reyes commandi ng
Coughl i n not to l eave the immedi ate area, Coughl i n apparent l y compl yi ng
( though havi ng j ust i ndi cated hi s i ntent i on or desi re to go to the thi rd f l oor
f ami l y cour t ( somethi ng Bai l i f f Hei ber t woul d mi scharacter i ze as an at t empt to
ci rcumvent the Admi ni st rat i ve Order) . J ust how Coughl i n woul d know what , i f
anythi ng, was the di f f erence between the immedi ate ar ea and the bench that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 17/118 -
MOTIONS
Turner then notes Coughl i n refused to l eave i s not cl ear at al l . Onl y at that
poi nt then does Turner i ndi cate, Bai l i f f Reyes star ted touchi ng Coughl i n, whi ch,
obvi ousl y, i s an unwel come advance t hat necessar i l y i s goi ng to resul t i n anyone
not qui te knowi ng how to react .
Deputy Troup echoes Deputy Turner s account somewhat , though Deputy Troup
seems to f eel al l RJC Bai l i f f s are i ndi st i ngui shabl e f rom one another ,
apparent l y confusi ng Bai l i f f Hei ber t wi th Bai l i f f Ramsey, or j ust pl ai n not
knowi ng Hei ber t s name (whi ch Turner di d not know ei ther , soand, somehow,
despi te Hei ber t worki ng at the RJ C f or a year, Reyes st i l l was unaware t hat
Hei ber t i s f rom Cal i f orni a and spent the maj or i ty of hi s career there, before,
l i ke Reyes, ret i r i ng wi th a f ul l pensi on and taki ng on a second career as an RJ C
Bai l i f f ) . Troup wrote:
Mr. Coughl i n came i nto the bui l di ng and i nformed the Cour t Str eet
Secur i ty Of f i cers of hi s busi ness i n the bui l di ng, whi ch i s part of hi s
cour t order . Mr . Coughl i n was l ooki ng to compl ete some f i l i ngs f or Reno
J ust i ce. An RJ C Bai l i f f responded, r etr i eved Mr. Coughl i n' s f i l i ng
paperwork and took i t to the f i l i ng of f i ce. Mr . Coughl i n wai ted f or a f ew
moments outsi de of the magnetometer , where he has been asked to wai t f or
return of hi s f i l i ngs. Af ter a f ew mi nutes, Mr . Coughl i n entered through
the magnetometers and sat on a bench di rect l y i nsi de secur i ty. When the
RJC Bai l i f f returned, Mr . Coughl i n i mmedi atel y began t o quest i on him about
hi s paperwork. The Bai l i f f expl ai ned that the f i l i ng cl erk was worki ng on
hi s f i l i ng request. Mr . Coughl i n cont i nued to ask mul ti pl e t imes about
where hi s f i l es were and about the Bai l i f f get t i ng hi s f i l es. The Bai l i f f
returned to the f i l i ng of f i ce to check on the status of the f i l i ngs. A t
that t ime, RJ C Bai l i f f Reyes and Ramsey came down f rom the second f l oor to
rel i eve t he bai l i f f s that were down stai r s wi th Mr . Coughl i n, whose shi f ts
were endi ng. As soon as Mr . Coughl i n saw Bai l i f f Reyes, he immedi atel y
became aggravated and l oudl y stated "Oh great i t ' s you Reyes. I don' t l i ke
deal i ng wi th you. " Bai l i f f Reyes stood by wi th Mr . Coughl i n as Bai l i f f
Ramsey took more paperwork f rom Mr. Coughl i n and went to the f i l i ng
of f i ce.
So, basi cal l y, Turner , Troup, Perez, and Vi rgo al l f ai l to expl i ci ty
i ndi cate that Coughl i n was provi ded stamped copi es of the documents Coughl i n
provi ded Hei ber t i n the l obby, upon Hei ber t s returni ng to the l obby/ secur i ty
check i n, and so provi di ng such to Coughl i n ( whi ch, of course, the WCDAs of f i ce
has exci sed f rom the vi deos propounded (and J udge Cl i f ton deni ed Coughl i n s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 18/118 -
MOTIONS
Moti on to Compel t he product i on of such vi deos at the 9/24/13 hear i ng) . V i rgo,
however , at l east i ndi cates that Coughl i n communi cated wi th Bai l i f f Hei ber t that
thei r RJ C busi ness together was done, wi th such bei ng communi cated i n the l obby
upon Bai l i f f Hei ber t returni ng the f ol l owi ng to Coughl i n j ust pr i or to t he star t
of the second vi deo of the l obby (whi ch star t s at 16:19:00)
The three documents that Bai l i f f Hei ber t provi ded stamped recei ved
(conveni entl y l acki ng a t ime stampi ng, natural l y) back to Cougl i n i n the RJ C
l obby immedi atel y dur i ng the two mi nutes that the WCDA s and RJ C have ref used to
permi t Coughl i n access to t he vi deos thereof (whi ch i s absol utel y a vi ol at i on of
Brady) between 16: 17:00 and 16:19:00
http: / /www.scr i bd. com/doc/155231238/ 5-23-13-0204-071437-1708-1492-
Coughl i n- s-Wri t ten-Request- to-RJ C- for -Documents- and-Access
http: / /www.scr i bd. com/doc/154831733/ 5-23-13-0204-063341-Ao1201- 071437-
Moti on- to-Remove-Bruce-L i ndsay-Esq- as-Atty-of -Record- and-Noti ce- of -Appeal - of -
Any-Orders-Purpor ti ng- to-Conti nue-Adm
The documents that RJ C Bai l i f f Ramsey threw away upon Coughl i n provi di ng
them to him on the day before the 5/ 23/13 ar r est i n 72675 actual l y at tached the
very documents that Bai l i f f Hei ber t had ref used to accept f or f i l i ng earl i er i n
the day on 5/22/13 f rom Coughl i n where Hei bert i ndi cated that RJ C Cr imi nal
Divi si on Deputy Cl erk (NRS 281.340 makes cr imi nal these vi ol at i ons i n l i ght of
NRS NRS 4. 353(6) Robbi n Baker and Ci vi l Di vi si on Deputy Cl erk Chri st i ne
Eri ckson (di t to, t he NRS 4. 353(6) and NRS 281. 340 cr imi nal i ty) had ref used to
accept such f i l i ngs ( such as ht tp: / / www.scr i bd.com/doc/ 178658170/5-22-13- 0204-
1708-Moti on- to-Correct-ROA-and-4-1-13-Suppl emental -RJ C- f i l ed- i n-CV11-03628-pdf ) ,
i n vi ol ati on of NV J CRCP 5(e) and J CRRT 2 i n asser t i ng an al l eged vi ol ati on of
J CRRT 10 j ust i f i ed her so doi ng. :
http: / /www.scr i bd. com/doc/155231371/ 5-22-13-0204-063341-Emergency-Noti ce-
and-Moti on-and-Request- f or - Submi ssi on-Fi rst -Page-Not-Stamped-RJ C-Bai l i f f - s-
Hei ber t- and-Ramsey-Rej ected
http: / /www.scr i bd. com/doc/178659640/ 5-22-13-0204-03628- 03051- f i l ed- i n-RJ C-
1708-Emergency-Noti ce-Moti on-Request- f or -Submi ssi on-Note- f rom-RJ C-del i vered-by-
Bai l i f f -Hei ber t- st apl ed-Coug
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 19/118 -
MOTIONS
http: / /www.scr i bd. com/doc/178660746/ 5-22-13-0204-065630-Emergency-Noti ce-
and-Moti on-and-Req- f or -Submi ssi on- and-Moti on- f or -Preparat i on-of -Transcr i pt- at-
Publ i c-Expense- and- to-Str i ke-Def ect
So, the f act that Bai l i f f Ramsey admi t ted i n hi s test i mony at t r i al to
throwi ng away the f i l i ngs by Coughl i n that repor ted to ref usal to accept f or
f i l i ng by Bai l i f f Hei ber t , and RJ C Cl erks Chri st i ne Eri ckson and Robbi n Baker
ear l i er t hat day, at tachi ng such f i l i ngs thereto, i s especi al l y probl emat i c,
t roubl i ng, and, yes, i roni c.
Al so, rel evant to thi s si tuat i on was thi s f i l i ng:
http: / /www.scr i bd. com/doc/155493463/ 5-15-13-0204-063341-1708-03628-03051-
Coughl i n- s-Request-RJ C-Noti ce-4-1-13-Suppl - 03628-St i l l -Mi ssi ng- 12-21-22- 26-11-
Fi l i ngs-1708-063341- I FP- J AVS-of
I ts, uh, ki nd of a conf l i ct of i nter est that the WCDAs Of f i ce was served
al l of these f i l i ngs, and yet i s prosecut i ng Coughl i n i n 72675 i n a basel ess,
vi ndi ct i ve manner , despi te these patent vi ol at i osn of NRS 281.340, to whatever
extent the those RJ C cl erks are deputy cl erks under NRS 4.353. Regardl ess,
thei r behavi or i s i ncredi bl y i nappropr i ate and undermi nes the publ i c s f ai th i n
the j udi ci ary and l egal system i n general , cr eat i ng an enormous appearance of
impropr i ety.
I nterest i ngl y (not real l y, si nce thi s i ssue ( whi ch i s 95% of DDA Stege s
pathet i c case ( real l y Stege shoul d be suspended f or at l east a coupl e years f or
thi s barbar i c spectacl e and hor r i d di spl ay of hi s l ack of ethi cs or prof essi onal
responsi bi l i ty, whi ch i s chi l l i ng consi der i ng al l the peopl e Stege has put i n
pr i son) , Bai l i f f Reyes himsel f admi ts that Coughl i n no l onger engaged i n any
busi ness wi th Bai l i f f Hei ber t ( somethi ng Bai l i f f Reyes was f orced to change hi s
story on come t ime f or t r i al , i nterest i ngl y, where Reyes al ternatel y test i f i ed
that he saw Coughl i n provi de Bai l i f f Hei ber t a new set of document at the caf
bench, onl y to then al ter t hat story and i ndi cate he assumed the new set of
documents he wi tnessed Bai l i f f Hei ber t hol di ng were provi ded t o him by Coughl i n
at the caf bench. Reyes Narrat i ve of 5/24/ 13 notes:
Hi eber t had been engaged i n obtai ni ng document requests f rom Zachary
Coughl i n, who had seated hi msel f on one of the benches beyond t he f ront
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 20/118 -
MOTIONS
secur i ty screeni ng l i ne. . . . . I asked Coughl i n what he needed and he sai d he
wanted to f i l e a r equest f or a report f rom RJ C, so I asked him f or the
request . Coughl i n ref used t o provi de the request to me, then gave i t to
Ramsey, who went t o the RJ C Cr imi nal Di v. . . . I became aware that Coughl i n,
wi thout escor t and of hi s own vol i t i on, had passed through the secur i ty
screeni ng moments af ter Bai l i f f Hi eber t wal ked away to f ul f i l l Coughl i n' s
ear l i er r equest . Accordi ng to Ol ympi c Screeni ng Servi ces Of f i cer s A . Vi rgo
and P. Perez, Coughl i n had tol d them that he was goi ng to the men' s
restroom, but i nst ead, went st rai ght to the bench and sat down, where I
f ound him wi thi n t he bui l di ng unescor ted. I asked Coughl i n to wal k back to
the area desi gnated f or him i n f ront of the secur i ty screeni ng l i ne, whi l e
wai t i ng f or hi s RJ C requests, per RJ C Admini st rat i ve Order 2012- 01 and
past pract i ce.
So, Bai l i f f Reyes Narrat i ve admi ts that Hei ber t was no l onger engaged i n
obtai ni ng document requests f rom Coughl i n. Whi ch l ef t Reyes wi th the choi ce
of maki ng up a new story that Coughl i n somehow provi ded Hei ber t some addi t i onal
document requests at the caf bench or that some st i l l unproduced by anyone (or
even test i f i ed to by anyone, as Reyes f ai l ed to i ndi cate there was any basi s
beyond hi s i naccurate contenti ons vi s a vi s some non- exi stent set of papers
Coughl i n was ostensi bl y wai t i ng to have returned stamped copi es of f rom Bai l i f f
Hei ber t , or Reyes catch- al l hai l mary asser t i on that the Lane J ust i ce Center
shared common areas f al l under the purvi ew of those ar eas ref erenced i n the
AO12-01 as the excl usi ve premi ses of the Reno J ust i ce Cour t ( whi ch i s j ust
patent l y r i di cul ous and undermi ned by even the Narrat i ve of Deputy Turner where
Turner admi ts Coughl i n was always f ound i n unrestr i cted areas ( i e, the shared
common areas) (or , impl i ci t l y, that anyt ime Coughl i n f i l es a request f or
documents, he thereaf ter i s prohi bi t ed f rom bei ng i n any of the shared common
areas of the Lane J ust i ce Center under and extensi on of the wr i nkl e Reyes and
Sexton woul d l i ke added to the AO12-01 ( i e, t hat Coughl i n must wai t i n t he l obby
f or however l ong i t takes f or an RJ C Bai l i f f to not onl y return wi th a stamped
copy of Coughl i n s document request , but , al so, apparentl y, unti l such document
request ( whi ch can take anywhere f rom 72 hours to f orever (or never) to be
compl eted (wi tness the RJ C s cont i nui ng ref usal to provi de Coughl i n the NRS
4.240 dockets he i s ent i t l ed to, even where Coughl i n at tempts t o pay f or such) .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 21/118 -
MOTIONS
Next , Reyes himsel f admi ts to vi ol ati ng the AO12-01 i n ventur i ng up to
Coughl i n ( thrust i ng hi s crotch i n Coughl i n s f ace f or several mi nutes st rai ght)
and seeki ng to obtai n documents f or f i l i ng f r om Coughl i n ( Coughl i n, who had
seated hi msel f on one of the benches beyond t he f ront secur i ty screeni ng l i ne I
asked Coughl i n what he needed and he sai d he wanted to f i l e a r equest f or a
repor t f r om RJ C, so I asked him f or the request . Coughl i n ref used to provi de the
request t o me, then gave i t to Ramsey, who went to the RJ C Cr imi nal Di v) .
Tel l i ngl y, Reyes admi ts that Coughl i n compl i ed wi th the AO12-01 and f ai l ed to
i ndul ge Bai l i f f Reyes at tempt at ent rapment where Reyes sought to ent i ce
Coughl i n to provi de documents f or f i l i ng at a l ocat i on not provi ded f or doi ng
such i n t he AO12-01.
Fi nal l y, Reyes cl aims Coughl i n provi ded such request to Bai l i f f Ramsey,
but Reyes f ai l s to i ndi cate i n hi s Nar rat i ve whether such request al l egedl y
provi ded to Ramsey was wr i t ten or verbal ( at t r i al Reyes f ai l ed to i ndi cate that
Coughl i n passed to Ramsey any document whatsoever , despi te, curi ousl y, both
Deputy Turner and Deputy Troup i ndi cat i ng Coughl i n provi ded Bai l i f f Ramsey some
request f rom the caf (Troup wrote: Bai l i f f Reyes stood by wi th Mr . Coughl i n
as Bai l i f f Ramsey took more paperwork f rom Mr. Coughl i n and went to the f i l i ng
of f i ce. . Deputy Turner wrote: Mr. Coughl i n handed Bai l i f f Ramsey a pi ece of
paper i ndi cat i ng what f i l i ngs he was ref er r i ng to, and Bai l i f f Ramsey began to
research Coughl i n' s request.
And, remember , where Bai l i f f Hei ber t returned to Coughl i n stamped copi es
of the onl y documents Coughl i n provi ded Hei ber t that day ( j ust pr i or to the
star t of the second vi deo, at the 16: 19:00 mark, Hei ber t wal ked away f rom
Coughl i n i n the l obby wi th no papers i n hi s hands at t he 16:20: 00 mark, sojust
when di d Hei ber t al l egedl y get some more paper s, huh, Bai l i f f Reyes?
I nterest i ngl y, Bai l i f f Hei ber t i s seen i n the vi deo of Reyes throwi ng Coughl i n
over the bench i n the l obby wi thout any new set of papers i n hi s hands there
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 22/118 -
MOTIONS
ei ther (Bai l i f f Ramsey i s seen returni ng to Coughl i n t he papers Coughl i n had i n
hi s possessi on ( some Coughl i n came t o cour t wi th, other s were t hose Bai l i f f
Hei ber t provi ded t o Coughl i n j ust pr i or to the 16:19:00 star t of the second
vi deo, natural l y) on the caf bench but was not abl e t o car ry wi th him upon
Bai l i f f Reyes and Deputy Turner at tacki ng Coughl i n. Coughl i n enters through the
secur i ty check poi nt 45 seconds af ter Bai l i f f Hei ber t skul ks away wi th no
document i n Hei bert s hands. A t such 16:20:45 mark, Coughl i n i s cl ear l y vi si bl e
wi th a set of documents i n hi s hands ( the same one s Reyes al l eges Coughl i n
was usi ng to draw a por trai t of a st andi ng 18 i nches away f rom him peer i ng onto
hi s documents Reyes on: ht t p: / /www.youtube. com/watch?v=yl l vEBtk6C4 ) .
I nterest i ngl y, between the 16:25:06 to 16:25: 10 por t i ons exci sed f rom the
vi deo (8: 51 i n l ength) of Coughl i n at the caf bench
(ht tp: / /www.youtube. com/watch?v=5cXoj oMbl j 4 ) propounded by the WCDA s of f i ce,
CSO Perez i s cl earl y vi si bl e i n the vi deo of the l obby f rom behi nd the metal
detector (ht tp: / /www.youtube. com/watch?v=yl l vEBtk6C4 though the t ime st ampi ng
i s not i n sync, however , by a process of marki ng the t ime stampi ng on thi s vi deo
of Coughl i n and Reyes comi ng i n contact wi th the metal detector (16:28:30) and
that i n t he vi deo of the caf bench of Coughl i n and Reyes j ust about to contact
the metal detector, one can determi ne a 40 second t ime stampi ng sync probl em.
As such i n the vi deo of the l obby f r om behi nd the metal detector showi ng CSO s
Vi rgo and Perez, t he exci sed f our seconds of vi deo f rom the caf bench woul d
correspond wi th a t ime stampi ng of 16:27:46 t o 16:27:50 whi ch i s the poi nt at
whi ch Bai l i f f Ramsey i s al l eged to have i nter acted wi th Coughl i n and or Reyes at
the caf bench) at al l t imes ( and, r eal l y, al l the way up to the 16:25:13 mark,
when Perez f i nal l y turns ar ound to l ook i n the di rect i on of Coughl i n at the caf
bench) l ooki ng i n the di rect i on of the l obby doors, 180 degrees or so f rom
where Perez wrote he wi tnessed Coughl i n at the caf bench. A r evi ew of the
wri t ten statements of CSO s V i rgo and Perez or these moments i s i nteresti ng:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 23/118 -
MOTIONS
(Vi rgo wrote: Bai l i f f Hi eber t returned to tal k wi th Mr . Coughl i n whi l e they
were tal ki ng Bai l i f f Ramsey came towards themand Mr . Coughl i n star ted t o accuse
Ramsay of throwi ng hi s paperwork away i n the t rash. At thi s t ime bai l i f f Reyes
approach the group af ter a shor t t ime. I then heard Bai l i f f Reyes tel l Mr .
Coughl i n l eave the bui l di ng at whi ch t ime Mr. Coughl i n ref used Bai l i f f Reyes
cont i nued to tel l Perez wrote: Coughl i n tol d me he had to use the rest room
af ter he cl eared t he secur i ty checkpoi nt . He went st rai ght to t he benches.
Coughl i n di d not go to the restroom, then saw Bai l i f f Ramsey and star ted to yel l
at him, sayi ng that Ramsey through hi s paperwork away. Ramsey and Bai l i f f Reyes
wal ked over to Coughl i n Reyes asked Coughl i n to stop yel l i ng. Hi eber t returned
wi th Coughl i n' s paperwork af ter Coughl i n had hi s paperwork i n hi s hand Reyes
asked Coughl i n, i f he had any more busi ness at the cour thouse. Coughl i n tol d
Reyes no. Reyes then asked Coughl i n to l eave. ) Of course, the shaki est, most
l i e r i dden, i nconsi stent par t of Bai l i f f Reyes test imony was al so the most key
to hi s cl aim of havi ng a good f ai th reason to bel i eve Coughl i n was i n vi ol at i on
of AO12-01so, i t i s hardl y any wonder that t hat subj ect mat ter i s deal t wi th i n
onl y the most ethereal , vague, and non- speci f i c terms i n Reyes Narrat i ve where
he wr i tes: I became aware that Coughl i n, wi t hout escor t and of hi s own
vol i t i on, had passed through the secur i ty screeni ng moments af t er Bai l i f f
Hi eber t wal ked away to f ul f i l l Coughl i n' s earl i er request .
J ust how Bai l i f f Reyes became aware of that, Reyes f ai l s to i ndi cate, i n
hi s Narrat i ve, but i n hi s sworn test imony at t r i al , Reyes threw up j ust about
everythi ng he coul d thi nk of at the wal l i n hopes that somethi ng woul d st i ck,
wi th respect to j ust how he became aware that Coughl i n, wi thout escor t and of
hi s own vol i t i on, had passed through the secur i ty screeni ng moments af ter
Bai l i f f Hi eber t wal ked away to f ul f i l l Coughl i n' s ear l i er request .
Fi rst Reyes test i f i ed that he deduced thi s through f ai l i ng to hear any
radi o chat ter f rom Hei ber t to the ef f ect that he had concl uded hi s i nter act i on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 24/118 -
MOTIONS
wi th Coughl i n. Onl y probl em i s, f or Reyes, Reyes own Narrat i ve al ready admi ts
that Hei ber t was done wi th hi s i nter act i on i n conduct i ng busi ness wi th Coughl i n,
so much so, that Reyes went to the f i r st f l oor to rel i eve Hei ber t , though,
Reyes t r i al test imony that he had f ai l ed to hear any r adi o chatter f rom Bai l i f f
Hei ber t t o i ndi cate that Hei ber t s conduct i ng of busi ness wi th Coughl i n was over
cer tai nl y undermi nes thatas does the f act that i t was Hei ber t and Bai l i f f
Medi na whom drove Coughl i n to the J ai l some hour and f or ty f i ve mi nutes l ater
(Reyes wrote: On 05/23/2013, at approx. 1620 Hrs. , I went to t he 1st f l oor i n
Reno J usti ce Cour t (RJ C) , t o rel i eve Bai l i f f D. Hi ebert near the f ront entrance
to the bui l di ng, di rect l y adj acent t o the "Si pr i ano' s Cafe" . Hi eber t had been
engaged i n obtai ni ng document requests f rom Zachary Coughl i n, who had seated
himsel f on one of the benches beyond the f ront secur i t y screeni ng l i ne.
Then Reyes t r i ed t o pl ay i t of f i n hi s sworn test imony at t r i al that ,
rather than goi ng downstai r s to routi nel y rel i eve Bai l i f f Hei ber t he heard
some radi o chat ter about Coughl i n bei ng i n the l obby.
Reyes then test i f i ed that he was aware that Coughl i n has provi ded Hei bert
a new set of paper s because he vi ewed as much on a vi deo. Upon Coughl i n
poi nt i ng out to Reyes the f act that hi s l ater vi ewi ng such an al l eged vi deo
woul d have done l i t t l e to have armed him wi th the al l eged knowl edge i n r eal
t ime, that Coughl i n had someone f ai l ed to compl y wi th the AO12-01 by f ai l i ng to
wai t i n t he l obby f or Hei ber t to ret urn wi th documents Coughl i n provi ded to
Hei ber t t here, Reyes qui ckl y improvi sed that he had wi tnessed Coughl i n provi de
Hei ber t documents at the caf bench. Upon Reyes bei ng i nf ormed that Hei ber t
test i f i ed that he had no i nteract i on wi th Coughl i n at the caf bench whatsoever
(and onl y became aware that Coughl i n as at the bench upon Hei ber t s exi t i ng the
f i l i ng of f i ce and seei ng Reyes at tacki ng Coughl i n there) , Reyes qui ckl y f l i pped
hi s scr i pt and al l eged that he assumed that the new set of papers he saw i n
Bai l i f f Hei ber t s hands at the t ime Reyes had l ef t hi s post on the second f l oor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 25/118 -
MOTIONS
to, al l egedl y rel i eve Hei ber t (whom Reyes notes, i n hi s Narrat i ve had been
engaged i n obtai ni ng document request f rom Zachary Coughl i n (wi th Bai l i f f Reyes
cont i nui ng on wi th hi s use of the more l i t t l e boy soundi ng Zachary i terat i on
of Coughl i n s f i r st name that Reyes has consi stent l y r ef er red t o Coughl i n as
over the past twenty months, i n some apparent desperate yearni ng by Reyes to
establ i sh domi nance f or some very st range, deep seated reason, i ndeed) . J ust
how i t i s that Reyes coul d have not i ced a new set of documents i n Hei ber t s
hands suf f i ci ent t o suppor t Reyes content i on that Coughl i n had provi ded such a
second set of documents to Hei ber t at the caf bench when Reyes had been on the
second f l oor wi thout any vi deo of the goi ngs on wi th Hei ber t on the f i r st f l oor ,
and where Reyes admi ts he f ai l ed to hear any radi o chat ter rel at i ve to Coughl i n
and Hei ber t to i ndi cate that Hei ber t was done wi th the f i r st set of papers Reyes
admi ts to havi ng heard Coughl i n provi ded to Hei ber t i n the l obby, i s anyone s
guess. Reyes l i es keep draggi ng more and more of hi s f el l ow l aw enforcement
of f i cers i nto the muck. So much f or Reyes assumi ng that thi s second set of
papers Reyes al l eged he saw i n the hands of t he very Bai l i f f Hei ber t whom
himsel f t est i f i ed he was i n the f i l i ng of f i ce thi s enti re t ime ( i e, di dn t even
see Reyes i n passi ng on hi s way there, despi t e Reyes eventual l y deci di ng
Coughl i n s corner i ng him i nto admi t t i ng that he merel y assumed ( test i f yi ng
that he di dn t even bother to ask Coughl i n about thi s at the caf bench) thi s
imagi nary set of papers Reyes cl ai ms to have seen i n Hei ber t s hands was
somethi ng Coughl i n provi ded to Hei ber t i n some manner or pl ace vi ol at i ve of the
Admin Order (or the wr i nkl e Bai l i f f s Reyes and Hei ber t wi sh to add to i t
suf f i ci ent to somehow trap Coughl i n i nto si t t i ng around i n the Lane J usti ce
Center l obby f or l onger and l onger st retches of t ime wai t i ng f or Reyes t o qui t
embarrassi ng the very j udi ci ary that was ni ce enough t o gi ve hi m a j ob. So, not
sat i sf i ed wi th Coughl i n havi ng cornered Reyes i nto admi t t i ng hi s physi cal at tack
on Coughl i n was based on no more than an assumpti on about the source of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 26/118 -
MOTIONS
documents Reyes al l egedl y saw i n Hei ber t s hands, and somehow new they were a
new set of documents di f f erent than the ones Reyes admi ts he coul d not see
f rom the second f l oor anyways.not sat i sf i ed wi th that, Reyes sl i ngs up the
asser t i on near the cl ose of hi s test imony that he al so was tol d by Hei ber t , i n
the hal lway, on Reyes way to set up f or hi s at tack on Coughl i n at the caf
bench, that Coughl i n had j ust conducted some busi ness wi th Hei ber t at t he caf
bench suf f i ci ent t o requi re Coughl i n to wai t i n the l obby (check the audi o, i f
J udge Chi ef Bai l i f f Sexton deci des t o ever rel ease i t to Coughl i n or anyone
el se, f or whether Reyes test i f i ed that Hei bert tol d hi m some papers then i n
Hei ber t s hand were provi de by Coughl i n, and at the caf bench, etc. ) . Of
course, t hat woul d be news to Hei ber t , whose test imony pl aces him i n the f i l i ng
of f i ce at al l t imes dur i ng whi ch Reyes s test imony al l eges these purpor ted
communi cat i ons wi th Reyes woul d have taken pl acei ts not so surpr i si ng, then,
that Reyes, whom has worked wi th Hei ber t f or a year ( and Medi na f or several
years now) i s unaware that Hei ber t i s al so f r om Cal i f orni a (or that Medi na was
unaware, as of two weeks ago, that Reyes i s f rom Cal i f orni a. thi s i s, apparent l y
not a very chat ty nor cl ose kni t crew, at l east as f ar as Reyes goes) . .
(apparentl y at that poi nt Reyes was abandoni ng hi s careful l y manuf actured
al l egat i on that he got Deput i es Turner and Troup and CSO s Perez and Vi rgo
( though Vi rgo admi ts that Coughl i n wai ted i n the l obby f or Hei ber t to return
af ter Coughl i n l eavi ng wi th the paper s Coughl i n provi ded Hei bert (whi ch rather
vi t i ates the ut i l i ty of al l the Brady vi ol at i ons i n caref ul l y exci si ng such f rom
the vi deos propounded by the WCDA s Of f i ce) ) to go al ong wi th, to one degree of
another ( i e, that Coughl i n f ai l ed to wai t i n the l obby f or Hei ber t to return
wi th stamped copi es, (whi ch Reyes al l eges i s somehow requi red by the AO12-01,
whi ch i s not the case, anyways) , and i nstead goi ng wi th an angl e i nvol vi ng
Coughl i n somehow provi di ng Hei ber t wi th a new set of papers al l egedl y
submi t ted f or f i l i ng, at the caf bench, angl e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 27/118 -
MOTIONS
Perhaps Reyes real i zed he had to t ry somethi ng el se gi ven that CSO Perez s
wri t ten statement l ef t Reyes wi th so l i t t l e t o work wi th where such reads:
Coughl i n di d not go to the rest room, then saw Bai l i f f Ramsey and star ted to
yel l at him, sayi ng that Ramsey through hi s paperwork away. Ramsey and Bai l i f f
Reyes wal ked over to Coughl i n Reyes asked Coughl i n to stop yel l i ng. Hi eber t
returned wi th Coughl i n' s paperwork af ter Coughl i n had hi s paperwork i n hi s hand
Reyes asked Coughl i n, i f he had any more busi ness at t he cour thouse. Coughl i n
tol d Reyes no. Reyes then asked Coughl i n to l eave.
Cl ear l y, a revi ew of Perez s statement i ndi cates there was nothi ng f or
Coughl i n to be wai t i ng around f or anymore, and that Reyes asked Coughl i n as
much, and that Coughl i n i ndi cated he di d not have any more RJ C busi ness to
conduct ( any more busi ness at the cour thouse) . A t whi ch poi nt , Reyes i s l ef t
wi th hi s ent i re t he shared common areas of t he Lane J ust i ce Center are the
excl usi ve premi ses of the RJ C and under the excl usi ve control of the RJ C
angl ewhi ch i s patent l y r i di cul ous, and whi ch Reyes recogni zed as a sor t of you
don t have to go home but you can t stay here approach upon Coughl i n aski ng him
about that at t r i althe onl y probl em i s, Reyes was demandi ng more than Coughl i n
go home or l eave the bui l di ng ent i rel y, he was demandi ng Coughl i n awai t
documents he requested i n the l obby, even where Perez cl ear l y i ndi cates i n hi s
wri t ten statement that Reyes was wel l aware t hat Coughl i n had no f ur ther
busi ness at the cour thouse ( sor t of an echo of Deputy Troup s f ami l y cour t
threats t o Coughl i n that you don t have any busi ness up here!) . So
basi cal l y, Reyes can t make up hi s mi nd, or seem to herd the var i ous wi tnesses
made avai l abl e to him here suf f i ci ent to do anythi ng other than reveal t he
immature, control l i ng, di shonest , reckl ess, and ego dri ven approach Reyes br i ngs
to hi s work as a bai l i f f wi th the Reno J ust i ce Cour t , al l supervi sed by Chi ef
Bai l i f f Mi chael Sexton.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 28/118 -
MOTIONS
Of course there i s a very good reason that the WCDA s Of f i ce ref uses to
provi de t he l ong vi ew of the l obby f rom behi nd the metal detector to Coughl i n
f rom between 16:14: 00 to 16: 20:00 or soI t woul d show CSO s Perez and Vi rgo, and
enabl e Coughl i n to compare what those two are seen seei ng and doi ng i n t he
vi deo, to thei r wri t ten statements f or such key per i od of t ime (and woul d
f ur ther shed l i ght on the source of Bai l i f f s Reyes content i ons as to how he
became aware
Perez wrote: Bai l i f f Hebert came back down and asked Coughl i n how can I
hel p you. Coughl i n then repl i ed I need these papers f i l ed. Hi eber t took the
papers back to the f i l i ng of f i ce approximatel y ten sec l ater . Coughl i n t ol d me
he had to use the restroom af ter he cl eared t he secur i ty checkpoi nt . He went
strai ght to the benches. Coughl i n di d not go to the restroom, t hen saw Bai l i f f
Ramsey and star ted to yel l at him, sayi ng that Ramsey through hi s paperwork
away. Ramsey and Bai l i f f Reyes wal ked over to Coughl i n Reyes asked Coughl i n to
stop yel l i ng. Hi eber t returned wi th Coughl i n' s paperwork af ter Coughl i n had hi s
paperwork i n hi s hand Reyes asked Coughl i n, i f he had any more busi ness at the
cour thouse. Coughl i n tol d Reyes no. Reyes then asked Coughl i n t o l eave.
Now, remember , DDA Stege di d not even obj ect to the i nt roduct i on of the
ent i re 16 page pol i ce report Reyes manuf acture (poor l y) , nor any of the vi deos
(and Coughl i n s movi ng to i ntroduce the ent i r ety of the pol i ce repor t
necessar i l y i ncl udes al l the vi deos ref erenced therei n ( two di scs, Reyes notes)
and the photographs of the metal detector ) .
