11 14 12 To 11 23 12 Emails To Leslie and Others 063341 0204 067980

Close Print
City Attorney Skau, updated discovery in iPhone case,

dispatch recordings, don't seem to reveal basis for "a
possible fight" assertions in office testimony and
prosecutors's filings and argument
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 11/14/12 2:09 AM
To: zyoung@da.washoecounty.us (zyoung@da.washoecounty.us); skent@skentlaw.com
(skent@skentlaw.com); mike@tahoelawyer.com (mike@tahoelawyer.com);
nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net (nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net); patrickk@nvbar.org
(patrickk@nvbar.org); fflaherty@dlpfd.com (fflaherty@dlpfd.com); davidc@nvbar.org
(davidc@nvbar.org); complaints@nvbar.org (complaints@nvbar.org); tsusich@nvdetr.org
(tsusich@nvdetr.org); je@eloreno.com (je@eloreno.com); cvellis@bhfs.com
(cvellis@bhfs.com); eifert.nta@att.net (eifert.nta@att.net); rhrc@laketahoelaw.com
(consult@laketahoelaw.com); stuttle@washoecounty.us (stuttle@washoecounty.us);
kadlicj@reno.gov (kadlicj@reno.gov); wongd@reno.gov (wongd@reno.gov);
schornsby@nvdetr.org (schornsby@nvdetr.org); jleslie@washoecounty.us
(jleslie@washoecounty.us); jgoodnight@washoecounty.us (jgoodnight@washoecounty.us);
jbosler@washoecounty.us (jbosler@washoecounty.us)
Dear DDA Young and Bar Counsel and Panel Members,
The prosecution in RCR2011-063341 and the associated arrest on 8/20/11 is what
started all this off (by "all this" I mean the 46 days in jail, the 10 different trips to jail,
the five to six different evictions, all summary, the competency evaluations, and all the
associated grievances. This arrest and prosecution have largely been based on and the
office and prosecutor have cited to, their contention that the information from ECOMM
or dispatch told the RPD Officers (and the arresting Officer Nick Duralde is married to
a dispatcher working that night and perhaps whose voice is on these files, finally given
to me only today, by Reno City Attorney's Office Creighton Skau, after he secured my
attendance at a hearing that I do not believe was noticed in a legal since by sending me
an email saying J udge Sferrazza authorized service of the notice of the hearing by
email...which J udge Sferrazza denies (in fairness to Mr. Skau...its possible the J udge
did say that...Mr. Young could maybe shed some light on that, as apparently their was a
sort of group meeting with he, the Reno City Attorney and the WCPD on or about
November 8th, 2012 in rCR2012-063342, that I was not noticed on and, of course did
not attend).
Anyways, DDA Young and Officer Duralde have constantly harped on how dispatch
reported a "possible fight" and how that somehow justified the rash approach taken by
Officer Duralde, the overcharging of "oooh, that's a felony" Felony Grand Larceny (7
days in jail, the eviction notice in the Richard Hills summary eviction from my former
home law office was served during the interim in RJ C Rev2011-001708) for a three
year old iphone that the alleged owner, Cory Goble, testified was worth about $80 at
the time....(and the overcharging of a felony enabled Officer Duralde to conduct a
search incident to arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in his presence, after 7
pm...which Nevada law prohibits, particularly where, as here, there was no citizen's
arrest (Coughlin himself called 911 and there is a video of the time prior to arrest
where Coughlin is heard imploring the skater youths to stay peaceful and wait for law
enforcement to arrive so a civil resolution of the dispute could be garnered).
I am writing now and providing this new production of ECOMM/911 dispatch
recordings that would seem to be the State's last hope of proving that the Officers were
told of, by dispatch, "a possible fight" and therein provide some factual basis for that
which Officer Duralde and DDA Young have testified to, and filed pleadings in that
matter arguing that reports of "a possible fight" justified the subsequent terry stop
weapons check pat down, and search incident to arrest (remember, Officer Duralde
announced 20 seconds into arriving on scene that he was going to arrest Coughlin and
do a search of Coughlin's pockets prior to conducting any of the pretexutal
"investigation" that he later testified to...its just that Officer Duralde did not realize he
was being recorded when he said that....no matter how he "remixed" things in his
Supplementary Declaration (filed within 48 hours of arrest) or his Narrative (by all
indications, the Narrative was only filed some three months after the arrest and
apparently after the RPD and City Attorneys Office became aware that the video of the
arrest was publicly available).
I have listened closely to these dispatch recordings and hear nothing about "a possible
fight". Does that make the Officer's Testimony perjury and DDA Young's conduct
misconduct? DDA Young, I have a Hearing in a few hours on 11/14/12 at the SBN's
Office on Double R. Blvd. I ask that you attend and explain these matters as this arrest
is pled in Bar Counsel Kings SCR 105 Complaint.
Mr. Leslie and Mr. Goodnight, I ask that you attend and explain your failure to
subpoena the dispatch recordings until October 3, 2012 (despite the Trial occuring on
May 7th, 2012 (in violation of NRS 178.405, no less), and again on J uly 16th,
2012....and, again on August 29th, and September 5th, 2012....and then please explain
why you feigned inability to personally serve subpoenas as a basis for failing to get
Nicole Watson (easily found and or served via a certified mailing under NRS 174.345,
at the addresses your investigator refused to turn over to me until November 2012 upon
a court order (you guys are supposed to help defend the accused, not the County or
local law enforcement against their potential civil liability for ego driven foolish
arrests) as a student at McQueen High School along with Lucy Byington, both
percipient witnesses, and where Watson was captured on tape admitting to the "man
with a six-pack" holding the phone aloft and offering it up, and announcing, very
loudly, that he woud "throw it in the river" if it was not immediately claimed (therein
presenting yet another claim of right defense and further vitiating the legitimacy of
DDA Young's retaliatory, deficiently pled, amending of the Complaint on December
5th, 2012 to included "possessing or receiving stolen property from another".
I ask that in inquiry into the propriety of Mr. Skau's email attached (wherein the City
Attorney's gained an advantage and prejudiced my ability to defend in both NG12-
0204, etc. (the Bar Hearing) and the petty larceny Trial (in RCR2011-063341). I will
note that at least J oe Goodnight gathered the three 911 calls.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Zach has 66 files to share with you on SkyDrive. To view them, click the links below.
PHONE CALL Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-22-52 PM Source_ID = 50.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-22-45 PM Source_ID = 44.wav
nrs 174.345
RE: please email me the materials produced by ecomm/ K.
Odom/ dispatch tapes
Start_Time = Saturday, August 20, 2011 11-23-55 PM Source_ID = 34.wav
PRIMARY RADIO TRAFFIC Start_Time = Sunday, August 21, 2011 12-08-40 AM Source_ID = 17.wav
Download all

Sent: Thu 11/08/12 8:39 PM
To: bdogan@washoecounty.us (bdogan@washoecounty.us); jleslie@washoecounty.us
(jleslie@washoecounty.us); lgray@washoecounty.us (lgray@washoecounty.us);
enovak@washoecounty.us (enovak@washoecounty.us)
why didn't you send out a subpoena in the misdemeanor trial in 063341 in accord with the mailing
allowable under NRS 174.345? To Nicole Watson et al?
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Sent: Fri 11/02/12 7:42 PM
To: Leslie, J im (jleslie@washoecounty.us)
J im, you are fond of making assertions based on conjecture, and, again, I will reiterate my standing
order that any failure to correct such assertions by you on my own part shall not be taken as an
admission of any sort.
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402

From: J leslie@washoecounty.us
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: please email me the materials produced by ecomm/K. Odom/ dispatch tapes
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 18:18:35 +0000
Mr. Coughlin:

The additional materials, described in the Receipt PDF document in the email transmittal I sent earlier this week, are
sitting here waiting for you to pick them up. NOTE: the photos are color prints of photo files that YOU had previously sent
us as email attachments, so you must have copies yourself inasmuch as you were the originating party of those photos.
NOTE ALSO: the disks are of audio/visual that YOU either provided to us (as you note below) or that YOU had uploaded to
YouTube which is where we got them several of them, at your request, so you must, again, have copies yourself inasmuch
as you were the originating party of those audio/visual materials. They are mostly audio/visual recordings that you
made.

You have the other materials from the PDF transmittal earlier this week, as evidenced by your email responses. Since I
have transmitted the PDF materials and have repeatedly invited you to pick up the remaining materials, I believe I have
complied with my obligations. If you disagree, I AGAIN invite you to set a meeting with the State Bar counsel here in
Reno. I will make all reasonable effort to make myself available with all reasonable haste and will follow Bar counsels
directive or suggestion. Im sure they could set the meeting on fairly short notice.

