FW: DV09-01168 issues

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)

Sent: Thu 8/22/13 12:50 PM
To: rhill@richardhillaw.com (rhill@richardhillaw.com)
29 attachments
5 28 09 email from Michelle.Purdy@washoecourts.us 0204 01168
54844 - Copy.pdf (31.3 KB) , 6 28 11 0204 01955 RE Rejection of
email to 2JDC whether Elliott CAAW Assignement in 01955 was truly
random.pdf (148.6 KB) , 5 20 09 0204 01168 email from
cindy.fladager to michelle.purdy@washoecourts.us dv08-01168
email.pdf (14.6 KB) , 5 20 09 0204 ocr 0434 0435 62337 Reply to
Opposition 28 pages DV08-01168-1083206 (Reply...).pdf (853.7 KB)
, 5 21 09 0204 01168 2JDC L Gardner's Order Denying Request for
Reconsideration.pdf (353.6 KB) , Judges and Court Clerks Violate the
Law when Your Court Filings are Denied or Disappear.pdf (797.2
KB) , 1 29 2012 letter to Clerk of Court Orduna Hastings regarding
Eflex rejections with attachments 41 pages total.pdf (957.8 KB) , 6 19
09 0204 62337 ocrd 01955 01168 FOFCOLDOD Final Order or
Decree of Divorce in Joshi 01168 overrides FHE3 4 13 09 Ord.pdf
(166.4 KB) , 11 14 12 0204 62337 Transcript Order Delivery for
170008.zip (1586.5 KB) , 11 14 12 0204 Transcript of Hearing with
Index 170008ch-Full.pdf (697.8 KB) , 1 15 10 Isakson D14 L.
Gardner and Springgate WLS Client DV09-00163 0204 01168 01955
54844 reduced.pdf (1123.5 KB) , DV09-00163 - GASPAR ISAKSON
VS NANETTE ISAKSON (D14) 0204 DOCKET SPRINGGATE BK
APPROACH LOOKIN' SOLID 01168.pdf (132.1 KB) , 5 1 09 email
and attached WLS Elcano letter citing L. Gardner Order as sole reason
for firing 60302.pdf (75.5 KB) , 5 7 09 0204 01955 WLS Elcano
termination letter zachcoughlin040709.pdf (23.2 KB) , 4 20 09 0204
01955 54844 Coughlin's email Employment Complaint of Zach
Coughlin, Esq to kathy@kbreckenridgelaw.com Breckenridge.pdf
(66.6 KB) , 4 19 09 personal and confidential email to Elcano 752pm
60302 0435.pdf (29.9 KB) , 4 24 09 email from Breckenridge 0204
01955 WLS needs attach.htm (9.5 KB) , 4 20 09 0204 01168 WLS
Elcano's letter to Coughlin placing on administrative leave serious
allegation professional misconduct 0204.pdf (426.2 KB) , 5 26 09
0204 01168 email from 2JDC Fladager responding to Coughlin's
inquiry of 5 24 09 re 5 20 09 filing not filed prior to 5 21 09 Order.pdf
(221.6 KB) , 5 26 09 email from Springgate 0204 54844 0204 re wdcr
9 proposed final decree he says he did his discovery in the 16.1.htm
(11.7 KB) , 10 28 09 0204 62337 54844 20 page Petition for Writ of
Mandamus Coughlin v 2JDC, Judge Linda Gardner sanction WLS fires
Coughlin 26405 her brother RMC 26800 60302 01955.pdf (20.7 KB) ,
5 28 09 email to 2JDC RE DV08-01168 0204.pdf (207.7 KB) , 5 28
09 0204 62337 01168 Coughlin email to WLS Ashley fw wdcr 9
Proposed detailing alimony BK issues.pdf (118.7 KB) , 5 14 09 0204
62337 01168 WDCR 23 violating WLS
mashley@washoelegalservices.org 0204 01955 01168.pdf (188.5
KB) , 5 21 09 Springgate's Prop FOFCOLDOD 0204 01168 01955
email Springgate w 5 21 12 Req Sub Prop Ord spare sanct compare 4
10 09 Ord.pdf (128.0 KB) , 5 24 09 email to Springgate 0204 01168
WDCR 9 Proposed Final Decree, RE discovery requests.pdf (15.4
KB) , 5 27 09 DV08-01168_1084475 WLS's Ashley's Mtn to Correct
Proposed Decree 0204 0435 60302 62337 .pdf (98.6 KB) , 6 18 12
26405 transcript 4 per page 0204 bw.pdf (1194.8 KB) , 11 7 12 0204
62337 bates 3018 to 3043 2JDC Judge Linda Gardner NG12-0435
grievance fileocrd.pdf (2.4 MB)
Dear Mr. Hill,
I am not sure it is required, but to avoid any appearance of ex parte
communications, I am copying you on this.