CSO Vi rgo i s a bi t of the f l y i n the oi ntment here f or the WCDA s Of f i ce
as hi s i s the onl y wr i t ten statement i n Reyes repor t that i ndi cates Coughl i n
wai ted i n the l obby f or Hei ber t to r eturn, af ter Hei ber t l ef t f or the f i l i ng
of f i ce wi th the documents t hat Coughl i n provi ded to Hei ber t j ust before the
star t of the f i r st vi deo provi ded by the WCDA s Of f i ce. V i rgo wrote: Mr .
Coughl i n approached cour t secur i ty of f i cer Perez requested a escor t f rom the RJ C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 29/118 -
MOTIONS
Reno j usti ce cour t Bai l i f f s. Bai l i f f Hi eber t responded to the cal l and t ook the
paperwork. Mr . Coughl i n gave to him and went to the cl erk ' s Mr . Coughl i n sat on
the bench i n the cour t l obby wr i t i ng on papers unt i l Bai l i f f Hei ber t ret urned.
Hi eber t and Coghl an were tal ki ng when Coughl i n began t o act agi tated but then
tol d Hi eber t he had no more busi ness. Bai l i f f Hi eber t then return to hi s dut i es,
af ter a mi nute or so.
So, CSO Vi rgo admi t s Coughl i n wai ted i n the l obby unt i l Hei ber t returned.
So, even Bai l i f f Reyes phony, made up, whol l y i naccurate content i on as t o what
the AO12-01 requi r es of Coughl i n was not vi ol ated by Coughl i n. Hopeful l y you
get the i dea of the sor t of rampant stretchi ng of hi s abuse of power Reyes
engages i n on a dai l y, mi nutel y basi s i n the RJC, somethi ng Chi ef Sexton, whom
seems especi al l y cl oser to Reyes than al l the other bai l i f f s combi ned, f ul l y
countenances.
The more you di ssect thi s case, the wri t ten statements i n Reyes repor t ,
and the cur i ous exci si ons i n the vi deo tapes propounded as di scovery by the
WCDA s Of f i ce, the more ashamed you are to be a ci t i zen of Washoe County, and
the harder i t hi ts you how many i nnocent peopl e are i n j ai l s and pr i sons as a
resul t of thi s very sor t of mi sconduct by WCDA s Of f i cer prosecutors and
i nvest i gators, st r ung out j unki es, bemused wi th thei r own gross excess of power ,
whi ch they demand on bei ng mai n vei ned vi a a cont i nuous dr i p, r ef i l l ed wi th the
l i f ebl ood of those these vampi res l eech i t f r om
RJC Bai l i f f s Engl i sh and Hei ber t have both r efused Coughl i n s at tempts to
pay f or audi o t ranscr i pts and copi es of documents i n t he l ast 15 days,
prej udi ci ng Coughl i n abi l i t y to def end himsel f i n thi s mat ter , whi ch the WCDA s
Of f i ce now seeks t o l everage i n an at tempt to remand Coughl i n i nto custody and
revoke a probat i on that i s current l y i n ef f ect i n RCR2011-063341 and another
probat i on that i s not cur rentl y i n ef f ect (otherwi se i t woul d not be of the
concurrent nature that i t cl ear l y i dent i f i es i tsel f as bei ng, i n a vi ol at i on of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 30/118 -
MOTIONS
RPC 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, and 8.4 by DDA Stege. Fur ther cour thouse secur i ty, cour t
control , and the WCDA s of f i ce ( I nspectors Covi ngton and M. Bay) are now
obstruct i ng Coughl i n s access to the WCDA s Of f i ce f or the purpose of servi ng
and del i very documents and f i l i ngs. RJ C J udge Cl i f ton has made qui te cl ear i n
the past that Coughl i n s handi ng a document ( though he has never at tempted any
such thi ng) to an RJC empl oyee outsi de the RJ C s excl usi ve premi ses woul d not
qual i f y as an act i on suf f i ci ent to f i l e a document ( i n an apparent al l usi on to
McKinn) . Coughl i n i s concerned (part i cul ar l y i n l i ght of DDA Stege s asser t i on
i n cour t that he was not served documents that Coughl i n himsel f provi ded to a
WCDA s Of f i ce I nvest i gator i n the Lane J ust i ce Center l obby i n an at tempt to
appease t he WCSO, and WCDAs of f i ce i n f ai l i ng to i nsi st upon bei ng permi t ted to
del i ver such wi thi n the conf i nes of the WCDAs Of f i ce ( I nvest i gator Ron Stone
recei ved such documents) .
More mater i al i nconsi stenci es are reveal ed upon a revi ew of the 16 page
pol i ce repor t by Bai l i f f Reyes (whi ch, cur i ousl y, f ai l s to i ncl ude any wr i t ten
repor t or Narrat i ve by ei ther of the other RJ C Bai l i f f s that Bai l i f f Reyes
ref erences as havi ng had a mater i al i nvol vement i n the events at i ssue i n
72675) . Tel l i ngl y, al l of the i ndi vi dual s Reyes has chose to provi de wri t ten
statements f rom i n hi s pol i ce repor t are younger than him, and arguabl y i n a
posi t i on i n whi ch Reyes coul d exact an i nt imi dat i ng i nf l uence, whi ch i s apparent
f rom readi ng these wr i t ten statements and repor ts. There are, however , a f ew
sel ect nuggets of t ruth and or revel atory i nconsi stency that shi ne through:
Olympi k Secur i ty ' s Aaron Vi rgo' s wr i t ten stat ement of May 28th, 2013
( st rangel y, Vi rgo s statement i ndi cates i t was created f i ve days af ter t he
wri t ten statement by hi s co-worker Amos Patr i ck Perez) reads: "On Thursday
5/23/2013 at around 1625 hrs. Mr . Coughl i n came to the secur i ty checkpoi nt of
the Mi l l s L ane cour thouse af ter he had been escor ted out . Mr . Coughl i n
approached cour t secur i ty of f i cer Perez requested a escor t f rom the RJ C Reno
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 31/118 -
MOTIONS
j ust i ce cour t Bai l i f f s. Bai l i f f Hi eber t responded to t he cal l and took t he
the bench i n the cour t l obby wr i t i ng on papers unt i l Bai l i f f Hi eber t ret urned.
Hi eber t and Coughl i n were t al ki ng when Coughl i n began to act agi tated but then
Whi l e CSO V i rgo s wri t ten statement f ai l s to i ndi cate that Bai l i f f Hei ber t
returned to Coughl i n stamped copi es of the f i l i ngs Coughl i n provi ded to Hei ber t
( the onl y f i l i ngs Coughl i n provi ded to Hei bert or anyone el se wi th the RJ C that
day) , cl ear l y, the f i r st vi deo admi tted i nto evi dence at t r i al proves as much.
Of course, the WCDA s Of f i ce and Reyes ent i re case f el l apar t when Bai l i f f
Hei ber t t est i f i ed under oath that he returned the documents Coughl i n submi tted
to him i n the l obby to Cougl hi n, i n the l obby, where Coughl i n had been wai t i ng
f or Hei ber t to ret urn (where Coughl i n was goi ng above and beyond that requi red
of him under the AO12-01)9: 38-9:39 a.m.
Video produced by the WCDAs Of f i ce (apparentl y i ntroduced at t r i al ,
though Coughl i n has been unabl e to get the RJ C Bai l i f f s to make whatever
di scret i onary, j udi ci al , or mi ni ster i al deci si on necessary to r el ease the audi o
t ranscr i pt of the t r i al to Coughl i n suf f i ci ent to suppl ement Coughl i n s not f o
the t r i al , even where Coughl i n has at tempted on no l ess than three occasi ons to
pay the $35 that RJ C Bai l i f f Sexton i s i nsi st i ng Coughl i n must pay despi te the
docket i ndi cat i ng vi a at l east the appoi ntment of R. Bruce L i ndsay as counsel
that Coughl i n has been f ound i ndi gent :
http: / /www.youtube. com/watch?v=vFCHEyvYk94 Thi s vi deo ( f rom 5/23/13 between
16:15:00 to 16:17: 00) , whi ch of course has been edi ted to f ai l to reveal
Coughl i n s i ni t i al check i n wi th the Ol ympi k Secur i ty detai l ( r egardl ess, such
i s reveal ed i n the l ast vi deo the WCDA s Of f i ce sought to have admi t ted,
apparent l y the one Bai l i f f Reyes was ref er r i ng to i n hi s i ncorr ect assert i on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 32/118 -
MOTIONS
that such reveal ed Coughl i n provi di ng documents to Bai l i f f Hei ber t f or f i l i ng i n
the l obby and then al l egedl y f ai l i ng to abi de by the Admi ni st rat i ve Order by
thereaf ter l eavi ng the l obby to enter the Mi l l s L ane J ust i ce Center s ar ea
beyond the secur i t y check poi nt) . Regardl ess thi s 2161 Mai n Lobby Doors
I nsi de vi deo star ts at 16: 15:00 and by 16:16: 05 Bai l i f f Hei ber t i s seen
returni ng the documents Coughl i n has submi t ted mi nutes before at the l obby
bench.
Of course, a caref ul revi ew of the vi deos propounded by the WCDA s Of f i ce
reveal s t he patent Brady vi ol at i ons by the WCDA s Of f i ce where the onl y other
vi deo of Coughl i n s i nteract i on wi th Bai l i f f Hei ber t produced t o Coughl i n of
thei r 5/23/13 exchange at t he l obby bench (whi ch the State s ent i re case hi nges
upon gi ven come t i me for t r i al Bai l i f f Reyes abandoned the asser t i ons i n hi s
Narrat i ve that Coughl i n had
http: / /www.youtube. com/watch?v=yl l vEBtk6C4
The wr i t t en wi tness statement of CSO V i rgo s f el l ow Ol ympi k Secur i ty guard
at the secur i ty checkpoi nt f ai l s to i ndi cate what Vi rgo s di d ( i e, V i rgo at
l east admi ts that Coughl i n and Hei ber t were done wi th the busi ness they were
conduct i ng, and that Hei bert took papers f rom Coughl i n, l ef t , and then r eturned,
whereupon i t was i ndi cated that thei r i nteract i on was over (whi ch di sputes even
Bai l i f f Hei ber ts i r rel evant, outsi de the Admi n Order 12-01 asser t i on that he was
at such poi nt as an extra cour tesy goi ng to check on somethi ng, where Bai l i f f
Hei ber t skul ks of f i n response to Coughl i n s poi nt i ng out the i l l egal i ty of the
three card monte t he RJ C Bai l i f f s and cl erks were conti nual l y r unni ng on
Coughl i n. V i rgo wrote: Bai l i f f Hi eber t responded to the cal l and took the
the bench i n the cour t l obby wr i t i ng on papers unt i l Bai l i f f Hi eber t ret urned.
Hi eber t and Coughl i n were t al ki ng when Coughl i n began to act agi tated but then
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 33/118 -
MOTIONS
Contrast that wi th CSO Perez s account: Bai l i f f Hebert came back down and
asked Coughl i n how can I hel p you. Coughl i n t hen repl i ed I need these papers
f i l ed. Hei ber t took the papers back to the f i l i ng of f i ce approximatel y t en sec
l ater . Coughl i n tol d me he had to use the rest room af t er he cl eared the secur i ty
checkpoi nt . He went st rai ght to the benches. Coughl i n di d not go to the
restroom, then saw Bai l i f f Ramsey and star ted to yel l at him, sayi ng that Ramsey
through hi s paperwork away. Ramsey and Bai l i f f Reyes wal ked over to Coughl i n
Reyes asked Coughl i n to stop yel l i ng. Hi eber t returned wi th Coughl i n' s paperwork
af ter Coughl i n had hi s paperwork i n hi s hand Reyes asked Coughl i n, i f he had any
more busi ness at t he cour thouse. Coughl i n tol d Reyes no. Reyes then asked
Coughl i n to l eave.
The wr i t t en statements by t hese wi tnesses are most damagi ng to the State s
case when read together . Whereas Perez i ssues an i naccurate assessment of these
events to the extent he wr i tes (or at tempts t o impl y) that Coughl i n provi ded
papers to Bai l i f f Hei ber t , then Bai l i f f Hei ber t ret reated to the f i l i ng of f i ce
whi ch such, as whi ch poi nt Perez s wr i t ten account gi ves the impressi on that
Coughl i n f ai l ed to wai t i n the l obby f or Bai l i f f Hei ber t to ret urn wi th stamped
copi es of hi s paper s, i n compl i ance wi th the Admin Order 2012-01 s ( the l anguage
whi ch Bai l i f f Reyes f ai l s t o ci te to, i nterest i ngl y, i n hi s Narrat i ve) mandate
that Coughl i n
Olympi k Secur i ty ' s Amos Patr i ck Perez ' s wr i t t en statement of 5/ 23/13
reads:
"0n 5-23- 13 at approximatel y 1620 Mr. Coughl i n came i nto Mi l l s B. Lane
cour thouse af ter bei ng escor ted out of the cour thouse by Bai l i f f Hi eber t.
Coughl i n sai d down the l obby bench and asked f or a Bai l i f f so CSO Vi rgo cal l ed
to the Bai l i f f stat i on and asked f or Bai l i f f to come down to hel p Coughl i n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 34/118 -
MOTIONS
Bai l i f f Heber t came back down and asked Coughl i n how can I hel p you. Coughl i n
then repl i ed I need these papers f i l ed. Hei ber t took t he papers back to the
f i l i ng of f i ce approximatel y ten sec l ater . Coughl i n tol d me he had to use the
restroom af ter he cl eared t he secur i ty checkpoi nt . He went st rai ght to t he
benches. Coughl i n di d not go to the restroom, then saw Bai l i f f Ramsey and
star ted t o yel l at him, sayi ng that Ramsey through hi s paperwork away. Ramsey
and Bai l i f f Reyes wal ked over to Coughl i n Reyes asked Coughl i n to stop yel l i ng.
Hi eber t r eturned wi th Coughl i n' s paperwork af ter Coughl i n had hi s paperwork i n
hi s hand Reyes asked Coughl i n, i f he had any more busi ness at t he cour thouse.
Coughl i n tol d Reyes no. Reyes then asked Coughl i n to l eave. Coughl i n then tol d
Reyes I am not l eavi ng. Reyes tol d Coughl i n several more t imes to l eave i n
Coughl i n repl i ed no I am not l eavi ng Reyes gave Coughl i n several more warni ngs
Coughl i n repl i ed back wi th no I am not l eavi ng. Reyes then rest rai ned Coughl i n
and star t ed to escor t him out . Hal fway out Coughl i n st ar ted to f i ght wi th Reyes.
At that t ime the magnetometer was knocked over . I backed up out of the way and
i t was no l onger i n vi ew of Coughl i n and Reyes. "
Perez must not real i ze these events were bei ng vi deo r ecorded. Or , more
l i kel y, al l these wi tnesses i nst i ncti vel y knew that the WCDA s Of f i cer ( or
whomever i t i s that compi l es the di scovery ( i ncl udi ng the vi deos propounded)
that were produced, woul d exci se the vi deo of Coughl i n and Hei ber t s
i nteract i ons at the l obby bench between the end of the f i r st vi deo at the
16:17:00 mark unt i l the star t of the next vi deo at the 16:19:00 mark. So, there
i s two mi nutes of vi deo worth of Brady mater i al that t he WCDA s Of f i ce f ai l ed to
produce. Regardl ess, the t est imony at t r i al proves that Coughl i n wai ted i n the
l obby unti l Bai l i f f Hei ber t returned wi th the onl y set of paper s that Coughl i n
provi ded to Hei bert that day f or f i l i ng, at whi ch poi nt , as CSO V i rgo hi msel f
admi ts, Coughl i n s busi ness wi th the RJ C was done. (Note how i mpressi onabl e
young empl oyees Amos Perez, Deputy Troup
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 35/118 -
MOTIONS
State v. Connery, 99 Nev. 342, 661 P. 2D 1298 (1983) . Respondent f i r st
contends that the state' s noti ce of appeal was not t imel y f i l ed, and that
accordi ngl y we l ack j ur i sdi ct i on to enter tai n the appeal . Morrel l v.
Edwards, 98 Nev. 91, 640 P. 2D 1322 ( 1982) ; see al so Hi l l v. Warden, 96
Nev. 38, 604 P.2D 807 (1980) . The cour t bel ow oral l y granted the moti on to
di smi ss t he i nformat i on on J une 14, 1982. The wr i t ten order granti ng the
moti on was entered on J ul y 16, 1982, 1 and the state f i l ed i ts noti ce of
appeal on J ul y 19, 1982. Respondent ' s contenti on that the not i ce i s
unt imel y i s based on NRS 177.066, Whi ch requi res that i n al l cr imi nal
cases other than t hose i nvol vi ng a death sentence, "an appeal t o the
supreme cour t f rom a j udgment or order must be taken wi thi n 30 days af ter
i ts rendi t i on. " (Emphasi s added. ) Si nce " rendi t i on" i s the oral
pronouncement of a j udgment or order, see L i nd v. Raynor , 69 Nev. 164, 243
P.2D 783 (1952) ; see al so Scherer v. State, 89 Nev. 372, 513 P. 2D 1232
(1973) , r espondent contends that the state had to f i l e i t s not i ce of
appeal wi thi n thi r ty days of the date the di st r i ct cour t oral l y granted
the moti on to di smi ss, and not wi thi n thi r ty days of t he date of entry of
the wr i t t en order , as provi ded by NRAP 4(b) . I n thi s case, the state' s
noti ce was f i l ed wel l wi thi n the thi r ty day per i od f or a t imel y not i ce as
def i ned by NRAP 4(b) , but beyond the thi r ty day per i od as def i ned by NRS
177.066. Respondent notes t hat the r ul e and t he statute are i n conf l i ct
wi th respect to the t ime f or the t imel y f i l i ng of a not i ce of appeal , but
argues that the st atute shoul d contr ol over t he rul e pr imar i l y because t he
oral pronouncement of j udgment i s a j udi ci al act , and the entry of
j udgment i s merel y a mi ni st er i al one, per f ormed by the cl erk. I ni t i al l y,
we note t hat i n a cr imi nal case a j udgment or order i s entered when i t i s
both si gned by the j udge and f i l ed wi th the cl erk. NRAP 4(b) . Accordi ngl y,
entry i s more than a mere mi ni ster i al act by the cl erk. Thi s i s not
di sposi t i ve of the i ssue rai sed by r espondent, however, si nce t he statute
and the r ul e measure the t i me for f i l i ng of a not i ce of appeal f rom the
commi ssi on of two di f f erent j udi ci al acts: rendi t i on and entry of
j udgment . I n many cr imi nal act i ons, as i n the i nstant one, rendi t i on of
j udgment or order may precede entry of the wri t ten j udgment or order by
several days. Consequent l y, i f the t ime f or f i l i ng a noti ce of appeal i s
to be measured i n accordance wi th the statute, many not i ces of appeal
f i l ed wi thi n the t ime l imi ts set f orth by NRAP 4(b) wi l l not be t imel y.
Thus, we must determi ne whether the rul e or t he statute i s to control . The
j udi ci ary has the i nherent power to govern i t s own procedures, and thi s
power i ncl udes the r i ght to promul gate rul es of appel l ate procedure as
provi ded by l aw. NRS 2.120; See Gol dberg v. Di st r i ct Cour t , 93 Nev. 614,
572 P.2D 521 (1977) . A l though such r ul es may not conf l i ct wi th the state
const i tuti on or "abr i dge, enl arge or modi f y any substanti ve r i ght , " NRS
2.120, The author i ty of the j udi ci ar y to promul gate procedural rul es i s
i ndependent of l egi sl at i ve power , and may not be dimi ni shed or compromi sed
by the l egi sl ature. Gol dberg v. Di st r i ct Court , supra. We have hel d that
the l egi sl ature may not enact a procedural st atute that conf l i cts wi th a
pre- exi st i ng procedural rul e, wi thout vi ol at i ng the doctr i ne of separat i on
of powers, and that such a statute i s of no ef f ect . L i ndauer v. A l l en, 85
Nev. 430, 456 P.2D 851 (1969) . Fur thermore, where, as here, a r ul e of
procedure i s promul gated i n conf l i ct wi th a pre- exi st i ng procedural
statute, the rul e supersedes the statute and control s. See State v.
Gri f f i th, 97 I daho 52, 539 P.2D 604 ( I daho 1975) ; State v. Doe, 90 N.M.
568, 566 P.2D 117 (N.M.Ct .App. 1977). See al so Page v. Cl ark, 197 Col o.
306, 592 P.2D 792 (Col o. 1979) .2 As a resul t , NRAP 4(b) may supersede NRS
177.066 And may govern the per i od of t ime duri ng whi ch a t imel y not i ce of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 36/118 -
MOTIONS
appeal must be f i l ed, so l ong as the rul e does not conf l i ct wi t h the state
const i tuti on or al ter a substant i ve r i ght . Cl ear l y, the rul e does not
conf l i ct wi th the const i tuti on, and al though the r i ght to appeal i s a
substant i ve one, t he manner i n whi ch an appeal i s taken i s a mat ter of
procedure. State v. Bi rmi ngham, 96 Ar i z . 109, 392 P.2D 775 (Ar i z. 1964)
(Opi ni on on reh'g) ; State v. Arnol d, 51 N.M. 311, 183 P.2D 845 (N.M.
1947) ; State v. Doe, supra. A procedural rul e may al ter the t ime dur i ng
whi ch an appeal may be taken and supersede a statute t o the cont rary.
State v. Arnol d, supra. Accordi ngl y, we hol d that NRAP 4(b) supersedes NRS
177.066 And that noti ces of appeal i n cr imi nal cases are t imel y i f f i l ed
i n accordance wi th the provi si ons of the rul e. We thus concl ude that the
state' s noti ce of appeal i n thi s case, f i l ed wi thi n thi r ty days of entry
of the order di smi ssi ng the i nf ormati on, was t imel y f i l ed.
Removal of publ i c of f i cer f or mi sconduct dur i ng previ ous term, 42 A.L .R.
3D 691; An of f i cer' s f al se accusat i on of an i nnocent pr i vate ci t i zen may al so be
mi sconduct warranti ng di s-mi ssal . Zazycki v. Ci ty of Al bany, 94 A .D.2D 925, 463
N.Y .S.2D 614 (3d Dep' t 1983) . Where a showi ng of "wi l l f ul mi sconduct" i s
necessary as a ground f or r emoval , establ i shi ng such mi sconduct requi res a
breach of duty commi tted knowi ngl y and wi th a purpose to do wrong. Thi s requi res
proof of grave mi sconduct . State v. Cal l away, 268 N.W.2D 841 ( I owa 1978).
Commi ssi on of a cr ime, (Scatur i co v. Ward, 159 A.D.2D 221, 552 N.Y .S.2D 24 (1st
Dep' t 1990) . (Breaki ng and enter i ng; steal i ng f ood stamps) ; Br i t t v. North
Carol i na Sher i f f s ' Educ. And Trai ni ng Standards Com'n, 348 N.C. 573, 501 S.E.2D
75 (1998). As to convi ct i on of cr ime as a ground f or r emoval , see Sher i f f s 25)
and f ai l i ng to repor t f el l ow of f i cers who commi tted cr imes i n t he of f i cer ' s
presence, (Scatur i co v. Ward, 159 A. D.2D 221, 552 N.Y .S.2D 24 ( 1st Dep' t 1990) ;
may warrant di smi ssal . Knowi ngl y gi vi ng f al se test imony to a grand j ury i s a
ground f or di smi ssal . (Ri chardson v. Ward, 159 A.D.2D 277, 552 N.Y .S.2D 279 (1st
Dep' t 1990) ) Substant i al evi dence exi sted to suppor t ci ty board of pol i ce
commi ssi oners' deci si on that of f i cer vi ol ated depar tment personnel pol i cy by
speaki ng to an ar r estee i n a condescendi ng, demeani ng, and patr oni zi ng manner ,
i n proceedi ng to t ermi nate of f i cer f or cause, where board watched vi deotape of
t raf f i c stop, and coul d j udge of f i cer ' s demeanor and context i n whi ch of f i cer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 37/118 -
MOTIONS
spoke to ar restee, and board heard t est imony and statements f rom other of f i cer ' s
i n chai n of command who opi ned of f i cer was di scour teous to ar restee, even though
of f i cer presented evi dence that woul d have suppor ted a contrary deci si on.
Spencer v. Zobr i st , 323 S.W. 3D 391 ( Mo. Ct . App. W.D. 2010) , Reh'g and/or
t ransf er deni ed, ( Aug. 31, 2010) And t ransf er deni ed, (Nov. 16, 2010) .
1/14/13 Af f i davi t of Servi ce (whi ch f ai l s to meet the requi rements of NRCP
5 and runs counter to the establ i shed pract i ce of the WCSO as t o such Af f i davi ts
of Servi ces ( reportedl y af t er j abbi ng hi s f orearm i nto Coughl i n' s mi dsect i on on
Coughl i n' s dr i ve way, i n an di spl ay of excessi ve f orce simi l ar to that
demonstrated by RJ C Bai l i f f J ohn Reyes on 12/ 19/12 when himsel f vi ol at i ng
Cour thouse sanctuary doctr i ne and attorney l i t i gant immuni ty f r om such servi ce
i n the cour thouse (where Reyes al so shoved hi s f orearm i nto Coughl i n' s
midsect i on; . . Addi t i onal l y i n 4/24/ 13 Reyes l oudl y excl aimed t o Cougl i n, upon
hi s checki ng i n wi th the cour thouse secur i ty pursuant to thei rs and the WCSO
Of f i ce' s content i on that the 12/20/12 Admi ni strat i ve Order 2012-01 i n The
Admini str at i ve Matter of Zachary Coughl i n requi res Cougl hi n to do so, and wai t
f or an RJ C Bai l i f f to appear to escor t Coughl i n to the Depar tment of Al ternat i ve
sentenci ng so Coughl i n can compl ete hi s requi red once weekl y f or two year s
probat i on ordered by J udge Sfer razza f or a convi ct i on of a cr ime wi th a
f i ne/bai l schedul e set at $500, and where Coughl i n had served over 12 days i n
j ai l thereon (meani ng, gi vi ng Cougl i n a suspended 180 day i s ent i rel y
overreachi gn and i nappropr i ate, some mi ght say, and f ur ther evi dence of the
extent to whi ch the RJ C j udi ci ary impermi ssi bl y l everages such minor charges i n
an ef f or t to mi t i gate ci vi l l i abi l i t y of the RJC and Washoe County i tsel f
through coerci ve appl i cat i on of probat i on (and such probat i on l ed to Coughl i n
spendi ng 5 days i n j ai l i nci dent to a f raudul ent ar rest by DAS on 2/1/13
connected to RJ C Bai l i f f Medi na and cour thouse secur i t y, and DAS worker Sabr i na
conspi r i ng to detai n Coughl i n, whom presented at the secur i ty check i n poi nt at
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 38/118 -
MOTIONS
2:54 pm ( where DAS cl oses at 3:00 pm) and conf i rmed agai n wi th cour thouse
secur i ty (a pr i vate f i rm di rected by the WCSO) that he woul d be ar rested i f he
at tempted to go to the DAS window to check i n wi thout and RJ C Bai l i f f , despi te
the f act that DAS i s a separate depar tment f rom the RJC and t herefore
Cougl hi n' s checki ng i n wi th DAS does not come wi thi n t he purvi ew of the suspect
12/20/12 Admini strat i ve Order 2012- 01 i n that the DAS area i s not under the
excl usi ve control of the RJC, and as such, no RJ C Bai l i f f escor t i s requi red.
On 2/24/13, Coughl i n was agai n aski ng the cour thouse secur i ty
personnel about thi s when RJ C Bai l i f f J ohn Reyes, car r yi ng a gun (and agai nst
whom Coughl i n was deni ed a TPO i n February 2012 where the RJ C transf er red such
the the Sparks J ust i ce Court ) l oudl y exl caimed what t he FUCK are you bother i ng
them for, to whi ch Coughl i n i ndi cated that he was doi ng no such thi ng, to whi ch
Reyes responded that he knew Coughl i n was, despi te Reyes bei ng ent i rel y unabl e
to quote anythi ng Coughl i n had j ust sai d i n r esponse t o Coughl i n aski ng him what
i n par t i cul ar about the conversat i on Coughl i n was havi ng wi th cour thouse
secur i ty Bai l i f f Reyes f ound so to be botheri ng, whereupon Reyes i nvaded
Coughl i n' s personal space and l oud exl aimed I am not i n the mood f or your
f ucki ng shi t . Do you want me to send you back out that f ront door or do you
want to t ake care of busi ness. Cougl i n i ndi cated he wi shed to check i n wi th
DAS and was escor ted there by Reyes. Whi l e headi ng out of the shared cour thouse
Cougl i n i ndi cated agai n, as he has previ ousl y to the RJ C Bai l i f f s, Reyes and
Medi na i ncl uded, t hat the 12/20/12 Admini str at i ve Order 2012-01 does not , i n
Coughl i n' s opi ni on, requi re such RJ C Bai l i f f escor ts where Coughl i n i s checki ng
i n wi th DAS, whi ch RJ C J udge Pearson has admi t ted i s separate f rom the RJ C and
not under i ts umbrel l a. So, the RJ C Bai l i f f s purpor ted to serve Coughl i n a TPO
i n RCP12- 599 on 12/ 19/12, J udge Sf errazza' s Adminsi t r at i ve Order 2012-01 on
12/19/12, and the TPO i n 607 on 12/26/12, i n addi t i on to, on 2/ 28/13 a 2/ 25/13
Order to Show Cause stemming f rom that Admini st rat i ve Order 2012-01 (whi ch
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 39/118 -
MOTIONS
l acked a case number unt i l the RJ C al tered such Order on 3/14/13 by af f i xi ng the
case number RCR2013-071437 thereto, though there remai ns no opposi ng party
therei n and such Order was not made i n any case and there was no opposi ng
par ty, nor any proper l y made moti on suf f i ci ent to i nvest the RJ C wi th
j ur i sdi cti on to make such Order .
As to Marshal s Harl ey and Coppa and Bai l i f f s Reyes, Engl i sh servi ng
process:
J CRRT Rul e 8. Dut i es of bai l i f f , sher i f f . Duri ng the t ime the
cour t remai ns i n sessi on, t he bai l i f f , i f there i s one, or the sher i f f or hi s
deputy i n at tendance pursuant to l aw i f there i s no bai l i f f , shal l : . . . ( f )
Perform such other dut i es as are requi red by the j ust i ce of the peace.
RJC Bai l i f f ' s Medi na and Reyes i n sua sponte amendi ng the 12/20/ 12
Admini str at i ve Order and thereby ref usi ng to accept f r om Coughl i n documents he
presents f or f i l i ng more than once a day (even, say, on a day where the deadl i ne
uner NRS 189.010 or NRS 175. 515 runs, even where no pri or not i ce of such
amendedment by Bai l i f f to a J udges order was provi ded Coughl i n) are l i kel y i n
vi ol at i on NRS 4.353(c) Perf orm other such dut i es as may be requi red of the
deputy mar shal by the j ust i ce of the peace of the court . . . where the 12/ 20/12
Admini str at i ve Order reads:
a. I f ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN wi shes to f i l e a document wi th the Reno
J ust i ce Cour t or at tend a hear i ng i n the Reno J ust i ce Cour t he must not i f y the
secur i ty personnel at the mai n secur i ty entr ance l ocated at the east ent rance
of One South Si er r a Street and wai t f or a bai l i f f of t he Reno j ust i ce Cour t to
respond t o hi s l ocat i on.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 40/118 -
MOTIONS
J ust i ce Cour t or del i ver the wr i t ten request to a bai l i f f of the Reno J ust i ce
Cour t by f i r st contact i ng t he bai l i f f through cour t secur i ty as detai l ed above.
The bai l i f f wi l l t hen f i l e the document f or Mr . Coughl i n and provi de him a f i l e
stamped copy i n return.
There i s nothi ng i n that order al l owi ng Bai l i f f ' s Medi na and Reyes to
ref use to accept documents Cougl i n presents f or f i l i ng at say, 4 pm, because
Cougl i n presented somethi ng ear l i er i n the day at , say, 9 am. Regardl ess, the
ent i rety of J udge Sfer razza' s 12/20/ 12 Admi ni strat i ve Order 2012-01 i s of an
di sturbi ngl y dubi ous nature.
NRS 4.353 Deputy marshal : Appoi ntment ; dut i es; qual i f i cat i ons;
compensati on. . . .
3. Each deputy marshal shal l : . . . ( c) Per f orm other such duti es as
may be requi red of the deputy marshal by the j ust i ce of the peace of the
cour t . . .
7. The provi si ons of thi s sect i on do not authori ze the deputy
marshal t o serve any ci vi l or cr imi nal process, except such orders of the cour t
whi ch are speci al l y di rected by the cour t or the presi di ng j usti ce of the peace
thereof t o the deputy marshal f or servi ce.
J udge Sf er razza' s Order of 11/28/12 i n "Case No. : ALL CASES Dept . No. : ALL
DEPARTMENTS" reads:
"ORDER Pur suant to J ust i ce Cour t Rul es of Ci vi l Procedure Rul e
84(b) (1) as Chi ef J ust i ce of the Reno J ust i ce Cour t I am responsi bl e f or the
admi ni st r at i on of cour t rul es and regul at i ons.
Pursuant to Rul e 84(b) (5) , the Chi ef J udge oversees al l
admi ni st r at i ve and cl er i cal work and f unct i ons of the cour t .