I currently have the 11/19/12 8:30 a.m. resumption of trial on my calendar and will attend. I have no other events or
hearings calendared for your petit larceny case.

Finally, in response to the last paragraph of your below email, please note that I have not been subpoenaed to your Bar
hearing, which you advise is 11/14/12. I have not to my recollection been subpoenaed or otherwise notified by the Bar of
said hearing. Since you are entitled to defend that matter yourself or through your counsel, and since I am not your
counsel on that matter, I have no intention to appear unless you or the Bar subpoena me, although Im not sure why
either side would do so. My guess is that the Bar proceeding is in reference to your recent suspension of law license,
publicized in the local written and television media and appearing on the State Bar website, arising from questions of your
fitness for the practice of law by virtue of your shoplifting conviction. It is unclear to me if you are inviting me to attend
the Bar hearing and comment on the topic(s) at issue in that matter. I would be reluctant to do so, and would think you
would be reluctant to have me do so. Therefore, I will not plan to attend the hearing unless subpoenaed by either party.

Please understand: if you subpoena me to a Bar hearing and ask me to comment on my opinion of your fitness for the
practice of law and/or my basis of knowledge regarding such opinion, my opinion would possibly be adverse to your
efforts to obtain reinstatement of your licensure. I advise you of this so you can make an informed decision of whether to
subpoena me to your Bar hearing in reference to any such statement of opinion by me, and not out of any disrespect to
your right to defend yourself in any pending or future Bar proceedings. As noted above, as a separate matter I am willing
to meet with you and Bar counsel to resolve any issues regarding your perception of my obligations regarding the
materials listed in the Receipt PDF, or otherwise touching upon the petit larceny or other pending cases, but I view your
11/14/12 Bar hearing as a separate matter relating to your suspension of law license.

In fact, I hereby specifically invite you to set up the meeting regarding the materials listed in the Receipt PDF or other
issues you have regarding the petit larceny or other pending cases for EARLIER than the separate 11/14/12 Bar hearing,
so as to avoid any more delay than your refusal to take receipt of the materials has already caused.

The materials are here at our offices waiting for you to pick them up. In response to your refusal to sign the Receipt, I
wont insist on your signature on the Receipt, if that is your continuing wish. Instead, I will just memorialize the pick up of
the materials and the list contained in the Receipt.

When may we expect you to pick those materials up?

Thank you,

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

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

From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 12:13 AM
To: Leslie, J im; Gray, Linda; Tibbals, Leslie; Dogan, Biray
Subject: please email me the materials produced by ecomm/K. Odom/ dispatch tapes

Dear Mr. Leslie,

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

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

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

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

J im, I haven't heard anything substantive from Biray Dogan in months depsite my numerous written
Chief Marshal Roper and Marshal Harley on setting the
record straight in NG12-0435
inquiries. You claim to be responsible for his work as his supervisor....yet, I also remember you
putting a "gag order" on J oe Goodnight, preventing him from even speaking when appearing on my
behalf in court (truly an odd sight/lack of sound). Have you placed a similar "no speach or
communication" embargo on Mr. Dogan? How does that relate to Dogan and your professional
responsibilities?