Sincerely,
Zachary Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and Fax: 949 667
7402 ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: cindy.fladager@washoecourts.us
CC: joey.hastings@washoecourts.us; jgarin@lipsonneilson.com; judge.hardy@washoecourts.us;
david.hardy@washoecourts.us; aocmail@nvcourts.nv.gov; bhutchins@judicial.state.nv.us;
dfsarnowski@judicial.state.nv.us; kpickering@nvcourts.nv.gov
Subject: DV09-01168 issues
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:47:50 -0700
Ms. Fladager,
I have a couple of questions.
I am writing to complain about the fact that the WCDA DDA Young has had greater access to the ROA in
several cases, including CR13-0614 than I, a non efiler, have been accorded. Whereas Young has access to
a digital copy of the over 500 page ROA in CR13-0614 Coughlin has been refused a digital copy thereof,
and, despite the fact that numerous counter clerks have indicated to Coughlin that all criminal
defendants are entitled to one free copy of every filing in their cases, Michelle Purdy and Julie Wise have
order clerks not to allow Coughlin such a free copy of filings in his cases, including the ROA (or "Justice
Court Appeal") in CR13-0614.
As to DV08-01168, and the removal of Coughlin from the list of those afforded eFlex access during a very
exigent time, how does such comport with WDCR 23:
WDCR Rule23.Appearances; substitutions; withdrawal or change of attorneys....
2.Counsel in any case may be changed:
(a)When a new attorney is to be substituted in place of the attorney withdrawing, by the written consent of both
attorneys and the client, all of which shall be filed with the court and served upon all parties or their attorneys who have
appeared in the action; or
(b)By order of the court, upon motion and notice as provided in these rules, when no attorney has been retained to
replace the attorney withdrawing;
(1)If such motion is made by the attorney, counsel shall include in an affidavit the address, or last known
address, at which the client may be served with notice of further proceedings taken in the case in the event the application
for withdrawal is granted, and counsel shall serve a copy of such motion and supporting papers upon the client and all
other parties to the action or their attorneys; or
(2)If such motion is made by the client, the client shall state therein the address at which the client may be served
with notice of all further proceedings in the case in the event the application is granted, and shall serve a copy of the
application upon the attorney and all other parties to the action or their attorneys.
3.Any form of order permitting withdrawal of an attorney submitted to the court for signature shall contain the
address at which the party is to be served with notice of all further proceedings.
4.Except for good cause shown, no application for withdrawal or substitution shall be granted if a delay of the trial
or of the hearing of any other matter in the case would result. Discharge of an attorney may not be grounds to delay a trial
or other hearing.
5.A corporation may not appear in proper person.
Asst. Clerk of Court Wise and Michelle Purdy (and, formerly Appeals Clerk Lori Matheus) take an incredibly strict (and,
inventive, even) approach to technical rules when it comes to Coughlin, yet, the WCDA's Officer and Inside Baseball
power players like Washoe Legal Services Elcano, get a pass, some might say. Why is WLS able to have Coughlin
"substituted out" without the "signature of both attorneys" without any motion, etc.?