Pursuant to Rul e 5(e) of the J ust i ce Cour t Rul es of Ci vi l Procedure,
a cour t may by l ocal rul e permi t papers to be f i l ed, si gned or ver i f i ed by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 41/118 -
MOTIONS
el ectroni c means t hat are consi stent wi th techni cal st andards, i f any, t hat the
J udi ci al Conference of the Uni ted States establ i shes. Current l y, Reno J ust i ce
Cour t has not adopted a rul e permi t t i ng papers to be f i l ed el ect roni cal l y.
J ust i ce Cour t Rul es of Reno Townshi p Rul e 10(f ) provi des that t he
cl erk must not accept f or f i l i ng any pl eadi ng or documents whi ch do not compl y
wi th thi s rul e, but f or good cause shown, the Cour t may permi t the f i l i ng of
noncompl yi ng pl eadi ngs and documents. Hencefor th,
I T I S HEREBY ORDERED that t he Def endant , Zachary Coughl i n, shal l not
be permi tted to f i l e any f ur ther documents i n any and al l departments of Reno
J ust i ce Cour t by el ectroni c means i ncl udi ng, but not l imi ted to, f ax or emai l .
I n the event he vi ol ates thi s Order , he wi l l be i n contempt of cour t and subj ect
to twenty- f i ve (25) days impr i sonment f or each vi ol at i on. "
Fur ther , as to J udge Sf er razza f i ndi ng authori ty f or maki gn hi s
11/28/12 Order i n NJCRCP, Rul es 1 and 2 therei n may qui te cl ear that ( si mi l ar to
J CRRT Rul e 2) NJ CRCP Rul e 5(e) does not appl y to cr imi nal case i n the RJ C, and
does not appl y to summary evi ct i ons.
NJCRCP RULE 1. SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF RULES: These rul es
govern the procedure i n the j ust i ce cour ts i n al l sui t s of a ci vi l nature, wi th
the except i ons stated i n Rul e 81.
NJCRCP RULE 2. THREE FORMS OF ACTION: There shal l be three
f orms of act i on i n j ust i ce cour ts to be known as ci vi l act i ons, smal l cl aims
act i ons and summary evi cti on act i ons. Rul es 3 through 87 govern ci vi l
act i ons. Rul es governi ng smal l cl aims act i ons begi n wi th Rul e 88 and end wi th
Rul e 100. Rul es governi ng summary evi ct i ons commence wi th Rul e 101.
J CRRT Rul e 10. Form of pl eadi ngs. . . . ( f ) The cl erk must not accept
f or f i l i ng any pl eadi ng or documents that do not compl y wi th thi s rul e, but f or
good cause shown, the cour t may permi t the f i l i ng of noncompl yi ng pl eadi ngs and
documents. Paragraph (1) , except as to the si ze of paper , and paragraph (3) of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 42/118 -
MOTIONS
thi s rul e do not appl y to pr i nted f orms f urni shed by t he cl erk, di st r i ct
at torney, or publ i c def ender .
Despi te i t patent i nappl i cabi l i ty to l andl ord tenant matters as
i ndi cated i n J CRRT Rul e 2, J udge Sf er razza conti nual l y appl i ed, i n the summary
evi ct i on case i n 1708 the f ol l owi ng rul e to Coughl i n' s var i ous Moti ons t o Al ter ,
Amend, Stay, etc. : J CRRT Rul e 11. Moti ons: Procedure f or maki ng moti ons;
af f i davi t s; renewal , reheari ng of mot i ons. . . . (g) No moti on once heard and
di sposed of shal l be renewed i n the same cause, nor shal l the same matter s
therei n embraced be reheard, unl ess by l eave of the cour t .
So, J udge Sf er razza manages to base hi s 11/28/ 12 Order ent i rel y upon
rul es that are i nappl i cabl e to ALL of the case Cougl i n has ever had i n t he RJ C.
Coughl i n has never once been a par ty to a ci vi l act i on i n the RJ C.
Regardl ess, cl ear l y, the RJ C accepts f i l i ngs by f acsimi l e f rom some par t i es and
thei r at t orneys, whereas i t does not f rom others. . .Thi s was the case throughout
September 2011 unti l Cougl i n caught on to the f act that , despi t e RJ C Cl erk
Chri st i ne Er i ckson and other s i ndi cat i ng that f i l i ng by f ax was not permi t ted,
Ri chard G. Hi l l ' s associ ate, Casey D. Baker , was abl e to f i l e some thi ngs by
f ax, i ncl udi ng hi s 10/19/11 Request f or an Order Shor teni ng Time, etc. , etc.
Upon di scover i ng t hi s, Coughl i n conf ronted Eri ckson about her previ ous
apparent l y i ncorrect asser t i ons to him vi s a vi s f ax f i l i ng and Er i ckson sai d
no comment . Simi l ar l y, i n the cr i minal di vi si on, Chi ef Cr imi nal F i l i ng
Of f i cer Cl erk Robbi n Baker cont i nual l y mai ntai ned to Coughl i n t hat f i l i ng by f ax
was not permi t ted, unt i l she changed her tune i n mi d-February 2012, whereupon
Coughl i n' s f i l i ngs i n cr imi nal cases i n the RJ C were accepted f or f i l i ng, wi th
Baker i ndi cat i ng a f ax i s an or i gi nal under the approach taken by the RJC.
J CRRT Rul e 10.(a) Al l pl eadi ngs and papers presented f or f i l i ng
must be f l at , unfol ded, f i r mly bound together at the t op, on whi te paper of
standard qual i ty, not l ess than 16- l b. wei ght and 8 1/ 2 by 11 i nches i n si ze.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 43/118 -
MOTIONS
Al l papers shal l be typewri t ten or prepared by some other process that wi l l
produce cl ear and permanent copi es equal l y l egi bl e to pr i nt i ng. The pr i nt si ze
shal l not be more than 12 poi nts. Carbon or photocopi es may not be f i l ed. Onl y
one si de of the paper may be used. . . . .
There i s, or shoul d be, a pret ty bi g di f f erence between bei ng a
pol i t i ci an (or , f or that mat ter , a member of the execut i ve branch) and bei ng a
member of the j udi ci al branch. Whereas those i n the execut i ve branch are
permi t ted to ut i l i ze i nf l uence, bargai ni ng, and l everage to f urther thei r
obj ect i es, those i n the j udi ci al branch must di spense j ust i ce based on l aw and
f act al one i n a neutral manner devoi d of bi as or agenda.
J udge Sf er razza conti nual l y abuses hi s contempt power . . .wel l ,
actual l y, he more threatens to abuse i t (whi ch i s st i l l arguabl y abusi ng i t )
versus actual l y f ol l owi ng t hrough and abusi ng i n the way J udge Holmes di d on on
2/27/12 i n summari l y i ncarcerat i ng t hen practi ci ng at t orney wi th cl i ent ' s
Cougl i n f or f i ve days whi l e denyi ng any stay whatsoever (whi ch i s what J udge
Howard di d on 11/30/11, al t hough, order i ng a mere 3 days i ncarcerat i on) .
The J ust i ce Cour t Rul es of Reno Townshi p do not appl y to cr imi nal
case or t o l andl ord tenant mat ters, yet i n hi s 11/28/ 12 Order i n ALL CASES
and i n ALL DEPARTMENTS then Chi ef J udge Sf er razza ordered j ust that . Cougl i n
has and hereby agai n communi cates on open ref usal pur suant to RPC 3.4( c) as to
the i l l egal i ty of J udge Sf er razza' s 11/28/12 Order ( the enforcement of whi ch by
cr imi nal di vi si on cl erks Robbi n Baker and Cathy Wood has mater i al l y prej udi ced
Coughl i n' s def ense i n var i ous cr imi nal prosecuti ons, i ncl udi ng 11-063341 and 12-
065630) .
RPC Rul e 3.4. Fai rness to Opposi ng Par ty and Counsel . A l awyer
shal l not: . . . ( c) Knowi ngl y di sobey an obl i gat i on under the r ul es of a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 44/118 -
MOTIONS
t r i bunal except f or an open ref usal based on an asser t i on that no val i d
obl i gat i on exi sts
J CRRT Rul e 2. Appl i cat i on of rul es. Except as otherwi se provi ded
by statute, these rul es appl y to al l ci vi l pr oceedi ngs f i l ed i n Reno Townshi p
except smal l cl aims and l andl ord tenant matter s.
Fur ther , i t i s compl etel y untrue or er roneous f or the RJC Docket i n
RCR13-071437 to purpor t that a cr imi nal compl ai nt was f i l ed t herei n on
12/20/12 i n the f orm of the Admi ni st rat i ve Order of 12/ 20/12, and f ur ther , at
the OSC Hear i ng on 3/5/13, Cougl i n di d not consent to Bruce L i nsday doi ng
anythi ng more than appear i ng as co- counsel , subj ect to Coughl i n havi ng f i nal say
i n RCR11-063341 as to the al l egat i on of Cougl i n havi ng vi ol ated hi s probat i on
i nci dent to the war rant l ess af ter 7pm NRS 171. 136 vi ol at i ng ar r est by the
Depar tment of Al ternat i ve Sentenci ng on 2/1/13. . . i t seems L i ndsay wi ns because
he gets another check f rom the Bob Bel l group, and the RJ C wi ns because i t gets
to cl aim Cougl i n was gi ven hi s day i n cour t as to the 2/25/13 Order To Show
Cause that al l eged Coughl i n had vi ol ated the 12/20/12 Admini str at i ve Order some
f i ve t imes. . . i t s r eal l y appal l i ng, f i r st to enter that Admi ni st rat i ve Order , as
l acki ng i n j ur i sdi ct i on or anythi ng i n the way of actual precedent to suppor t
what i t purpor ts t o order , but to then seek t o l everage every al l eged
vi ol at i on no matter how de mi nimi s, al l wi t hout compl yi ng wi th NRS 22. 030(2)
af f i edavi t requi rement as t o the al l eged di st rubances Coughl i n caused i n the
RJC f i l i ng of f i ce ( there' s cameras everywhere, so. . . i f there i s somethi ng so
dramati c, i t shoul d be produced. . . ) . So, i t i s real l y i nappropr i ate f or Bruce
L i ndsay t o be get t i ng mul t i pl e checks f rom the Bob Bel l Group i nci dent t o the
WCPD and APD bei ng conf l i ct ed out of represent i ng Cougl i n by vi r tue of Lesl i e' s
TPO/EPO where the same subj ect mat ter / case/ Admini strat i ve Order i s bei ng
rebranded wi th a di f f erent case number three and f our t imes, par t i cul ar l y where
L i ndsay showed up twenty mi nutes l at e on 3/11/ 13 ( somethi ng J udge Cl i f ton gave
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 45/118 -
MOTIONS
Coughl i n f i ve days i n j ai l f or on 2/ 13/12 i nci dent to Coughl i n bei ng l ess than
an hour l ate to cour t on 2/ 12/12, whi ch was t he resul t of the di sor i ent i ng
ef f ect of at tempti ng to prepare and f i l e the ROA and Br i ef i n 62337 whi l st bei ng
wrongful l y ar rest on 2/1/13 by DAS, i ncarcerated unt i l 1 am on 2/5/13 ( r equi r i ng
$500 bai l that st i l l has not been returned by the RJ C), then arreste agai n on
2/8/13 by the RPD and overcharged by Detect i ve Y turbi de (ci t i ng to the wrong
statute, NRS 200.591, rather than NRS 33.350, resul t i ng i n Cougl i n bei ng subj ect
to a $5,000 bai l ) , Cougl i n bai l i ng out at 2 am on 2/9/ 13, wi th the combi ned
ef f ect of those ar rest and the concomi tant f orced immedi ate no t i t rat i on
cessat i on of two psychoact i ve medi cat i ons (Wel l butr i n and Adderal l . . . unl ess one
want to compl y wi th the Washoe County J ai l ' s i nsi stence on dosi ng Wel l but r i n at
bedt ime. . .where such medi cat i on i s known f or causi ng sl eepl essness and as such
woul d necessar i l y di sturb one' s ci rcadi an rhythmns. . . ) and somehow, whereas
L i ndsay gets a pass f or bei ng 20 mi nutes l ate (not to menti on compl etel y
unprepared and cl uel ess as to the mer i ts, f act , and l aw, at i ssue i n the var i ous
cases he was t r i pl e di ppi ng on (get t i ng pai d f or two or three di f f erent cases by
at tendi ng one combo hear i ng) . . and somehow J udge Cl i f ton i ssues a warrant f or
Coughl i n' s ar rest (he al l eges he di d so at 9: 36 am, but the docket i ndi cates i t
was at noon) where Cougl i n ar r i ved j ust before 10:00 am for the cont i nuat i on of
the t r i al i n 065630 that was set to star t at 9 am (and whi ch shoul d have never
taken pl ace at al l gi ven the pl ea deal accepted on 8/27/12, J udge Cl i f ton' s
f ai l ure t o abi de by NRS 1.230, . 235 upon Cougl i n f i l i ng and havi ng served on hi s
chambers a Moti on to Di squal i f y (Cl i f ton i gnored NRS 53.045 and Buckwal ter i n
i nsi st i ng that the f act that Coughl i n had not presented a notari zed af f i davi t
the j udge was not then compel l ed to f ol l ow the procedures (5 days to f i l e a
responsi ve af f i davi t / decl arat i on, et c. , etc. ) upon Cougl i n f i l i ng pr i or to the
star t of t r i al ( i t mat ters not the argument that , i gnor i ng the f act that RJ C
Cl erk Robbi n Baker tol d Cougl i n the t r i al ' s star t t ime was moved to 1:30 pm on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 46/118 -
MOTIONS
12/11/12, regardl ess, Cougl i n f i l ed the Moti on to Di squal i f y of 12/11/12 pr i or
to the star t of t r i al ( and Tom Vi l or i a' s case was taken up the morni ng i n the
RJC anyways, whi ch i s why Baker tol d Cougl i n the star t t ime was moved.
Regardl ess ref usi ng to al l ow Cougl hi n to query Baker or subpoena here wi th
respect t o that , such an i nci dent bei ng Cougl i n' s one warni ng not to be l ate,
and J udge Cl i f ton' s dubi ous i nsi stence that he knew Baker di d not tel l Cougl i n
that even where Baker was absent f rom work on 12/11/12 and Cathy Wood l ater tol d
Coughl i n that day that no one f rom the RJ C had cal l ed Baker f or any reason ( that
and Baker' s verge of tears f l i p f l oppi ng to Coughl i n on 11/27/12 respecti ng the
f act that she or i gi nal l y sai d that she cl ear l y remembered the f i l i gns Coughl i n
personal l y gave her f or f i l i ng on 11/ 15/12 both havi ng di scs at tached to
them. . . onl y to mi nutes l ater tear f ul l y excl ai m I 'm not tal ki ng to you Zach!
upon Cougl i n conf ront i ng her about t he cur i ous about f ace Baker demonstr ated
af ter a qui ck tal ki ng to by Cathy Wood and some stern l ooks ( some mi ght say, al l
of whi ch resul ted i n the 12/ 20/12 Admini strat i ve Order. . . al ong wi th, perhaps,
Coughl i n' s aski ng Bai l i f f Reyes i f , perhaps, there was a bi t of an appearance of
bi as i nci dent to Reyes servi ng Cougl i n the TPO Washoe County obtai ned on behal f
of Reyes' s f el l ow Washoe County empl oyee Lesl i e, on 12/ 19/12. . . .
NRS 33.350 Penal t y f or i ntent i onal vi ol at i on of order. A person who
i ntent i onal l y vi ol ates a temporary or extended order f or protect i on agai nst
harassment i n the workpl ace i s gui l t y of a mi sdemeanor, unl ess a more severe
penal ty i s prescr i bed by l aw for the act that const i tutes the vi ol at i on of the
order .
The docket i n 071437 cl aims somethi ng that j ust di d not
happen. . . Cougl i n never asked to have L i ndsay appear on hi s behal f i n the
Admini str at i ve Order matter . . . and at that 3/ 5/13 OSC Hear i ng, J udge Pearson
i ndi cated that the Order t o Show Cause on the Admini st rat i ve Mat ter i s bei ng
put i nto the probat i on vi ol at i on case i n 11-063341. . . , whi ch makes no sense
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 47/118 -
MOTIONS
gi ven the subj ect matter i nvol ved i n the two have no connect i on whatsoever , and
what real l y appears to be t he case i s that the RJ C i s unabl e to control , some
might say, the DAS Of f i cers, l i ke Ramos, f rom, ever so suspi ci ousl y, summari l y
ar rest i ng Coughl i n, every t ime Cougl i n sends an emai l to the WCDA's Of f i ce l i ke
that of t he very ear l y morni ng hours of 2/1/13, resul t i ng i n hi s ar rest by DAS
l ess than 24 hours l ater . But the RJ C i s cl ever , as such i t recent l y i n 11-
063341 (actual l y, the docket therei n i ndi cates J udge Sf er razza vacated hi s
j udgment as rendered almost immedi atel y af ter maki ng i t where t he obey al l
l aws requi rement was cl osed etc. f ur ther , both J udges Cl i f ton i n 065630 ( the
probat i on f or whi ch doesn' t even star t f or at l east one, i f not two years gi ven
the consecut i ve nature of t he sentence) and J udge Pearson el imi nated the no
al cohol term of Cougl i n' s sentence i n 063341, and as there never was any be
subj ect t o search and sei zure ( and Coughl i n i ndi cated to DAS at the outset that
such was hi s posi t i on and t hat he was not wai vi ng any of hi s r i ghts i n t hat
regard. . . ) , so DAS perhaps shoul d cease descendi ng upon Coughl i n' s home and
of f i ce and bangi ng on every wal l thereof f or twenty mi nutes at a t ime, angr i l y
shout i ng i nvect i ve i n menaci ng tones, then unpl uggi ng the el ectr i ci ty to
Coughl i n' s home and of f i ce, apparentl y, when f i nal l y deci di ng t o l eave, as was
apparent l y the case on 4/30/ 13 accordi ng to t hose l i vi ng near Coughl i n.
J udge Sf er razza' s Admini str at i ve Order 2012-01, of 12/ 20/12 ( l acki ng
any case number) , reads:
"ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2012- 01 .
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has been the subj ect of di sci pl i nary
hear i ngs before the State Bar of Nevada Nor thern Nevada Di sci pl i nary Board
wherei n t he Board f ound Mr. Coughl i n "commi t t ed mul t i pl e vi ol ati ons of t he Rul es
of Prof essi onal conduct" and that Mr. Coughl i n "engaged i n bad f ai th obst ruct i on
of the di sci pl i nary process" ; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 48/118 -
MOTIONS
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has been a par ty i n cases before the
Reno Muni ci pal Cour t i ncl udi ng cases before t he Honorabl e Dorothy Nash Holmes
and the Honorabl e Kenneth Howard wherei n Mr . Coughl i n was hel d i n contempt of
cour t f or f ai l i ng to f ol l ow the Court ' s orders and di r ect i ves; and
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has been a par ty i n both ci vi l and
cr imi nal matters before thi s Cour t i ncl udi ng cases bef ore the Honorabl e Peter
Sfer razza, the Honorabl e Scott Pearson, and t he Honorabl e Davi d Cl i f ton wherei n
Mr. Coughl i n has been admoni shed f or f ai l i ng to f ol l ow the Court ' s orders and
di rect i ve; and
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN i s current l y the subj ect of a
Temporary Order f or Protecti on agai nst Harassment i n t he Workpl ace requested by
the Washoe County Publ i c Def ender ' s Of f i ce, hi s counsel i n several cases before
thi s Court ; and
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN i s current l y the subj ect of a
Temporary Order f or Protecti on Agai nst Harassment i n t he Workpl ace requested by
the State Bar of Nevada based upon Mr . Coughl i n' s harassi ng and di srupt i ve
behavi or wi th empl oyees and of f i cers of the State Bar ; and
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN i s current l y a par ty i n cases before
thi s court ; and
WHEREAS, ci t i zens, whether or not i ndi gent , have a const i tut i onal
r i ght to access to the courts wi th t he protect i on of due process of l aw; and
WHEREAS, f r i vol ous or vexati ous cl ai ms and def enses overburden l imi ted j udi ci al
resources, hi nder the t imel y resol uti on of mer i tor i ous cl aims and i ncrease the
costs of engagi ng i n busi ness and provi di ng prof essi onal servi ces to the publ i c;
and
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has repeatedl y caused a di sturbance
i n the f i l i ng of f i ce of the Reno J ust i ce Court , di srupted the order l y busi ness
of the Cour t and overburdened the l i mi ted j udi ci al resources of thi s Cour t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 49/118 -
MOTIONS
thereby hi nder i ng the t imel y resol uti on of mer i tor i ous cl aims and i ncreasi ng the
costs of engagi ng i n busi ness and provi di ng prof essi onal servi ces to the publ i c;
and
WHEREAS, "a breach of the peace, boi sterous conduct or vi ol ent
di sturbance i n the presence of the cour t , or i n i ts immedi ate vi ci ni ty, tendi ng
to i nter r upt the due course of the t r i al or other j udi ci al proceedi ng"
const i tutes contempt of cour t i n the State of Nevada; and
WHEREAS, "di sobedi ence or r esi stance to any l awful wr i t , order , rul e
or process i ssued by the cour t or j udge at chambers" const i tutes contempt of
cour t i n the State of Nevada; and WHEREAS, Nevada' s cour ts are const i tuti onal l y
author i zed to i ssue al l wr i ts "proper and necessary to the compl ete exerci se of
thei r j ur i sdi ct i on. " Nev. Const . ar t . 6, 6( 1) ; and WHEREAS, t o protect the
peaceful and ef f ect i ve operat i on of thi s Court ,
I T I S HEREBY ORDERED:
1. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shal l not enter the premi ses of the Reno
J ust i ce Cour t at One South Si er ra Street except as f ol l ows:
a. I f ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN wi shes to f i l e a document wi th t he
Reno J usti ce Cour t or at tend a hear i ng i n the Reno J ust i ce Court he must not i f y
the securi ty personnel at the mai n secur i ty entrance l ocated at the east
entrance of One South Si er r a Street and wai t f or a bai l i f f of t he Reno j ust i ce
Cour t to respond t o hi s l ocat i on.
stamped copy i n return.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 50/118 -
MOTIONS
c. I f ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN wi shes to at tend a Cour t hear i ng i n the
Reno J usti ce Cour t he shal l be escorted by a bai l i f f of thi s Cour t .
2. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shal l not be present i n the excl usi ve
premi ses of the Reno J ust i ce Cour t i ncl udi ng the cr imi nal , ci vi l , ci tat i on, or
admi ni st r at i ve f aci l i t i es l ocated on the f i r st f l oor of the North Tower of One
South Si er ra Street and the ent i re area l ocated on the second f l oor of t he Nor th
Tower of One South Si er ra St reet wi thout the escor t of a bai l i f f of thi s Cour t
and wi thout f i r st f ol l owi ng the procedures out l i ned above.
3. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN i s not al l owed to contact any member of
thi s Court other t han a uni f ormed bai l i f f .
4. I f ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN i s a par ty to a case he may address the
Cour t duri ng the Cour t proceedi ngs.
5. Any vi ol at i on of thi s Order may be consi dered contempt of cour t
and puni shed pursuant to NRS Chapter 22 by a f i ne of up to $500 and/or
i ncarcerat i on f or up to 25 days i n t he Washoe County Detent i on Faci l i ty.
6. Thi s Order i s ef f ect i ve upon personal servi ce upon Mr. Coughl i n. "
Of course, the RJ C had a par ty purpor t to serve that 12/20/12
Admini str at i ve Order where Bai l i f f Engl i sh purpor ts to have at t empted or
ef f ected servi ce t hereof on 12/20/12 wi thi n t he cour thouse at t he Reno J ust i ce
Cour t .
Fur ther , al l of the Proof of Servi ce/Return of Servi ce i n 599, 607,
3913, 3914, etc. al l f ai l under the requi rements of NRCP 4(c) , ( d) , (g) :
( c) By Whom Served. Process shal l be served by the sher i f f of the county
where the def endant i s f ound, or by a deputy, or by any person who i s not a
par ty and who i s over 18 years of age, except that a subpoena may be served as
provi ded i n Rul e 45; where the servi ce of process i s made outsi de of the Uni ted
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 51/118 -
MOTIONS
States, af ter an order of publ i cat i on, i t may be served ei ther by any person who
i s not a par ty and who i s over 18 years of age or by any resi dent of the
country, ter r i tory, col ony or provi nce, who i s not a par ty and who i s over 18
years of age.
(d) Summons: Personal Servi ce. The summons and compl ai nt shal l be
served together . The pl ai nti f f shal l f urni sh the person maki ng servi ce wi th such
copi es as are necessary. Servi ce shal l be made by del i ver i ng a copy of t he
summons at tached t o a copy of the compl ai nt as f ol l ows: . . . (6) Servi ce Upon
I ndi vi dual s. I n al l other cases to the def endant personal l y, or by l eavi ng
copi es thereof at the def endant s dwel l i ng house or usual pl ace of abode wi th
some person of sui tabl e age and di scret i on then resi di ng therei n, or by
del i ver i ng a copy of the summons and compl ai nt to an agent author i zed by
appoi ntment or by l aw to recei ve servi ce of process.
. . . (g) Return. The person servi ng the process shal l make proof of
servi ce t hereof to the court promptl y and i n any event wi thi n t he t ime dur i ng
whi ch the person served must respond to the process. Proof of servi ce shal l be
as f ol l ows: . . . (4) The wr i t t en admi ssi on of the def endant . . . . I n case of servi ce
otherwi se than by publ i cat i on, the cer t i f i cate or af f i davi t shal l state the
date, pl ace and manner of servi ce. Fai l ure to make proof of ser vi ce shal l not
af f ect the val i di t y of the servi ce.
See 60302 and Gar i ns' 11/15/ 12 Moti on to Di smi ss therei n: 4.
Defendants Actual Noti ce Does Not Const i tute Servi ce Any asser t i on by Pl ai nt i f f
that Def endant has actual noti ce of thi s l awsui t , and knowl edge of thi s case
excuses servi ce of the summons and compl ai nt , mi sses t he poi nt . The Nevada
Supreme Cour t has l ong acknowl edged that not i ce of a l i t i gat i on i s not a
subst i tute f or proper servi ce of process. C.H.A Venture v. G.C. Wal l ace
Consul t i ng Engi neer s, I nc. , 794 P.2d 707, 709 (Nev. 1990) . I n ef f ect ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 52/118 -
MOTIONS
Defendant' s not i ce of thi s l i t i gat i on does not excuse Pl ai nt i f f ' s non- servi ce on
Defendant.
Note that the Proof of Servi ce f or the 1/12/ 12 NRS 200.591
Stal ki ng/Harassment TPO Ri chard G. Hi l l , Esq. , obtai ned f rom the RJ C i s si gned
by RJ C Bai l i f f Pl amondon.
NRS 4. 230 Docket : Entr i es; f orm.
1. Every j ust i ce must keep a docket , i n whi ch t he j ust i ce must
enter :
( a) The t i t l e of every act i on or proceedi ng.
(b) The obj ect of the act i on or proceedi ng; and i f a sum of money be
cl aimed, the amount thereof .
( c) The date of the summons, and the t i me of i ts return; and i f an
order to ar rest the def endant be made, or a wr i t of at tachment be i ssued, a
statement of the f act .
(d) The t ime when the par t i es, or ei ther of them, appear , or thei r
nonappearance, i f def aul t be made; a mi nute of the pl eadi ngs and moti ons; i f i n
wri t i ng, ref er r i ng to them; i f not i n wr i t i ng, a conci se statement of the
mater i al par ts of the pl eadi ng. The RJ C' s Bai l i f f Reyes and Chi ef Ci vi l Cl erk
Chri st i ne Er i ckson have ref used to provi de Coughl i n a docket i n Rev11-1492 and
Rev11-1708, ci t i ng to J CRRT rul e requi r i ng typewri t ten pl eadi ngs, despi te the
i nappl i cabi l i ty of J CRRT to l andl ord tenant matters as i ndi cate i n J CRRT Rul e
3. Fur ther , Coughl i n has had Reyes ref use to take requests Cougl i n has
submi t ted f or f i l i ng f or dockets and copi es of the J AVS audi o of the 1/4/ 13
hear i ng i n RCP12-607, and whether def aul t be made therei n i s
key. . . part i cul ar l y gi ven that NRS 33. 270 requi res more than a def aul t , i t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 53/118 -
MOTIONS
requi res to appl i cant prove (probabl y by the same cl ear and convi ci ng evi dence
standard Cal i f orni a uses, t hat set f or th therei n. . . not simpl y enter a def aul t
upon some al l eged f ai l ure to appear by Coughl i n, especi al l y where teh 12/26/12
Proof of Servi ce by RJ C Bai l i f f Engl i sh i s def i ci ent and vi ol ati ve of cour thouse
sanctuary and at torney l i t i gant pr i vi l ege/ immuni ty f rom servi ce of process i n
the cour thouse ( the same def i ci eny whi ch bef al l s Baker' s at tempts to personal l y
serve Cougl hi n on 9/27/11 t he 5 Day Unl awful Detai ner Noti ce i n 1708.
( e) Every adj ournment, stat i ng on whose appl i cati on and t o what
t ime.
( f ) The demand f or a t r i al by j ury, when the same i s made, and by
whom made, the order f or the j ury, and the t i me appoi nted f or t he return of the
j ury and f or the t r i al . . . . ( thi s i s somewhat i s di spute i n 1708, though the
t i t l e of Coughl i n' s 10/11/11 f i l i ng therei n does contai n the words Demand f or
J ury Tr i al . . .whi ch i s probl emati c consi der i ng that J udge Sf er r azza deni ed
Cougl i n a j ury t r i al , despi te Cougl i n t imel y maki gn such a demand under NRCP 38
( see NRS 40.400) , whi ch was pr i or to the 10/13/11 Evi ct i on Deci si on and Order
set t i ng the mat ter over f or Tr i al on 10/25/11 shoul d Cougl i n deposi t some
$2,275 i n rent escrow pursuant to NRS 118A.355(5) , even though Cougl i n always
mai ntai ned he was ent i t l ed to an appl i cat i on of NRS 118A.360' s f i x and deduct
di ctates, i n addi t on to the set of f s i nur i ng to Coughl i n under NRS 118A.390,
118A.510, NRS 118A. 290, and NRS 118A. 355(2) .
( i ) The j udgment of t he cour t , speci f yi ng the costs i ncl uded, and
the t ime when rendered.
( j ) The i ssui ng of the execut i on, when i ssued and to whom; the
renewal s thereof , i f any, and when made, and a statement of any money pai d to
the j ust i ce, when and by whom.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 54/118 -
MOTIONS
(k) The recei pt of a not i ce of appeal , i f any be gi ven, and of the
appeal bond, i f any be f i l ed. ( thi s i s a bi t of an i ssue i n RCR11-063341 and
RCR13-071437 as to the f i l i ngs and order of and around 3/11/13).
i nci dent to Coughl i n' s f ormal di sci pl i nary hear i ng regardi ng t he i r revocabl e
revocat i on of hi s l aw l i cense, mi sl eadi ng sworn statements by both SBN Bar
Counsel Pat K i ng and WCPD J im Lesl i e, and verbal statements and wr i t i ngs to
Cougef f ect of unl awful ar resthl i n by DAS staf f , i ncl udi ng Of f i cer Cel este Brown,
suppor t t hi s col orabl e cl ai m by Coughl i n that he has not vi ol ated the terms of
hi s probat i on , much l ess i n a manner suf f i ci ent to suppor t a summary arrest .
Coughl i n has recei ved i ndi cat i ons f r om DAS staf f i ncl udi ng Of f i cer Brown that ,
i n exi gent ci rcumstances cal l i ng or wri t i ng, especi al l y ahead of t ime, may
provi de a basi s f or not f i ndi ng a probat i on vi ol at i n, and Coughl i n submi ts that
both al l eged probat i on vi ol at i on ( i nci dent to DAS Of f i cer Ramos' s PC sheet of
2/1/13, whi ch i ndi cate such vi ol at i on occured on 1/3/13 and 1/24/13. . .whi ch j ust
happend t o be days where Coughl i n had deadl i nes i n 62337 and where Cougl i n now
f aces f el ony and gross charges upon al l egat i ons of TPO and EPO vi ol at i ons
occur i ng on those dates) auguers towards ei ther di smi ssi ng the charge of an
al l eged probat i on vi ol at i on or af f ordi ng Coughl i n representat i on at publ i ce
expense, especi al l y where, apparent l y B. L i ndsay, Esq. Showed up to the 12-
067980 contempt hear i ng on 2/13/13 as a f reebi e, upbenownst t o Coughl i n and
counter t o at l east the impl i ci t representat i on made t o him by the Cour t and
L i ndsay upon bei ng l ed i nto cour t i n rest rai nts that morni ng, absent any
consul tat i ons wi th L i ndsay beforehand whatsoever . .