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

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin

Sent: Fri 11/23/12 4:09 PM
To: roperj@reno.gov (roperj@reno.gov); harleyj@reno.gov (harleyj@reno.gov); je@eloreno.com
(je@eloreno.com); skent@skentlaw.com (skent@skentlaw.com); cvellis@bhfs.com
(cvellis@bhfs.com); eifert.nta@att.net (eifert.nta@att.net); nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net
(nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net); patrickk@nvbar.org (patrickk@nvbar.org); christensend@reno.gov
(christensend@reno.gov); mike@tahoelawyer.com (mike@tahoelawyer.com);
davidc@nvbar.org (davidc@nvbar.org); fflaherty@dlpfd.com (fflaherty@dlpfd.com);
fflaherty@dyerlawrence.com (fflaherty@dyerlawrence.com); stuttle@washoecounty.us
(stuttle@washoecounty.us); wongd@reno.gov (wongd@reno.gov); ormaasa@reno.gov
(ormaasa@reno.gov); mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us (mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us);
zyoung@da.washoecounty.us (zyoung@da.washoecounty.us); bdogan@washoecounty.us
(bdogan@washoecounty.us); jleslie@washoecounty.us (jleslie@washoecounty.us);
holmesd@reno.gov (holmesd@reno.gov)
Dear Panel, J udge Nash Holmes, Chief Roper, Marshal Harley, Bar Counsel, et al,
I apologize for using email to communicate here, but my current indigency and time
constraints so require it. Further, I in no way wish to violate any Orders by any of the
RMC J udges respecting emailing or contacting the RMC in connection with specific
cases, and submit this limited correspondence in the hopes that my interpretation of any
such Orders is in line with reality and will forgive at least this limited use of email
outside of any attempt to file anything in any of the matters in which I am a party
before the RMC. The exigency involved here relates primarily to the enormous
deference that will be given to the Panel's decision in the SBN v. Coughlin disciplinary
matter, and my desire to have the Panel afforded every opportunity to have all essential
information necessary to arrive at a just decision at its disposal. What follows is in part
a request and in part a recognition of the extent to which J udge Nash Holmes's action
during the 2/27/12 Trial in 11 TR 26800 may likely have been the best thing to have
had done, owing to her vast experience in these and a great deal many other matters,
and, hopefully, will have an upbeat result stemming therefrom.
At the Double R Blvd. Northern Office of the State Bar of Nevada, RMC J udge Nash
Holmes, on 11/14/12, testified under oath and indicated something along the lines of
the following:
During the 11 TR 26800 "simple traffic citation Trial" on 2/27/12, starting at about 3
pm, J udge Holmes interrogated Coughlin as various points throughout the Trial as to
whether he was recording the proceedings (without permission), and or whether he had
a "recording device" (whether every laptop anyone brings to Court would be
considered a "recording device" to J udge Holmes is not exactly clear).
J udge Holmes then testified that after an initial round of interrogation of Coughlin as to
whether he was recording the proceedings and or had a "recording device" that
Coughlin got "all sneakity" and said he was not, but then "quote, 'took the Fifth' then
immediately asked to be allowed to use the restroom...and I ordered Marshal J oel
Harley to accompany him there...and it was reported to me that while in the restroom
Coughlin disassembled a recording device and hid some part of it in the restroom..."
(Coughlin recounts this testimony from memory, and admittedly, it is far from
verbatim).
It is categorically false (though not necessarily maliciously so) for Judge Nash Holmes to
assert, in the audio record on 3/12/12 the order of events and when she asked Coughlin her
questions about recording, considering when a restroom break took place and exactly what it
is she asked Coughlin and when, and what his responses were, and when some allegations by
"the Marshal" were made, what they consisted of, etc.. on 3/12/12 in 11 tr 26800 the audio
transcript reads 7 minutes into the audio record the RMC provided the SBN:
Judge Nash Holmes (Nash): It appears to me in this case that the defendant is suffering
from some extreme form of mental illness. during the trial I asked the defendant
attorney repeatedly if he was recording the proceedings he denied that vehemently a few
times and then he quote took the fifth a few other times and then he requested to be
excused to go to the bathroom and the Marshal later reported to me that while the
gentleman was in the bathroom he disassembled a recording device in his pocket and
took the memory out of it and it was later found in that, uh, by the Marshal no one else
had gone into the bathroom and that was retrieved and it was put into his possession at
the Sheriff's office and when they booked him into jail for the contempt charge that was
booked into evidence and I asked the Sheriff's office to hold that into evidence. I believe
he has violated Supreme Court Rule 229(2)(B) which was amended by ADKT 440,
August 1st, 2011...."
One Coughlin did not do anything of the sort indicated by J udge Nash Holmes (by way of unattributed
hearsay, like her car sleeping allegations in her 3/14/12 letter re Coughlin to the SBN) above.
Perhaps NRS 178.405 in the context of NRS 5.073 should have some baring on anything said or done or
Ordered by J udge Nash Holmes following her statement at the 7 minute mark that "It appears to me in this
case that the defendant is suffering from some extreme form of mental illness." To the extent any question
of Coughlin's competency was communicated to or brought to J udge Nash Holmes attention prior to the
2/27/12 3:00pm start of the Trial in 11 TR 26800, that proceeding should have been stayed or suspended,
especially if the WCPD's Office made such communnications in close temporal proximity to the 1:31 pm
2/27/12 Order for Competency Evaluation by J udge Clifton in RCR2011-065630. And arguably, given
the same office (in a broad sense) in which DDA Z. Young and DDA Kandaras work, it is arguably a
basis for conflicting out the WCDA's Office from any one of the three prosecutions is has maintained
against Coughlin this year (especially considering the issues related to whether the WCSO's timely
effected the lockout of 11/1/11 in the eviction from Coughlin's former home law office, which, given the
recent admissions by the locksmith there that day, and the Reno Carson Messenger receipt from the day
prior, and Casey Baker, Esq's testimony related to his interactions with the WCSO on October 28th, 2012
during his sworn testimony at the criminal trespass trial before RMC J udge Garder on 6/18/12, and the
RJ C's failure to even move to Quash Coughlin's subpoenaing records related to the fax logs and
confrimation of transmission or receipt incident to the RJ C's "usual custom and practice" of faxing
eviction Orders to the WCSO for service (like those in the Richard Hill/Casey Baker Summary Eviction
"Trial" involving Coughlin's former home law office, and the "within 24 hours of receipt" language found
within NRS 40.253 (the Order is void or invalid after that point, in which case, it would mean Hill and or
Baker were the trespassers, not Coughlin, regardless, its inappropriate for RMC court appointed defender
Loomis to categorically refuse to assert any claim of right defense that such a criminal trespass defendant
may wish to assert for, say, Richard Hill admits to charging the same rent under a "storage of personal
property" that was previously charged for "full use and occupancy". Nonetheless, posting an Eviction
Order that does not contain stay away language (much less the fact that is does not have the required
"within 24 hours" language called for by the statute) is not tantamount to posting a no trespassing sign,
further, Hazlett-Stevens making arguments in his closing as to matters not in evidence (allegations of
living in the residence) is reversible error, and for J udge Gardner to do as J udge Howard did, an prevent
the City Attorney from even having to Oppose Coughlin's Motion for New Trial, is further indication of
the extent to which Coughlin's reactions during the 2/27/12 Trial, however offputting, are not totally
unfounded. Further, that which J udge Nash Holmes had communicated to her prior to the start of Trial on
2/27/12 in 11 tr 26800 needs to be testified to under oath, rather than have Bar Counsel assert to half
baked "can't ask the judge about her mental processes" loophole, as he has done. But, actually, a review
of the Hardesty/Mirch dynamic may dictate that Coughlin would have been fairly limited in that regard
anyways, nonetheless, J udge Nash Holmes appeared, to her credit, and answered some questions. The
answers revealed an opportunity put forward now to clear some things up, though the constraints of the
Disciplinary Hearing format, some disagreements over what the SBN communicated to Coughlin with
respect to the rules that would be applied to him vis a vis NRCP 45 subpoenas (whether, he, as a
suspended attorney could issues a subpoena (Coughlin maintains the Bar/Panel/Board did give him such
authority) and whether any witness fee or subpoena decus tecum fee must be paid by Coughlin (Coughlin
maintains he was provided indications upon which he reasonably relied that he would not be so required
in additions to the rules or practicies attached to the service thereof), and other factors severely limited the
extent to which the opportunity created by J udge Nash Holmes testimony was realized to its full potential.
That necessitated this correspondence. Coughlin recalls the first time he saw opposing counsel allege he
was lying in a filing, it was one of the early one's by Richard Hill's former associate Casey Baker, alleging
"outright lies". It was upsetting, especially considering how unfair and baseless the allegations
seemed...and Coughlin nows wishes he would have done and said some things differently incident to his
testimony relative to RPD Sargent Tarter and J udge Nash Holmes's own testimony, and intends to address
the extent to which objectionable conduct by opposing counsel can often times become a sort of learned
characteristic perpetuating a race to, if not the ethical gutter, at least a preponderance of Rambo litigating.
To some extent the incidents with Marshal Harley and RCA Ormaas may be fallout from that.
Important too, however, is to consider whether the "courthouse sanctuary" doctrine has some application,