Further, problematic is the fact that the eflex number accorded to Coughlin's 5/20/09 Reply in that Joshi matter is
numerically subsequent to the Order denying the Motion. And, there does not seem to be a Request to Submit sufficient
to have Coughlin's 4/30/09 Motion and Springgate's 5/12/09 Opposition put to Judge L. Gardner, and certainly not soon
enough for her to craft a 7 page Order. Additionally, Coughlin's 5/20/09 Opposition (which was filed using the dropbox
required by WDCR 10 that the 2JDC continues to fail to provide in what some might say is an impermissible arm twisting
attempt to make litigants sign up for eFlex) has two file stamps on it, one crossed out.
Additionally, can you please indicate why you sent Coughlin an email of 6/28/09 requesting that he resubmit his
Complaint against Washoe Legal Services and indicate whether there was some impermissible attempt to game the random
assignment of cases sufficient to result in 2JDC Judge Elliott being assigned CV11-01955 in Coughlin's lawsuit against
CAAW and WLS where Judge Elliott sat on CAAW's Executive Board, and never disclosed such to Coughlin and failed
to recuse himself? Certainly, these peculiarities in DV08-01168 and the ensuing wrongful termination litigations in CV11-
01896 and CV11-01955 are noteworthy given the spate of Eflex rejections of Coughlin' filing in the first quarter of 2012 (19
of 23 filings rejected at one point, many of which were of an exigent nature and submitted in the two Coughlin v. WLS
wrongful termination suits) combined with the Washoe County Sheriff's Office failure to timely serve the defendants in
CV11-01896 despite Coughlin having an IFP on file, where 60302 (and 60317) reveal the extent to which those cases were
largely gutted due to such failure to timely serve the defendants where Coughlin's Motions for Extension of Time To
Serve (which both took approximately five attempts to get Appeal Clerk Lori Matheus to accept for filing) were denied, to
Coughlin's extreme prejudice (no matter whether the Order indicated such dismissals were "without prejudice" where the
running of the 90 days from "receipt of EEOC right to sue letter" occurred in the interim and arguably, effectively
foreclosed Coughlin's refiling such Complaints.
Interestingly, that same "receipt" concept became exceedingly relevant incident to the Washoe County Sheriff's Office
numerous burglaries of Coughlin's former home law offices and rentals (see Rev2011-001708, Rev2012-000374, Rev2012-
001048, RCR2012-067980, RMC 12 CR 12420, etc) given the "within 24 hours of receipt of the order" language in NRS
40.253(5)(a) with respect to how lockouts are to be carried out in the context of a summary removal order within a summary
eviction case.
Perhaps not so surprisingly, 2JDC Judge L. Gardner's brother RMC Judge W. Gardner, did not find Coughlin's arguments
compelling in the criminal trespass case against Coughlin (see 61901 SCR 111(4) Petition in N. S. Ct) incident to opposing
counsel in CV11-03628 burglarizing Coughlin former home law office with the WCSO in tow on 11/1/11, and again, but with
the RPD along for the fun, on 11/13/11. Russell v. Kalian, 414 A.2D 462. Iorio v City of New York, 96 Misc.2D 955. Mayes
v. UVI.
Speaking of NCJC Canon 2, Rule 2.15 and reporting misconduct (there by RMC Judge W. Gardner) to an "appropriate
authority", 2JDC Judge L. Gardner's apparent failure to contact the SBN or otherwise take "appropriate action" (well,
unless one counts poisoning the well of RMC Judges via impermissible extra judicial communications against Coughlin in
11 CR 22176 (see 60838), 11 CR 26405, 11 TR 26800 (see 62337), 12 CR 00696, 12 CR 12420 as taking "appropriate action", to
whatever extent passing the 4/13/09 Order After Trial (FHE3 at Coughlin's 11/14/12 formal disciplinary hearing) to her own
brother (an "appropriate authority"?)
Further, a really detailed review of the Certificates of Mailing in all filings in DV08-01168 subsequent to Coughlin's removal
from the list of those allowed to access it on eFlex reveals some rather, uh, interesting, things.
Additionally, the docket entry in FV09-00886 Uribe v. Valdez, indicating Washoe Legal Services Board President K.