Such a basi s to precl ude a probabl e cause f i ndi ng i ncl udes:
RE: Update Brown, Cel este (CBrown@washoecounty.us)Add to contacts 1/24/ 13
To: 'Zach Coughl i n' F rom: Brown, Cel este (CBrown@washoecounty. us) Thi s sender
i s i n your saf e l i st . Sent : Thu 1/24/ 13 3:10 PM To: 'Zach Coughl i n'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 55/118 -
MOTIONS
(zachcoughl i n@hotmai l . com) Per the vi deo, you showed up at 2:56 p.m From here
on out Zach, you need to check i n between 9:45 and 2:00 p.m. Let s see i f we can
f i x the probl em ok? Sgt . CJ Brown WC Dept . Of A l ternati ve Sentenci ng 1 South
Si er ra St. Reno, Nv 89501 desk 775)327-8384 f ax 775)327-8383 From: Zach
Coughl i n [mai l to: zachcoughl i n@hotmai l . com] Sent: Thursday, J anuary 24, 2013 2:42
PM To: Brown, Cel este Subj ect : Update Dear Of f i cer Brown, I appreci ate your
recent note. Thank you. I t meant a l ot . I came i n yesterday wel l more than 5
minutes pr i or to 3 pm, but was detai ned too l ong at the secur i t y stat i on f or
Bai l i f f Medi na to escor t me to the DAS Of f i ce ( then Chi ef J udge Sf er razza' s
Admini str at i ve Order 12-01 of December 20th, 2012 requi res as much) . I saw J udge
L i nda Gardner ' s bai l i f f , Deputy K i rkham mi l l i ng about wi th f our or f i ve other
deput i es near the cour thouse exi t per f ormi ng a pbc test on a man, and requested
permi ssi on to wai t my turn and take one as wel l . I memor i al i zed thi s i n a note
that I gave to Bai l i f f Medi na f or whi ch he agreed to provi de to DAS. Deputy
Ki rkham made some sneer i ng commentary about al cohol i sm and dependency i ssues i n
general ( I cannot recal l speci f i cal l y whether or not she then "hi gh- f i ved" one
of her f el l ow deput i es) as they rel ate to me, and perhaps the I r i sh race and my
ancestry i n general , then r efused to al l ow me to take a pbc test and document i t
on the note I l ef t wi th Bai l i f f Medi na f or DAS. Deputy K i rkham deci ded agai nst
assi st i ng i n a pbc test . Deputy K i rkham, the SBN arranged, was present f or my
11/14/12 f ormal di sci pl i nary hear i ng at the State Bar of Nevada, despi te the
i nvol vement of 2J DC Fami l y Cour t J udge L i nda Gardner ( the SBN has been
purposeful l y vague and obstruct i oni st as to whether ng12-0435 i s a gr i evance
wi th a gri evant of L i nda Gardner gi ven some of the ethi cal probl ems associ ated
wi th J udges wr i t i ng l et ters whether of recommendat i on or condemnat i on (or Orders
Af ter Tr i al ) and submi t t i ng them vol untar i l y (or havi ng thei r brother RMC J udge
Wi l l i am Gardner do so by way of taki ng the 4/ 13/09 Order Af ter Tri al by hi s
si ster and passi ng i t to RMC J udge Nash Holmes, then havi ng her i ncl ude that i n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 56/118 -
MOTIONS
the 3/14/ 09 gr i evance she hersel f f i l ed on behal f of RMC J udge Wi l l i am Gardner
and al l other RMC J udges. . . . especi al l y where RMC J udge W. Gardner ref used to
recuse hi msel f f rom the cr i minal t respass prosecut i on of Coughl i n f rom hi s
f ormer home l aw of f i ce i nci dent to t he summary evi ct i on f rom i t presi ded over by
RJC J udge Sf er razza (where a $2,275 rent escrow deposi t was ordered by t he RJ C
i n vi ol ati on of Nevada l aw and st i l l not returned to Coughl i n by the t ime of the
t respassi ng ar rest or dur i ng any peri od i n whi ch Coughl i n was expected t o hi re
movers and rent a uhaul and ar range f or an al ternate l ocat i on t o pl ace such
personal t y) . Fur ther RMC J udge Garder f ai l ed to di scl ose that hi s si ster i s 2J DC
Fami l y Cour t J udge L i nda Gardner duri ng the audi o record of the 2/2/12 hear i ng
i n 11 CR 26405 wherei n Coughl i n prompted J udge Gardner to di scl ose any such
matters t hat woul d tend to create an appearance of impropr i ety or a basi s f or a
conf l i ct or bi as, whether or not such di d, i n f act exi st , and whether the j udge
himsel f t hought such di d i n f act exi st . . . . ( NOTE: Coughl i n emai l goes on and on
and i s t r uncated here) .
Fur ther , the proxi mi ty of Coughl i n' s ar rest on 2/1/13 af ter 7 pm
consi der i ng Coughl i n emai l to WCDA Cr imi nal Di vi si on ear l y morni ng 2/1/13 i s
t roubl i ng. Addi t i onal l y, WCDA DDA Wat ts-Vi al ' s ref usal to respond to Coughl i n' s
proper l y i ssued subpoenas i n hi s f ormal di sci pl i nary hear i ng ( see Watts l ast
minute 11/ 13/12 f ax to Coughl i n ref usi ng to have 2J DC J udges and Admini st rators
appear or to produced materi al s requred by Coughl i n' s subpoena duces tecum, al l
proper l y i ssued under SCR 110, and where no f ees were requi red gi ve SCR 105(4)
and SCR 119(3) , and where t he Panel Chai r ' s 11/7/12 Order Quashi ng subpoenas on
RMC J udges i s voi d anyways gi ven j uri sdi ct i on to so rul e, under SCR 111(4)
resi des wi th NNDB Board Chai r Susi ch, not Panel Chai r Echeverr i a, and where such
does not appl y to supboenas i ssued t o 2J DC J udges and personnel . Coughl i n
sought to have 2J DC and or Watts-Vi al compel l ed to so produced such at t he per i l
of contempt at the 11/14/12 f ormal hear i ng. Fur ther , even i f NRCP 45 was
appl i cabl e, as DDA Watts-Vi al ' s 11/13/12 f ax i ndi cates, Coughl i n has been
characteri zed as an at torney and Coughl i n was authori zed to pract i ce and
appear pro se i n t hat matter i n State Bar Cour t of the SBN, i ncl udi ng by express
asser t i on made to Cougl i n on 10/15/12 by Asst. Bar Counsel K i ng, rel ayi ng Chi ef
Bar Counsel ' s Davi d Cl ark ' s deci si on vi s a vi s Coughl i n' s r i ght to i ssue hi s own
subpoenas (versus goi gn to the SBN and have Cl erk Peter s do so) , and f urther i n
consi derat i on of t he 7/27/ 12 wr i t i ng to Coughl i n by NNDB Chai r Susi ch di rect i ng
Coughl i n to conf er wi th and obtai n any such i ndi cat i ons f rom Bar Counsel , versus
the NNDB.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 57/118 -
MOTIONS
A def endant has a r i ght to counsel i n mi sdemeanor prosecut i ons i f the
cour t imposes an act i ve or suspended sentence of impr i sonment . See Al abama v.
Shel ton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002) . Accordi ngl y, i f the def endant i s improper l y deni ed
counsel , the cour t i s precl uded f rom imposi ng ei ther an act i ve or suspended
sentence of impr i sonment . Fur ther , i f the cour t imposes a suspended sentence of
impr i sonment i n vi ol at i on of the def endant s r i ght to counsel , the cour t may not
act i vate the def endant s sentence at a probati on revocat i on proceedi ng
regardl ess of whether the def endant i s represented at the revocat i on proceedi ng.
See i nf ra 12.3B. Civi l Contempt . I n
appeal bri ef i n 62337 on or around t he deadl i ne to do so of 1/23/13. The
SBN has f ai l ed to respond t o Coughl i n' s reasonabl e i nqui r i es i n that regard, as
has the WCDA DDA Young ( rather , Coughl i n i s f unnel ed t o an I nspector Covi ngton,
whom i s arguabl y commi t t i ng the unauthor i zed pract i ce of l aw, and such
ci rcumstances onl y f ur ther underscore the extent to whi ch the WCDA Of f i ce shoul d
be di squal i f i ed f orm prosecuti ng Coughl i n, par t i cul ar l y where DDA Kandaras'
above emai l admi ts to f eel i ng Coughl i n' s competency i s brought i nto quest i on,
the events i nvol vi ng two f ormer WCDA Cr imi nal Di vi si on prosecutor ' s turned RJ C
J udges on 2/13/13 i n ( an Order f or Competency Eval uat i on si gned and entered by
J udge Pear son at an 8:30 am hear i ng i n 11-063341 was provi ded, i n wr i t i ng, to
J udge Cl i f ton i n 12-065630, wi th shal l l anguage, and DDA Young' s wi l l i ngness
to go al ong wi th J udge Cl i f ton i n ref usi ng to f ol l ow NRS 178.405' s mandatory
stay i s arguabl y i mpermi ssi bl e. To have RJ C Bai l l i f f ' s then Order Coughl i n to
remai n at the RJ C, then go i nto a hear i ng brought on an Emergency Basi s upon DDA
Young maki ng an Ex Par te Request f or J udge Cl i f ton to resconsi der hi s Order f or
Competency Eval uati on al l has a rather f ox i n the hen house qual i ty to i t when
i t comes to the WCDA's Of f i ce, and now RJ C J udges whomhad previ ousl y spent the
maj or i ty of thei r career ' s i n the WCDA's Of f i ce-Cr imi nal Di vi si on, havi ng thi ngs
a cer tai n way an awful l ot of the t i me. ) .
That ' s the hear i ng Cougl i n real l y wanted conti nued because, as
speci f i cal l y menti oned by J udge Pearson at a 2/5/13 8: 30 am hear i ng on some
unserved, unnot i ced Order Show Cause (Coughl i n was bai l ed out at 1:45 am ( af ter
the l ast bus had l ef t 911 Par r Bl vd, requi r i ng I wal k 3.5 mi l es to my 1471 E.
9th St . l ocat i on, at whi ch I rent a f i f th wheel t rai l er f or $75 a month, a rent
I can barel y make each month) and Coughl i n was onl y ar ound to at tend that 11-
063341 unnot i ced ( or improper l y not i ced Gagnon 1 hear i ng consi der i ng hi s WC
I nmate Rel ease i nf ormati on i ndi cated such hear i ng woul d be on 2/7/13, and now
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 58/118 -
MOTIONS
Coughl i n f aced Show Cause Hear i ng on 3/5/13 (whi ch i s, cur i ousl y, noted i n the
docket f or RCR12-065630, and expl ai ns the f act that Bruce L i ndsay' s paral egal
Di ana Sim' s f axed a l et ter L i ndsay di ctated seeki ng a cont i nuance of such 3/5/13
OSC Hear i ng f rom J udge Cl i f ton, ci t i ng a schedul i ng conf l i ct , wi th Sims f axi ng
the the RJ C such l et ter to J udge Cl i f ton wi th a desi gnat i on thereon that i t
ref ered t o "RCR12-065630" whi ch compl etel y undermi nes L i ndsay' s subsequent
asser t i on that hi s f ai l ure to appear on 3/19/ 13 at the cont i nuat i on of t he t r i al
i n that mat ter was not probl emati c, as he f el t he was not at torney of record on
"Dave' s case" ( J udge Davi d Cl i f ton) and that hi s ear l i er i ndi cat i ons to Coughl i n
j ust before and dur i ng the 3/11/13 OSC Hear i ng ( the case number assi gned to that
combi nat i on hear i ng has changed numerous t imes, wi th i nconsi stent i ndi cat i ons as
to whi ch al l egat i ons and subj ect matter were to be and were addressed i n whi ch
case number ) that a "gl obal resol ut i on that wi l l al l ow you to pract i ce l aw and
not have any SCR 111(6) convi ct i ons on your r ecord as to any of the case wherei n
you have ever been a def endant i n the RJ C" was, not t r ue af ter al l ) over some
al l egat i on that Coughl i n cal l ed the RJC, al l egedl y i n vi ol at i on of J udge
Sfer razza' s 12/20/ 12 Admini strat i ve Order 12- 01 (no case number i ndi cated i n the
capt i on t herei nm and arguabl y, the servi ce of process of that Admi ni st rat i ve
Order was i nsuf f i ci ent , and such Order ext i ngui shed upon the cal endar i ng year
changi ng to 2013, and the seat i ng of a new Chi ef J udge to repl ace then Chi ef
J udge Sf er razza) , to see i f that Hear i ng i n 11-063341 i ndi cated as set f or
2/5/13 was, i n f act , st i l l on cal endar , or whether the Hear i ng hel d at 8: 30 am
on 2/5/13 repl aced such Hear i ng) 12- 065630. . . that DAS hear i ng i n 063341 was
i ncorrectl y not i ced on my J ai l Rel ease papers f or 2/5/ 13 or somethi ng. . . At that
2/3/13 Hear i ng I got an Order f or Competency Eval uat i on f rom Pearson, then went
and provi ded that to J udge Cl i f ton at the resumpti on of the 065630 t r i al
immedi atel y thereaf ter , whi ch, under NRS 178. 405, requi red Cl i f ton to suspend
the t r i al i n 11-065630. Of course, he di d not. He has demonstrated a wi l l i ngness
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 59/118 -
MOTIONS
to f ai l t o appl y t he l aw as wr i t ten i n cer tai n i nstances, i nvari abl y to the
benef i t of the State, of ten wi th the encouragement of DDA Young ( though, to be
f ai r , at the 2/13/ 13 Tr i al , DDA Young di d poi nt out to J udge Cl i f ton the shal l
l anguage i n NRS 178.405, to whi ch J udge Cl i f t on made, admi t tedl y, an i nvent i ve,
argument that some f ai l ure to make speci f i c f i ndi ngs of f act or somethi ng al ong
those l i nes i n J udge Pearsons j ust mi nted Order For Competency Eval uat i on i n 11-
063341 of 2/13/13 made i nappl i cabl e the mandatory stay under NRS 178.405. Even
i f one were to over l ook i n possi bl e impropr i ety of J udge Cl i f ton suspendi ng that
Tri al , st ar t i ng at 9 am i n 12-065630 l ong enough f or DDA Young to go to the RJ C
counter and make and ex parte request f or an emergency reconsi derat i on hear i ng
before J udge Pearson, i ncl udi ng the evi dent par t i al i ty revel aed by f ai l i ng to
appl y procedural r ul es to t he State i n the same r i gi d and over l y f ormul ai c
manner to whi ch the RJ C has appl i ed them to Coughl i n ( i ncl udi ng the 10 days
Coughl i n shoul d have to respond to such a Moti on f or Reconsi derat i on of the
Order f or Competency Eval uat i on of 2/ 13/13 i n 11-063341) , there st i l l exi sts the
f act that J udge Cl i f ton f ai l ed to f ol l ow NRS 178.405 and immedi atel y Stay al l
proceedi ngs i n al l depar tments, but rather , al l owed DDA Young a recess t o go and
make hi s ex par te communi cat i ons to the RJ C Bai l i f f counter seeki ng an Emergency
Hear i ng before J udge Pearson to reconsi der hi s 2/13/13 Order f or Competency
Eval uat i on. DDA Young' s maki ng such Moti on vi ol ated t he mandatory automat i c
stay requi red by NRS 178.405 l eavi ng the RJ C to rel y upon some dubi ous asser t i on
that J duge Pearson j ust happened to cont i nue mul l i ng hi s deci si on to enter the
Order For Competency Eval uat i on he entered i n 11-063441 at approximatel y 8:45
am, sua sponte, wi thout any prompti ng or extr a j udi ci al communi cat i ons wi th
J udge Cl i f ton, DDA Young, or anyone el se. . . somethi ng J udge Pearson ref used to
ref ute the al l egati on of upon Coughl i n put t i ng i t before him dur i ng the br i ef
Emergency Reconsi derat i on Hear i ng J udge Cl i f t on l ef t t he bench l ong enough i n
12-065630 on 2/13/ 13 to al l ow J udge Pearson t o take i t an vacate or otherwi se
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 60/118 -
MOTIONS
amend hi s Order f or Competency Eval uat i on, at whi ch poi nt J udge Pearson di d
render a rul i gn that he woul d enter an Order havi ng the State pay f or a mental
heal th eval uat i on f or the i ndi gent Coughl i n, that , to thi s date, st i l l has not
been entered and Coughl i n has been unabl e to have such done due to the f ai l ure
to i ssue a check t o him made out to hi s pyschi at r i st , Dr. Suat Yasar , MD ( the
State, DDA Young, and Ri chard G. Hi l l , Esq. , have al l been abl e to get Emergency
Ex Par te Moti ons granted agai nst Coughl i n, whereas, DDA Young' s f ai l ure to
oppose Coughl i n' s 2/21/12 Moti on to Di smi ss i n 12-065630 (whi ch, arguabl y under
Pol k v. State and DCR 13(3) may requi red such Moti on t o Di smi ss be granted)
resul ted i n J udge Cl i f ton, almost ref l exi vel y by i nst i nct , sua sponte, maki ng an
argument on the State' s behal f that DDA Young had impl i ci l ty opposed such Moti on
to Di smi ss, thereby reveal i ng f ur ther the evi dent par t i al i ty agai nst Coughl i n by
the RJ C j udi ci ary pervadi ng al l of t he var i ous prosecut i ons and
evi ct i ons/ l andl ord tenant mat ters therei n) .
The moti on pendi ng before t hi s Cour t asks that the di st r i ct cour t
j udge who heard t he case be di squal i f i ed. A moti on. to di squal i f y a j udge must
set f or th f acts and reasons suf f i ci ent to cause a reasonabl e person to quest i on
the j udge' s impar ti al i ty, and the chal l enged j udge may contradi ct the mot i on' s
al l egat i on. The mot i on must be ref erred to another j udge f or adj udi cat i on.
Towbi n Dodge, LLC v. Di st . Ct. 121 Nev. 251,260, 112 P. 3d 1063 (2005) .
Coughl i n f i l ed and had a copy served on J udge Cl i f ton' s chambers
pr i or to the commencement of t r i al on 12/12/12 i n 12-065630 ( i n accordance wi th
the express l anguage of NRS 1.235(2)(b) , to whi ch J udge Cl i f ton made a non-
sequi tur argument rel ated t o the t i me set f or star t of t r i al where such
statutory di ctate actual l y requi res maki ng a Moti on to Di squal i f y such as
Cougl i n' s of 12/11/ 12 i n 12- 065630 not l ater than the commencement of t r i al or
hear i ng of the case where the f acts upon whi ch di squal i f i cat i on of the j udge
i s sought are not known to the par ty before the par ty i s not i f i ed of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 61/118 -
MOTIONS
assi gnment of the j udge or beof re any pretr i al hear i ng i s hel d. Coughl i n was
not not i f i ed of the t ransf er of 12-065630 to J udge Cl i f ton, f rom J udge Lynch
unti l a t ime to cl ose i n proximi ty t o the commencement of t r i al on 12/11/ 13 i n
12-065630 and st i l l has not been tol d why the mat ter was apparentl y t ransf er red,
cur i ousl y, on 2/27/ 12 ( same day as t r i al before J udge Nash Holmes i n 11 TR 26800
resul t i ng i n 5 day summary contempt i ncarcerat i on and a 3/14/12 wr i t ten
gr i evance to the SBN wherei n J udge Nash Holmes i ndi cates she had heard he
(Coughl i n) may be l i vi ng i n hi s car somewhere, whi ch i s rather t roubl i ng
(especi al l y consdi er i ng RJ C J udge Schroeder woul d i ssue a def aul t summary
evi ct i on l ockout Order the f ol l owi ng day i n 12-374 to Gayl e Kern, Esq. , where
Kern hersel f vi ol ated RPC 3. 5A, especi al l y consi der i n the l engthy Tenant' s
Answer and Pre-Hear i ng Br i ef Coughl i n f i l ed on 3/8/12 i n 12-374 and the
j ur i sdi cti onal bar i n NRS 40.253(6) requi r i ng that Kern f i l e a Landl ord' s
Af f i davi t PRIOR to the hol di ng of any such summary evi ct i on hear i ng (Coughl i n
al l egedl y appeared a coupl e mi nutes l at to that 3/15/12 hear i ng, where NV
Energey and Kern, and her unauthor i zed pract i t i oner of l aw non at torney
associ ate/ proper ty manager Western Nevada Management ' s Sue K i ng al l egedl y
conspi red to depr i ve Coughl i n of el ectr i ci ty to hi s then home l aw of f i ce at 1422
E. 9th ST. #2 f or over one week) , maki ng J udge Schroeder ' s 3/15/ 12 Lockout Order
voi de f or l ack of j ur i sdi cti on ( see NRS 40.400 and NRC 60(b) (4) , though, extra-
j udi ci al sua sponte i nvesti gat i on, apparentl y, by RJ C J udge Schroeder resul ted
i n a rather cur i ous Order on 11/14/12 di sposi ng of any need f or Kern to addresss
such ser i ous al l egat i ons of prof essi onal mi sconduct .
Thi s i s especi al l y t rue i f one consi der Marshal Menzel used to be a
RJC Bai l i f f and RJ C Bai l i f f Reyes had i nter rogated Coughl i n as to whether he was
recordi ng the summary evi cti on t r i al ( i t i s not cl ear that SCR Rul es rel ated to
members of the medi a appl y to pro se at torney l i t i gants i n J usti ce Cour t,
regardl ess, even had Coughl i n been aware of t hem at the t ime) i n 11-1708 before
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 62/118 -
MOTIONS
J udge Sf er razza and J udge Nash Holmes test imony on 11/ 14/12 at Coughl i n' s SBN
f ormal di sci pl i nary hear i ng that she had heard you l i ke to record thi ngs. Put
together , the i nf r ence i s t hat RJ C Bai l i f f Reyes and Marshal Menzel (Coughl i n
f i l ed a TPO Agai nst Reyes i n February 2012 and Menzel sent a repor t to t he SBN
detai l i ng i ssues he takes wi th Coughl i n i n Apr i l 2012) do a l ot of gossi pi ng
whi l e at work. Menzel has f ol l owed Cougl i n i nto the RJ C Cr imi nal Di vi si on
f i l i ng and cast i gated Coughl i n f or not havi ng a j ob. Reyes has i ssued
i nvect i ve to Coughl i n regardi ng Coughl i n taki ng mental medi cati on. RJ C
Bai l i f f Reyes admi ts to tel l i ng Coughl i n, wi t h WCPD Lesl i e and Goodni ght seated
besi de a seated Coughl i n that Reyes woul d put my boot up your ass, though
Reyes, shor t l y af t er mi stat i ng Coughl i n' s ci t at i on to Shepp (Reyes accused
Coughl i n of l yi ng to J udge Sfer razza about the impor t of Shepp, then proceeded
to provi de hi s butchered i nterpreat i on of the excl usi onary rul e to the Four th
Amendment, dur i ng a conversat i on wi th Coughl i n the day af ter J udge Sf er r azza
convi cted Coughl i n of BOTH pet ty l ar ceny and recei vi ng stol en proper ty where
Coughl i n was al l eged to have reci eved the very proper ty he al l egedl y stol e, FROM
HIMSELF) . Reyes went on to chi de Coughl i n f or al l egedl y steal i ng some l ost ,
mi sl ai d, or abandoned proper ty f rom a 24 year ol d skateboard whom al l egedl y had
set hi s i Phone down on the concrete at 11:15pm at ni ght i n the downtown Reno
skate pl aze then venture to the opposi te si de of the pl aze, f ar enough away to
f ai l to hear a st i l l uni dent i f i ed man (as conf i rmed by a vi deo taped admi ssi on
that J udge Sf er razza rul ed i r rel evant and hear say, of Ni col e Watson) hol d the
i Phone al of t , of f er i t up, then proceed to threaten to throw i t i n the r i ver
i f someone di d not cl aim i t immedi atel y) . Reyes character i zed the 24 year ol d
skateboard to Coughl i n as j ust a ki d. Reyes excused hi s own threat to
Coughl i n to put my boot up your ass of October 9th, 2011 as a subter f uge
that was permi ssi bl e gi ven Reyes status as a member of l aw enforcement .
Fur ther , upon J udge Cl i f ton havi ng Coughl i n t aken i nto custody on 2/13/ 13 i n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 63/118 -
MOTIONS
12-065630, Chi ef Bai l i f f Sexton remi nded Coughl i n that he st i l l have hangi ng
over your head f i ve di f f er ent extremel y de mi nimi s al l eged vi ol at i ons of J udge
Sfer razza' s 12/20/ 12 Admini strat i ve Order 12- 01, whi ch threat apparent l y was put
i nto pl ay by the 2/ 25/13 Order To Show Cause AO 12-01, f i l e stamped 3:45pm, upon
Coughl i n f i l i ng a Noti ce of Appeal t o the 2/13/13 Order by J udge Cl i f ton i n 12-
065630 sentenci ng Coughl i n, summar i l y, and denyi ng any stay thereto despi te good
cause show, especi al l y rel at i ng to 62337 and the j ai l depr i vi ng Coughl i n of hi s
medi cat i ons dur i ng two of t he three quest i onabl e i ncarcerat i ons the RJ C had
subj ected Coughl i n to between 2/1/13 and 2/12/ 13, and Coughl i n' s establ i shed
suf f er i ng f rom cl i ni cal Maj or Depressi ve Di sorder , Treatment Resi stant
Depressi on, and ADD/ADHD. The causal connecti on between Coughl i n' s ear l y
morni gn emai l of 2/ 1/13 to WCDA I nspector Covi ngton ( t he onl y person ADA Hel zer
i s al l owi ng Coughl i n to communi cate wi th i n r ef erence to CR12-2025 and RJ C 11-
0633341) and the NRS 171.136 vi ol at i ng summary ar rest f or an al l eged probat i on
vi ol at i on di sproven by DAS Of f i cer Ramos' own Coworker, DAS Of f i cer Brown' s
1/24/13 emai l to Coughl i n, where such ar rest i s notated at occur i ng AFTER 7 pm
(7:02 pm) on the PC Sheet and I nmate Booki ng papers f r om 2/1/13, i s obvi ous, and
t roubl i ng. A simi l ar casual connecti on seems apparent between a 2/6/13 emai l to
WCDA DDA-Civi l Di vi si on Watts-Vi al obj ect i ng to hi s 11/ 13/12 f axed obj ect i ons ot
Coughl i n' s SCR 110 subpoenas on Washoe County and 2J DC personnel and the 2/8/13
poi nt a gun at Coughl i n' s head f rom f i ve f eet away f or no good reason by RPD
Waddl e ar rest and charge of a gross mi sdemeanor vi ol ati on of the SBN TPO over
some al l eged vi ol at i on on 1/ 3/13 and a f el ony charge f or some al l eged vi ol at i on
of the SBN EPO i n 12-607 over some al l eged conduct on 1/23/13 or thereabouts
( the purpor ted servi ce of t he TPO i n 12-599 by Bai l i f f Reyes on 12/19/12
i nvol ved Reyes f ol l owi ng Coughl i n i nto the t i ny DAS check i n cl oset and shovi ng
hi s f orearm i nto Coughl i n' s mi dsect i on i n i nsi st i ng Coughl i n was bei ng detai ned
suf f i ci ent l y l ong enough to serve Coughl i n the TPO Order i n 12- 599. . . simi l ar l y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 64/118 -
MOTIONS
shovi ng of a f orearm i nto Coughl i n' s mi dsect i on occurred dur i ng an at tempted
servi ce of an EPO i n ei ther both 12- 599 and 12-6087 by WCSO Deputy Cour teney, on
1/4/13. Such apparent mi sconduct f ur ther vi t i ates the vi abi l i t y of such
at tempts at servi ce, especi al l y where Deputy Cour teney ut i l i zed f orce i n
at tempti ng to prevent Coughl i n f rom wal ki ng on hi s dr i ve way towards hi s f i f th
wheel . Next i n the apparent retal i atory causal connect i on parade i s Coughl i n' s
i nqui r i ng wi th WCDA DDA Watts-Vi al on 2/25/13 about those SCR 110 Supboenas
agai n, at approximatel y 2pm, j ust bef ore f ormer WCDA Of f i ce-Cr i minal Di vi si on
prosecutor turne RJ C J udge Pearson entered hi s 2/25/13 Show Cause Order set t i ng
f or hear i ng such mat ter on 3/5/13, based upon some unsworn, unat t r i buted,
al l egat i ons that Coughl i n had made var i ous contacts wi th non- RJC Bai l i f f
personnel , though the compl ete l ack of speci f i ci ty, the vi ol at i on of the
requi rement f or such out of the presence of t he cour t al l eged conduct
const i tuti ng contempt under NRS 22.030(3) , and the general l ack of not i ce as to
the charges agai nst him (what di d such contacts entai l ? Who exact l y woul d the
wi tnesses of such contacts be? How can Coughl i n subpoena them wi thout
suf f i ci ent l y detai l ed not i ce thereof ? Why i s Cougl hi n not af f orded at l east the
10 j udi ci al days seemi ngl y requi red to prepare f or any such Show Cause Hear i ng.
I s not the purpor ted servi ce of such Show Cause Order i nci dent to Coughl i n
checki gn i n wi th DAS i nsuf f i ci ent servi ce of process f or the same reasons other
such servi ce at tempts i n 12- 607, 12- 599, RJ C AO 12-01, etc. , shoul d f ai l ? Do
not the TPO's and EPO's i n 12-607 and 12-599 exceed the j ur i sdi ct i on to make
such order s where they impi nge upon Coughl i n' s f i r st Amendment Rights and r i ghts
as a l i t i gat i n i n hi s f ormal di sci pl i nary hear i ng and the appeal thereof , and
where such orders are i n now way reasonabl y or nar rowl y tai l ore to achi eve the
purpor ted saf ety goal s to whi ch they address?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 65/118 -
MOTIONS
NRS 1.235 Procedure f or di squal i f yi ng j udges other than Supreme Cour t
j ust i ces.
1. Any par t y to an act i on or proceedi ng pendi ng i n any cour t other
than the Supreme Cour t , who seeks to di squal i f y a j udge f or actual or impl i ed
bi as or prej udi ce must f i l e an af f i davi t speci f yi ng the f acts upon whi ch the
di squal i f i cat i on i s sought . The af f i davi t of a par ty r epresented by an at torney
must be accompani ed by a cer t i f i cate of the at torney of record that the
af f i davi t i s f i l ed i n good f ai th and not i nterposed f or del ay. Except as
otherwi se provi ded i n subsect i ons 2 and 3, the af f i davi t must be f i l ed:
( a) Not l ess than 20 days before the date set f or t r i al or hear i ng
of the case; or
(b) Not l ess than 3 days before the date set f or the heari ng of any
pretr i al matter .
2. Except as otherwi se provi ded i n thi s subsecti on and subsect i on
3, i f a case i s not assi gned to a j udge before the t ime requi red under
subsect i on 1 f or f i l i ng the af f i davi t , the af f i davi t must be f i l ed:
( a) Wi thi n 10 days af ter the par ty or t he par ty s at torney i s
not i f i ed that the case has been assi gned to a j udge;
(b) Before t he hear i ng of any pretr i al matter ; or
( c) Before t he j ury i s empanel ed, evi dence taken or any r ul i ng made
i n the t r i al or hear i ng,
whi chever occurs f i r st . I f the f acts upon whi ch di squal i f i cati on of the
j udge i s sought ar e not known to the par ty bef ore the par ty i s not i f i ed of the
assi gnment of the j udge or before any pretr i al hear i ng i s hel d, the af f i davi t
may be f i l ed not l ater than the commencement of the t r i al or hear i ng of the
case.
3. I f a case i s reassi gned to a new j udge and t he t ime f or f i l i ng
the af f i davi t under subsecti on 1 and paragraph (a) of subsect i on 2 has expi red,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 66/118 -
MOTIONS
the par t i es have 10 days af ter not i ce of the new assi gnment wi thi n whi ch to f i l e
the af f i davi t , and the t r i al or heari ng of the case must be reschedul ed f or a
date af ter the expi rat i on of the 10- day per i od unl ess the par t i es st i pul ate to
an ear l i er date.
4. At the t ime the af f i davi t i s f i l ed, a copy must be served upon
the j udge sought t o be di squal i f i ed. Servi ce must be made by del i ver i ng the copy
to the j udge personal l y or by l eavi ng i t at t he j udge s chambers wi th some
person of sui tabl e age and di scret i on empl oyed therei n.
5. The j udge agai nst whom an af f i davi t al l egi ng bi as or prej udi ce
i s f i l ed shal l proceed no f ur ther wi th the mat ter and shal l :
( a) Immedi atel y t ransf er the case to another depar tment of the
cour t , i f there i s more than one depar tment of the cour t i n the di st r i ct , or
request t he j udge of another di st r i ct cour t t o presi de at the t r i al or hear i ng
of the mat ter ; or
(b) Fi l e a wr i t ten answer wi th the cl er k of the cour t wi thi n 5
j udi ci al days af ter the af f i davi t i s f i l ed, admi t t i ng or denyi ng any or al l of
the al l egat i ons contai ned i n the af f i davi t and set t i ng f or th any addi t i onal
f acts whi ch bear on the quest i on of the j udge s di squal i f i cat i on. The quest i on
of the j udge s di squal i f i cat i on must thereupon be heard and determi ned by
another j udge agreed upon by the part i es or , i f they are unabl e to agree, by a
j udge appoi nted:
(1) By the presi di ng j udge of the j udi ci al di st r i ct i n
j udi ci al di str i cts havi ng more than one j udge, or i f t he presi di ng j udge of the
j udi ci al di str i ct i s sought to be di squal i f i ed, by the j udge havi ng the greatest
number of years of servi ce.