however confusing it may be, where the WCSO may be hired by private parties to conduct service, and
the Marshals are only extending intra-governmental courtesies in assisting in the manner in which
Marshal Harley did on 2/27/12. Richard Hill gets the "oopsies" a lot. Oppsie, I asked for $20K in
attorney's fee incident to a summary eviction at the trial court level, despite that not being supportable
under NRS 69.020, Hill says. Oopsie, I left the window unit air conditioner in the exposed to the street by
the Lakemill lodge window at your former home law office, which was then robbed, but for which I still
managed to charge you full rental value at full use and occupancy rates, though I had you subject to an
arrest for custodial trespass anyways, Hill and Baker say.
(at the 9 minute 48 second mark of the first audio file attached from 2/27/12)
"J udge: Sir, I would like you to raise your hand to be sworn, because its my experience that people who
represent themselves tend to testify a whole lot when they are asking other people questions, so let's just
start that way and then we won't have to do it later, so swear him in and then we'll get going
Marshal: Testimony (inaudible)...you are about to (inaudible) understand (inaudible) truth, whole truth,
nothing but truth, solemnly?
Coughlin: Yes, Sir?"
However, from there, throughout the Trial J udge Nash Holmes interrupts Coughlin during his questioning
of Tarter to indicate to Coughlin that he is asking questions and not testifying, or that he will have an
opportunity to make some point when its his turn to testify, if he chooses to testify, etc., etc, and
eventually J udge Nash Holmes asks Coughlin, after the restroom break, if he intends to testify on his own
behalf..."Nor does the trial judge's speculation that Appellant might use his closing argument to present
unsworn testimony." Soto, 139 S.W.3d at 857.
The transcript from the 2/27/12 certified audio recording of the traffic citation Trial
at the 1 hour and 6 minute 18 second mark of the running time (yes the certified audio transcript is
provided in a FTR format that necessitates installing TheRecord Player, but for the ease of the receipients
of this correspondnece, Coughlin convereted the audio therein exactly as it was into a more workable
format, .mp3 files, split into two files for 2/27/12 (before and after the one restroom break) and one file
for the continuation fo the trial on 3/12/12) of file one:
J udge Nash Holmes (J udge): Sir, Mr. Coughln, sit down, I am done with you.
Coughlin: J ust to preserve for the record, Your Honor.
J udge: Sit down, sit down, your're done. For the record the defendant is looking in his pockets and behind
his back and turning around and clowning around and showing utter disprespect for this court and if you
say another word or do another little antic like that you are going out of this Court in handcuffs. Do you
have any other witnesses? Prosecutor?
Prosecutor Ormaas: No, Your Honor, the City rests.
J udge: Sir, do you wish to testify?
Coughlin: Can I call Officer Tarter as my own witness?
J udge: you can call anyone you wish to testify.
Coughlin: I am sorry, Your Honor, but I really need to use the restroom.
J udge: You have two minutes. Marshal (Harley), you will escort him to the restroom, don't take anything
with you, Sir...
Coughlin: Can I take my notes with me?
J udge:No, turn them upside down.
Coughlin: Can I take the one page?
J udge: No, turn them upside down.
Coughlin: Really?
J udge: Turn them upside down. Marshal you will go with him to the restroom.
Coughlin: Will I be able to go into the stall alone? J ust checking.
J udge: You have two minutes. You have two minutes.
Coughlin: Okay.
(that ends the first audio file attached for 2/27/12, which represents the entirety of the proceeding prior to
the ONLY restroom break during that Trial)
(Start of the second audio file of 2/27/12, which represents the entirety of the proceedings of that day
following the ONLY restroom break of the day).
Coughlin: (re-enters courtroom): Thank you, Your Honor.
J udge: Okay, we are back on the record in 11 TR 26800. Mr. Coughlin, are you recording these
proceedings?
Coughlin: No, Your Honor.
J udge: Do you have any sort of devices in your pocket?
Coughlin: I believe what is in my pocket is private, Your Honor.
J udge: I want to know if you have any sort of recording devices in your pocket!
Coughlin: I believe that is a Fourth Amendment issue, Your Honor.
J udge: I am asking you, are you are recording anything from these proceedings in your pocket without
Court permission?
Coughlin: I believe that is a Fourth Amendment issue.
J udge: Sir?
Coughlin: And, no, I'm not.
J udge: Okay, proceed, do you have any questions for this witness (RPD Sargent J ohn Tarter) that are
different from the area that we gave gone over already.
Coughlin: Well, I would like to ask a follow up on the rolling stop citation..." (thereafter J udge Nash
Holmes does not ask any other questions of Coughlin in any way related to recording or recording
devices, nor did J udge Nash Holmes ask any questions of anyone related to recording or recording
devices besides. J udge Nash Holmes did ask, before the restroom break, of Coughlin, if Coughlin had any
evidence or proof to support his contention that he attempted to provide to either Reno City Attorney
Wong or Ormaas discovery or information related to the statement to Coughlin, incident to the November
13th, 2011 custodial criminal trespass arrest of Coughlin at his former law office incident to an
impermissible summary eviction of a commercial tenant not based on the non-payment of rent (ie, a No
Cause Eviction Notice was posted and a Landlord's Affidavit alleged a No Cause basis for proceeding).
On the second audio file from 2/27/12, at the 5 minute mark, the follow occurs on the record:
"Coughlin: was I there? Do I remember the name of the other officer who was there with him who went
into Richard Hill's law office for twenty minutes with him and hung out?
J udge: If you mention the name Richard Hill again I am going to hold you in contempt because I have
told you repeatedly to stick to the relevant issues about the boulevard stop."
(At the 11:17 minute mark of the second audio from 2/27/12 the following occurs on the record):
J udge: Officer (RPD Sargent Tarter), you are excused. Sir, do you intend to testify?
Coughlin: Yes, Your Honor.
J udge: Then testify, you don't need to take the stand, you can testify right there, you don't have to ask
yourself questions, just give me a short narrative version of what happened, and don't refer to yourself in
the third person, he was sworn in at the beginning of the case, don't refer to yourself in the third person,
just tell me what happened.
Coughlin: Yes, your honor, I reported a bribe to Sargent Tarter, then he retaliated against me.
J udge: Sir! Sir! Keep it relevant!
Reno City Attorney Ormaas: Objection, move to strike!
J udge: Keep it relevant about whether or not the boulevard stop occurred and what happened:
Coughlin: Sargent Tarter perjured his testimony today
J udge: Sir, Sir, answer about the boulevard stop.
Coughlin: Yes, Your Honor, this incident occurred when I went over to Richard Hill's office.
J udge: Sir.
Coughlin: I can't get into that? Okay.
J udge: Sir, boulevard stop.
Coughlin: Sargent Tarter lied today when he...
J udge: All right, Sir!
Coughlin: about the boulevard stop, I am saying...I disagree
J udge: take him into custody, you are in contempt of court, you will spend the next five days in jail, this
court is finished, this matter is continued
Coughlin: Your Honor I move for a stay, I have a trial..and I have clients who need me
J udge: that is your problem, Sir. For the record you are in contempt of court because you have been
insubordinate, you have disregarded all of my requests, directions, orders, cajoling, my efforts to get you
to follow the instructions of the court, to act like a lawyer, or even to act like a defendant representing
himself in this court, you have made faces, belittled, you have argued, you have played, you have been
ridiculous in this courtroom and brought up issues that are irrelevant and immaterial and to disrupt this
proceeding, and there are only five or six people here that you could disrupt, you have done everything
you can to divert from the matter at question and to keep us from resolving the issue of whether or not
you have committed the traffic violation of the boulevard stop, and you are in utter contempt of this court
and have done nothing to deal with the facts of this case...you are being an obstinate jackass, I am having
a hard time believing you are a lawyer, you obviously missed the class on on evidence, courtroom
decorum and on criminal law..."
Coughlin was taken into custody whereupon a search incident to arrest was performed in the holding
area/back room of the RMC by Marshal J oel Harley with Marshal Scott Coppa assisting, and Marshal
Coppa was one of two Marshals transporting Coughlin to the Washoe County Detention Facility where he
served the 5 days in jail J udge Nash Holmes ordered (and the RMC refused to return the $100 that
Coughlin's mother paid into the RMC when counter clerk "Tom" promised her the Court would issue an
Order resulting in Coughlin being released from jail one day early...however, aside from the WCDC
walking Coughlin down in handcuffs from his cell to the booking desk and back, there was no release
from custody and Coughlin's mother was not returned her $100 payment in exchange for an early release
by either the RMC or the WCDC.
While conducting the search incident to arrest, RMC Marshal Harley went through Coughlin's pockets
and took out a simple flip style cell phone, a smart phone, a micro sd card, and an electronic shaver.
Upon taking possession of the micro sd card Marshal Harley immediately began interrogating Coughlin
as to whether it would work with the smartphone, then directed another Marshal to "go tell the J udge that
Coughlin was recording!" without any other support for such an accusation. None of this occurred in the
restroom and Chief Marshal Roper has indicated to Coughlin that Marshal Harley, in carrying out J udge
Nash Holmes Order to escort Coughlin to the restroom, did not actually go in the restroom, but rather
waited outside its door.
I ask that Chief Marshal Roper, Marshal Harley, and Marshal Coppa correct the misrepresentations made
by J udge Nash Holmes (whether or not they were purposeful or where something was lost in translation