Breckenridge ordered, on 4/10/09 the audio recording of a 3/12/09 TPO hearing wherein Coughlin represented a male
victim of domestic violence (where Coughlin complained to Elcano that WLS's Sternlicht told a room full of individuals
seeking services, which included two males, that "males cannot be victims of domestic violence"), which is particularly
interesting timing considering WLS's Exec. Director Elcano's indications in his letters to Coughlin on 5/1/09 and 5/7/09 as
to exactly why (with limiting language) Coughlin was suspended and then fired on 5/14/09. Interestingly, despite 2JDC
Judge L. Gardner's 6/19/09 Order vitiating Elcano's rationale for firing Coughlin where such order vacating the attorney fee
sanction that Springgate was able to garner in invoking NRS 7.085 in his closing argument (the incorporation of NRCP 1
therein making problematic Springgate's failure to serve any filing ready sanctions motion, much less allow the passing of
the required 21 day safe harbor). Of course, Hill's and Baker's burglary entails an RPC 8.3 burden as well.
However, Elcano still showed up to Coughlin's 11/14/12 formal disciplinary hearing (where the SBN violated SCR 105(2)(c)
in only constructively noticing Coughlin that Elcano was to be a witness the day before the hearing, rather than providing
the required "30 days written notice) and testified as though the 4/13/09 Order After Trial had not been superseded by the
6/19/09 Final Decree of Divorce.
Interestingly, another case involving Coughlin, Springgate, and 2JDC Judge L. Gardner illustrates one of the very reasons
why entering into the proposed settlement agreement that Springgate accused Coughlin of being "vexatious" for failing to
coerce his client into accepting. Isakson, DV09-00163.
Somehow between Springgate's 5/21/09 Proposed Decree and Request for Submission thereof (in which Springgate, whom
failed to serve such on Coughlin indicates that WLS saw no problems with such 5/21/09 Proposed Decree, which includes
an attorney's fee sanction and failed to award Mrs. Joshi alimony (whether Coughlin is not considered a "party" under
WDCR 9 does not stop the SBN from attempting to apply offensive collateral estoppel to a vacated 4/13/09 Order After
Trial, sufficient to "prove" by "clear and convincing evidence" that Coughlin violated a multitude of Rules of Professional
Conduct incident to successfully obtaining alimony for Mrs. Joshi.
I appreciate your response to these matters.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
Close Print
WLS
From:
Kathy Breckenridge (kathy@kbreckenridgelaw.com) You moved this message to its current
location.
Sent: Fri 4/24/09 9:27 AM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
1 attachment
Coughlin ltr Apr23, 09.pdf (4.4 KB)
--
Kathleen T. Breckenridge, Esq.
Kathleen T. Breckenridge, Ltd.
462 Court Street
Reno, NV 89501
(775) 786-5055
(775) 786-8449 (fax)
This email is confidential and may be privileged and may be
privileged attorney-client communication intended only for the
person(s) named in this email. Examination, use, copying or
dissemination of these materials by person(s) other than the intended
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you received this
communication in error, please contact Kathleen T. Breckenridge,
Ltd., by telephone and return the original message to such firm by
mail. We will gladly reimburse all telephone and postage expenses.
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
Close Print
Re: WDCR 9 Proposed Final Decree, RE: discovery requests
From:John Springgate (springgatelaw@sbcglobal.net) You moved this message to its current location.
Sent: Tue 5/26/09 5:14 PM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
1 attachment
20090526171158758.pdf (345.0 KB)
1. The proposed order was filed May 21. I have attached a copy via
pdf. I kept it very sparse on the sanctions.
2. The bankruptcy concerns are not your issue, she is not your
client.