(2) By the Supreme Court i n j udi ci al di st r i cts havi ng onl y
one j udge.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 67/118 -
MOTIONS
A mul t i tude of such f acts were not known to Coughl i n, and necessar i l y
coul d not be known as i ndi cated i n NRS 1.235(2) (b) , as Coughl i n detai l ed i n hi s
12/11/12 Moti on to Di squal i f y and i n a 1/7/13 Moti on t o Di squal i f y J udge Cl i f ton
as wel l i n 12-067980. Somehow, J udge Cl i f ton then al l owed DDA a recess to go to
the counter and request and Emergency Hear i ng before J udge Pearson to have that
Order f or Competency Eval uat i on entered an hour before i n 063341 vacated. DDA
Young was successf ul i n gett i ng a hear i ng and havi ng t hat Order vacated. J udge
Pearson was, some might say, evasi ve dur i ng t hat hear i ng when quest i oned as to
whether he had extra- j udi ci al di scussi ons wi th Cl i f ton (whom had j ust exi ted the
Bench i n Cour troomD where the cont i nuat i on of the Tr i al i n 12- 065630 was bei ng
hel d on 2/ 13/13 despi te Coughl i n' s 1/ 22/13 Mot i on f or Order f or Competency
Eval uat i on, and despi te J udge Cl i f ton j ust i f yi ng hi s f ai l ure to f ol l ow the
requi rement i n NRS 1.235 that he respond, i n af f i davi t , to Coughl i n' s Mot i on f or
Di squal i f i cat i on of 12/11/12 based upon an i ndi cat i on that Coughl i n' s use of a
Decl arat i on onl y f ai l ed to meet the cal l f or an af f i davi t i n that stat ute,
despi te t he impor t of NRS 53.045 and the Court ' s hol di ng i n Buckwal ter whi ch
concl usi vel y establ i sh as mandatory author i ty that a Decl arat i on wi l l absol utel y
suf f i ce i n such ci rcumstances, par t i cul ar l y where Coughl i n had al ready been
accorded i n f orma pauper i s status by J udge Cl i f ton and coul d not af f ord a
notary, and the Sel f Hel p Center at 1 S. Si erra St . onl y provi des f ree notary
servi ce i n f ami l y l aw cases) l ong enough f or J udge Pear son to hol d the Emergency
Hear i ng t o Vacate hi s j ust entered Order f or Competency Eval uati on i n 11- 063341,
whi ch he cl aimed t o have been revi ewi ng, unprompted, f ol l owi ng hi s entry of that
Order , i n hi s chambers, unprompted. . . ) .
I t has al so become even f urther apparent that the RJ C Bai l i f f are or
may be engagi ng i n a coordi nated ef f or t ( f ur t her suggested by t he apparent
di ctate i n J udge Sf er razza' s Admini st rat i ve Order 12-01 that Coughl i n : i nser
l anguage where on 2/21/13 Cougl i n appeared at the RJ C to take the PBC test and
check i n wi th DAS as requi r ed by hi s probat i on i n 11-063341 ( i n par t based upon
a convi cti on f or possessi ng or recei vi ng stol en proper ty that i s cl earl y
vi ol at i ve of Nevada l aw:
The onl y reason I went i nto cour t i s because I am sel f represent i ng on
063341. Bruce L i ndsay i s not my at t orney of record on that case, nor have I
ever consented to hi s becomi ng my attorney of record t herei n at thi s poi nt ,
though woul d consi der i t i f the State were to provi de f or L i ndsay to be pai d to
do so.
I am aski ng i n wr i t i ng i f Bruce L i ndsay, Esq. was appoi nted as my counsel
of record i n 2012- 065630 f or the 2/13/13 Contempt Heari ng, at whi ch I recei ved 5
days i n j ai l f or bei ng l ate, wherei n J udge Cl i f ton al l eged I had al ready had the
benef i t of a warni ng, yet I mai ntai n that Robbi n Baker tol d me the star t t ime of
the t r i al i n that matter on 12/11/11 had been moved f r om 9 am to 1:30 pm. J udge
Cl i f ton mai ntai ned that he di d not change the star t t i me, then i nsi sted Robbi n
Baker di d not tel l me that , then ref used to i ndi cate j ust how he coul d possi bl y
know what Robbi n Baker had tol d me. Subsequentl y i t was l earned that Robbi n
Baker was not even at work that day, and that no one had cal l ed her that day to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 68/118 -
MOTIONS
i nqui re as to whether I was cor rect i n my asser t i on as to her havi ng
communi cated the star t t ime of the t r i al as havi ng changed. I bel i eve i t i s
si tuat i ons l i ke that that r esul ted i n the current Admi ni strat i ve Order 12-01
(whi ch may not even st i l l be bi ndi ng consi deri ng i t was f rom 2012 and by f ormer
Chi ef J udge Sf er razza) wherei n I seemi ngl y am prevented f rom communi cati ng wi th
any cour t personnel besi des the Bai l i f f ' s, based upon some unnot i ced f i ndi ng
that I had caused di strupt i ons i n the f i l i ng of f i ce, an accusati on to whi ch I
was never provi ded an opportuni ty to be heard on.
Previ ousl y, J udge Sfer razza ref used to al l ow me to appear on my own behal f ,
despi te my havi ng been a l i censed attorney i n Nevada at the t ime i n 11-063341,
and despi te my havi ng f i l ed a Noti ce of Appearance therei n, and an Author i zat i on
to represent . Then J udge Sf er razza, at t r i al on 8/27/ 12 and 8/ 29/12 ref used to
al l ow me to sel f r epresent st i l l . Then he ref used to accept the pl ea agreement
that woul d have di sposed of al l three mat ters to whi ch I am a def endant i n the
RJC (11-063341, whi ch i s now on appeal i n CR12-2025, wi th the Appeal Br i ef , per
the at tached Br i ef i ng Schedul e, on March 9th, 2013, and where J udge El l i ott
entered an Order grant i ng my I FP on 1/9/13 provi di ng f or the preparat i on of the
t ranscr i pt at publ i c expense; 11-065630, whi ch stemmed f orm a 1/ 14/12 "mi suse of
emergency communi cat i ons" gross mi sdemeanor ar rest , that had the t r i al star t on
12/11/12, where the WCPD was rel ei ved on 11/27/12 ( the day pre- t r i al moti ons
were due, I mai ntai n I was f orced to proceed pro se due to Bi ray Dogan' s
compl ete l ack of r epresentat i on, i ncl udi ng f ai l i ng to appear where requi red at
the 2/14/ 12 ar rai gnment on a gross mi sdemeanor ( i ndi gent def endnans ent i t l ed to
representat i on on gross mi sdo and f el oni es "at al l stages" . . . ) ; and the matter
wherei n Bruce i s counsel of record, 12-067980, where Bruce has st i pul ated to
several cont i nuances. . . and now today apparentl y DDA Young t r i ed to pul l
somethi ng where he f ai l ed t o st i p to the conti nuance i n 11-063341, ref uses to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 69/118 -
MOTIONS
take my cal l s or r espond to any wr i t ten communi cat i ons. Fur ther WCDA Legal
Assi stant T i na Gal l i i nf ormed me today that I am not t o cal l thei r of f i ce on 11-
063341 and that "Di ana f rom Bruce L i ndsay' s Of f i ce i s handl i ng i t" . That i s not
t rue. I am sel f r epresent i ng i n 11- 063341 at thi s poi nt .
Fur ther, I never expressl y consented to L i ndsay appear i ng i n 11-065630
at the 2/ 13/13 Contempt Hear i ng, wherei n I was brought i n upon bei ng summari l y
taken i nto custody the day before, and wi thout consul t i ng wi th L i ndsay at al l or
ever consent i ng to hi s appear i ng on my behal f , L i ndsay was seated at the
def endants desk.
L i ndsay t hen proceeded to di sparage my abi l i t y to represent cl i ents curr ent l y on
the record, stat i ng "Your Honor , can you imagi ne him tryi ng to represent cl i ents
i n hi s cur rent state?" as t hough I was so i ncompetent that doi ng so woul d surel y
produce poor resul ts. J udge Cl i f ton qui ckl y poi nted out my competency t o be an
at torney was not t he rel evant i nqui r y. L i ndsay ref used to seek to exami ned
Robbi n Baker or cal l her as a wi tness i n l i ne wi th my argument that I had not
actual l y ever been gi ven a "warni ng" agai nst my bei ng l ate to cour t "happeni ng
agai n" (as J udge Cl i f ton i ndi cated I had) . Fur ther , L i ndsay ask me, i n open
cour t , i n f ront of J udge Cl i f ton, " so what happened, why were you l ate" . duty
of conf i dent i al i ty.
A member of Washoe County l aw enforcement st ated to me at some poi nt
whi l e i n custody on 2/12/13 that he expected I woul d be rel eased the f ol l owi ng
day wi th credi t f or t ime served. I nstead, I recei ved 5 days
i ncarcerat i on. Another member of washoe county l aw enf orcement subsequentl y
expressed to me that he was surpr i sed by such an l ong sentence.
I have been tol d t hat L i ndsay' s appeared on 2/ 13/13 i n 12-065630 " f ree of
charge" despi te my i ndi gent status and the f act that t he State i s requi r ed to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 70/118 -
MOTIONS
provi de me an at torney at any hear i ng, even a ci vi l contempt hear i ng, wherei n
there i s even a possi bi l i ty of any j ai l t ime, much l ess 5 days of j ai l
t ime. . .L i ndsay st i l l has not f i l ed an SB89 f orm or Proposed Order ( though he
seemed to oral l y make such moti on on 2/13/13) requi r i ng that I be eval uated f or
competency or f i tness to st and t r i al , despi te hi s repeatedl y i ndi cat i ng he
bel i eves my competency i s ser i ousl y i n quest i on. I bel i eve he i s obl i gated to
f i l e such a Propose Order and or Moti on f or an Order f or Competency Eval uat i on
Immedi atel y, pursuant to NRS 178.405. Fur ther , even at the Contempt Hear i ng on
2/13/13, i n 12-067980, the State was requi red to provi de me counsel , and gi ven
the conf l i ct present wi th t he WCPD and APD, pr i vate counsel was
requi red. Addi t i onal l y, I bel i eve i t i s extr emel y bad f ai th f or the State and
RJC to ref used to provi de me pr i vate counsel f or the 12/11/12 Tr i al i n 12-
065630, onl y to then al l ow WCPD Lesl i e to abuse process wi th hi s 12/18/12 TPO
Appl i cat i on, therei n br i ngi ng about the cur rent ar rangement wi th cour t appoi nted
pr i vate counsel . Pl ease i ndi cate i n wr i t i ng whether Li ndsay was pai d to appear
on my behal f on 2/ 13/13 i n 12-065630 at the Contempt Hear i ng.
The DAS ar rest on 2/1/13 was af ter 7pm i n vi ol at i on of NRS 171. 136. Further ,
the at tached emai l s bel ow suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat there di d not exi st probabl e
cause to make such an ar rest . Addi t i onal l y, pl ease f i nd bel ow the Pl ea Deal
that I vol untar i l y accepted, on the record i n 11-063341, 12-065630, and 12-
067980 that shoul d di spose of al l three of these mat ter s.
Fur ther , pl ease i ndi cate i n wr i t i ng whether Mr . L i ndsay has been assi gned to
represent me i n the mat ter stemming f rom the 2/8/13 arrest f or a gross
mi sdemeanor TPO vi ol at i on al l eged to have occurred on 1/3/13, and a f el ony EPO
vi ol at i on al l eged to have occurred on or about 1/23/13. Pl ease provi de any
documentat i on your of f i ce has recei ved wi th r espect to that case and an wri t ten
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 71/118 -
MOTIONS
i ndi cat i on of whether your of f i ce wi l l be appear i ng at the ar rai gnment on
3/6/13.
So, on August 14th, 2013, wi th hi s havi ng set an ar t i f i ci al l y f ar out f r om
the 10/14/ 13 t r i al date i n RCR2013-072675 ( the prosecut i on of Coughl i n f or ,
agai n NRS 199.280 i nci dent to RJ C Bai l i f f J ohn Hol gui n Reyes scor i ng some poi nts
by at tacki ng Coughl i n i n response to Coughl i n' s 5/23/13 f i l i ng wi th the RJC
seeki ng copi es of sensi t i ve f i l i ng t hat are al l egedl y f reel y avai l abl e i n the
publ i c record) of 8/19/13 f or Coughl i n to submi t pre- t r i al moti ons therei n, and
despi te 2J DC J udge St i gl i ch set t i ng a status conf erence i n no l ess than si x
cases i nvol vi ng Coughl i n f or 10 am on 8/19/13 as wel l , J udge Pearson, i n a
compl etel y burdensome and prej udi ci al approach, shi f ted the bi l l f or the
resources associ ated wi th t he WCDA's Of f i ce vi ndi ct i ve and haphazard approach to
prosecut i ng Coughl i n everytime i t needs some l everage f or the var i ous ci vi l
l i abi l i t i es i n coul d f ace i nci dent t o l aw enf orcement mi sconduct (usual l y i n
rel at i on to WCDA's Of f i cer ADA Phi l L i pparel l i admi t t i ng to Coughl i n duri ng a
conversati on on 4/ 12/13 that L i pparel l i f ul l wel l countenances the burgl ar i es on
tenant ' s that the WCSO under takes i n i t s cur r ent approach to conduct i ng l ockouts
i n summary evi ct i ons. . . though someti mes i n rel at i on to the Washoe County j ai l
gi vi ng an at torney l i ke Coughl i n' s personal proper ty, such as hi s smar t phone or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 72/118 -
MOTIONS
a data card, to Muni ci pal Cour t J udge Nash Holmes, then seeki ng to cover that
up, where no warrant or cour t order exi sts al l owi ng f or such a conf i scati on and
vi ol at i on of Coughl i n' s Four th Amendment r i ghts. ) .
Chi ef J udge Pearson' s recent "Admini strat i ve Order 2013-06" rel ates to
Cougl i n' s cases al most as much as hi s 3/22/13 Admi ni st rat i ve Order 2013- 02
rel ated t o Coughl i n' s cross- exami nati ons and arguments made duri ng the 3/ 19/13
t r i al date i n RCR2013-065630, where such 3/22/ 13 Admini st rat i ve Order 2013-02
essent i al l y announced, nearl y 18 months af ter the l aw went i nto ef f ect , AB226
and the concomi tant maj or changes to the way summary evi ct i ons are done i n
Nevada (wi th NRS 40.253(3) ( b) (1) bei ng a par t i cul ar l y bone of content i on i n the
7/31/12 hear i ng on Coughl i n' s Moti ons i n Rev2012-001048 before J udge Pear son
i nci dent to a
170/249
6/14/12 5 Day Unl awful Detai ner Noti ce that l i sted Sparks J ust i ce Cour t as
the cour t, pursuant to the requi rement to l i st the cour t i n NRS 40.253(3) (b) (1) ,
i n whi ch Coughl i n must f i l e a Tenant' s Answer or Af f i davi t wi thi n 5 days.
Coughl i n so submi tted a Tenant ' s Answer to Sparks J usti ce Cour t wi thi n 5
j udi ci al days of t he quasi - constructi ve servi ce of such Noti ce on 6/14/12
(Nevada Cour t Servi ces f ai l ed to mai l such to Coughl i n i n any way, though i t di d
post a copy of the Not i ce t o the door of the "dwel l i ng uni t or apar tment" that
Northwi nds Apar tments rented Coughl i n upon NCS bei ng unabl e to gai n entr y i n i ts
at tempts to burgl ar i ze Coughl i ns' rental and commi t a t respass i n hopes of
ef f ect i ng personal servi ce of such 5 Day Noti ce on Coughl i n.
At such 7/ 31/12 hear i ng, J udge Pearson pract i ced l aw on behal f of
Northwi nd' s Apar tments to whatever extent was necessary to f i l l i n the gaps
where he al so permi t ted an unauthor i zed practi oner of l aw, Nevada Cour t Servi ces
J ef f Chandl er , to cross the bar and make arguments on behal f of hi s "cl i ent" ,
and out of state corporat i on, i n vi ol at i on of NRCP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 73/118 -
MOTIONS
11. J udge Pearson roundl y r ej ected Coughl i n' s NRS 40.253(b) (1) arguments
rel at i ve to the 5 Day Noti ce bei ng def i ci ent f or the purposes of obtai ni n a
summary r emoval order f rom the Reno J ust i ce Cour t where i t l i st ed the Sparks
J ust i ce Cour t as t he pl ace f or Coughl i n to f i l e a Tenant ' s Answer or Af f i davi t .
Apparent l y, i n J udge Scot t Pearsons cour troom, unauthor i zed pract i t i oner' s of
l aw have a net to f al l i n t o save them when t hey commit "mal pract i ce" .
Anyways, J udge Pear sons' s 8/ 14/13 Admini strat i ve Order 2013-06 i s
notewor thy where i t purpor ts to subj ect Coughl i n to the threat of impr i sonment
of up to 25 days f or each vi ol at i on of i t order appl yi ng J CRRT 10 to "ALL
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLI N TO THE RENO JUSTI CE COURT"
whether such are submi t ted by Coughl i n the tenant i n a " l andl ord tenant matter"
where J CRRT 2 cl ear l y states that J CRRT 10 does not appl y to " l andl ord t enant
matters" and NJ CRCP 81, and 83 pl ace br i ght l i ne restr i ct i ons on J udge Pearson
where the l egi sl at ure has enacted a speci f i c statutory scheme i n a set t i ng such
as those l andl ord tenants af f ai r s covered by NRS 40 and NRS 118A. Fur ther , J udge
Pearsons at tempts to abuse the contempt power by, essenti al l y, vi ol at i ng the
spi r i t of WDCR 18 (no t i cky tack ci vi l l aw procedural rul es that vi ol ate NRCP
5(e) anyways where someone' s l i ber ty i s at st ake, i e, i n a cr imi nal case) :
WDCR Rul e 18: "Papers whi ch do not compl y wi th rul es. Except i n cr imi nal
cases and wr i ts ar i si ng f rom cr imi nal cases, f i l i ng of f i ce personnel shal l
ref use to f i l e any document or pl eadi ng whi ch i s not proper l y si gned by al l
persons, or whi ch does not compl y wi th these rul es, Nevada Rul es of Ci vi l
Procedure, the Di st r i ct Cour t Rul es, or appl i cabl e statutes. "
J udge Pear sons AO13-06 i s f ur ther i nterest i ng where, despi te Pearson and
hi s f el l ow l i f el ong prosecutor turned J udge, J udge Cl i f ton' s i nsi stence (al ong
wi th Sf errazza) that Coughl i n i s not abl e to i ssue hi s own subpoenas gi ven the
temporary suspensi on of hi s l aw l i cense (Coughl i n' s l aw l i cense wi th the USPTO
i s not temporar i l y suspended, and Coughl i n can i ssue subpoenas i n that context ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 74/118 -
MOTIONS
i t woul d seem, whi ch extends to the def ense of any di sci pl i nary i nvest i gat i on
ongoi ng t herei n i n G2033) . However , Coughl i n i s represent i ng hi msel f i n a number
of cr imi nal cases i n the RJ C where t he cour t appoi nted conf l i ct counsel
171/249
that J udge Cl i f ton ( and J udge Pearson) admi ts he di rect l y appoi nted
himsel f , i n an apparent vi ol at i on of Canon 2 Rul e 2.13' s "Admini st rat i ve
Appoi ntments" l anguage gi ven the f al l out f rom the 2006 L .A. T imes ar t i cl es on
such appoi ntments, R. Bruce L i ndsay, Esq. , whom threatened to murder Coughl i n on
3/14/13 upon Coughl i n poi nti ng out t hat L i ndsay' s announci ng hi s f ai l ure to
appear at Coughl i n' s 3/19/13 tr i al i n RCR2013- 065630 woul d be, accordi ng to
J udge Cl i f ton' s approach wi th Coughl i n' s al l egedl y bei ng l ate t o cour t on
2/12/13, di rect contempt of cour t , whether L i ndsay was appoi nted to represent
Coughl i n i n such t r i al ( J udge Cl i f ton woul d say no) or whether L i ndsay agreed to
appear as co- counsel and di d so i n f act appear ( the RJ C's Cr imi nal Di vi si on
Cl erk Robbi n Baker and L i ndsay' s of f i ce' s Di ana Simms pl ay i t pret ty f ast and
l oose wi th those appearances as at torney or r ecord. . . and someti mes there i s
f al l out t o that , and J udge Cl i f ton shoul d not be permi t ted to wi l l that away
wi th a di smi ssi ve gl are) . Anyways, where the RJC j udges take the posi t i on that
Coughl i n may not i ssue hi s own subpoenas, J udge Pearson' s AO13-06 appl i es to
Coughl i n prot i ons of J CRRT 10 that onl y appl y to "at torneys" .
Whereas J CRRT 10 r eads: "B. No or i gi nal pl eadi ng or paper may be amended
by maki ng erasures or i nter l i neat i ons thereon, or by at tachi ng sl i ps thereto,
except by l eave of cour t . C. The f ol l owi ng i nf ormati on shal l appear upon the
f i r st page of every paper presented f or f i l i ng: (1) The name, Nevada State Bar
i dent i f i cat i on number , address and t el ephone number of the at torney and of any
associ ated at torney appear i ng f or the par ty f i l i ng the paper ; whether such
at torney appears f or the pl ai nt i f f , def endant, or other par ty; or the name,
address and tel ephone number of a par ty appear i ng i n proper person, shal l be set
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 75/118 -
MOTIONS
f or th to the l ef t of center of the page begi nni ng at l i ne 1 and shal l be si ngl e
spaced. The space to the r i ght of center shal l be reserved f or the f i l i ng marks
of the cl erk. NAME BAR NUMBER ADDRESS CITY , STATE, ZI P CODE TELEPHONE NUMB"
Al so i nterest i ng i s J udge Pearson' s at tempts to appl y J CRRT 11(G)
( rebranded as
(m) of the "PROCEDURAL RULES FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY ZACHARY BARKER
COUGHLIN TO THE RENO JUSTICE COURT") to even Coughl i n' s summary evi ct i on cases.
Such at tempt to appl y J CRRT 11(G) therei n by J udge Sf er razza has now become
qui te a bi g i ssue i n 61383, the appeal of the i ni t i al horr i f i cal l y handl ed by
J udge Sf er razza and the RJ C, summary evi ct i on f rom Coughl i n' s f ormer home l aw
of f i ce i n Rev2011001708 (wel l , actual l y, the precursor si ster case, Rev2011-
001492 mi ght be consi dered the " i ni t i al " one, especi al l y gi ven the f avorabl e NRS
118A.510(e) anal ysi s such provi des t o Coughl i n) , where J udge Sf er razza "entered"
a Post- I t Note Order atop one of Coughl i n' s f i l i ngs ( t hough such was never ,
l i ke, actual l y mai l ed to Coughl i n or the opposi ng par t y or f i l e stamped, etc. . . )
that purpor ted to ei ther deny Coughl i n' s Moti on f or Stay or j ust pl ai n f ai l to
adj udi cate i t based upon J udge Sf er r azza' s content i on that J CRRT 11(G) appl i ed
i n l andl ord tenant mat ters.
J CRRT Rul e 11 al so does not appl y to " l andl ord tenant matters" per J CRRT 2
(and i f t he RJ C wi shes to change i ts rul es, i t must cease doi ng an end r un
around the requi rements of NV J CRCP 84 or otherwi se enf orci ng unwri t ten "house
rul es" l i ke i t has i n the past) to ALL of Coughl i n' s cases ( i ncl udi ng the
mul t i tude of summary evi ct i on based l andl ord tenant mat ters (whi ch begat the
very wrongful cr imi nal prosecut i ons of Coughl i n that t he RJ C i s now ci t i ng to i n
at tempts to but t ress i ts j udi ci al mi sconduct i n seeki ng to enforce now two
speci ous Admini str at i ve Orders agai nst Coughl i n whi l st a f i f th cr imi nal
prosecut i on of Coughl i n by the WCDA's of f i ce i n the RJ C i s set f or t r i al on
10/14/13 i nci dent to an al l eged vi ol at i on of such i ni t i al Admini st rat i ve Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 76/118 -
MOTIONS
of dubi ous l egal i t y by Coughl i n on 5/ 23/13, f or whi ch the out of control RJ C
Bai l i f f J ohn Reyes (whose wi f e f i l e a domest i c vi ol ence protecti on order agai nst
him, al l eges he suf f ers f rom severe depressi on and i s "of f hi s medi cat i ons" and
becomes host i l e and vi ol ent when such i s the case, and the Sheri f f ' s deputi es
have been out to t he Reyes home i n t he past t o respond to at l east one domest i c
di sturbance (al so, Coughl i n f i l ed a Stal ki ng/ Harassment TPO appl i cat i on agai nst
Reyes i n RCP2012-000070 on 2/15/12, j ust pr i or to the 5/2/12 TPO appl i cat i on by
Cathy A. Reyes)
176/249
The i ncreased due to the RJ C J udges own mi sconduct and f ai l ure to abi de by
Nevada l aw, and countenanci ng of the burgl ar i es the WCSO conducts i nstead of
accordi ng tenants the "24 hours" f rom the tenant ' s " recei pt" of a summary
removal order pr i or to the WCSO ef f ect i ng a l ockout . . . al l of whi ch the RJ C and
WCDA now wi sh Coughl i n to f oot the bi l l f or or otherwi se make Coughl i n atone f or
thei r own si ns)
IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER OF: DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY ZACHARY BARKER
COUGHLIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2013- 06 contai ns some r eal l y r i ch moments:
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN i s a par ty t o several cases i n thi s
Cour t ; and
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN regul ar l y submi ts documents to the Court
whi ch f ai l to i ncl ude a case number i n the capti on or l i st mul ti pl e cases i n the
capt i on; and
whi ch f ai l to i ncl ude a cert i f i cate of servi ce or cl ear l y state an except i on to
the ex par te rul e; and ( thi s i s real l y r i ch where there i s no opposi ng par ty i n
these Admi ni st rat i ve Order "cases" , f ur ther , the i ni t i al 12/20/ 12 Admin Order
requi red Coughl i n to do j ust thi s to even get a copy of an order or some f i l i ng,
and now, J udge Pear son, i n a f raudul ent at tempt to get around t he f act t hat the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 77/118 -
MOTIONS
J CRRT Rul e 11(A) , requi res a "proof of servi ce" f or "Moti ons" , not f or t he
"Request f or Audi o Copy of Proceedi ngs" that the 8/5/13 "Noti ce of Document
Recei ved but Not Consi dered by the Cour t" had at tached, served by Howden. . . so,
now, real i z i ng that J CRRT Rul e 11(a) doesn' t appl y to such mi ni ster i al r equests,
J udge Pear son adds to hi s 8/ 14/13 Admin Order: "2. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shal l
not request a copy of a document or t ranscr i pt wi thout f i r st f i l i ng a Mot i on
whi ch compl i es wi th the at t ached Rul es. Any such moti on must be suppor ted by an
af f i davi t of COUGHLIN whi ch must address the basi s f or the request , why simpl y
vi ewi ng t he document i s not suf f i ci ent and whether the document has been
previ ousl y provi ded to him".
How Coughl i n coul d ( and why he shoul d have to i s a whol e nother story)
submi t a moti on j ust to request an audi o t ranscr i pt where "Any such moti on must
be supported by an af f i davi t of COUGHLIN whi ch must address the basi s f or the
request , why simpl y vi ewi ng (NOTE: what does that mean as to "hear i ng" a audi o
t ranscr i pt?) the document ( NOTE: recordi ng?) i s not suf f i ci ent and whether the
document has been previ ousl y provi ded to him"" .
The requi rement that Coughl i n "address the basi s f or t he request" echoes
J udge Pear sons i nst ruct i ons to Coughl i n at a 6/16/13 hear i ng i n RCR2011- 063341
where he i ndi cated Coughl i n woul d need to expl ai n why he wanted a copy of
somethi ng before deci si on on whether or not t o provi de ( even f or purchase)
Coughl i n wi th a copy of such a document or recordi ng i n the publ i c record woul d
be permi tted. That i s proposterous. J udge Pear sons seems to have spent t oo l ong
bei ng the onl y one who gets to deci de (or
177/249
know the basi s f or hi s deci si on) whether to r el ease Brady materi al and i s
appl yi ng that approach where i t has no busi ness i n the j udi ci ar y as to
mini ster i al matter s. The answer to Pearson and Cl i f ton' s cur rent quandry i s not
to l imi t Coughl i n' s access to i tems i n the publ i c record, but r ather , to avoi d
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 78/118 -
MOTIONS
vi ol at i n NRS 178.405, especi al l y vi a impermi ssi bl e extra- j udi ci al
communi cat i ons, i n addi t i on to ceasi ng the improprer admi ni st rat i ve
appoi ntments, especi al l y those i nvol vi ng R. Bruce L i ndsay, Esq
The RJ C f ai l ed to serve a copy of J udge Sf er r azza' s 7/ 29/13 Orders denyi ng
Coughl i n' s Moti ons to Modi f y, etc. t he Workpl ace EPOs i n RCP2012-000607 and
RCP2012-000599, and now i s ref usi ng to even al l ow Coughl i n to purchase copi es of
such, f urhter the RJC wi l l not i ndi cate to Coughl i n whether i t wi l l i ssue the
subpoena on Bai l i f f Reyes wi f es Cathy A. Reyes that Coughl i n submi t ted, and
other such subpoenas, l i ke the one on f ormer RJC Chi ef Ci vi l Cl erk now Sparks
J ust i ce Cour t Cl erk Karen Stanci l whom was one of the l ast RJ C non-Bai l i f f
empl oyees Coughl i n spoke to pr i or to the impl ementat i on of the 12/20/12
Admini str at i ve Order 2012-01. Coughl i n di scussed wi th Stanci l t he ci rcumstances
of the 6/ 28/12 evi ct i on i n Rev2012-001048 and concomi tant ar rest i n RCR2012-
067980 where the RJ C, despi te at l east two phone cal l s between Stanci l and
Coughl i n and one 6/ 26/12 emai l f rom Coughl i n to Stanci l and
RJCWeb@washoecounty.us (whi ch was at one poi nt wi thi n the f i l e i n 1048,
underneath the docket on the l ef t hand si de, but whi ch upon Coughl i n' s r evi ewi ng
such on 8/ 1/13 was no l onger to be f ound) al er t i ng the RJ C to t he j ur i sdi ct i onal
def i ci enci es i n the 6/14/12 5 Day Not i ce of Unl awful Detai ner al l egedl y
"personal l y served" on Coughl i n by Nevada Cour t Serves, whi ch l i sted, pur suant
to NRS 40. 253(3) (b) (1) , the very Sparks J ust i ce Cour t wi th whi ch Coughl i n
submi t ted a Tenant' s Answer (Moti on to Di smi ss) f or f i l i ng on 6/ 26/12 at noon,
whi ch the SJ C f ai l ed to f i l e, where the RJ C' s J udge Schroeder t hen entered a
Lockout Order on 6/ 27/12 despi te the def i ci eny i n the Noti ce. Upon Coughl i n, on
8/1/13, at tempti ng to f i l e a Ver i f i ed Compl ai nt f or I l l egal Lockout as t o a
rental at "Nor thwi nds Apar tments" wi th the same Karen Stanci l , now a counter
cl erk at the Sparks J ust i ce Cour t , Stanci l ref used such document f or f i l i ng, i n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 79/118 -
MOTIONS
a non-mi ni ster i al rej ect i on of such, by not i ng that "Nor thwi nds Apar tments" i s
l ocated wi thi n the conf i nes of Reno, no Sparks.
Rul e 11. Moti ons: Procedure f or maki ng moti ons; af f i davi ts; renewal ,
rehear i ng of moti ons.
A. Al l mot i ons shal l contai n proof of the servi ce of t he same. . . .
F. Factual contenti ons i nvol ved i n any pre- t r i al or post- t r i al moti on
shal l be i ni t i al l y presented and heard upon af f i davi ts. Oral test imony may be
recei ved at a heari ng wi th the approval of the cour t , or the cour t may set the
matter f or a hear i ng at a t ime i n the f uture and al l ow oral examinat i on of the
af f i ants to resol ve f actual i ssues shown by t he af f i davi ts to be i n di spute.
(NOTE: where was DDA Young' s "Af f i davi t" i n hi s Opposi t i on to Coughl i n' s
Moti on to Suppress of 2/21/ 12 or i n Young' s ex par te 11/26/12 emeregency Moti on
to Prohi bi t Coughl i n f orm f axi ng? Al so, Bi ray Dogan' s 11/8/13 Moti on to Quash
contai ns a Cer t i f i cate of Servi ce that i s not onl y f raudul ent ( Coughl i n was
never sent any such f ax and can prove i t ) , but
178/249
regardl ess, Coughl i n never consented, i n wr i t i ng, to t he WCPD pursuant t o
NRCP 5(b)(2) to be so served el ectroni cal l y) , and simi l ar to that i s Reno Ci ty
Attorney Skau' s f r audul ence (perhaps i n conj unct i on wi th J udge Sfer razza) i n
obtai ni ng Coughl i n' s appearance at an i nsuf f i ci ent l y noti ced 11/ 13/12 hear i ng i n
RCr2011-063341 by al l egi ng Sfer razza had "author i zed servi ce by emai l " )
whi ch are copi es of documents previ ousl y f i l ed wi th the Cour t t hat have been
redacted or edi ted; (NOTE: what does the WCDA' s Of f i ce do when i t recycl es the
same pet t y l arceny cr imi nal compl ai nt over and over? Fur ther , so what , what ' s
wrong wi th not rei nvent i ng the wheel ? Coughl i n i s not at tempti ng to pul l the
wool over anyone' s eyes here i n any way, so what does thi s have to do wi th
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 80/118 -
MOTIONS
anythi ng? Thi s i s l i ke compl ai ni ng t hat Coughl i n does not use t he r i ght eggshel l
whi te type of pr i nt i ng paper ) .
whi ch are not l egi bl e or otherwi se f ai l to cl ear l y state the rel i ef requested;
(NOTE: the WCDA's Of f i ce Compl ai nts f ai l i ng t o ever "cl ear l y st ate" the f acts
suppor t i ng the charges has never seemed to be much of a probl em) and
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN regul ar l y requests copi es of t ranscr i pts
or documents f rom the Cour t whi ch have been previ ousl y provi ded; ( even i f that
were t rue, whi ch i t i s not , the RJ C i s now attempti ng to prevent Coughl i n f rom
obtai ni ng copi es even where he woul d pay money f or them).