and the affidavit requirement of NRS 22.030 for "contempt not in the immediate presence of the Court"
was not followed by J udge Nash Holmes incident to her 2/28/12 Order, wherein J udge Nash Holmes
writes, on page 2 of her 2/28/12 Order Finding the Defendnat in Contempt of Court and Imposing
Sanctions: "The matter was called at apprxoimately 3:00p.m. and concluded withoua verdict about 4:30
p.m. after the court held the defendnat in criminal contempt of court for his behavior and activites
committed in the direct presence of this court during the trial. The court finds that defendant's
contemptuous conduct conside of his ....deceitful...behavior during trial, all of which appeard to be done to
vex an annoy the court, the witness, and the opposing party, and to disrupt the trial process. The court
finds that the following occurred, and constitute contempt...."9) defendant's lying to the court in response
to direct questions posed by the court with regard to his recording the proceedings...(page 3)...The court
finds that the defendnat's actions were intentional and done in utter disregard and contempt for the court,
an in the presence of the cour, for purposes of disrupting and delaying the proceedins and dishonoring the
rule of law and this court, and constitute the misdemeanor of criminal contempt, a violation of NRS
22.010. Good cause appearing therefore, the following sanctions are imposed: IT IS ORDERED,
pursuant to NRS 22.100, that the defendant be incarcerated at the Wahoe County Regional Detnetion
Facility for the term of five (5) days, from the time he was taken into custody on this court's order on
February 27, 2012, and that sentence shall not be reduced for any reason..." The time stamping on that
2/28/12 Order Finding the Defendant in Contempt of Court and Imposing Sanctions indicate "3:47".
Washoe County Sheriff's Office personnel Deputy Hodge, Patricia Beckman, RMC
Somehow, in her 2/28/12 Order (and during the Trial) J udge Nash Holmes found it relevant that,
allegedly, the RPD "gave Coughlin a break" over his driver's license being expired (actually, Coughlin's
then valid, current, driver's license was being withheld by Richard G. Hill, Esq., as Coughlin reported to
Sargent Tarter...and it was likely an old DL that the RPD is referring to as "expired" when mentioning the
"break", which, again, was somehow relevant enough to find its way into the Order, but the withholding
of Coughlin's then current, valid DL by Hill was sustained as irrelevant during the Trial (and in fact seems
to have been one of a myriad of vague basis for issuing a summary criminal contempt Order requiring
then licensed attorney with client's depending upon him, Coughlin, immediately being taken to the WCDC
for 5 days in jail...).
Coughlin hereby requests the RMC, WCDA, and WCDC to indicate the extent to which his property was
booked into his personal property at the WCDC, only to have the WCDC and or WCDA release the
property to the City of Reno Marshals the following day, well after any timeframe to conduct a search
incident to arrest (NNDB Member Mary Kandaras was involved in this matter, and in fact, despite J udge
Nash Holmes ordering the property released on 3/30/12, it took until 4/7/12 and approval by Mary
Kandaras before the property was so released. wcso12-1805 c-47951.
With local attorney Pam Wilmore standing, watching, and or hearing/participating in the conversations, on
or about March 21st, 2012 WCSO's P. Beckman handed Coughlin a note that read "Per J udges Orders,
call Marshal Deighton" and provided a phone number for Coughlin to seek further explanation as to the
admission that the City of Reno Marshals had returned to the jail on 2/28/12 and retrieved items of
Coughlin's personal property, including his "flip" phone, his smart phone, and his micro sd card. Deputy
Hodge's admission that, contrary to the indications by WCSO Cummings and Campbell that the micro sd
card was released to Coughlin's agent on 2/29/12, but rather, was not so release, combined with his
statement that the smartphone, micro sd card, etc. were released to the Marshals because it would be
easier for Coughlin to get his property back through them, reveal that a search not incident to arrest
occurred here by the RMC on 2/28/12 and or the City of Reno Marshals, or, to be fair, at least some sort
of "seizure" did (especially considering that upon the smartphone and micro sd card finally being returned
to Coughlin on or about 4/7/12 by WCSO Deputy Iver, Brandi Berriman, and Patricia Beckman (and only
after "Maddy" got approval from DDA Kandaras, and after Coughlin was threatened with abuse of
process by Deputy Beatson). The RMC's Marilyn Tognoni also made some indications respecting the
smartphone and micro sd card to Coughlin. Perhaps, the allusion to wcso12-1805 c-47951 in J udge Nash
Holmes 3/30/12 Order Releasing Coughlin's property indicates whether a warrant or some other lawful
Order allowed for the Marshals to retrieve those items a day after they were booked into Coughlin's
personal property at the jail...but Coughlin has not been provided any such Warrant or Order and hereby
requests that he be so provided a copy of it now, and that, given important data was lost to Coughlin upon
his discovery the micro sd card and smartphone had been wiped, that any copies of the data then stored
therein be provided to Coughlin (the Diaz case in the Ninth Circuit seems to provided a great deal of
latitude to law enforcement to search digital data within the reach of one whom is subject to a custodial
arrest, and perhaps even copy it...in which case....is would be appreciate if a copy thereof could be
provided to Coughlin, and some compensation for the extent to which his 32 GB micro sd card was
rendered useless upon its return, as was his HTC G2 cell phone (which never quite worked the same from
then on and was rendered totally inoperative a short time thereafter...the 32 GB micro sd card having an
approximate value of $85 and the HTC G2 smartphone a used value of around $175.00).
I know I write in the third person sometimes (its tough representing yourself, especially when time
requires lots of copying and pasting, etc., etc) and that it can appear awkward.
I would appreciate the parties receiving this correspondence who have any knowledge of the events
detailed herein (especially with respect to the false accusations related to recordings, disassembling, and
hiding component parts of devices in the RMC restroom as detailed on the record on 3/12/12 in 11 TR
26800 and again in J udge Nash Holmes testimony at the 11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing for NG12-0434
(and NG12-0204, and NG12-0435) to set the record straight.
For a verbatim or close to it transcription of what J udge Nash Holmes testified to at the Disciplinary
Hearing on 11/14/12 (including those matters she purported to repeat details related to what variosu RMC
Marshals told her regarding Coughlin, on would likely need get the transcript or any recordings from the
CCR assigned to that Hearing, Carol Hummel, and given Coughlin's current indigency, any requirement
that Coughlin pay up front for the transcript would make review prohibitive, and Coughlin hereby
requests of the Panel a fee waiver or deferment of such costs in that regard):
Linda Shaw, Owner, Sunshine Reporting Services - Reno
1895 Plumas St,
Reno, NV 89509,
(775) 323-3411
Sunshine Reporting Services
Eric Nelson
CCR Longoni
(775) 323-3411
fax (775) 323-2749
151 Country Estates Circle
Reno, Nevada 89511
Carol Hummel
(775) 827-9120/
fax (775) 827-9120
chummel@charter.net
In her 3/12/12 Order in 11 TR 26800, a transmogrification of sorts appears to occur, turning a "simple
traffic citation trial" into a Disciplinary Hearing, albeit one of a summary nature, with an absent
Respondent. That Order read, in relevant part:
"Based upon the total circumstances of this case, the in-court performance of the
defendant, as observed by this court, the written documents faxed to the court for filing by
this defendant, the statements and behavior of this defendant and his overall conduct herein,
this court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Zachary Barker Coughlin, an attorney
licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada, has committed numerous acts of attorney
misconduct, including, but not limited to, violating the following Rules of Professional
Conduct:
8.4(c}-engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
8.4 (d)-engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
3.3 (a)-lack of candor to the court by knowingly making false statements to a tribunal;
3 .l-defending in a proceeding by asserting or controverting an issue without a basis in
fact and with matters that are known to be frivolous;
3.2-failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation. and, in fact, taking
extreme measures to delay litigation;
3.4(c)-being unfair to opposing counsel by continually alluding to matters the lawyer
does not reasonably believe are relevant or supported by admissible evidence;
1.3-failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; and
1. I-lack of competence in his practice and appearances before this court.
In addition, Zachary Barker Coughlin, likely also violated Nevada Supreme Court Rule
229, section 2(b), as amended by ADKT 449 on August 1, 2011, by surreptitiously recording
the traffic citation trial of February 27,2012 without the advance permission of this court and
then lying to this court when questioned about it and denying that he had done so.
Whether or not there are medical reasons to explain Mr. Coughlin's actions is not for
this court to decide. He has become nothing less than a vexatious litigant to Reno Municipal
Court due to his unorthodox, disruptive, bizarre and irrational methods and practices that go
beyond the pale of anything that is civil, ethical. professional or competent. Good cause
appearing therefore, the court orders as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that this matter is continued, and all proceedings relating thereto are
tolled, until further order of this court, while the matter of attorney Zachary Barker Coughlin
is referred to the State Bar of Nevada;
IT IS ORDERED that no further action shall be taken by the Reno City Attorney's
Office, or the clerks or staff of Reno Municipal Court, in the above-entitled case, pending
further order of this court;
IT IS ORDERED that Zachary Barker Coughlin is barred and forbidden from faxing,