3. I did my discovery in the 16.1.
/s/ John
Zach Coughlin wrote:
> Hi Jon,
> Have you submitted a Final Decree or Findings of Fact yet? Will you
> be providing me a copy. Apparently, I am not able to access efile
for
> this case, so I assume that means you could not serve me such a
> document via efile. Do you intend to assert that I am not entitled
> to a copy of the proposed order, pursuant to WDCR 9? If I am, I
have
> 5 days to object to it, etc...I know we previously discussed
language
> for bankruptcy concerns in our settlement discussion, but I feel it
is
> important for the final order to specify what is for what so that
any
> 523-a-15 or 523-a-5 issues do not become problematic; granted she
is
> WLS's client...However, to the extent that the Final Decree spells
out
> the sanctions, I believe I am entitled to 5 days to review any
> proposed Final Decree prior to your submitting it. Please let me
know
> what you intend to do. Hopefully you received my Reply to your
> Opposition. Can you respond to my earlier question, see below,
> regarding whether you ever sent any discovery requests to Ms.
Joshi?
> Sincerely,
> Zach Coughlin
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
> To: springgatelaw@sbcglobal.net
> Subject: discovery requests
> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 09:43:17 -0700
>
> Hi John,
> Do you have any record of sending any discovery requests to Bharti
> Joshi? If so, could you indicate what they were and when and
provide
> a copy?
> Sincerely,
> Zach Coughlin, Esq.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail. See how.
> <http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?
ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd1_052009>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> Windows Live: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
> <http://windowslive.com/explore?
ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009>
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
Close Print
WLS
From:
Kathy Breckenridge (kathy@kbreckenridgelaw.com) You moved this message to its current
location.
Sent: Fri 4/24/09 9:27 AM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
1 attachment
Coughlin ltr Apr23, 09.pdf (4.4 KB)
--
Kathleen T. Breckenridge, Esq.
Kathleen T. Breckenridge, Ltd.
462 Court Street
Reno, NV 89501
(775) 786-5055
(775) 786-8449 (fax)
This email is confidential and may be privileged and may be
privileged attorney-client communication intended only for the
person(s) named in this email. Examination, use, copying or
dissemination of these materials by person(s) other than the intended
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you received this
communication in error, please contact Kathleen T. Breckenridge,
Ltd., by telephone and return the original message to such firm by
mail. We will gladly reimburse all telephone and postage expenses.
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
Close Print
Re: WDCR 9 Proposed Final Decree, RE: discovery requests
From:John Springgate (springgatelaw@sbcglobal.net) You moved this message to its current location.
Sent: Tue 5/26/09 5:14 PM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
1 attachment
20090526171158758.pdf (345.0 KB)
1. The proposed order was filed May 21. I have attached a copy via
pdf. I kept it very sparse on the sanctions.
2. The bankruptcy concerns are not your issue, she is not your
client.
3. I did my discovery in the 16.1.
/s/ John
Zach Coughlin wrote:
> Hi Jon,
> Have you submitted a Final Decree or Findings of Fact yet? Will you
> be providing me a copy. Apparently, I am not able to access efile
for
> this case, so I assume that means you could not serve me such a
> document via efile. Do you intend to assert that I am not entitled
> to a copy of the proposed order, pursuant to WDCR 9? If I am, I
have
> 5 days to object to it, etc...I know we previously discussed
language
> for bankruptcy concerns in our settlement discussion, but I feel it
is
> important for the final order to specify what is for what so that
any
> 523-a-15 or 523-a-5 issues do not become problematic; granted she
is
> WLS's client...However, to the extent that the Final Decree spells
out
> the sanctions, I believe I am entitled to 5 days to review any
> proposed Final Decree prior to your submitting it. Please let me
know
> what you intend to do. Hopefully you received my Reply to your
> Opposition. Can you respond to my earlier question, see below,
> regarding whether you ever sent any discovery requests to Ms.
Joshi?
> Sincerely,
> Zach Coughlin
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
> To: springgatelaw@sbcglobal.net
> Subject: discovery requests
> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 09:43:17 -0700
>
> Hi John,
> Do you have any record of sending any discovery requests to Bharti
> Joshi? If so, could you indicate what they were and when and
provide
> a copy?
> Sincerely,
> Zach Coughlin, Esq.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail. See how.
> <http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?
ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd1_052009>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> Windows Live: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
> <http://windowslive.com/explore?
ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009>