WHEREAS, several of the types of documents ref erenced above are at tached
hereto; and ( i t i s i nteresti ng that Pearson at taches a simpl e, mini ster i al at
best "Request f or Audi o Copy of Proceedi ngs" by Coughl i n, whi ch the RJ C' s own
unsi gned, unat t r i buted 8/5/ 13 round of r i di cul ous "Noti ce of Document Recei ved
but Not Consi dered By The Cour t" , uh. . .wel l , they are on pl eadi ng paper , and
have a capti on, they j ust l ack a si gnature by a j udge, whi l st al so f ai l i ng to
have an i ndi cat i on as to whom such Noti ce shoul d at t r i buted or otherwi se
i ndi cate whom i t was that made the more than mini ster i al deci si on to go about
suddenl y rej ect i ng Coughl i n' s f i l i ngs, ref usi ng to pl ace f i l e stamps on them, i n
many cases, weeks af ter Coughl i n submi tted them for f i l i ng, especi al l y where
J udge Pear son then drops thi s new Admini strat i ve Order on Thursday 8/14/ 13
(af ter weeks of the RJ C ref usi ng to i ndi cate to Coughl i n i f hi s f i l i ngs were
bei ng f i l e stamped, ref usi ng to even provi de Coughl i n' s copi es of any " r ecei ved"
stamped cover page of hi s submi ssi ons, and ref usi ng to al l ow Coughl i n to vi ew,
or even purchase copi es of the dockets i n hi s cases, even i n hi s cr imi nal
cases) , where he had put i n pl ace a Monday, 8/ 19/13 deadl i ne f or Coughl i n to
f i l e hi s pre- t r i al moti ons f or a t r i al set f or 10/14/13, where Nevada l aw under
NRS 174.450 accordsa " f i f teen days pr i or to t r i al " deadl i ne f or Coughl i n to f i l e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 81/118 -
MOTIONS
such pre- t r i al moti ons. A l so, i ts J udge El l i ot t ' s f ormer Admi ni strat i ve
Assi stant taki ng over f or Lor i Townsend, whi ch i s arguabl y another conf l i ct
requi r i ng removi ng the RJ C f rom al l of Coughl i n' s cases consi der i ng J udge
El l i ot t ' s gross mi sconduct i n so many of Coughl i n' s cases i n the l ast 18 months.
Regardl ess, the "Cer t i f i cate of Mai l i ng" f or such 8/5/ 13 "Noti ces" i s si gned by
Howden, and i ndi cates "a t r ue copy of the atached document" was provi ded to WCDA
DDA Young by " i nterof f i ce mai l " , whi ch seems a bi t of f .
179/249
WHEREAS, f i l i ngs by pro se pet i t i oner s, "however i nar t f ul l y pl eaded, " are
hel d " to l ess st r i ngent standards than f ormal pl eadi ngs draf ted by l awyer s. "
Hai nes v. 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct . 594, 30 L . Ed. 2D 652 (1972) ; and (NOTE:
thi s i s i nterest i ng, as i f Coughl i n i s not a " l awyer" as J udges Pearson, and
Cl i f ton al ternatel y i ndi cates he i s or i sn' t , dependi ng on the uti l i ty t o thei r
agenda ei ther character i zati on provi des i n the var i ous i nstances i n whi ch they
so choose to make i t , then the appl i cat i on of thi s new set of procedural rul es
appl i cabl e onl y to Coughl i n ( appl yi ng to Coughl i n a more st r i ngent set of
procedural rul es t han appl i es to anyone el se i n " l andl ord tenant mat ters" or
"cr imi nal cases" by Pearson' s Admi ni strat i ve Order essent i al l y at tempti ng to
reduce to a new set of rul es or an "Order" that whi ch Coughl i n had been argui ng
i s tantamount to cr imi nal mi sconduct by the RJ C Bai l i f f and Cl erks ( i e, appl yi ng
J CRRT 10 and 11 to Coughl i n i n "cr imi nal cases" and " l andl ord t enant matters"
where J CRRT 2 i s qui te cl ear that nei ther J CRRT 10 nor 11 appl y to Coughl i n, or
anyone el se, i n those set t i ngs) .
WHEREAS, f r i vol ous or vexati ous cl ai ms and def enses overburden l imi ted
j udi ci al resources (NOTE: maybe, but probabl y not as much as J udges Gone Wi l d
l egi sl at i ng away al l the protect i ons to tenant ' s r i ghts the Legi sl ature reduced
i nto bl ack l et ter l aw, as a mani f estat i on of the wi l l of the peopl e, l ar gel y
moti vated by a recogni t i on of the enormous soci etal cost to the very approach to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 82/118 -
MOTIONS
summary evi ct i ons that the RJC cont i nues to i nsi st upon. . . al so, cl ear l y RCR2012-
067980 was a " f r i vol ous cl aim" brought by the WCDA's Of f i ce. . . so where i s WCDA
DDA Z. Young' s own speci al set of procedural rul es?) , hi nder the t imel y
resol ut i on of mer i tor i ous cl aims and i ncrease the costs of engagi ng i n busi ness
and provi di ng prof essi onal servi ces to the publ i c; and WHEREAS, the ci t i zens of
thi s communi ty have a r i ght to a j ust , speedy, and i nexpensi ve determi nat i on of
every acti on and t hi s r i ght i s i nf r i nged i f t he Cour t al l ows a case, ci vi l or
cr imi nal , to consume more t han i ts r easonabl e share of the Court ' s t ime. See,
Uni ted 93 F .Supp. 190, 191 (D. Mass. 1950) ("The Cour t has obl i gat i ons to other
par t i es who have cases to be heard. ") ; And
WHEREAS, cour ts possess the i nherent power (NOTE: wel l , J udge Pearson
cl ear l y was taki ng notes when Coughl i n poi nted out the f raudul ent mi sstatement
by J udge Sfer razza i n the i ni t i al Admin Order of 12/20/ 12 vi s a vi s i t
purpor t i ng NV Const Ar t 6 Sec 6 to appl y to " Nevada' s cour ts" versus "Di str i ct
Cour ts" . . . and real l y, these new ci tat i ons to J oran and Chambers have no
appl i cabi l i ty to " cour ts of l imi ted j ur i sdi cti on" because, r i ght al ong wi th that
" l imi ted j ur i sdi cti on" i s an i ncredi bl y l imi ted " i nherent power" possessed that
i n no way j ust i f i es the j udi ci al hot mess that thi s new Admini st rat i v Order
2013-06 i s. . . some might say a tad more constr uct i ve approach woul d consi st of
ceasi ng t o coddl e immature and i r rat i onal bai l i f f s, avoi d pl ayi ng the l i mi t the
County' s ci vi l l i abi l i ty game wi th t he WCDA's Of f i ce, and send out the sor t of
cl ar i on cal l to l ocal l aw enforcement of the sor t that the excl usi onary rul e
does by ceasi ng to tol erate or enabl e al l these stupi d, ego dr i ven ar rests and
harassment of Coughl i n and others, and the system-wi de burgl ar i zi ng of t enant ' s
homes, of f i ces, and other r ental s) t o manage proceedi ngs and exerci se reasonabl e
control of the conduct of t hose who appear bef ore them. See, Chambers v. 501
U.S. 32 ( 1991) And J ordan v. State ex reI . Of Motor Vehi cl es & Pub. 110 P.3D 30,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 83/118 -
MOTIONS
44 (2005), abrogated on other grounds by Buzz LLC v. Of N. Las 181 P.3D 670
(2008) ; and WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN was
180/249
admi t ted to the Nevada State Bar on March 25, 2005 and l ater suspended on
J une 7, 2012;
WHEREAS, thi s Court has previ ousl y f ound i n Admi ni st rat i ve Order 2012-01
that
v. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has repeatedl y caused a di sturbance i n the
f i l i ng of f i ce of t he Reno J ust i ce Cour t , di sr upted the order l y busi ness of the
Cour t and overburdened the l imi ted j udi ci al r esources of thi s Cour t thereby
hi nder i ng the t imel y resol ut i on of mer i tor i ous cl aims and i ncreasi ng the costs
of engagi ng i n busi ness and provi di ng prof essi onal ser vi ces to the publ i c; and
of the di sci pl i nary process" ; and (NOTE: actual l y, and the the SBN's TPO
Appl i cat i on to Pear son contai ned a compl ete copy of the i t , the 12/14/12 FOFCOL
contai ns no such "f i ndi ng" but does contai n somewhat simi l ar l anguage i n the
"Deci si on and Recommendat i on" sect i on, where such reads: "F i f th, the record
cl ear l y and convi nci ngl y establ i shes that Coughl i n engaged i n a bad f ai t h
obstruct i on of the di sci pl i nary process by f ai l i ng to f i l e the pl eadi ng requi red
by SCR 105(2) and i nstead f i l i ng several l engthy, i r rel evant and nonsensi cal
pl eadi ngs, most l y pl eadi ngs f i l ed i n other mat ters, and ref i l ed i n the
di sci pl i nary act i on under a simi l ar but di f f erent capti on. I n some i nstances,
Coughl i n simpl y cr ossed out the case name and hand wrote the names of the
par t i es i n the di sci pl i nary proceedi ng. "
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 84/118 -
MOTIONS
One, that i s a r i di cul ous statement , as i f that were t rue, every si ngl e
at torney who ever def aul ted i n a di sci pl i nary mat ter woul d be sai d to have
"engaged i n bad f ai th obstr uct i on of the di sci pl i nary process" merel y by
" f ai l i ng to f i l e t he pl eadi ng requi r ed by SCR 105(2) (c) ( sayi ng such i s
" requi red" i s taki ng i t a bi t f ar , i ts l i ke sayi ng one i s " requi red" to answer a
l awsui t . . . one mi ght f ace the spectre of a def aul t bei ng entered i f they don' t ,
but they are hardl y " requi r ed" i n the general sense of the term to f i l e an
Answer . SCR 105(2)(c) i n no way provi des f or such a "establ i sh( i ng)" of "bad
f ai th obst ruct i on of the di sci pl i nary process" ( the f act they are sayi ng that
and the RJ C i s repeat i ng i s makes one have no respect at al l f or ei ther , real l y,
some mi ght say, ) where such rul e reads: "A copy of the compl ai nt shal l be served
on the at torney and i t shal l di rect that a ver i f i ed response or answer be served
on bar counsel wi thi n 20 days of servi ce; the or i gi nal shal l be f i l ed wi th bar
counsel s of f i ce. The t ime to respond may be extended once by t he chai r f or not
more than 20 days f or good cause or upon st i pul at i on of the part i es. I n the
event the at torney f ai l s to pl ead, t he charges shal l be deemed admi t ted;
provi ded, however , that an at torney who f ai l s to respond wi thi n the t ime
provi ded may thereaf ter obtai n permi ssi on of the appropr i ate di sci pl i nary board
chai r to do so, i f f ai l ure to f i l e i s at t r i butabl e to mi stake, i nadver tence,
surpr i se, or excusabl e negl ect . " )
di rect i ves; and WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN i s cur rent l y t he Subj ect of an
Extended Order f or Protect i on agai nst Harassment i n the Workpl ace requested by
the Washoe County Publ i c
181/249
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 85/118 -
MOTIONS
Defender ' s Of f i ce, hi s previ ous counsel i n several cases before thi s
Cour t ; and ,
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN i s current l y the subj ect of an Extended
Order f or Protect i on Agai nst Harassment i n the Workpl ace requested by the State
Bar of Nevada based upon Mr. Coughl i n' s harassi ng and di srupt i ve behavi or wi th
empl oyees and of f i cers of t he State Bar; and
WHEREAS, to protect the peaceful and ef f ect i ve operat i on of thi s Cour t , I T
I S HEREBY ORDERED:
1. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shal l not submi t a document to thi s Cour t whi ch
does not compl y wi th the at tached PROCEDURAL RULES FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
BY ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN TO THE RENO JUSTICE COURT.
2. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shal l not request a copy of a document or
t ranscr i pt wi thout f i r st f i l i ng a Mot i on whi ch compl i es wi th the at tached Rul es.
Any such moti on must be suppor ted by an af f i davi t of COUGHLIN whi ch must address
the basi s f or the request , why simpl y vi ewi ng the document i s not suf f i ci ent and
whether t he document has been previ ousl y provi ded to him.
3. Any vi ol at i on of t hi s Order may be consi dered contempt of cour t and
puni shed pursuant to NRS Chapter 22 by a f i ne of up to $500 and/ or i ncarcerat i on
f or up to 25 days i n the Washoe County Detenti on Faci l i ty. (NOTE: so what now,
Coughl i n i s goi ng to have Chi ef Bai l i f f Mi chael Sexton do an encore of hi s
2/12/13 t hreats to Coughl i n (made i n a hol di ng cel l shor t l y af t er Coughl i n had
been taken i nto custody f or al l egedl y bei ng l ate to cour t) where Sexton taunted
Coughl i n that "you st i l l have those 5 i ndi vi dual vi ol at i ons of the
Admini str at i ve Order hangi ng over your head. . . that ' s 25 days i n j ai l f or each
vi ol at i on. . . " ) . There i s no way Coughl i n shoul d be subj ected to the threat that
every t ime he f i l es some Request f or Audi o Copy of Proceedi ng t hat some RJC
Bai l i f f wi l l ei ther ar rest him or serve an Order to Show cause l i ke J udge
Pearson' s shameful 2/25/13 OSC i n connect i on wi th the 12/20/12 Admin Order that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 86/118 -
MOTIONS
Pearson subsequentl y put through a r ound of musi cal case numbers that assi sted
the RJ C i n avoi di ng processi ng Coughl i n' s appeal thereto and i n f raudul entl y
f oi st i ng Bruce L i ndsay on Coughl i n as hi s " sol e counsel " i n sett i ngs where
Coughl i n never assented to such, resul t i ng i n more of Coughl i n' s f i l i ng bei ng
rej ected, L i ndsay bi l ki ng t he system, and Pear son and Cl i f ton vi ol at i ng Canon 2,
Rul e 2.13 per the "Admini st rat i ve Appoi ntments" sect i ons. . . and real l y, what i s
thi s new Admin Order i n response to? Coughl i n' s request i ng to be provi de, even
once, a copy of the audi o t ranscr i pt of the 2/ 5/13 hear i ngs i n RCR2012-065630
(or " t r i al " ) , both por t i ons, and the i nter l ude i n RCR2011-063341 occurr i ng
shor t l y af ter the impermi ssi bl e extr a- j udi ci al communi cat i ons between J udges
Pearson and Cl i f ton at i ssue i n CR13- 0552. "The cover up i s worse than t he
cr ime" comes to mi nd. The RJ C and i t s Bai l i f f s pl ayi ng the "bl ame i t on 'Wendy' "
whom they al l ege i s al l egi ng al ready provi ded Coughl i n copi es of such hear i ngs
( f i nal l y the RJ C caved and provi ded at l east some of t he af ternoon por t i on of
the 3/19/ 13 t r i al i n RCR2013-065630 af ter months of Coughl i n houndi ng i t f or
such) And real l y, why not j ust tel l the Bai l i f f ' s to l eave Coughl i n the hel l
al one, qui t co- si gni ng al l the WCDA's Of f i ce bs prosecuti ons and harassment of
Coughl i n, dump the probat i ons, and t hese Admi n Orders, and see what sor t of
j ur i sdi cti on was r etai ned where Coughl i n f i l ed tol l i ng moti ons, and
182/249
get thi s shi p r i ghted. .
3. Thi s Order i s ef f ect i ve upon personal servi ce upon Mr. Coughl i n.
Dated thi s of August , 14th, 2013. / s/ J udge Scot t Pearson, Chi ef J ust i ce
of the Peace (NOTE: thereaf ter J udge Pearson' s Order i ncl udes a sl i ght l y
modi f i ed, tai l ored to Coughl i n versi on of J CRRT 10)"
The RJ C has f ur ther , by way of a Not i ce of Document Recei ved But Not
Consi dered by the Corut that i s f i l e stamped 8/22/13, and whi ch contai ns a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 87/118 -
MOTIONS
Cer t i f i cate of Mai l i ng by f ormer 2J DC J udge El l i ot ' s f ormer J udi ci al Assi stant
Hei di Howden i ndi cat i ng such was mai l ed on 8/ 22/13 (despi te the envel ope i t
ar r i ved i n bar i ng a postmark of 8/26/ 13) ref used to t r ansmi t Coughl i n' s Noti ces
of Appeal of RJ C J udge Sf errazz ' a 7/ 29/13 Order ' s denyi ng Coughl i n' s Moti ons to
Modi fy/Di ssol ve the speci ous Workpl ace Harassment EPO's RJ C Chi ef J udge Pearson
granted t he SBN and Washoe County i n RCP2012-000607 and RCP2012000599, both of
whi ch have caused a ter r i bl y prej udi ci al impact to Coughl i n' s abi l i ty to, say,
personal l y serve ( or have such done) a subpoena on WCPD's Dogan, L esl i e,
Goodni ght, etc. , much l ess the SBN ( whi ch i s rather pressi ng consi der i ng the
8/28/13 t r i al date i n the RMC for the dual prosecut i ons of Coughl i n f or al l eged
vi ol at i ons of the dubi ous TPO/EPO granted by RJC Chi ef J udge Pearson to the SBN.
Chi ef J udge Pearson' s recent 8/14/13 ( t ime of f i l i ng stamped as 11:13
a.m. ) Admi ni st rat i ve Order 2013-06 ( whi ch l acks a case number , much l i ke the
12/20/12 Admini str at i ve Order 2012-01 the J udge Pearson s subsequent l y assi gned
a cr imi nal case number , RCR2013-071437 to, i n a di spl ay of a j udge maki ng a
prosecutor ' s chargi ng deci si on") reads:
" IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER OF: DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY ZACHARY BARKER
COUGHLIN,
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2013-06
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN i s a par ty t o several cases i n thi s
Cour t ; and
whi ch f ai l to i ncl ude a case number i n the capti on or l i st mul ti pl e cases i n the
capt i on; and
whi ch f ai l to i ncl ude a cert i f i cate of servi ce or cl ear l y state an except i on to
the ex par te rul e; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 88/118 -
MOTIONS
whi ch are copi es of documents previ ousl y f i l ed wi th the Cour t t hat have been
redacted or edi ted;
whi ch are not l egi bl e or otherwi se f ai l to cl ear l y state the rel i ef requested;
and
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN regul ar l y requests copi es of
183/249
t ranscr i pts or documents f r om the Cour t whi ch have been previ ousl y
provi ded;
WHEREAS, several of the types of documents ref erenced above are at tached
hereto; and
WHEREAS, ci t i zens, whether or not i ndi gent , have a const i tut i onal r i ght to
access to the courts wi th t he protect i on of due process of l aw; and
WHEREAS, f i l i ngs by pro se pet i t i oner s, "however i nar t f ul l y pl eaded, " are
hel d " to l ess st r i ngent standards than f ormal pl eadi ngs draf ted by l awyer s. "
Hai nes v. 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct . 594, 30 L . Ed. 2D 652 (1972) ; and
WHEREAS, "a l i t i gant ' s r i ght to access the cour ts i n proper person and
wi th i n f orma pauper i s stat us i s not wi thout l imi ts" , See J ordan v. State ex
reI . Of Motor Vehi cl es & Pub. 110 P. 3D 30, 44 (2005) , abrogated on other grounds
by Buzz LLC v. Of N. Las 181 P.3D 670 (2008) ; and
WHEREAS, pro se l i t i gants must compl y wi th procedural rul es. K i ng v.
Ati yeh, F. 2D 565, 567 (9th Ci r . 1987) ;
WHEREAS, f r i vol ous or vexati ous cl ai ms and def enses overburden l imi ted
j udi ci al resources, hi nder the t imel y resol uti on of mer i tor i ous cl aims and
i ncrease the costs of engagi ng i n busi ness and provi di ng prof essi onal servi ces
to the publ i c; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 89/118 -
MOTIONS
WHEREAS, the ci t i zens of thi s communi ty have a r i ght t o a j ust , speedy,
and i nexpensi ve determi nat i on of every act i on and thi s r i ght i s i nf r i nged i f the
Cour t al l ows a case, ci vi l or cr imi nal , to consume more than i t s reasonabl e
share of the Cour t' s t ime. See, Uni t ed 93 F .Supp. 190, 191 (D. Mass.1950) ( "The
Cour t has obl i gat i ons to other par t i es who have cases to be heard. " ) ; And 814
States v. Uni ted States Shoe
WHEREAS, cour ts possess the i nherent power to manage proceedi ngs and
exerci se reasonabl e control of the conduct of those who appear before them. See,
Chambers v. 501 U. S. 32 (1991) And J ordan v. State ex reI . Of Motor Vehi cl es &
Pub. 110 P.3D 30, 44 (2005), abrogated on other grounds by Buzz LLC v. Of N. Las
181 P.3D 670 (2008) ; and
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN was admi t ted to the Nevada State Bar on
March 25, 2005 and l ater suspended on J une 7, 2012;
WHEREAS, thi s Court has previ ousl y f ound i n Admi ni st rat i ve Order 2012-01
that
v. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has repeatedl y caused a di sturbance i n the
f i l i ng of f i ce of t he Reno J ust i ce Cour t , di sr upted the order l y busi ness of the
Cour t and overburdened the l imi ted j udi ci al r esources of thi s Cour t thereby
hi nder i ng the t imel y resol ut i on of mer i tor i ous cl aims and i ncreasi ng the costs
of engagi ng i n busi ness and provi di ng prof essi onal ser vi ces to the publ i c; and
of the di sci pl i nary process" ; and
184/249
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has been a par ty i n cases before the Reno
Muni ci pal Cour t i ncl udi ng cases before the Honorabl e Dorothy Nash Holmes and the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 90/118 -
MOTIONS
Honorabl e Kenneth Howard wherei n Mr . Coughl i n was hel d i n contempt of cour t f or
f ai l i ng t o f ol l ow the Cour t' s orders and di rect i ves; and
di rect i ves; and WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN i s cur rent l y t he Subj ect of an
Extended Order f or Protect i on agai nst Harassment i n the Workpl ace requested by
the Washoe County Publ i c Def ender ' s Of f i ce, hi s previ ous counsel i n several
cases bef ore thi s Cour t ; and ,
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN i s current l y the subj ect of an Extended
Order f or Protect i on Agai nst Harassment i n the Workpl ace requested by the State
Bar of Nevada based upon Mr. Coughl i n' s harassi ng and di srupt i ve behavi or wi th
empl oyees and of f i cers of t he State Bar; and
WHEREAS, to protect the peaceful and ef f ect i ve operat i on of thi s Cour t , I T
I S HEREBY ORDERED:
1. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shal l not submi t a document to thi s Cour t whi ch
does not compl y wi th the at tached PROCEDURAL RULES FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
BY ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN TO THE RENO JUSTICE COURT.
2. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shal l not request a copy of a document or
t ranscr i pt wi thout f i r st f i l i ng a Mot i on whi ch compl i es wi th the at tached Rul es.
Any such moti on must be suppor ted by an af f i davi t of COUGHLIN whi ch must address
the basi s f or the request , why simpl y vi ewi ng the document i s not suf f i ci ent and
whether t he document has been previ ousl y provi ded to him.
3. Any vi ol at i on of t hi s Order may be consi dered contempt of cour t and
puni shed pursuant to NRS Chapter 22 by a f i ne of up to $500 and/ or i ncarcerat i on
f or up to 25 days i n the Washoe County Detenti on Faci l i ty.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 91/118 -
MOTIONS
3. Thi s Order i s ef f ect i ve upon personal servi ce upon Mr. Coughl i n.
Dated thi s of August , 14th, 2013. / s/ J udge Scot t Pearson, Chi ef J ust i ce
of the Peace (NOTE: thereaf ter J udge Pearson' s Order i ncl udes a sl i ght l y
modi f i ed, tai l ored to Coughl i n versi on of J CRRT 10)
PROCEDURAL RULES FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN TO
THE RENO J USTICE COURT Al l documents submi t ted by Zachary Barker Coughl i n must
meet the f ol l owi ng rul es: ( a) Al l pl eadi ngs and papers presented f or f i l i ng must
be f l at , unfol ded, f i rml y bound together at t he top, on whi te paper of standard
qual i ty, not l ess than 16- l b. Wei ght and 8 112 by 11 i nches i n si ze. A l l papers
shal l be typewri t t en or prepared by some other process that wi l l produce cl ear
and permanent
185/249
copi es equal l y l egi bl e to pr i nt i ng. The pr i nt si ze shal l not be more than
12 poi nts. Carbon or photocopi es may not be f i l ed. Onl y one si de of the paper
may be used. (B) Al l papers presented f or f i l i ng, recei vi ng, or l odgi ng wi th the
cl erk shal l be prepunched wi th 2 hol es, centered 2 3/4 i nches apar t and 112 i nch
to 5/8 i nch f rom the top edge of the paper . Al l or i gi nal papers shal l be stamped
ORIGINAL between t he punched hol es i n red i nk. The l i nes on each page must be
doubl e spaced. Pages must be numbered consecut i vel y at the bot t om. L i nes of
pages must be numbered i n t he l ef t margi n. (C) No or i gi nal pl eadi ng or paper
shal l be amended by maki ng erasures or i nter l i neat i ons thereon, or by attachi ng
sl i ps thereto, except by l eave of the Cour t .
(D) The f ol l owi ng i nf ormati on shal l appear upon the f i r st page of every
paper presented f or f i l i ng: (1) Mr . Coughl i n' s name, address, and tel ephone
number shal l be set f or th t o the l ef t of center of the page begi nni ng at l i ne 1
and shal l be si ngl e spaced. The space to the r i ght of center shal l be reserved
f or the f i l i ng marks of the cl erk. NAME ADDRESS CITY , STATE, ZI P CODE TELEPHONE
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 92/118 -
MOTIONS
3) The name of the act i on or proceedi ng shal l appear bel ow the t i t l e of
the Cour t i n the space to t he l ef t of center at l i ne 9, e.G. : J OHN DOE, }
Pl ai nt i f f , } vs. } RICHARD ROE, } Def endant . } (4) I n the space to the r i ght of
center at l i nes 11 and 12 shal l appear the case number and the depar tment number
as f ol l ows: Case No. : RJ C 2000 - 00000 (Exampl e) Dept . No. : 1 (Exampl e) ( 5) The
t i t l e of the pl eadi ng, moti on, or other document must be typed or pr i nted on the
page di rect l y bel ow the names of the par t i es to the act i on or proceedi ng. The
t i t l e must be suf f i ci ent i n descr i pti on to appr i se the respondent and cl erk of
the nature of the document f i l ed, or the rel i ef sought, e.G. : Def endant ' s Moti on
f or Summary J udgment Agai nst Pl ai nt i f f J ohn Doe; Pl ai nt i f f ' s Mot i on to Compel
Answers t o I nter rogator i es. (E) A pl eadi ng may not be f i l ed l i st i ng mul ti pl e
case numbers i n the capt i on. Each f i l i ng must be of an or i gi nal pl eadi ng meet i ng
each of t hese rul es. (F) Al l exhi bi t s at tached to pl eadi ngs or papers must be 8
112 by 11 i nches i n si ze. Exhi bi ts whi ch are smal l er must be af f i xed to a bl ank
sheet of paper of the appropr i ate si ze. Exhi bi ts whi ch are l arger than 8 112 by
11 i nches must be reduced t o 8 112 by 11 i nches or must be f ol ded so as to
appear 8 112 by 11 i nches i n si ze. Al l exhi bi ts at tached to pl eadi ngs or papers
must cl ear l y show the exhi bi t number at the bottom or on the r i ght si de. Copi es
of exhi bi ts must be cl ear l y l egi bl e and not unnecessari l y vol umi nous. Ori gi nal
documents must be retai ned f or i ntroduct i on as exhi bi t s at the t ime of a hear i ng
or at the t ime of t r i al rat her than at tached to pl eadi ngs. (G) When a deci si on
of the Supreme Cour t of the State of Nevada i s ci ted, the ci tat i on to Nevada
Repor ts must be gi ven together wi th the ci tat i on to West ' s Paci f i c Reporter and
the year of the deci si on. When a deci si on of an appel l ate cour t of any other
state i s ci ted, the ci tat i on to West' s Regi onal Repor ter System must be gi ven
together wi th the state and year of the deci si on. When a deci si on of the Uni ted
States Supreme Cour t i s ci t ed, the Uni ted States Reports ci tat i on and year of
deci si on must be gi ven. When a deci si on of the cour t of appeal s or of a di str i ct
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 93/118 -
MOTIONS
cour t or other cour t of the Uni ted States has been repor ted i n the Federal
Repor ter System, t hat ci tat i on, court , and year of deci si on must be gi ven. (H)
Al l moti ons shal l contai n proof of t he servi ce of the same. ( I ) Every mot i on or
opposi t i on thereto shal l be accompani ed by a memorandum of l egal author i t i es and
any exhi bi ts i n suppor t of or i n opposi t i on t o the moti on. G) Except as
permi t ted by the presi di ng j udge, l egal memoranda i n suppor t of a moti on,
opposi t i on, or repl y shal l not exceed 10 pages, excl usi ve of exhi bi ts. ( K)
Factual content i ons i nvol ved i n any pretr i al or post- t r i al moti on shal l
186/249
be i ni t i al l y presented by Coughl i n t hrough an af f i davi t . Oral t est imony
may be recei ved at a hear i ng wi th the approval of the Cour t , or the Court may
set the mat ter f or a hear i ng at a t i me i n the f uture and al l ow oral exami nat i on
of the af f i ant to resol ve f actual i ssues shown by the af f i davi t s to be i n
di spute. (1) Any af f i davi t shal l i denti f y the af f i ant , the par t y on whose behal f
i t i s submi tted, and the mot i on or appl i cat i on to whi ch i t per t ai ns and shal l be
served and f i l ed wi th the moti on, or opposi t i on to whi ch i t rel ates.
Af f i davi t s shal l contai n onl y f actual , evi denti ary mat ter , shal l conform wi th
the requi rements of NRCP 56(e) , and shal l avoi d mere general concl usi ons or
argument . Af f i davi ts substanti al l y def ect i ve i n these respects may be st r i cken,
whol l y or i n par t . (M) No moti on once heard and di sposed of shal l be renewed i n
the same cause, nor shal l t he same mat ters therei n embraced be reheard, unl ess
by l eave of the Cour t (n) Coughl i n must f i l e a request f or submi ssi on i f he
wi shes the Cour t t o consi der the meri ts of hi s moti on. (0) Coughl i n shal l not
f i l e a request f or submi ssi on of a moti on unl ess the moti on was served on the
opposi t i on and they have been af f orded at l east 10 days to respond.
(P) Deci si on shal l be rendered wi thout oral argument unl ess oral argument
i s ordered by the Cour t , i n whi ch event the i ndi vi dual cour t depar tment shal l
set a date and t ime f or hear i ng. (Q) A l l di scovery moti ons shal l i ncl ude the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 94/118 -
MOTIONS
af f i davi t of Coughl i n establ i shi ng t hat af ter consul tat i on wi th opposi ng
counsel , he has been unabl e to resol ve the mat ter""
Then Chi ef J udge Sf er razza entered an "Admi ni strat i ve Order 2012-01 I n r e
Zachary Coughl i n" f i l e stamped 12/20/ 12 at 4: 38 p.m. , whi ch purpor ted that
Coughl i n had been "admoni shed by J udges i ncl udi ng soon to be RJ C Chi ef J udge
Pearson, despi te such not bei ng at al l t rue. At such poi nt Coughl i n' s sol e
i nteract i ons wi th J udge Pear son consi sted of a 7/31/12 and 10/2/ 12 l andl ord
tenant mat ter heari ng i n Rev2012-001048 and Rev2012-078432. Whi l e J udge Pearson
di d commit gross j udi ci al mi sconduct i n both hear i ngs, wi l l f ul l y exceedi ng hi s
j ur i sdi ci tonal where compl etel y i nappropr i ate, whi l st al so f ai l i ng to embrace
hi s j ur i sdi ct i on where he had a duty to, Coughl i n was i n no way "admoni shed" .
I nterest i ngl y, Chi ef J udge Pearson i ndi cated to Coughl i n dur i ng a 6/16/13 status
conf erence i n a t r umped up probat i on vi ol at i on charge that the WCDA's Of f i ce had
the Department of Al ternat i ve Sentenci ng make agai nst Coughl i n i nci dent to an
unl awful warrant l ess ar rest of Coughl i n af ter 7 p.m. i n hi s own home by DAS
Of f i cers Wickman and Ramos i n vi ol ati on of NRS 171.136, i n an at tempt to
i nt imi date and si l ence Coughl i n, that he, J udge Pearson, had never had any of
Coughl i n' s l andl ord tenant cases, when, i n f act , hi s presi di ng over two j ust
such cases had an extremel y prej udi ci al impact on Coughl i n' s def ense of hi s
f ormal di sci pl i nary matter and other associ ated cases. J udge Pearson i s f ond of
smi l i ng t o one' s f ace whi l e mai ntai ni ng the status quo, l et t i ng J udge Cl i f ton
run amuck, and j ust general l y benef i t t i ng f rom gi vi ng l ocal l aw enforcement
everythi ng they want , and t hey want i t al l .