emailing, delivering. having delivered, serving. presenting for filing. personally or otherwise,
any motion or document to Reno Municipal Court, in the above-entitled case, pending further
order of this court."
One, Coughlin is not emailing this correspondence in that "above titled case (11 TR 26800) but in
connection with matters outside that case. Three, it is really not at all clear how J udge Nash Holmes
could make all those rulings, and only after having done that, decide to suspend the proceedings for a
Competency Evaluation, given the import of NRS 178.405:
NRS 178.405 Suspension of trial or pronouncement of judgment when doubt arises as to competence of
defendant; notice of suspension to be provided to other departments.
NRS 178.405 Suspension of trial or pronouncement of judgment when doubt arises as to competence of
defendant; notice of suspension to be provided to other departments.
1. Any time after the arrest of a defendant, including, without limitation, proceedings before trial, during trial,
when upon conviction the defendant is brought up for judgment or when a defendant who has been placed on
probation or whose sentence has been suspended is brought before the court, if doubt arises as to the competence
of the defendant, the court shall suspend the proceedings, the trial or the pronouncing of the judgment, as the case
may be, until the question of competence is determined.
2. If the proceedings, the trial or the pronouncing of the judgment are suspended, the court must notify any other
departments of the court of the suspension in writing. Upon receiving such notice, the other departments of the
court shall suspend any other proceedings relating to the defendant until the defendant is determined to be
competent.
NRS 189.030 Transmission of transcript, other papers, sound recording and copy of docket to district court.
1. The justice shall, within 10 days after the notice of appeal is filed, transmit to the clerk of the district court the
transcript of the case, all other papers relating to the case and a certified copy of the docket.
2. The justice shall give notice to the appellant or the appellants attorney that the transcript and all other papers
relating to the case have been filed with the clerk of the district court.
3. If the district judge so requests, before or after receiving the record, the justice of the peace shall transmit to the
district judge the sound recording of the case.
NRS 5.073 Conformity of practice and proceedings to those of justice courts; exception; imposition and collection
of fees.
1. The practice and proceedings in the municipal court must conform, as nearly as practicable, to the practice and
proceedings of justice courts in similar cases. An appeal perfected transfers the action to the district court for trial
anew, unless the municipal court is designated as a court of record as provided in NRS 5.010. The municipal court
must be treated and considered as a justice court whenever the proceedings thereof are called into question.
2. Each municipal judge shall charge and collect such fees prescribed in NRS 4.060 that are within the
jurisdictional limits of the municipal court.
(Added to NRS by 1989, 903; A 1991, 455; 1997, 115)
NRS 5.075 Form of docket and records. The Court Administrator shall prescribe the form of the docket and of
any other appropriate records to be kept by the municipal court, which form may vary from court to court
according to the number and kind of cases customarily heard and whether the court is designated as a court of
record pursuant to NRS 5.010.
City Attorney Ormaas sure could be made to explain her statements on the record regarding whether the
citation or report in 11 tr 26800 contained any mention of retaliation, given she was looking right at it and
given what she said in court. Also, the whispering with Marshal Harley, and the bits about Coughlin
reporting to Ormaas what RPD OFficer Carter said to Coughlin in 61901, and Ormaas's responses thereto
on 2/27/12, and Dan Wong, ditto at an earlier hearing on that matter...
Simply put, there was no questioning by Judge Nash Holmes of Coughlin as to whether he was recording
anything or whether he possessed a "recording device" until AFTER the one and only restroom break Judge
Nash Holmes mentions on the audio record. Judge Nash Holmes did ask Coughlin if he had any proof that City
Attorney's Wong and Ormaas failed, in some way, to received or follow up on some offer by Coughlin to
provide materials related to Coughlin's contentions respecting the statement madAnd that sua sponte
interrogation of Couglin occured IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE RESTROOM BREAK, A BREAK IN WHICH JUDGE NASH
HOLMES REFUSED TO ALLOW COUGHLIN TO TAKE HIS YELLOW LEGAL PAD WITH HIM AND WHICH OCCURED
AFTER COUGHLIN MADE A VERBAL PRESERVATION ON THE RECORD OF THE WHISPERING IN EACH OTHER'S
EARS BY CITY ATTORNEY ALLISON ORMAAS AND MARSHAL HARLEY (WHO SEEMED A BIT UPSET ABOUT SOME
OF THE QUESTIONS COUGHLIN ASKED THEM IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE TRIAL (DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME
WHERE JUDGE NASH HOLME'S ASSISTANT INDICATED, ON THE RECORD IN ONE OF THE OTHER CASES ON THAT
STACKED DOCKET, THAT Judge Nash Holmes just couldn't be found, and how odd that was...which is odd,
considering what was going on in 11 cr 22176, 11 cr 26405 12 cr 00696 and 11 tr 26800, and rcr2012-065630
and rcr2011-063341 at the time (lots of reasons for and indications that local law enforcement and prosecutors
and public defenders were non too happy with Coughlin...and consider the 2/24/12 email vacating the 2/27/12
status conference between young and dogan that neither YOung nor Dogan wish to testify about...but which
seems to have been held anyways after a written communication of its being reset was transmitted to Coughlin
by Dogan, wherein, during the time Judge Nash Holmes couldn't be found (maybe she was at one of the group
meetings amongst Judges about Coughlin that RMC Administrative Judge William Gardner referenced on the
record in 11 CR 26405? Interesting the Notice of Appeal in 60302 was filed that same day too, 2/27/12) Dogan
got his ORder for Competency Evaluation of Coughlin in rcr2012-065630 (apparently in retaliation for
Coughlin's filing of 2/21/12, and DDA Zach Young was still smarting from a filing by Coughlin of approximately
11/28/12, which resultd in Young promptly amending his complaint in rcr2011-063341 to add a charge that was
duplicative, even where YOung failure to allege theft or possessing/receiving "from another' under Staab makes
his so charging Coughlin in that iPhone case a RPC 3.8 violation, which is YOung's specialty, apparently. That,
and violating NRs 178.405, which YOung did by filing in rcr2011-063341 with a stamp of 2:55pm a fugitive
document of his own, an Opposition to Coughlin's or the WCPD Motion to Appear as CoCounsel on
2/27/12...never mind Young tried to hold a TRIAL on 5/7/12 in that case despite the Order finding Coughlin
competent in cr12-0376 didn't even get signed and entered until 5/9/12...ditto the Trial seeting of 5/8/12 in
RMC 11 cr 26405, the criminal trespass case. NOt much respect for nrs 178.405 (including within NRs 5.010)
here in Northern nevada..
Coughlin didn't received the 2/28/12 Contempt Order in 11 tr 26800 until July 2012...but did file a Notice of
Appeal 3/7/12...despite "summary criminal contempt" being a final appealable order, Judge Nash Holmes
continues to refuse to follow NRS 189.010-050
It is true that contempt committed in a trial courtroom can under some circumstances be punished summarily
by the trial judge. See Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 539 . But adjudication by a trial judge of a
contempt committed in his immediate presence in open court cannot be likened to the proceedings here. For
we held in the Oliver case that a person charged with contempt before a "one-man grand jury" could not be
summarily tried. [349 U.S. 133, 138] The power of a trial judge to punish for a contempt committed in his
immediate presence in open ... In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel of Coughlin
violated in both 11 cr 22176 and 11 tr 26800, also orders no sufficiently detailed or capable of being known
how to comply with, not sufficient warning, violat Houston v Eighth Judicial District (Nev.).
See, this is why In Re Oliver and Cooke require all elements of "summary criminal contempt" occur " in the
"immediate presence" of the Court. Maybe Marshal Harley and some other Marshal have misled Judge Nash
HOlmes, or maybe something worse is going on here....but what Judge Nash HOlmes said on the recording is
entirely misleading an inaccurate, if not an outright lie (again, maybe not a lie by Judge Nash Holmes, maybe
she is repeating a lie, but regardless her reliance on unattributed hearsay is distrubing an inappropriate,
particulary where she not only purports to issue a "summary criminal contempt" conviction against an
attorney, but also where Judge Nash Holmes appears to try to transmogrify what she sees as "a simple traffic
citation trial" into a full blown SCR 105 disciplinary hearing where she is both Bar Counsel and the Panel...That
Marshal needs to sign an affidavit, under NRS 22.020 and Judge Nash HOlmes ought to have to put something
on the record, under oath, in response to Coughlin's recent subpoena (and SBN Pat King wishes to let Judge
Nash HOlmes phone in her testimony, and it probably won't even be sworn testimony, but rather just some
musings by Judge Nash Holmes purporting to make "rulings" finding "by clear and convincing evidence" all sorts
of things outside her jurisdiction) on 11/14/12, on, Partick O. King, SBN Bar Counsel has also filed Motion to
Quash the Subpoenas Coughlin attempted to have served on Marshal Joel Harley, Marshal Deighton, Judge
Nash HOlmes, Judge William Gardner, Judge Gardners Administrative Assistant Lisa Wagner, who can't quite
find the NOtice of Appeal Coughlin faxed to her (allowable under the RMC Rules) on June 28th, 2012 in 11 CR
26405 (the appeal was dismissed under an NRS 189.010 analysis by Judge Elliot, whom also got Coughlin appeal
of the 11 cr 22176 conviction resulting in this Court's 6/7/12 temporary suspension Order in cr11-2064, which
was denied based upon a civil preparation of transcript down payment rule, in that criminal appeal, where the
RMC has a thing in place with this Pam Longoni that violates Nevada law in that it refused to give Coughlin the
audio cd of the trial for some time, insisting only Longoni would be allowed to transcribe it, and that the
transcript's preparation would absolutely not start until a down payment was made. Plus, even where Coughlin
caved to the payment demands..Longoni repeatedly hung up the phone on him and otherwise ignored his
communications (there may be an issue of the email Longoni holding out to the public issuing a
"bounceback"...but she needs to sign an affidavit as to whether she put Coughlin on a blocked list, and upon
information and belief, Coughlin faxed his request to the number the RMC held out for her on her behalf too...
In her March 14th, 2012 grievance against Coughlin to the SBN Judge Nash Holmes details some concerns she
has with Coughlin's work as a self representing attorney defending a traffic citation (now NG12-0434, and
perhaps, NG12-0435, depending upon whom you ask and what King means by "Clerk of Court"...because in
King's 3/23/12 email to Coughlin he apparently identifies Ms. Marilyn Tognoni as "Clerk of Court of Department
3"...whoever, wouldn't it be Second Judicial District Court Clerk of Court Joey Orduna Hastings that would need
to send Family Court Judge Linda Gardner's April 2009 Order sanctioning Coughlin to the SBN's King for King
now apparent contention that the NG12-0435 "ghost grievance" consisting of Judge L. Gardner's April 2009
Order was not filed by the RMC Judges?
AS to the application of the "courthouse sanctuary" doctrine to RMC Marshal Harley serving the Order to Show
Cause upon Coughlin at approximately 1:25 pm in one of the conference rooms right outside the interior of
Courtroom B at the RMC:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-district-court/1372465.html
"THE LAW
(COURTHOUSE SANCTUARY)
Despite antagonistic dicta to the contrary; most modern era precedent dealing with the issue of Courthouse
Sanctuary from service of process have held that New York State residents receive no such immunity
protections. Baumgartner v. Baumgartner, 273 A.D. 411, 77 N.Y.S.2d 668 (1st Dept.1948); Department of
Housing Preservation, City of New York v. Koenigsberg, 133 Misc.2d 893, 509 N.Y.S.2d 270 (N.Y. Civ.Ct.1986);
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Bobo, N.Y.L.J., 1 Misc.3d 901(A), 2003 WL 22928513 (Dec. 17, 2003, J. Miller, Nassau
Co. Dist. Ct.) These cases hold that the Courthouse Sanctuary is only available to foreign state residents who
come into New York's Courts to contest jurisdiction. This doctrine has been slightly expanded to include New
York residents who enter the jurisdiction of a New York Court of limited territorial jurisdiction to contest
jurisdiction. See Palazzo v. Conforti, 50 N.Y.S.2d 706 (N.Y. Civ.Ct.1944); Singer v. Reising, 154 Misc. 239, 276
N.Y.S. 714 (Queens County 1935).
The Baumgartner Appellate Division panel also acknowledges a limited Courthouse Sanctuary rule for New
York residents if such service would constitute a disturbance directly tending to interrupt the proceedings of
the Court or to impair the respect due its authority. This rule by itself would not be applicable to the instant
case as service of process was effected in the Courtroom but outside the Court's presence and in between
calendar calls.
STATE RESIDENCY IMMUNITY DISTINCTION?
The English Common Law made no New York State residency distinction. The doctrine of immunity from arrest
of a litigant attending a trial of an action to which he is a party found early recognition and dates back to the
book of 13 Henry IV, J.B. Sampson v. Graves, 208 A.D. 522, 203 N.Y.S. 729 (1st Dept.1924). This is for the
obvious reason that England had no sovereign states. The privilege is not a creature of statute, but was created
and deemed necessary for the due administration of justice. See Matthews v. Tufts, 87 N.Y. 568 (1882); citing
to Van Lien v. Johnson (N.Y. Ct. Appeals, unreported 1871).
The logical question now arises, exactly when did New York's Appellate Court's recognize a residency distinction
for application of the Courthouse Sanctuary? The answer is that the Court of Appeals never established such
a rule. In contra point of fact, the Court of Appeals has opined that:
It is the policy of the law to protect suitors and witnesses from arrests upon civil process while coming to
and attending the court and while returning home. Upon principle as well as upon authority their immunity
from the service of process for the commencement of civil actions against them is absolute eundo, morando
et redeundo. Person v. Grier, 66 N.Y. 124 (1876). Emphasis Added.
In this unanimous opinion, the Court of Appeals expressly addressed the New York State resident immunity
distinction and established in its dicta that whether any distinction should or does in fact exist, is at least
doubtful. This immunity is one of the necessities of the Administration of Justice, and Court's would often be
embarrassed if suitors or witnesses, while attending Court, could be molested with process. It is noted that
Person involved a foreign state resident. In establishing the sanctuary doctrine, the Court stated that this rule
is especially applicable in all its foreign suitors . By direct implication, the Court of Appeals is also applying
the protective rule to New York residents.
The basis of the Courthouse Sanctuary rule is that parties should be allowed to contest jurisdiction without
submitting to it. Allowing Re-service makes a mockery of the traverse hearing and essentially allows the
plaintiff to use a defective default judgment as a weapon to compel the defendant to submit to the service of
process. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Bobo; cite supra. The location of an individual's residence does little to
legitimize such a mockery. Absent the compulsion of clear controlling precedent; this Court will not condone
such a situation..."
NRS 266.595 Appeals. Appeals to the district court may be taken from any final judgment of the municipal
court in accordance with the provisions of NRS 5.073.
NRS 5.073 Conformity of practice and proceedings to those of justice courts; exception; imposition and collection
of fees.
1. The practice and proceedings in the municipal court must conform, as nearly as practicable, to the practice and
proceedings of justice courts in similar cases. An appeal perfected transfers the action to the district court for trial
anew, unless the municipal court is designated as a court of record as provided in NRS 5.010. The municipal court
must be treated and considered as a justice court whenever the proceedings thereof are called into question.
2. Each municipal judge shall charge and collect such fees prescribed in NRS 4.060 that are within the
jurisdictional limits of the municipal court.
(Added to NRS by 1989, 903; A 1991, 455; 1997, 115)
NRS 5.075 Form of docket and records. The Court Administrator shall prescribe the form of the docket and of
any other appropriate records to be kept by the municipal court, which form may vary from court to court
according to the number and kind of cases customarily heard and whether the court is designated as a court of
record pursuant to NRS 5.010.
NRS 5.010 General requirements for court; designation as court of record. There must be in each city a municipal
court presided over by a municipal judge. The municipal court:
1. Must be held at such place in the city within which it is established as the governing body of that city may by
ordinance direct.
2. May by ordinance be designated as a court of record.
The personal service by Marshal Harley of the Order to Show Cause in the appeal of the summary eviction
matter from Coughlin's former home law office at 121 River Rock St, with Richard G. Hill, Esq. as opposing
counsel in CV11-03628, occurred while Coughlin was speaking to RCA Ormaas in attempts to resolve the matter
(11 TR 26800 a traffic citation matter wherein RPD Sargent Tarter and other officers responded to Richard G.
Hill, Esq.'s office on 11/15/12 (its possible both Hill and Coughlin called the police and or 911...can't remember)
when Coughlin appeared there after being released from 3 days in jail incident to the 11/13/12 criminal
trespass arrest (now a conviction and discussed in that attached materials, some of which appear on the
Nevada Supreme Court's site under case 61901, the conviction stemming from 11 CR 26405 before RMC
Administrative Judge W. Gardner, the brother of District Court Judge Linda Gardner whose April 2009 Order
sanctioning Coughlin was cited by Washoe Legal Services at the cause for his firing, and led to 60302, now on
appeal...
I would really just like to move on from all of this, but this is a time of exigent circumstances, and if the RMC
and the City of Reno Marshals do not take affirmative steps to disavow the unsworn hearsay Judge Nash
Holmes attributed in her supposedly sworn testimony at Coughlin's 11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing, it may be
that a negligent hiring, training, or supervision cause of action may acrue against various Marshals, even
personally (and its not so clear Mr. Christensen and the City of Reno would extend any purported
representation to such personal liability, for, say, slander or libel).
NRS 22.010 Acts or omissions constituting contempts. The following acts or omissions shall be deemed contempts:
1. Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge while the judge is holding court, or engaged in judicial duties at
chambers, or toward masters or arbitrators while sitting on a reference or arbitration, or other judicial proceeding.
2. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance in the presence of the court, or in its immediate vicinity, tending to
interrupt the due course of the trial or other judicial proceeding.
3. Disobedience or resistance to any lawful writ, order, rule or process issued by the court or judge at chambers.
4. Disobedience of a subpoena duly served, or refusing to be sworn or answer as a witness.
5. Rescuing any person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of such court or judge at chambers.
6. Disobedience of the order or direction of the court made pending the trial of an action, in speaking to or in the presence of a juror
concerning an action in which the juror has been impaneled to determine, or in any manner approaching or interfering with such juror with
the intent to influence the verdict.
7. Abusing the process or proceedings of the court or falsely pretending to act under the authority of an order or process of the court.
[1911 CPA 452; RL 5394; NCL 8941](NRS A 1983, 843)