Though havi ng been served t he arguabl y more r i di cul ous Workpl ace
Harassment TPO the same WCDA Watts-Vi al that f raudul ent l y obstr ucted Coughl i n' s
SCR 110 subpoenas on 2J DC cl erks, j udges, and the 2J DC Custodi an of Records
obtai ned f or Washoe County i n RCP2012-000599 where i nvol ved a TPO Appl i cat i on
WCPD J im Lesl i e admi ts to f i l i ng f or himsel f , where such was actual l y f i l ed by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 95/118 -
MOTIONS
Watts-Vi al (wi th both t ryi ng to massage there way around the probl ems associ ated
wi th the requi rement i n NRS 33.250, . 270 that the empl oyer ( the WCPD i s not
empl oyed by Washoe County) f i l e f or such TPO on behal f of an empl oyee
187/249
( i e, the empl oyee may not f i l e f or a Workpl ace Harassment TPO on thei r own
behal f , t hough, obvi ousl y, King' s l anguage above admi ts that i s j ust what he di d
where K i ng asser ted so on behal f of the staf f and f or our protect i on, I woul d
ask that the cour t extend t he Order.
Wi tness f ormer WCDA's Of f i ce prosecutor turned RJ C Chi ef J udge Pearson' s
droppi ng on Coughl i n (vi a cour thouse servi ce by Deputy August i n Medi na,
natural l y, where RJ C Chi ef Bai l i f f Sexton, and Reyes have obstr ucted Coughl i n
and Coughl i n' s agent ' s abi l i ty to serve Moti ons to Di squal i f y on RJ C J udge
Pearson, Cl i f ton, and Sf er r azza
The 12/20/ 12 Admin Order 2012-01 onl y speaks to those si tuat i ons where Cougl hi n
"enters t he premi ses: "WHEREAS, to protect the peaceful and ef f ect i ve operat i on
of thi s Cour t , I T I S HEREBY ORDERED: 1. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shal l not enter
the premi ses of the Reno J ust i ce Cour t at One South Si er ra Street except as
f ol l ows: a. I f ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN wi shes to f i l e a document wi th the Reno
J ust i ce Cour t or at tend a hear i ng i n the Reno J ust i ce Cour t he must not i f y the
secur i ty personnel at the mai n securi ty entrance l ocated at the east entrance of
One South Si er ra St reet and wai t f or a bai l i f f of the Reno j usti ce Cour t to
respond t o hi s l ocat i on. B. I f ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN wi shes t o make a request
of the Reno J ust i ce Cour t f or copi es, t ranscri pts, access to a cour t f i l e or to
ask a quest i on he shal l do so i n wr i t i ng and ei ther mai l the request to the Reno
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 96/118 -
MOTIONS
stamped copy i n return. . . . 3. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN i s not al l owed to contact
any member of thi s Cour t other than a uni f ormed bai l i f f . "
NRS 178.588
J CRCP RULE 5. SERVICE AND FIL ING OF PLEADINGS AND OTHER PAPERS
( a) Servi ce: When Requi red. Except as otherwi se provi ded i n these rul es,
every order requi r ed by i ts terms to be served, every pl eadi ng subsequent to the
or i gi nal compl ai nt , every paper rel at i ng to di scovery requi red to be served
upon a par ty unl ess the cour t otherwi se orders, every wr i t ten moti on other than
one whi ch may be heard ex par te, and every wr i t t en not i ce, appearance, demand,
of f er of j udgment , desi gnat i on of record on appeal , and simi l ar paper shal l be
served upon each of the part i es.
(b) Same: How Made.
(1) Whenever under t hese rul es servi ce i s requi red or permi tted to
be made upon a par ty represented by an at t orney, the servi ce shal l be made upon
the at torney unl ess the cour t orders that ser vi ce be made upon the par ty.
(2) Servi ce under thi s rul e i s made by:
(A) Del i ver i ng a copy to t he at torney or the par ty by:
( i ) handi ng i t to t he at torney or to the par ty;
( i i ) l eavi ng i t at the at torney s or par t y s of f i ce
wi th a cl erk or other person i n charge, or i f there i s no one i n charge, l eavi ng
i t i n a conspi cuous pl ace i n the of f i ce; or
(B) Mai l i ng a copy to the at torney or the par ty at hi s or her
l ast known address. Servi ce by mai l i s compl ete on mai l i ng; provi ded, however , a
moti on, answer or other document const i tut i ng the i ni t i al appearance of a party
must al so, i f served by mai l , be f i l ed wi thi n the t ime al l owed f or servi ce; . . .
(4) Proof of servi ce may be made by cer t i f i cate of an at torney or
of the at torney s empl oyee, or by wr i t ten admi ssi on, or by af f i davi t , or other
proof sati sf actory to the cour t . Fai l ure to make proof of servi ce shal l not af -
f ect the val i di ty of servi ce.
(d) Fi l i ng. Al l papers af ter the compl ai nt requi red to be served upon a
par ty shal l be f i l ed wi th t he cour t ei ther bef ore servi ce or wi thi n a reasonabl e
t ime thereaf ter , except as otherwi se provi ded i n Rul e 5( b) , but , unl ess f i l i ng
i s ordered by the cour t on moti on of a par ty or upon i ts own mot i on, deposi t i ons
upon oral exami nati on and i nter rogator i es, requests f or producti on, requests f or
admi ssi on, and the answers and responses thereto, shal l not be f i l ed unl ess and
unt i l they are used i n the proceedi ngs.
( e) Fi l i ng Wi th the Cour t Def i ned. The f i l i ng of pl eadi ngs and other pa-
pers wi th the court as requi red by t hese rul es shal l be made by f i l i ng t hem wi th
the cl erk of the cour t , i f there be one, except that the j ust i ce may permi t the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 97/118 -
MOTIONS
papers to be f i l ed wi th him or her . I n cases where there i s no cl erk, the papers
shal l be f i l ed wi th the j ust i ce. A cour t may by l ocal rul e permi t papers to be
f i l ed, si gned or ver i f i ed by el ectroni c means that are consi stent wi th t echni cal
standards, i f any, that t he J udi ci al Conf erence of the Uni ted States establ i sh-
es. A paper si gned by el ectroni c means i n compl i ance wi th the l ocal rul e const i -
tutes a wri t ten paper presented f or the purpose of appl yi ng these rul es. The
cl erk or j ust i ce shal l not ref use to accept f or f i l i ng any paper presented f or
that purpose sol el y because i t i s not presented i n proper f orm as requi r ed by
these rul es or any l ocal rul es or pract i ces.
( f ) Drop Box F i l i ng
(3) Procedure. Papers and pl eadi ngs may be deposi ted i n the drop
box dur i ng al l hours the cour thouse i s open. Before such documents are deposi t -
ed, the documents must be date and t ime stamped as descr i bed i n subdi vi si on
( f ) (1) . Documents pl aced i n the drop box shal l be deemed f i l ed as of the date
and t ime stamped on the paper or pl eadi ng. However , i f a document i s pl aced i n
the drop box wi thout bei ng date and t ime stamped, that document wi l l not be
deemed f i l ed unti l i t i s date and t ime stamped by the cl erk s of f i ce. I n addi -
t i on, i f a document i s pl aced i n the drop box, and the cl erk s of f i ce determi nes
that the at tempted f i l i ng i s def ect i ve based on the absence of f i l i ng f ees or
based on any other l egi t imate reason, that document wi l l not be deemed f i l ed un-
t i l the def ect has been cured. [As amended; ef f ect i ve J ul y 1, 2005. ]
58 Am. J ur . 2D Obstruct i ng J ust i ce 62. Ref usi ng to obey
orders: I t has been hel d that a State cannot make a ref usal to
move when ordered to do so by the pol i ce a cr ime unl ess the
person obstructs t he pol i ce i n thei r of f i ci al dut i es i n maki ng a
l awful ar rest , sei zure, or servi ce of process. [FN2] A person' s
mere f ai l ure to act i n compl i ance wi th a l awful di recti ve does
not consti tute obst ruct i on. [FN3] Further , a r efusal to compl y
wi th an of f i cer ' s request cannot be a cr ime where an omi ssi on t o
act does not consti tute obst ruct i on.
[FN2] State v. Huguet , 369 So. 2D 1331 (La. 1979) . [FN3]
State v. Gai nes, 346 Or . 160, 206 P. 3D 1042 ( 2009) . [FN4] Ci ty
of Col umbus v. Mi chel , 55 Ohi o App. 2D 46, 9 Ohi o Op. 3D 207,
378 N.E.2D 1077 (10th Di st . Frankl i n County 1978) .
Coughl i n di d not even ref use to f ol l ow Reyes s command. Reyes was so
eager to get physi cal l y vi ol ent wi th Coughl i n and establ i sh domi nance that he
responded to Coughl i n s i ndi cat i ng t hat You know, the Admi ni st rat i ve Order does
not requi re me to have an escor t f or where I am goi ng to, the f ami l y cour t .
NRS Ti t l e 15. Cr imes and Puni shments (Chapters 193-207) Chapter 197.
Crimes by and Agai nst the Execut i ve Power of Thi s State; NRS 197.110.
Misconduct of publ i c of f i cer . . .The "Notes of Deci si on" of NRS 197.110 Seem to
i ndi cate the phrase "publ i c of f i cer" i s more broadl y appl i ed where of f i ci al
mi sconduct i s i nvol ved, ( compared to the nar r ow appl i cat i on of the phrase i n the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 98/118 -
MOTIONS
context of a NRS 197.190 Or NRS 199. 280 charge, though there i s a pauci t y of
publ i shed deci si onal authori ty i n those two contexts) ( take that those at torney
who thi nk that thei r s i s t he onl y cl ass that has a hi gher standard appl i ed to
i t ) where such i ncl ude:
"3. Publ i c of f i cer Sworn deputy ci ty marshal supervi sed by ci ty marshal
was publ i c of f i cer f or purposes of statute prohi bi t i ng publ i c of f i cers f rom
recei vi ng compensat i on f or of f i ci al servi ce whi ch has not been actual l y
rendered. N.R.S. 193.019, 197.110. State v. Rhodi g, 1985, 707 P. 2d 549, 101 Nev.
608. Muni ci pal Corporat i ons 183(4) .
Rhodi g, however , i s not l onger good l aw wi th respect t o any content i on
that an of f i cer ( i n the sense of t he term whi ch woul d qui ckl y appear , i t
seems, i n a l egi sl at i ve react i on to the Rhodi g case, deci ded i n October 1985,
where NRS 193.019 was qui ckl y amended to add the term of f i cer to the words
bei ng def i ned therei n.
1967 enactment , added to cr imi nal procedure l aw, to ef f ect that publ i c
of f i cer means person el ected or appoi nted to posi t i on whi ch i s establ i shed by
Const i tuti on or st atute of state or by char ter or ordi nance of a pol i t i cal
subdi vi si on of state di d not repeal pr i or statute concerni ng crimes of publ i c
of f i cers and def i ni ng publ i c of f i cer as i ncl udi ng al l assi stants, deput i es,
cl erks and empl oyees of any publ i c of f i cer . N.R.S. 169. 164, 193. 010, Subd. 16,
197.010 Et seq. , 197.110. State v. Thompson, 1973, 511 P .2D 1043, 89 Nev. 320.
Of f i cers And Publ i c Empl oyees 121. However , the 1985 revi si on to NRS 193.019
di d do so, di f f erenti at i ng between of f i cers and publ i c of f i cers .
Sect i on of cr imi nal procedure l aw to ef f ect t hat publ i c of f i cer means
person el ected or appoi nted to posi t i on whi ch i s establ i shed by Const i tut i on or
statute of state, or by char ter or ordi nance of pol i t i cal subdi vi si on, i s to be
used i n cr imi nal prosecut i ons, under statute concerni ng cr imes by publ i c
of f i cers, to test whether accused i s ei ther publ i c of f i cer or assi stant , deputy,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 99/118 -
MOTIONS
cl erk or empl oyee of publ i c of f i cer . . . N.R.S. 35.010, Subd. 2, 169.164, 193.010,
Subd. 16, 197.010 Et seq. , 281.005 Et seq. State v. Thompson, 1973, 511 P.2D
1043, 89 Nev. 320. Of f i cers And Publ i c Empl oyees 121. "
Bai l i f f Reyes i s nei ther a person el ected or appoi nted to a posi t i on.
He i s an empl oyee of the j ust i ce cour t .
NRS 193.019. Of f i cer and publ i c of f i cer def i ned. Of f i cer and
publ i c of f i cer i ncl ude al l of f i cers, members and empl oyees of : 1. The State of
Nevada; 2. Any pol i t i cal subdi vi si on of thi s State; 3. Any other speci al
di str i ct , publ i c corporat i on or quasi - publ i c corporat i on of thi s State; and 4.
Any agency, board or commi ssi on establ i shed by thi s State or any of i ts
pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons, and al l persons exerci si ng or assumi ng to exerci se any
of the powers or f unct i ons of a publ i c of f i cer .
J udge Gl asson was so busy suggest i ng NRS 199. 340 to DDA Stege t hat he must
have run out of t i me to ment i on NRS 193.300. Such i s the type of i r regul ar i ty
addressabl e by NRS 176.515.
NRS 193.300 Puni shment f or contempt. A cr imi nal act whi ch at the same
t ime const i tutes contempt of cour t , and has been puni shed as such, may al so be
puni shed as a cr ime, but i n such case the puni shment f or contempt may be
consi dered i n mi t i gat i on.
Real l y, one has to empathi ze wi th DDA Stege a bi t . Here he i s, so
hamstrung by al l t he test imony of Hei ber t , Reyes, and Ramsey (and Coughl i n coul d
have had a f i el d day wi th Chi ef Bai l i f f Sexton and Bai l i f f Medi na, no doubt , as
wel l ) as to thei r own mi sconduct , especi al l y i n thei r wanton vi ol at i ons of the
both Admi ni strat i ve Orders 2012-01 and 2013-06. What i s Stege supposed to do,
ci te to Rhodi g and Thompson and suggest so many prosecuti ons that he and hi s
cohor ts at the WCDA s Of f i cer are ref rai ni ng f rom br i ngi ng agai nst the j ust i ce
cour t bai l i f f s and cl erks i n vi ol at i on of not j ust Brady, and RPC 3.8, but al so
RPC 8.3, and RPC 8. 4, i n addi t i on to a var i et y of NRS sni tch cl auses ( such as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 100/118 -
MOTIONS
those f ound under NRS 281 et seq. ) ( you know, sni tch cl auses, l i ke NCJ C Canon
2, Rul e 2. 14, and Rul e 2.15, etc. ) . So, we are l ef t wi th three statutes
of f er i ng a def i ni t i on f or t he phrase publ i c of f i cer each appear i ng i n a
di f f erent t i t l e of NRS (TI TLE 14PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CASES has NRS
169.164 Publ i c of f i cer def i ned; TI TLE 15CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS has
NRS 193.019. Of f i cer and publ i c of f i cer def i ned; whi l e TI TLE 23PUBLI C
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES has NRS 281.005 Publ i c of f i cer and speci al use
vehi cl e def i ned. ) .
http: / /www.ncsl .org/ l egi sl atures- el ect i ons/ ethi cshome/50- state-
def i ni t i ons-of -publ i c- of f i ci al - of f i cer . aspx : Appoi nted of f i ces. About hal f of
the states al so i ncl ude of f i ces whi ch are appoi nted, i nstead of el ected, i n
thei r def i ni t i ons of "publ i c of f i ci al . " Georgi a, Nevada, and Utah take a
sl i ght l y more rest r i ct i ve approach and deem appoi nt i ve posi t i ons to be " publ i c
of f i ci al s" onl y when the of f i cehol der i s author i zed to exerci se some port i on of
the government ' s soverei gn powers.
Even i f t he RJ C Bai l i f f s somehow have the powers of peace of f i cers such
i n no way makes them publ i c of f i cers.
NRS 289.150 Sher i f f s, thei r deput i es and correct i onal of f i cers; ci ty and
town marshal s, pol i ce of f i cers and correct i onal of f i cer s; cour t bai l i f f s and
deputy mar shal s of cer tai n di str i ct cour ts; constabl es and thei r deput i es. The
f ol l owi ng persons have the powers of a peace of f i cer : 4. The bai l i f f s and
deputy mar shal s of the di st r i ct courts, j ust i ce cour ts and muni ci pal cour ts
whose duti es requi re them to car ry weapons and make arrests
NRS 281.005 Publ i c of f i cerdef i ned. As used i n thi s chapter:
1. Publ i c of f i cer means a person el ected or appoi nted to a posi t i on
whi ch: ( a) I s establ i shed by the Const i tut i on or a statute of thi s State, or by
a char ter or ordi nance of a pol i t i cal subdi vi si on of t hi s State; and
(b) I nvol ves the conti nuous exerci se, as par t of the regul ar and permanent
admi ni str at i on of the government , of a publ i c power , t rust or duty.
Now, WCDA DDA Stege woul d not have been vi ol at i ng RPC 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4,
much l ess 3.8 had he been a prosecutor f or the Cl ark County DA s, as NRS 4.353 s
arguabl y sat i sf yi ng NRS 281. 005(1) (a) s requi rement that the marshal speci f i ed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 101/118 -
MOTIONS
therei n be el ected or appoi nted. Or , had the RJ C actual l y braved the waters
of havi ng i t s dul y appoi nted deputy cl erks ( i f there are any), actual l y be the
one s i nteract i ng wi th Coughl i n(onl y those cl erk s don t have t he bul l yi ng
ski l l s of the RJ C Bai l i f f s l i ke Sexton and Reyes, soand they don t have the
power to make ar reststhough, J CRRT 8 does not provi de the RJ C Bai l i f f s wi th
such power ei therat l east , not al l that expl i ci t l y. Regardl ess, a j ust i ce
cour t of a town i s not a pol i t i cal subdi vi si on
(ht tp: / /www.encycl opedi a. com/doc/1G2- 3401803314.html ) and such a townshi p s
cour t s rul es ar e not i n any way a charter or ordi nance of suchand Brel i ant
makes rather cl ear that J udge Gl asson s adj udi catory boundar i es were l imi ted to
what the par t i es put before him (and the ent i re, make Coughl i n go f i r st , and al -
l ow Stege to use hi s ent i re ten mi nutes l ast ought operate to exci se the ent i re-
ty of Stege s cl osi ng argument f rom the record/ t ranscri pt ) .
Real l y, the RJ C i s i n no way a pol i t i cal subdi vi si on unto i tsel f , re-
pl ete wi th court rul es i n the J CRRT that operate as a char ter or ordi -
nanceSeparat i on of power s doctr i ne and turni ng. McCl anahan v. Cochi se Col -
l ege, 540 P . 2D 744 1975.
NRS 281.010 El ected and appoi nted of f i cers. 1. The f ol l owi ng of f i cers
must be el ected: . . . (n) For each county, and the equi val ent of f i cers f or Carson
Ci ty: (1) One county cl erk, who i s ex of f i ci o cl erk of the board of county com-
mi ssi oners and cl erk of the di st r i ct cour t of the county. . . (9) J ust i ces of the
peace. 2. Al l of f i cers who are not el ected must be appoi nted.
RJC Chi ef Bai l i f f Sexton has admi t ted to Coughl i n that nei ther he nor any
of the RJ C Bai l i f f s are appoi nted, and that al l are simpl y empl oyees of the
RJC.
NRS 281.360 Fai l ure by publ i c of f i cer or empl oyee t o per f orm duty: Penal -
ty. Whenever any duty i s enj oi ned by l aw upon any publ i c of f i cer or other per-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 102/118 -
MOTIONS
son hol di ng any publ i c t rust or empl oyment , thei r wi l l f ul negl ect to per f orm
such duty, except where otherwi se speci f i cal l y provi ded f or , shal l be a mi sde-
meanor .
NRS 4.170 Duti es of j ust i ces of the peace. The j usti ces shal l be conser -
vators of the peace i n thei r respect i ve townshi ps, and shal l di scharge such du-
t i es as may be prescr i bed by l aw.
http: / / j ust i cesof t hepeace.usl egal . com/ l i abi l i ty-of - j ust i ces- f or- of f i ci al -
acts/
Whi l e i t was a novel at t empt ( i n the way Sf er razza s remi xi ng NV Const .
Art . 6. Sec. 6 was too) , J udge Gl asson s ( impl i ci t ) at tempt to character i ze NRS
281.005 ( reversi bl e er ror how Stege i s permi t ted to use hi s ent i r e ten mi nutes
to go l ast i n the cl osi ng argument phasecompl ete depar ture f rom the adversar i al
system of due process) as somehow bei ng sat i sf i ed by J CRRT 8 as t hough such i s
suf f i ci ent to sati sf y the requi rements of NRS 281. 005(1) (a) , whi ch requi res:
NRS 281. 005 Publ i c of f i cer def i ned. As used i n thi s chapter : 1. Publ i c of -
f i cer means a person el ected or appoi nted to a posi t i on whi ch: (a) I s estab-
l i shed by the Const i tut i on or a st atute of thi s State, or by a char ter or ordi -
nance of a pol i t i cal subdi vi si on of thi s State.
The RJ C i s not a pol i t i cal subdi vi si on of thi s State and J CRRT i s not a
par t of a char ter or ordi nance of such.
J CRRT Rul e 8. "Duti es of bai l i f f , sher i f f . Dur i ng the t ime the cour t
remai ns i n sessi on, the bai l i f f ,shal l : (C) Preserve order i n the cour t and
wi thi n the hear i ng of the cour t . (F) Per f orm such other dut i es as are r equi red
by the j ust i ce of the peace
Nowhere i n J CRRT does i t pr ovi de that the the RJ C Bai l i f f s dut i es
requi re t hem to car ry weapons and make ar rests. Further NRS 4.353 does not
provi de a basi s f or f i ndi ng the RJ C Bai l i f f s to be even Category I I peace
of f i cer ( s) .
NRS 289.470 Category I I peace of f i cer def i ned. Category I I peace
of f i cer means: 1. The bai l i f f s of the di st r i ct cour ts, j ust i ce cour ts and
muni ci pal cour ts whose dut i es requi r e them to car ry weapons and make ar r ests;
Addi t i onal l y, even i f the RJ C Bai l i f f are deemed Category I I peace
of f i cers such i s not the same thi ng as a peace of f i cer as such unadorned by a
qual i f i er desi gnati on onl y appears i n NRS 289. 460, whi ch i s the cl assi f i cat i on
of peace of f i cer to whi ch the opi ni on i n Col l e appl i es (and Col l e onl y appl i es
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 103/118 -
MOTIONS
to NRS 197.190, anyways, not to j udi ci al empl oyees, such as the RJ C Bai l i f f s) .
L i kewi se, J CRRT Rul e 2. Appl i cat i on of rul es. Except as otherwi se provi ded
by statute, these rul es appl y to al l ci vi l pr oceedi ngs f i l ed i n Reno Townshi p
except smal l cl aims and l andl ord tenant matter s.
Whereas Coughl i n r esponded to J udge Gl asson s sua sponte advocacy on be-
hal f of t he WCDA and RJ C and i ts Bai l i f f s by i ndi cat i ng he f ound some i ssue
precl usi on appl i ed i n l i ght of J CRRT 8 to def eat any argument whatsoever that
Coughl i n might hope to make (maki ng cl ear Coughl i n f aced i ncarcerat i on f or con-
tempt shoul d he attempt to get anythi ng i nto the record i n that regardAwabdy,
368 F . 3d 1062, 1067) .
Al so, where J udge Gl asson r ul ed that the 12/20/12 Admi ni strat i ve Order
2012-01 ( RCR2013-071437) was "an anti - nui sance i nj uncti on" , then proceeded to
convi ct Coughl i n f or a vi ol at i on of NRS 199.280 based upon Coughl i n' s al l egedl y
not compl yi ng wi th Bai l i f f Reyes command made pursuant to j ust such Admi ni stra-
t i ve Order 2012-01. . . onl y t o acqui t Coughl i n of the second charge, commissi on of
nui sance i n a publ i c pl ace, col l ater al estoppel appl i es to i nval i date the NRS
199.280 convi ct i on f or vi ol at i ng such "ant i - nui sance i nj unct i on" .
http: / /www.scr i bd. com/doc/176414786/ 6-11-13-0204-63342-Pet-Mandamus- and-
Mtn- I FP-and-Decl -Regardi ng- 178-405- and-Cl i f ton-1-230- I ssues-13-
16975 ht t p: / /www.scr i bd.com/ doc/156299361/7-18-13-0204- 63342-NOTICE-7-15-
13-63342 http: / /www.scr i bd. com/doc/176414695/ 6-11-13-0204-63342- I FP-
Moti on- and-Decl -SCR-110- I ssues-RJ C-2J DC-Et-Al - 13-
16977 ht t p: / /www.scr i bd.com/ doc/158278308/7-24-13-0204- 63342-Stamped-
Stacked-Moti on- to- Amend-Peti t i on- f or-Wri t -Wi th-Ex-1-Par ts- 1- to- 10
http: / /www.scr i bd. com/doc/176410561/ 10-1-13-63342-Noti ce-of -Uni magi nabl e-
Impropr i ety-WCDA-Hahn-WLS-Board-NNDB-Screeni ng-Panel - 13-29297
http: / /www.scr i bd. com/doc/176410282/ 10-13-13- NCJC-Canon-2-Rul e- 2-15-
Noti ce-of -Mi sconduct- 71437- 063341-
72675 ht t p: / /www.scr i bd.com/ doc/176410281/10- 13-13- I FP-Mtn-Appt-Counsel -
RJC-72675- 71437 http: / /www.scr i bd. com/doc/176410279/10- 11-13-RJ C-72675-
Emergency-Mtn-Copy- of -NRS-4- 240-Docket- and-Audi o-of -Al l -Hear i ngs- and- I FP-
Moti on-Compl ete http: / /www.scr i bd. com/doc/176410276/10- 13-13-72675-Canon-
3-e-Mtn- to-Di squal i f y-Col l ateral -Estoppel -TPO-Agai nst- Bai l i f f -Reyes-0070-
Transf er - to-Sparks- J C ht tp: / /www.scri bd. com/doc/176410278/10-11- 13-72675-
Suppl emental -Noti ce-of -Wi tnesses-RJ C-Cathy-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 104/118 -
MOTIONS
Reyes ht t p: / /www.scr i bd.com/ doc/176410277/5-31-13-0204- 071437-072675-WCDA-
s-Hi cks- and-Stei ge-Compl ai nt ht tp: / / www.scr i bd.com/doc/ 176399929/10-1-13-
63342-Mtn- f or -Extensi on-Peti t i on- f or-Rehear i ng-13-29297
Chapter 197. Cr imes by and Agai nst the Execut i ve Power of Thi s State
197.190. Obstruct i ng publ i c of f i cer
The one opi ni on i nterpret i ng NRS 197. 190 I s not al l that i nstruct i ve f or
thi s case' s purposes: 1. Wei ght and suf f i ci ency of evi dence Evi dence, i n
prosecut i on f or i nter f er i ng wi th publ i c of f i cer i n perf ormance of hi s dut i es,
was suf f i ci ent to suppor t verdi ct of gui l ty agai nst def endant , who was a t rucker
and who, when tol d by of f i cer that t ruck was to be impounded, demanded t o know
l ocat i on of t ruck and threatened of f i cer when he ref used to tel l him. N. R.S.
197.090. Col l e v. State, 454 P.2d 21, 85 Nev. 289 (1969) . Agai n, pre-1985
revi si on to NRS 193.019. 63 Am. J ur . 2D Arrest : s 90, Resi st i ng excessi ve f orce
s 128, General l y
However , const i tuti onal l y protected f ree speech cannot be rel i ed upon as a
basi s f or establ i shi ng the of f ense of obstruct i on of a pol i ce of f i cer . State v.
Carney, 222 W. Va. 152, 663 S.E.2D 606 (2008). Thi s does not mean that
nonthreateni ng speech al one can never const i t ute a vi ol at i on of a statute as a
verbal harangue may be so staged and be of such l ength and di sconcer t i ng
character as to concei vabl y mater i al l y impai r an of f i cer ' s abi l i ty to car ry out
hi s or her dut i es. [FN8] Prof ani ty toward an of f i cer i s not al one such abuse as
to j ust i f y a convi ct i on under an obst ruct i on statute. [ FN9] I t must be
demonstrated that the abuse hi ndered the of f i cer or made the of f i cer ' s j ob more
di f f i cul t . [FN10] [ FN8] DeFusco v. Brophy, 112 R. I . 461, 311 A .2D 286 (1973) ;
Pope v. State, 528 S.W.2D 54 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975) . [FN9] State v. Harr i s, 4
Conn. Ci r . Ct . 534, 236 A .2D 479 (App. Di v. 1967) . [FN10] State v. Harr i s, 4
Conn. Ci r . Ct . 534, 236 A .2D 479 (App. Di v. 1967) .
The term bai l i f f i s not used once i n the ent i re Washoe County Code.
Eads v. Ci ty of Boul der Ci t y, 587 P. 2d 39 Nev. , (1978). Si nce of f i ce of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 105/118 -
MOTIONS
Di rector of Publ i c Works of Boul der Ci ty was created by ci ty ordi nance and the
dut i es of the Di rector were therei n def i ned, and si nce Di rector was decl ared to
be an of f i cer of t he ci ty, he was a publ i c of f i cer , and thus where ci t y' s
ci vi l ser vi ce rul es di d not ment i on publ i c of f i cers, but onl y empl oyees,
Di rector was excl uded f rom ci vi l ser vi ce protect i on.
Beddow v. State, 572 P.2d 526 Nev. , (1977) Substant i al evi dence suppor ted
convi ct i on of at tempted resi st i ng of a publ i c of f i cer .
N.R.S. 199.280.
Rul and v. State, 728 P.2d 818 282 (Nev. 1986) (282k117 I nter f er i ng wi th
Performance of Of f i ci al Duti es; 282k118k. I n general . ) Def endant was gui l ty of
resi st i ng a publ i c of f i cer wi th use of a dangerous weapon even i f j ury bel i eved
hi s story that he abandoned any i ntenti on to use the weapon when he put i t down
on a tabl e where def endant admi t tedl y cocked the weapon whi l e i t was i n hi s
hand. Col l e v. State, 454gave a common- sense i nterpretat i on to a cr imi nal l aw
f orbi ddi ng wi l l f ul l y resi st ance, del ay, or obstruct i on of pol i ce of f i cers,
construi ng i t to excl ude protected speech. ( I d. At p. 1174. ) 2002 WL 1926125
(Cal . )Col l e v. State, 454 P. 2D 21 Nev. ,1969 Evi dence, i n prosecuti on f or
i nter f er i ng wi th publ i c of f i cer i n per f ormance of hi s duti es, was suf f i ci ent to
suppor t verdi ct of gui l ty agai nst def endant , who was a t rucker and who, when
tol d by of f i cer that t ruck was to be impounded, demanded to know l ocat i on of
t ruck and threatened of f i cer when he ref used to tel l him.
N.R.S. 197.090 Eads v. Ci ty of Boul der Ci t y, 587 P. 2d 39 283, (Nev.
1978) . 283k1k. Publ i c of f i cer i s i nvested wi th some por t i on of the soverei gn
f unct i ons of government , whi l e a mere empl oyee i s not . N.R.S. 281.005, Subd.
1.
NRS 286.040 Empl oyee def i ned.
NRS 281.005. Publ i c of f i cer def i ned As used i n thi s chapter:
1. Publ i c of f i cer means a person el ected or appoi nted to a posi t i on
whi ch: ( a) I s establ i shed by the Const i tut i on or a statute of t hi s State, or by
a char ter or ordi nance of a pol i t i cal subdi vi si on of t hi s State; and (b)
I nvol ves the cont i nuous exerci se, as par t of the regul ar and permanent
admi ni str at i on of the government , of a publ i c power , t rust or duty. . . . "
Washoe County Code 5.045 "Empl oyee, " "empl oyer , " "exempt empl oyee"
def i ned.
1. Except as provi ded i n subsect i on 2 of thi s sect i on and subsect i on 5 of
sect i on 5. 145, "Empl oyee" means: ( a) A publ i c of f i cer of Washoe County or one of
i ts townshi ps. (B) Any person empl oyed by Washoe County or i ts townshi ps whose
compensati on i s provi ded by the county and who i s under the di r ect i on or control
of of f i cer s of the county or i ts townshi ps. 2. "Empl oyee" does not i ncl ude:
(B) Exempt empl oyees. 3. "Exempt empl oyee" means: (B) J ust i ces of the peace and
thei r empl oyees. ( C) I ntermi t tent hour l y empl oyees. 4. The provi si ons of thi s
chapter do not conf er any r i ght , pr i vi l ege or benef i t to an exempt empl oyee. 5.
"Empl oyer" means Washoe County, and shal l not be construed to mean "appoi nt i ng
author i ty. " [20, Ord. No. 213; A 74- 978; Ord. Nos. 259, 450, 765]
The thi ng i s, DDA Stege must be hel d to what the 5/31/ 13 Compl ai nt pl ed,
not the f reestyl i ng Stege was f orced to do when the house of cards bui l t by
Bai l i f f s Reyes, Hei ber t , and Ramsey (and real l y, Chi ef Bai l i f f Sexton and Cour t
Admini str ator Steve Tut t l e necessar i l y must answer f or thei r meddl i ng, l ack of
l eadershi p, and aversi on to accountabi l i ty, as i ts certai nl y goi ng to be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 106/118 -
MOTIONS
di f f i cul t to get around that j udi ci al immuni ty the vari ous j usti ces of t he peace
are ensconced i n, no matter how much they l eave thei r j udi ci al rol e and rever t
to that whi ch they have f ar more dexter i ty i n (who doesn t l i ke the f eel i ng of
mastery, r i ght?) , that of t he prosecutor f or the execut i ve branch) , and no
matter how speci ous the asser t i on of j udi ci al er ror or di scret i on i s bel i ed by
the patent f ai l ure to f ol l ow and appl y the l aw (Canon 1, Rul e 1. 1 vi ol ati ons
abound: cour ts of l imi ted j ur i sdi ct i on do not have the i nherent author i t y Chi ef
J udge Pear son was l ef t to r each f or upon the ruse of t hen Chi ef J udge
Sfer razza s remi xi ng of NV Const . Art . 6 Sec. 6 as appl yi ng to Nevada s cour ts
rather than Di str i ct cour ts was exposed) (Knox v. Di str i ct Ct. ; Whi tman,
Gol dman; NRS 178.600, NRS 178.610, NRS 178.589, J CRRT 2, NRS 189.030(1) , ADKT
0411 s 1/ 4/08 I ndi gent Def ense Orderthese ar e not j ust i ce of t he peace opti onal
l aws) .