NRS 22.030 Summary punishment of contempt committed in immediate view and presence of court; affidavit or statement to be
filed when contempt committed outside immediate view and presence of court; disqualification of judge.
1. If a contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court or judge at chambers, the contempt may be punished
summarily. If the court or judge summarily punishes a person for a contempt pursuant to this subsection, the court or judge shall enter an
order that:
(a) Recites the facts constituting the contempt in the immediate view and presence of the court or judge;
(b) Finds the person guilty of the contempt; and
(c) Prescribes the punishment for the contempt.
2. If a contempt is not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court or judge at chambers, an affidavit must be presented to
the court or judge of the facts constituting the contempt, or a statement of the facts by the masters or arbitrators.
3. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, if a contempt is not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, the
judge of the court in whose contempt the person is alleged to be shall not preside at the trial of the contempt over the objection of the person.
The provisions of this subsection do not apply in:
(a) Any case where a final judgment or decree of the court is drawn in question and such judgment or decree was entered in such court by
a predecessor judge thereof 10 years or more preceding the bringing of contempt proceedings for the violation of the judgment or decree.
(b) Any proceeding described in subsection 1 of NRS 3.223, whether or not a family court has been established in the judicial district.
NRS 22.100 Penalty for contempt.
1. Upon the answer and evidence taken, the court or judge or jury, as the case may be, shall determine whether the person proceeded
against is guilty of the contempt charged.
2. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 22.110, if a person is found guilty of contempt, a fine may be imposed on the person not
exceeding $500 or the person may be imprisoned not exceeding 25 days, or both.
3. In addition to the penalties provided in subsection 2, if a person is found guilty of contempt pursuant to subsection 3 of NRS 22.010,
the court may require the person to pay to the party seeking to enforce the writ, order, rule or process the reasonable expenses, including,
without limitation, attorneys fees, incurred by the party as a result of the contempt.
NRS 199.340 Criminal contempt. Every person who shall commit a contempt of court of any one of the following kinds shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor:
1. Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior committed during the sitting of the court, in its immediate view and presence, and
directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to its authority;
2. Behavior of like character in the presence of a referee, while actually engaged in a trial or hearing pursuant to an order of court, or in
the presence of a jury while actually sitting in the trial of a cause or upon an inquest or other proceeding authorized by law;
3. Breach of the peace, noise or other disturbance directly tending to interrupt the proceedings of a court, jury or referee;
4. Willful disobedience to the lawful process or mandate of a court;
5. Resistance, willfully offered, to its lawful process or mandate;
6. Contumacious and unlawful refusal to be sworn as a witness or, after being sworn, to answer any legal and proper interrogatory;
7. Publication of a false or grossly inaccurate report of its proceedings; or
8. Assuming to be an attorney or officer of a court or acting as such without authority.
ARTICLE IV - J udicial Department
Sec. 4.010 Municipal Court. The Municipal Court must include one department and may include additional
departments in the discretion of the City Council. If the City Council determines to create additional departments,
it shall do so by resolution and may appoint additional municipal judges to serve until the next election.
(Ch. 662, Stats. 1971 p. 1976; ACh. 553, Stats. 1973 p. 881; Ch. 373, Stats. 1979 p. 645; Ch. 208, Stats. 1985 p.
675; Ch. 9, Stats. 1993 p. 21)
Sec. 4.020 Municipal Court: Qualifications of Municipal J udge; salary.
1. A Municipal J udge must be:
(a) An attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada.
(b) A qualified elector within the City.
2. A Municipal J udge shall not engage in the private practice of law.
3. The salary of a Municipal J udge must be:
(a) Fixed by resolution of the City Council.
(b) Uniform for all judges in the Municipal Court.
(Ch. 662, Stats. 1971 p. 1976; ACh. 343, Stats. 1973 p. 422; Ch. 553, Stats. 1973 p. 881; Ch. 98, Stats. 1977 p.
211; Ch. 561, Stats. 1977 p. 1395; Ch. 208, Stats. 1985 p. 675; Ch. 599, Stats. 1993 p. 2501; Ch. 327, Stats. 1999
p. 1369)
Sec. 4.030 Disposition of fines. All fines and forfeitures for the violation of ordinances shall be paid to the City
Clerk in the manner to be prescribed by ordinance.
(Ch. 662, Stats. 1971 p. 1977)
Sec. 4.040 Procedure, additional judges. The practice and proceedings in the Court must conform as nearly as
practicable to that of justices courts in similar cases. Upon the written request of the City Manager an additional
temporary Municipal J udge may be provided for so long as the City Council authorizes additional compensation
for such a J udge. Whenever a person is sentenced to pay a fine, the Court may adjudge and enter upon the docket
a supplemental order that the offender may, if he or she desires, work on the streets or public works of the City at
the rate of $25 for each day. The money so earned must be applied against the fine until it is satisfied.
CONTEMPT
Acts or omissions constituting, generally, 22.010
Affidavit of facts constituting, 22.030
Affidavits presented in bad faith, NRCP 56(g), JCRCP 56(g)
Appearance, failure of defendant to make, 22.130
Arrest
Bond, 22.070
Excuses for not bringing arrested person before court, 22.140
Illness of defendant, effect, 22.140
Attorneys at law
Bar examination, early release of results, SCR 68
Discharged, failure to deliver certain materials to client, 7.055
Bail
Violation of conditions deemed contempt, 178.484
Commercial premises, violations of writ of restitution, 118C.210
Commission in presence of court or judge, 22.030
Compelling performance, imprisonment, 22.110
Court order, violation, 1.250, 22.010
Court reporters, 656.240
Criminal, 193.110, 193.300, 199.340
Custodial parent, failure to comply with visitation orders, 125C.030, 125C.040
Discharge from arrest, 22.070
Disqualification of judge or justice, making of charge not punished as contempt, 1.225, 1.230
Documents, refusal to permit inspection, NRCP 37(b)(2), J CRCP 37(b)(2)
Failure to perform specific acts directed by judgment, 22.010, NRCP 70, J CRCP 70
Imprisonment, 22.100, 22.110
Indictment for contemptuous conduct, 22.120
J ustice courts, civil proceedings, 74.040
Material witness granted immunity, failure to testify, 178.576
Misconduct by defendant during criminal trial, 175.387
Municipal court may punish for, 266.570
Punishment, 22.030, 22.100, 22.120
Reentry on real property after ejectment, 22.020
Refusal to answer or be sworn, 22.010, 50.195, NRCP 37(b)(1), J CRCP 37(b)(1)
Sheriffs duties, 22.060, 50.205
Subpoenas, failure to obey
Deemed contempt, 22.010, 174.385
Witnesses, forfeitures and damages, 50.195
Summary punishment, 22.030
Trials for contempt
By court or jury, 22.100
Disqualification of judge, 22.030
Investigating charge, 22.090
The RSIC Victoria Oldenburg wants to talk to the Panel about how the RSIC and Wal-
Mart are in a long term business partnership where the 2nd St. Wal-Mart is on tribal
land rented out by the RSIC and patrolled by its tribal officers, who admit to routinely
making misdemeanor petty theft/shoplifting custodial arrest (Officer Kameron
Crawford and Donnie Braunworth have been trained in all the neato "he didn't give me
all the information necessary to issue a citation" explanations (including Crawfords
lying under oath that Coughlin didn't provide his driver's license to him on September
9th, 2011, especially where Wal-Mart's Frontino admits he did not make a citizen's
arrest, nor did any Wal-Mart employee) even where such misdemeanor arrests by tribal
officers are forbidden under NRS 171.1255.. Reno City Attorney too would like a
chance to explain how she prosecutes cases based upon arrests by tribal officers for
misdemeanor where Nevada law expressly prevents misdemeanor arrests by tribal
officers under NRS 171.1255.
I was forced to cross examine/interact with a represented party at the 11/14/12
Disciplinary Hearing, and the SBN and Panel's violations of SCR 105 contributed
greatly to my failure to alert Mr. Garin prior to that. I think out of fairness I and Mr.
Garin/Ms. Nordstrom should be provided transcripts from the 11/14/12 Hearing.
NRS 171.1255Arrest by officer or agent of Bureau of Indian Affairs or police
officer employed by Indian tribe.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, an officer or agent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs or a person
employed as a police officer by an Indian tribe may make an arrest in obedience to a warrant delivered to him or
her, or may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) For a public offense committed or attempted in the officer or agents presence.
(b) When a person arrested has committed a felony or gross misdemeanor, although not in the officer or agents
presence.
(c) When a felony or gross misdemeanor has in fact been committed, and the officer or agent has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
(d) On a charge made, upon a reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony or gross misdemeanor by the
person arrested.
(e) When a warrant has in fact been issued in this State for the arrest of a named or described person for a public
offense, and the officer or agent has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested is the person so named or
described.
(f) When the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a battery
upon that persons spouse and the peace officer finds evidence of bodily harm to the spouse.
2. Such an officer or agent may make an arrest pursuant to subsection 1 only:
(a) Within the boundaries of an Indian reservation or Indian colony for an offense committed on that reservation
or colony; or
(b) Outside the boundaries of an Indian reservation or Indian colony if the officer or agent is in fresh pursuit of a
person who is reasonably believed by the officer or agent to have committed a felony within the boundaries of the
reservation or colony or has committed, or attempted to commit, any criminal offense within those boundaries in
the presence of the officer or agent.
For the purposes of this subsection, fresh pursuit has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 171.156.
Please see the photograph in the attached materials of the RSIC Officer taking Coughlin's driver's license from
him, thereby vitiating his assertion that an arrest was an available option due to Couglin not providing his driver's
license to the Officers.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Zach has 9 files to share with you on SkyDrive. To view them, click the links below.
11 22 12 final collection for Chief Marshal Roper's review 0204 26800 part 1 of 2.pdf
11 22 12 final collection for Chief Marshal Roper's review 0204 26800 part 2 of 2.pdf
11TR26800 031412 RMC continuation of trial Nash Ormaas Hill traffic citation 031412_20120312-
1033_01cd003b8f0851d0.mp3
11TR26800 RMC 022712 part 2 of 2 from 2 27 12 031412_20120227-1621_01ccf56bce224540.mp3
11TR26800 RMC 022712 part 1 of 2 from 2 27 12 031412_20120227-1507_01ccf5618f76c460 (2).mp3
CV11-03628 ENTIRE EFLEX COMBINED FOR APPENDIX IN 60331 AND 61383 COUGHLIN V MERLISS 26406 1708 26800
NG12-0204.pdf
CR12-1262 appeal.pdf
11 2 12 file stamped complete notice of errata and revised supplemental 26405 1708 0204.pdf
11 15 11 rpd tarter redacted 0204 0434 26800 police report ormaas retaliation.pdf
Download all

11 14 12 To 11 23 12 Emails To Leslie and Others 063341 0204 067980

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

11 14 12 To 11 23 12 Emails To Leslie and Others 063341 0204 067980

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Close Print

City Attorney Skau, updated discovery in iPhone case,

Вам также может понравиться