Qui te cl ear l y, Bai l i f f Reyes has taken the Admini strat i ve Order i n
RCR2013-071437 (12/ 20/12) and run wi th i t , turni ng i t i nto hi s own personal
power t r i p and ego f rol i c, as wel l as an oppor tuni ty t o cur ry f avor wi th J udges
Pearson, Sfer razza, and Cl i f ton, whi ch i s arguabl y the very impermi ssi bl e
benef i t that var i ous sect i ons of NRS 197 and NRS 281 puni sh. Bai l i f f Reyes was
caught i n an awkward web of l i es i n hi s at tempts to j ust i f y hi s act i ons, whi ch
i ncl ude constant l y l i steni ng to the radi o i n hopes of a Coughl i n ci t i ng, l eavi ng
hi s post to venture to wherever Coughl i n i s, and engage i n j ust the sor t of
bul l yi ng power and control domest i c abuser Dul uth Model tact i cs Reyes wi f e
compl ai ned of i n her TPO Appl i cat i on of 5/1/12, f ol l owi ng cl osel y Coughl i n s own
TPO appl i cat i on agai nst Reyes of 2/15/12 i n RCP2012-000070.
Coughl i n moves f or a new tr i al under NRS 176. 515 and t o ar rest j udgment ,
based upon al l that i ncl uded and l i nked to herei n and hereby appeal s the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 107/118 -
MOTIONS
10/14/13 j udgment of convi ct i on and cour t order and al l other orders i n thi s
matter to the second j udi ci al di st r i ct cour t . . Coughl i n decl ares under nrs
53.045 penal ty of per j ury t hat al l l i nked to herei n i s a t rue and correct copy
of that whi ch i s purpor ts t o be and hereby so authent i cates such and reserves
hi s r i ght to l ater suppl ement thi s post-Rust non j ur i sdi ct i on vest i ng Mtn f or
New Tr i al /Noti ce of Appeal whi ch nonethel ess impl i cates the 10 days to f i l e the
t ranscr i pt requi rement of NRS 189.030(1) : obvi ousl y the test imony of Reyes,
Hei ber t and Ramsey was compl etel y contradi cted and ut t er l y f ai l i ng to meet the
burden of proof , especi al l y i n consi derat i on of the i nconsi stenci es such evi nce
upon a revi ew of t he compl ete pol i ce and ar rest repor ts, whi ch J udge Gl asson
f ai l ed to vi ew at al l despi te admi t t i ng i nto evi dence, pr i or to i ssui ng hi s
rul i ng, t hough he cer tai nl y di d revi ew the f i l i ng f romCR13-0614 that DDA Stege
rel i es upon so heavi l y, despi te such f ai l i ng to i ndi cate i n any way j ust what
Coughl i n purpor tedl y f el t anyone was r i ght or wrong about . NRS 176.515. , nrs
176.165, nrs 176.555, nrs 176.525, newl y di scovered evi dence the WCDA f ai l ed to
propound despi te seeki ng to i nt roduce f or other than i mpeachment purposes
mcl emore 94 nev 237. . provi ng reyes i ni t i al r at i onal e f or at tacki ng Coughl i n
basel ess, as were Reyes content i ons of what such unpropounded vi deo showed, onl y
to f ur ther contradi ct the i ncreasi ngl y pi tchy and more hol es than an af ghan
hust l e Reyes j ust woul dn t gi ve up t hroughout hi s test imony. Other grounds
prosecutor and j udi ci al mi sconduct , i ncl udi ng rampant vi ol at i ons of 1/4/ 08
i ndi gent def ense order mi xed wi th more abuse of contempt power , etc and threats
thereof
Washoe County Code (WCC) Chapter 53: Mi scel l aneous Cr i mes:
53.140 Di sturbi ng the peace. 53.170 Di sorder l y conduct . 53. 200
Resi st i ng publ i c of f i cer .
WCDA Chr i s Hi ck s 5/31/13 Cr imi nal Compl ai nt reads: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
CHRIS HICKS of the County of Washoe, State of Nevada, ver i f i es and decl ares upon
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 108/118 -
MOTIONS
i nf ormati on and bel i ef and under penal ty of per j ury, t hat ZACHARY BARKER
COUGHLIN, the def endant above-named, has commi t ted the cr ime(s) of :
COUNT I RESI STING A PUBLIC OFFICER, a vi ol at i on of NRS 199.280, A
mi sdemeanor , i n the manner f ol l owi ng, to wi t : That the sai d def endant ZACHARY
BARKER COUGHLIN, on or about the 23rd day of May, 2013, at Reno Townshi p, wi thi n
the County of Washoe, State of Nevada, di d wi l l f ul l y and unl awful l y resi st a
Bai l i f f , namel y J ohn Reyes, wi th Reno J ust i ce Cour t , i n di schargi ng a l egal duty
of hi s of f i ce, at 1 South Si er ra Str eet , Reno, Washoe County, t hat the sai d
def endant ref used to compl y wi th Bai l i f f Reyes' command to move to an area where
the def endant had been previ ousl y ordered by the cour t to remai n and di d then
physi cal l y resi st Bai l i f f Reyes whi l e he at tempted to escor t the def endant to
sai d desi gnated area
So, f or Count I the State f ai l ed to prove:
- resi st a Bai l i f f , namel y J ohn Reyes, wi th Reno J ust i ce Cour t ( i e, a
j ust i ce cour t bai l i f f i s not a publ i c of f i cer , as the state f ai l ed to al l ege
that Coughl i n resi sted a j ust i ce of the peaces command, but rat her , that
Coughl i n resi sted the command of a onl y a j ust i ce court bai l i f f .
- i n di schargi ng a l egal duty of hi s of f i ce,
- ref used to compl y wi th Bai l i f f Reyes' command to move to an ar ea where
- physi cal l y resi st Bai l i f f Reyes whi l e he at t empted to escor t t he
def endant to sai d desi gnated area
COUNT. I I NUI SANCE I N BUILDING, a vi ol at i on of NRS 206. 140, A mi sdemeanor ,
i n the manner f ol l owi ng, to wi t : That the sai d def endant ZACHARY BARKER
COUGHLIN, on or about the 23rd day of May, 2013, at Reno Townshi p, di d wi l l f ul l y
and unl awf ul l y commi t a nui sance i n a publ i c bui l di ng, to wi t : the Mi l l s. B.
Lane J usti ce Center l ocated at 1 South Si er ra Street , Reno, county of Washoe,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 109/118 -
MOTIONS
State of Nevada, and di d cause damage to proper ty dur i ng sai d act resul t i ng i n
damage to proper ty i n excess of $250. 00.
So, the WCDA s Chi ef Deputy Hi ck s Cr imi nal Compl ai nt i s l imi ted to onl y
NRS 206.140(1) ( commi ts any nui sance) and i s thereby precl uded f rom al l egi ng
any of the basi s detai l ed i n NRS 206. 140(2) - ( 3) . As Count I I r ested onl y upon
an al l egat i on that dur i ng sai d act (wi th the onl y acts detai l ed i n the
compl ai nt bei ng those menti oned i n Count I ( i e, whether Hi ck s was j ust too l azy
i n hi s Crimi nal Compl ai nt t o speci f y some act f acts or acts t o suppor t Count
I I (get r eady f or the WCDAs Of f i ce to argue that Count I I s di d wi l l f ul l y and
unl awful l y commi t a nui sance was the sai d act ref erenced, rather than the
f actual r eci tat i on speci f i ed i n Count I . . .whi ch woul d be par t i cul ar l y vi ol at i ve
of RPC 3. 1, 3.3, 3. 4 and 3. 8 to br i ng a prosecut i on agai nst an i ndi vi dual where
f ai l i ng t o al l ege a si ngl e word of f actual suppor t f or the al l egat i on that
Coughl i n vi ol ated di d commi t a nui si ance ( i e, i f the DA chargesone wi th
commi t t i ng a nui sance the Cr imi nal Compl ai nt damn wel l bet ter speci f y j ust
what f acts the DA f eel s amounted to a nui sance. . . enough of thi s copy and paste
the statute and add a def endants name the to Compl ai nt rout i ne the WCDA i s so
f ond of ( i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of prosecutor? Non-meri tor i ous cl aims and
content i ons? Lack of probabl e cause? Here, the WCDA must f ace ei ther those
charges agai nst i t s own pract i ces, or be stuck wi th the i ncongrui ty of J udge
Gl asson convi ct i ng Coughl i n of resi st i ng a command made by a non-publ i c of f i cer
i nci dent to the anti - nui sance i nj unct i on presented by Admin Order 2012- 01.
Where J udge Gl asson acqui t t ed Coughl i n of Count I I , i ssue precl usi on necessar i l y
provi des that Coughl i n was not gui l t y of ei ther of f actual al l egat i ons i n Count
I ( i e, that Coughl i n di d not - ref used to compl y wi th Bai l i f f Reyes' command to
move to an area where the def endant had been previ ousl y ordered by the cour t to
remai n and di d then; or - physi cal l y resi st Bai l i f f Reyes whi l e he at tempted to
escor t the def endant to sai d desi gnated area) . .whi ch arguabl y i s improper to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 110/118 -
MOTIONS
at tempt t o i ncorporate by r ef erence such suppor t i ng f acts f rom one count to
another ) J udge Gl asson rul ed that the State f ai l ed to prove:
- ref used to compl y wi th Bai l i f f Reyes' command to move to an ar ea where
- physi cal l y resi st Bai l i f f Reyes whi l e he at t empted to escor t t he
def endant to sai d desi gnated area
Of course, the WCDA wi l l now argue t hat Hi ck s 5/31/13 Compl ai nt was
ref erenci ng a si ngul ar sai d act , i e commi t a nui sance. Where that i s the
case, gi ven J udge Gl asson s rul i ng t hat the Admi n Order 2012-01 i s an anti -
nui sance i nj unct i on, Gl asson s acqui t t i ng Coughl i n of Count I I al so rul es as
unreasonabl e Bai l i f f Reyes al l eged assessment that Coughl i n s si t t i ng on the
caf bench was somehow vi ol at i ve of the Admin Order 2012-01 (whi ch the Cr imi nal
Compl ai nt merel y r ef erenced vaguel y (previ ousl y ordered by the cour t) . Gi ve
such rul i ng by the reasonabl eness of any al l eged resi st i ng ( i e, ref usi ng to
move to t he l obby and thereaf ter physi cal l y resi st ( i ng whi l e (Bai l i f f Reyes)
at tempted to escort the def endant t o the l obby ( i e, t he compl etel y unsuppor ted
al l egat i on i n the Narrat i ve f rom Reyes s repor t that Coughl i n somehow
demonstrated such resi st i ng by taki ng a step f or the door (whi ch i s pl ai nl y
f al se upon a revi ew of the f i nal vi deo Stege sought to i nt roduce, whi ch Coughl i n
actual l y di d not necessar i l y obj ect to the admi ssi on of but merel y sought an
oppor tuni ty to vi ew pr i or t hereto ( i t appears Coughl i n was mi staken, and that
such vi deo was propounded by the WCDA s Of f i ce and such vi deo actual l y i s the
best vi ew of Reyes s pushi ng Coughl i n over the l obby bench, wi th Reyes s arms
cl ear l y shown i n a swagger i ng throwi ng/pushi ng moti on i n al l egedl y pl aci ng
Coughl i n on the l obby bench. Fur ther such vi deo (and the at tachments t o
Coughl i n s 7/26/13 f i l i ngs contai n t he arguments made i n Coughl i n s 7/24/ 13
f i l i ng i n 63342, whi ch ref erence j ust such vi deo extensi vel y) , cl ear l y
demonstrates that the metal detector was not upturned i n a wi l l f ul manner by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 111/118 -
MOTIONS
Coughl i n as Reyes al l eged i n hi s Decl arat i on of Probabl e Cause. Reyes i s a
l i ar , peri od, a bul l yi ng, abusi ve one at that, whom abuses the col or of l aw that
he proceeds under . Coughl i n s confusi on i nci dent to DDA Stege seeki ng admi ssi on
of the f i nal vi deo was born of another l i e by Reyes, i t , that t here exi sted some
vi deo showing Bai l i f f Hei ber t taki ng documents provi ded to him by Coughl i n,
Hei ber t t hen retreat i ng out of vi ew (ostensi bl y to go to the f i l i ng of f i ce wi th
such documents) , and Coughl i n seconds l ater al l egedl y vi ol at i ng the Admi n Order
2012-01 by passi ng through the metal detectors. Of course, the f i nal vi deo
(whi ch, i n vi ol at i on of Brady, star t s j ust af ter the poi nt ( shown on the f i r st
vi deo, but st i l l ( though matchi ng the t ime st ampi ng up reveal s the l i e by Reyes)
begi ns onl y immedi atel y af t er Bai l i f f Hei ber t has handed Coughl i n back documents
that Bai l i f f had t aken f romCoughl i n and returned to t he f i l i ng of f i ce wi th, had
stamped recei ved copi es made (of onl y the f i r st pages thereof , i n vi ol at i on of
the Admin Order 2012-01 s di ctate that copi es of the ent i re documents Coughl i n
submi ts be provi de to Coughl i n) , and returned to the l obby and provi ded such to
Coughl i n.
Of course, such l i e by Reyes ( i e, that at any poi nt i n the day on 5/23/13
that Coughl i n had provi ded Hei ber t documents i n the l obby, then f ai l ed t o abi de
by the Admin Order 2012-01 i n venturi ng past the securi ty check- i n pr i or to
Hei ber t r eturni ng wi th hi s documents) goes di rect l y to the l egi t imacy of Reyes
content i on that Coughl i n was i n vi ol at i on of the Admin Order 2012-01 and thus,
that Reyes was per f ormi ng a l egal duty of hi s of f i ce i n commandi ng Coughl i n
to return to the l obby where the cour t had previ ousl y ordered Coughl i n.
Where wi tnesses Reyes, Hei ber t , and Ramsey have al l obvi ousl y deci ded to
exci se f r om thei r story t he content i on i n Reyes Narrat i ve that Coughl i n
somehow provi ded some paper to Ramsey at the caf bench, the State i s now (and
not i ce J udge Cl i f t on s rever si bl e er ror i n ref usi ng to make the State speci f y
any of these al l eged f acts or al l egat i ons whatsoever i n the 5/31/13 Cr imi nal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 112/118 -
MOTIONS
Compl ai nt ( rather , Cl i f ton s sense of j ust i ce was sat i sf i ed wi th a compl ai nt
that al l eged a j ust i ce court bai l i f f was a publ i c of f i cer (Cl i f ton a 25 year
veteran prosecutor knows f ul l wel l such i s not the casejust as he di d i n 65630
where he f ound a pol i ce of f i cer and a 911 di spatcher t o be publ i c of f i cers as
wel l i n a brazen showi ng of the actual bi as Cl i f ton has mai ntai ned throughout
agai nst Coughl i n) and that any al l eged f ai l ure to obey any command whatsoever by
such j usti ce cour t bai l i f f (or , some vaguel y ref erence previ ousl y ordered by
the cour t al l usi on such command was al l egedl y premi sed upon) provi ded
suf f i ci ent f actual suppor t to meet t he due process requi rements that such
Crimi nal Compl ai nt af f ord def endant Coughl i n not i ce and oppor tuni ty to be heard
as to of these charges agai nst him.
A gross mater i al i nconsi stency between Bai l i f f Hei ber t and Bai l i f f Reyes
test imony concerns Bai l i f f Hei ber t i ndi cat i ng that he had i nf ormed Coughl i n
Chi ef Ci vi l Cl erk Eri ckson (whom may be a deputy cl er k suf f i ci ent to suppor t a
NRS 281.340 prosecuti on agai nst her f or her r ampant and cont i nual mi sconduct i n
f ai l i ng t o per f orm a l egal duty of her of f i ce ( i e, she constant l y rej ects
f i l i ngs i n l andl ord tenant mat ters based upon an appl i cat i on of J CRRT 10 where
she has been f ul l y appr i sed of the f act that J CRRT 2 cl ear l y i ndi cates t hat the
J CRRT do not appl y to l andl ord tenant mat ter s ( simi l ar l y, deputy cl erks Cathy
Wood and Robbi n Baker ought al so be prosecuted J CRRT 2 makes cl ear none of the
J CRRT appl y to cr i minal matters ei ther ) see NRS 4.350(6) : 6. I f no deputy
cl erk i s appoi nted f or a townshi p, t he j ust i ce of the peace shal l be deemed to
be the cl erk of the cour t and may appoi nt as many deputy cl erks f or the j ust i ce
cour t as the j ust i ce of the peace determi nes necessary.
I nterest i ngl y, Chi ef J udge Pearson has al ready rul ed t hat the RJ C Bai l i f f
are i n no way f unct i oni ng as cl erks i nci dent to the Admin Order 2012-01, where
he di d so i n response to an al l egat i on by Coughl i n that they are ef f ect i vel y
bei ng ut i l i zed as cl erks and vi ol at i ng the dut i es pl aced upon Cl erks, dur i ng the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 113/118 -
MOTIONS
very 5/23/ 13 hear i ng i n RCR2011-063341 ( the Cour t Compl i ance Program hear i ng of
2:00 pm that day t hat took pl ace approximatel y thi r ty minutes af ter the
i nteract i on wi th Sargent Mul l ens/detai nment/pl aci ng of a control hol d on
Coughl i n by Bai l i f f Reyes, began) .
So, gross mater i al i nconsi stenci es i ncl ude Bai l i f f Hei ber t i ndi cat i ng that
upon hi s returni ng wi th the onl y documents Coughl i n provi ded Hei ber t duri ng the
t ime i n quest i on on 5/23/13 that he, Hei ber t , i nf ormed Coughi n of deputy cl erk
Chri st i ne Er i ckson s content i on that Coughl i n has no pendi ng cases i n the
RJC s ci vi l di vi si on, and, therefore,woul d not be af f orded any access to any
such f i l es ( the f i nal vi deo Stege sought i ntr oduct i on of shows Bai l i f f Hei ber t
skul ki ng of f i n a f i t upon Coughl i n wai vi ng some papers around to make a poi nt
about the i l l egal i ty of Hei ber t and Eri ckson s three card monty
rout i nesomethi ng al l the RJ C Bai l i f f s engage i n wi th respect t o rel ayi ng
unwri t ten messages f rom these RJ C deputy cl erks, whom have an exceedi ngl y l ow
l evel of ethi cs and prof essi onal i sm.
Bai l i f f Hei ber t made absol utel y no ment i on of an i nter act i on or
communi cat i on wi th Bai l i f f Reyes i n the hal lway on Hei ber t s way to the f i l i ng
of f i ce, dur i ng the t ime i n whi ch Coughl i n i s shown ventur i ng to the l obby bench
on the f i nal vi deo. I n f act , the t i me stampi ng does not match up very wel l at
al l f or Bai l i f f Reyes s content i ons i n that r egard, par t i cul ar l y i n vi ew of hi s
test imony of what he heard on the radi o of whi l e he was stat i oned at a post on
the second f l oor , regardi ng Coughl i n bei ng i n the l obby onl y f or Reyes t o
di scover Coughl i n seated on the caf bench upon hi s l eavi ng hi s post on the
second f l oor (whi ch hi s Narrat i ve i ndi cates, impl ausi bl y, that he was doi ng to
rel i eve Hei ber t , whose shi f t al l egedl y, was endi ng (whi ch i s dubi ous gi ven
Hei ber t t est i f i ed to t ranspor t i ng Coughl i n to the Washoe County j ai l l at er on
al ong wi th Deputy Medi na (whom i ndi cated to Coughl i n t hat he bel i eves a whi te
guy l i ke Coughl i n has a probl em wi th a Hi spani c such as himsel f bei ng i n a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 114/118 -
MOTIONS
posi t i on of power over him, then i ndi cated surpr i se upon Coughl i n i ndi cat i ng he
had been i n a f our and a hal f year r el at i onshi p wi th a Hi spani c woman f ai r l y
recent l yMedi na al so i ndi cated that he f el t t hat Bai l i f f Reyes was, rather
obvi ousl y, al so whi te , l i ke Coughl i n.
Fur ther , Reyes f ai l ed to ment i on t hi s al l eged communi cat i on between
himsel f and Hei bert unt i l Reyes s previ ous st ory, or stor i es, f el l apar t ( i e,
where Reyes i ndi cated hes has wi tnessed a vi deo showi ng Coughl i n provi di ng
Hei ber t documents i n the l obby, onl y f or Coughl i n to t hen al l egedl y vi ol ate
AO12-01 by ventur i ng through the secur i ty check poi nt pr i or to Hei ber t r eturni ng
wi th stamped copi es of such ( and, regardl ess, Reyes had not thought such out al l
that wel l anyways, as i ts not l i ke Reyes was watchi ng these vi deos i n real
t ime) , then where Reyes test i f i ed that he wi tnessed Hei ber t recei vi ng documents
f rom Coughl i n at t he caf bench pr i or to Reyes s approach ( somethi ng Hei ber t
f ul l y cont radi cted i n hi s t est imony where Hei ber t test i f i ed that af ter as an
extra cour tesy skul ki ng of f ( al l egedl y to the ci vi l di vi si on t o quest i on deputy
cl erk Chri st i ne Eri ckson al ong wi th Deputy Ramseywhi ch contradi cts Reyes
content i on that Hei ber t i nf ormed him he was goi ng, and di d go, to the cr imi nal
di vi si on f i l i ng of f i ce to process some documents that Coughl i n provi ded to
Hei ber t ( Reyes i ni t i al l y i ndi cated such document were provi ded by Coughl i n to
Hei ber t i n the l obby, onl y f or Reyes to then f l i p hi s scr i pt upon bei ng i nf ormed
that no such vi deo exi sts, as whi ch poi nt Reyes threw up hi s al l egat i on that he
saw Coughl i n provi de Hei bert documents on the caf bench, and upon that bei ng
establ i shed as compl etel y contradi cted by Hei ber t s test imony and the vi deos of
the caf bench (wel l , not counti ng t he f our seconds that were exci sed f r om such
vi deos pri or to thei r bei ng provi ded to Coughl i n ( f rom 16:25:06 to 16:25: 10 as,
who knows what excul pat i ng evi dence those f our seconds woul d establ i sh, not to
menti on evi dence i mpeachi ng the test imony of one or more of the three bai l i f f
wi tnesses (maybe i t i nvol ves one or more of t hem vi ol at i ng the dut i es of a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 115/118 -
MOTIONS
publ i c of f i cer? K i nda puts Stege i n a tough spot , no? Regardl ess, even i f
the State had of f ered some evi dence that Coughl i n provi ded some paper to
ei ther Hei ber t or Ramsey at the caf bench, i ts not as i f Coughl i n had checked
i n wi th t he secur i ty detai l i n the l obby and requested they summon the RJ C
Bai l i f f s pursuant to the AO12-01so how they Bai l i f f s woul d not be i n vi ol at i on
of AO12-01, not to ment i on NRS 281.005 by al l egi ng recei vi ng documents or
papers f rom Coughl i n at t he caf bench, f or processi ng or f i l i ng, i s not cl ear
at al l . What i s cl ear i s that Bai l i f f Ramsey test i f i ed that he had al r eady
thrown away some documents Coughl i n provi ded him for f i l i ng the day before, on
5/22/13, and that the State has f ai l ed to produce any papers or documents that
Coughl i n al l egedl y provi ded to any bai l i f f on the caf bench dur i ng the t ime i n
quest i onmeani ng t hat ei ther Coughl i n di d not do any such thi ng, or , that the
bai l i f f or bai l i f f s agai n t hrew themaway or otherwi se f ai l ed t o mai ntai n them
i n accord wi th Brady, the AO12-01, etc. , etc. ) i n response to Coughl i n s wai vi ng
the stamped papers around t hat Hei ber t had j ust returned to Coughl i n af t er
havi ng taken them f or stampi ng to the f i l i ng of f i ce (and the WCDA s Of f i ce has
vi ol ated Brady (and Coughl i n s 7/26/ 13 f i l i ngs made a moti on f or the product i on
of such, whi ch J udge Cl i f ton ref used, f i nal l y, at the 9/24/13 hear i ng) i n
f ai l i ng t o provi de any of t he vi deo of the hal lway between the caf bench and
the f i l i ng of f i ces (both the ci vi l di vi si on and cr imi nal di vi si on) where such
f ace to f ace verbal communi cat i on between Reyes and Hei ber t woul d have al l egedl y
taken pl ace (not t o menti on any recordi ngs of the radi o communi cat i ons between
these Bai l i f f s and one another and cour t cont rol ) .
Hei ber t s test imony cl ear l y contradi cts that of Reyes where Hei ber t
test i f i ed at the 9: 49 a.m. mark that he ventured to the ci vi l di vi si on f i l i ng
of f i ce as an extr a cour tesy wi thout any addi t i onal papers recei ved f rom
Coughl i n, and that upon hi s exi t i ng such, he wi tnesses Reyes and Deputy Turner
physi cal l y escor t i ng Coughl i n out towards the l obby. Hei ber t f ai l ed to test i f y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 116/118 -
MOTIONS
to wi tnessi ng an resi st i ng by Coughl i n dur i ng such escor t i ng to the l obby.
Deputy Ramsey can be seen i n the f i nal second of the caf bench vi deo grabbi ng
the papers of Coughl i n s that were l ef t on the caf bench upon Reyes at t acki ng
Coughl i n (papers t hat deci dedl y were not provi ded to Hei ber t or Ramsey i n any
vi deo produced by the State) and returni ng them to Coughl i n i n the l obby, near
where Reyes had j ust thrown Coughl i n over the l obby bench.
Deputi es Turner and Stroup s wr i t ten statement both i ndi cate that they
assumed Coughl i n was to be taken i nto custody upon Reyes pl aci ng hi s hands on
Coughl i n at the caf benchi ndi cat i ng surpr i se at Reyes then si mpl y at tempti ng
to physi cal l y escor t Coughl i n to the l obby. Such i s t el l i ng, as i t i s
i ndi cat i ve of the f act that Reyes di d not bel i eve Coughl i n i n vi ol at i on of AO12-
01 upon Coughl i n s al l eged ref usal t o return to the l obby (whi ch Turner
i ndi cates i nvol ved Coughl i n i ndi cat i ng he was headed t o f ami l y cour t) , but
rather , j ust di spl ays another i nstances of Bai l i f f Reyes, whom does not seem
especi al l y comfor tabl e i n hi s own ski n, desi r i ng to pl ace hi s hands on Coughl i n,
yet agai n ( second t ime that t ime) , i n a domi neer i ng, t op heavy manner ( and
remember , on 11/10/ 11, Reyes al ready conf essed to Coughl i n a desi re to i nser t
obj ects i nto Coughl i n s anus, sodraw your own concl usi ons about what i s real l y
dr i vi ng Bai l i f f J ohn Hol gui n Reyes here, especi al l y consi der i ng al l hi s whi ni ng
about al l the speci al t reatment Zachary Coughl i n gets (Reyes cont i nual l y
ref er red to Coughl i n as Zachary i n hi s i nteract i ons wi th Coughl i n over the
l ast two years i n the RJ C, somethi ng absol utel y not one other person has done
(everyone el se usi ng the more typi cal , l ess chi l d l i ke soundi ng Zach) .
NRS 206.140 Nui sance i n bui l di ng; t respass upon grounds; di sturbi ng
assembl y. Every person who:
1. Commi ts any nui sance i n any bui l di ng, publ i c or pr i vate;
2. Commi ts any t respass upon t he grounds at tached thereto, or any
f i xtures pl aced thereon, or any encl osure or si dewal k about the bui l di ng; or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 117/118 -
MOTIONS
3. I n any manner i nter f eres wi th or di sturbs those peaceabl y
assembl ed wi thi n t he bui l di ng,
shal l be gui l ty of a publ i c of f ense propor t i onate to the val ue of any
proper ty damaged or destroyed, but i n no event l ess than a mi sdemeanor .
[Part 1911 C&P 495; RL 6760; NCL 10442] + [ 1911 C&P 496; RL
6761; NCL 10443](NRS A 1967, 513; 1979, 1454)
AFFIRMATI ON Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
The undersi gned does hereby af f i rm that the precedi ng document does not contai n
the soci al secur i t y number of any per son. DATED 10/18/ 13
/ s/ Zach Coughl i n, si gned el ectroni cal l y
Zach Coughl i n Pro Per Sel f Representi ng Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b) , I do hereby cer t i f y t hat , on t hi s date, I , Zach Coughl i n
I deposi t ed i n the Uni ted States mai l at Reno, Nevada, i n a seal ed envel ope,
postage prepai d, a t rue and cor rect copy of t he f oregoi ng document and or
el ectroni cal l y served (vi a el ectroni c method of t ransmi ssi on previ ousl y gi ven
express permi ssi on to ut i l i ze by those wi th r equi si te author i ty to provi de i t ,
upon whi ch Cougl i n reasonabl y rel i ed and or r el i es) , Mi kohn sati sf actory, and
NRS 178.590 f acsimi l ed pr i or to 5 pm and personal l y del i vered t o wcda too:
AMOS R. STEGE, ESQ. ZACHARY N. YOUNG, ESQ. Washoe County DA Of f i ce Address: 1
South Si er ra P.O. Box 30083 Reno, NV 89520 Phone Number : 775-328-3200 Fax
number : 775-325-6703 Emai l : astege@da.Washoecounty.Us DATED THI S: Dated thi s
10/18/2013
/ s/ Zach Coughl i n
Zach Coughl i n, Def endant
INDEX TO EXHIBITS: Exhi bi t 1: Var i ous rel evant mater i al s on a cd/dvd/di scovery
al ready propounded I n di sc f orm and f ound at skydr i ve l i nks
Exhi bi t 1: 1. Exhi bi t 1: Var i ous rel evant mater i al s on a cd/dvd/di scovery
al ready propounded
https: / / skydr i ve. l i ve. com/ redi r?resi d=43084638F32F5F28!9135
https: / / skydr i ve. l i ve. com/ redi r?resi d=43084638F32F5F28!8413
( hand i nt er l i neat ed i n or i gi nal whi ch RJ C f ai l ed t o pr ovi de i n vi ol at i on of AO12- 01, AO13- 06)
pl us col l ect i on of RJ C Not i ces Doc Recd But Not Consi der ed vi ol at i ve of NRS 178. 610, 178. 608,
178. 600, NRS 178. 589 NV J CRCP 5( e) , J CRRT 2, Knox v. Di st . Ct . and Gol dman cases.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
10/ 24/ 13
10/ 24/ 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 118/118 -
MOTIONS
EXHI BI T 1
EXHI BI T 1
1
Z
d

b
b

o
M M JUbL LU M WMbMH
LUMY WbM, b MV

b MV,
1U
11

HBDI,
1Z
BCD LOU@DD,
1d
1
BBDOBDI.
1b
ML LUPM LV U M LMb Y M LU
1b L' |5IC PDIRCy'5 LHCC R0 ID CI |CCR0R'
1
1o
KC RDCC R RC CRC0 0DCUPCR R5 DCCR ICCCvC0 CX IC Dy RC LDUI.
1 RCIC 5 RD R0CDR RC 0DCUPCR R5 DCCR IDv0C0 D RC |R. 5 5D URCCI
ZU
WRCR C5C R5 0DCUPCR 5RDU0 DC lC0 R.
Z1
RCICDIC, RC LDUH 5 URDlC D CDR50CI RC 0DCUPCR 5 5UDPC0.
ZZ
Zd
Z
Zb
Zb
Z
o

|PLL R5 0y D JUy, ZU1d.

LRC JU0gC
KCRD JU5CC LDUI
PLM 1
Z
d
|UI5UR D 1KL| D[D), CCI[ R P R CPDyCC D RC KCRD JU5CC LDUI D

RC LDURy D W5RDC, bC D 1Cv0, R0 R DR R5 0C 0CD5C0 R RC LDURy
D
PRg 5y5CP DI D5gC R0 PlRg WR RC URC0 bC5 |D5 bCICC R KCRD,
b
MCv0, IUC CDy D RC CRC0 0DCUPCR 00IC55C0 D'
1
CR DURg, L,L.P.
o
W5RDC LDURy L5IC PDIRCy'5 LHCC
[RCIDRCC |l)

1U CR LDUgRlR
11 j,
j
b,
11
KCRD,1V o
b1Z
1Z
1d
1
1b
1b
1
1o
1
ZU
Z1
ZZ
Zd
Z
Zb
Zb
Z
Zo
LPLL R5 D JUly, ZU1d
|C0
JU0C bCCICIy
KCRD JU5CC LDUI

10 24 13 72675 Printed Notice of WCDA's Attempt To Remand Coughlin and Revoke Two Probations and Addendum To Post-Trial Motions Stamped With Ex 1 Opt A9 PDF

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

10 24 13 72675 Printed Notice of WCDA's Attempt To Remand Coughlin and Revoke Two Probations and Addendum To Post-Trial Motions Stamped With Ex 1 Opt A9 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

I

S-ar putea să vă placă și